British people increasingly opposed to asylum
Scroll to see replies
Original post by SeaPony
So you want thousands of children on your sofa? Don't think they could fit. #leftylogic
Just because we can't save everyone does not mean we should let them all die.
If 2 people were falling off a cliff and you could only save 1 would you just think, meh better let them both die then?
Original post by SeaPony
Saudi Arabia wonder how many they are going to take since they have a large country that is rich in oil?
Only the European countries are supposed to feel guilty somehow
Only the European countries are supposed to feel guilty somehowWe should let all 1 billion of them in, it's racist not to
Ok I think I've worked out what the problem is- people are getting scared. All we hear about in relation to immigration places it a way that'll create more unemployment or ruin communities. If you don't like it, you're a racist or xenophobic or just an ********. If people would be like "No immigration is not destroying the country; it's not that bad because (insert evidence here)." Yes, there are some immigrants that could put this country at risk but we need to sort those people out. Maybe if you didn't let the minority (i.e. the dickish immigrants who are either aggressive, lazy or just seem like a threat) get away with so much and highlighted the more normal majority, people would be so anti immigration.
Original post by bassbabe
We should let all 1 billion of them in, it's racist not to
I am already preparing to donate my life savings to those beautiful immigrants because they deserve more than me because I am horrible and British oh dear I feel too guilty I CAN'T TAKE IT KILL ME SO AN IMMIGRANT CAN HAVE A SPARE HOUSE!
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Have they? So, the problems in Iraq that gave ISIS a foothold to develop in were all to do with Muslims and nothing to do with Americas ****-yeah gunboat diplomacy or our decision to tag along?
Have they? So, the problems in Iraq that gave ISIS a foothold to develop in were all to do with Muslims and nothing to do with Americas ****-yeah gunboat diplomacy or our decision to tag along?
Yes (but it's a different thread) we gave the the chance at a new country with billions of investment and look what they did
they started killing each other with a gay abandon yet after the 2nd world war most countries we bombed the **** out of rebuilt themselves and are now doing quite well?
Sorry but the lid has been lifted of Islamic sectarian violence and we are now seeing a continuation of the fight. It's not new and it's not all our fault
Original post by Dez
Complete *******s. The West has been meddling in the middle east for decades now.
Complete *******s. The West has been meddling in the middle east for decades now.
and muslim sectarian violence is 1400 years old.
Original post by Dez
You're right that the media isn't the only thing to blame, but they are definitely one of the larger influences at play I think.
Weren't we talking about refugees? Not quite the same thing as immigration.
So how are people supposed to "improve their own lot" when they're driven from their homeland by a war sparked by Western interference, exactly?
Yes, clearly it's a massive problem for us, with our grand total of 187 Syrian refugees.
Well boo-hoo. Sorry that I don't agree with the whole immigrants-are-ruining-everything lark. People are people. You get jerks that are foreigners just as much as jerks who are British born. You claim to see negative impact from migrants. Perhaps you've managed to avoid looking at any of the positives, or they just passed your notice. Meanwhile plenty of British-born citizens continue to ruin things but that's all okay because they just happened to be born in the right hospital? Yeah, okay then.
Weren't we talking about refugees? Not quite the same thing as immigration.
So how are people supposed to "improve their own lot" when they're driven from their homeland by a war sparked by Western interference, exactly?
Yes, clearly it's a massive problem for us, with our grand total of 187 Syrian refugees.
Well boo-hoo. Sorry that I don't agree with the whole immigrants-are-ruining-everything lark. People are people. You get jerks that are foreigners just as much as jerks who are British born. You claim to see negative impact from migrants. Perhaps you've managed to avoid looking at any of the positives, or they just passed your notice. Meanwhile plenty of British-born citizens continue to ruin things but that's all okay because they just happened to be born in the right hospital? Yeah, okay then.
Rekt
And for any argument that the west has been meddling in middle eastern affairs then I agree but that was our spineless politicians? Why should we the people have to take endless waves of immigrants? If we are going to go with that logic then we should assign the MP's that voted for military action for an immigrant from Libya to live with them.
.Original post by SeaPony
So we have to accept corruption because they are from another country? Lefty logic strikes again.
No, we don't have to accept it. But we do have to realise that you can't just waltz into another country and expect them to cooperate with you if you ask them to forgo a large part of their income. Corruption is an ingrained part of the economy in many places: in some countries salaries are actually designed with corruption in mind: police for example are deliberately paid less and told to make up for it with bribes.
So it's impossible to do any business in such countries without accepting that somewhere down the line there's going to be corruption, and the only way to stop it is to keep investing until the economy picks up enough that the government can actually enforce the rule of law. There are various ways of reducing corruption: education, economic growth, effective and transparent administration. But none of them works overnight.
More reading on the subject (this time not from an obviously biased newspaper):
In this paper we ask whether foreign aid corrupts by using data on a cross-section of developing countries and instrumenting for total aid inflows. We find that foreign aid decreases corruption. Our results are statistically and economically significant and robust to the use of different controls. Why might aid decrease corruption? One can advance several possibilities.
