The Student