First, foreign aid may be associated with rules and conditions that limit the discretion of the recipient country’s officials, thus decreasing corruption.
Second, if foreign aid alleviates public revenue shortages and facilitates increased salaries for public employees it may diminish the supply of 20 corruption by public officials.
First, foreign aid may be associated with rules and conditions that limit the discretion of the recipient country’s officials, thus decreasing corruption.
Second, if foreign aid alleviates public revenue shortages and facilitates increased salaries for public employees it may diminish the supply of 20 corruption by public officials.
http://www.dochas.ie/Shared/Files/4/DoesForeignAidCorruptFinal.pdf
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by PopaPork
and muslim sectarian violence is 1400 years old.
By that logic, WW2 was the fault of the holy Roman empire.
Original post by SeaPony
You don't think logically all your thinking is based on is emotion when it needs a balance.
How is this issue meant to be unemotional?
I am being compassionate - it's a common human trait.
It is simple, the life of a refugee is worth far more than any discomfort which may be felt by their racist neighbour when they move here.
(if you want to criticise me an u at least quote me in plz)
Original post by Dez
By that logic, WW2 was the fault of the holy Roman empire.
No not really.
Original post by PopaPork
Yes (but it's a different thread) we gave the the chance at a new country with billions of investment and look what they did
they started killing each other with a gay abandon yet after the 2nd world war most countries we bombed the **** out of rebuilt themselves and are now doing quite well?
Sorry but the lid has been lifted of Islamic sectarian violence and we are now seeing a continuation of the fight. It's not new and it's not all our fault
they started killing each other with a gay abandon yet after the 2nd world war most countries we bombed the **** out of rebuilt themselves and are now doing quite well?
Sorry but the lid has been lifted of Islamic sectarian violence and we are now seeing a continuation of the fight. It's not new and it's not all our fault
No we didn't - we went in, completely destabilised the region to get rid of saddam then left. We created a breeding ground for extremism
Posted from TSR Mobile
I said a balance not one or the other.
Racist neighbour? How about a young couple looking to live somewhere and are finding it increasingly hard to find a house to rent in that area because of the huge demand from an increasing population?
You see you have no logic just emotion. I think immigrant= a house needed but you think I think immigrant= I hate them.
Racist neighbour? How about a young couple looking to live somewhere and are finding it increasingly hard to find a house to rent in that area because of the huge demand from an increasing population?
You see you have no logic just emotion. I think immigrant= a house needed but you think I think immigrant= I hate them.
Original post by SeaPony
And for any argument that the west has been meddling in middle eastern affairs then I agree but that was our spineless politicians? Why should we the people have to take endless waves of immigrants? If we are going to go with that logic then we should assign the MP's that voted for military action for an immigrant from Libya to live with them.
.British people shouldn't have to deal with it any more than the Syrians should. They didn't choose (although FYI, there was plenty of support for the Iraq war back in the day, particularly from right-wingers), but that doesn't mean our government should just stand by with their heads up their own arse and watch a part of the world destroy itself.
I'd be interested to see what would happen with your last suggestion though. C4 could commission a reality show about it, would make a nice replacement for the TV licence.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
No we didn't - we went in, completely destabilised the region to get rid of saddam then left. We created a breeding ground for extremism
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
That was our spineless government. So we should have to suffer once again because the rich and powerful decided to invade somewhere? People at the bottom always take the hit every time.
Original post by bassbabe
How many more people are we going to let in? There are plenty of other rich countries that refugees can go to that are much bigger than the UK and will be able to cope with such a large population. The UK is only a small island and we're cramped enough as it is. Just look at the state of London. Tbh I find it quite disgusting how the government does nothing to help british people who are suffering like the homeless but are quick to help asylum seekers.
So it was okay for Britain to let your family come to the UK however many generations ago (perhaps through normal migration as opposed to being a refugee) but Britain should turn away those who are under threat of death? Yes, I understand other countries should do more to help refugees but that should not stop us from doing the morally right thing and taking some refugees.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
No we didn't - we went in, completely destabilised the region to get rid of saddam then left. We created a breeding ground for extremism
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
We went in because he attacked his neighbor
It has always been a breeding ground for extremest that's why it needed a dictator to manage them (and when I say manage I mean kill as soon as they became a problem for him)
and we didn't just leave we handed the country back to them
and look at the choices THEY have made since.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Why are you concerned about migration?
- Can immigration actually been controlled?
- Asylum seeker dies on bibby Stockholm barge
- essay question sociology
- Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
- essay question
- Rishi Sunak considers curbing social media use for under-16s
- Germany: Marches against the far right draw over 200,000
- UK government loses Rwanda scheme appeal in the Supreme Court
- New Heaven New Church
- Civil Service Executive Officer (EO) - (CPIL) Team
- LNAT Section B
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- Need help please
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
- I sent a thank-you note to my Oxford interviewers. Am I screwed for an offer?
- Asylum decision maker/ immigration OAC
- Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the Lords
- GCSE English Literature - An inspector Calls.
- "The best thing about the course is the placements." - Emily, Public Health
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
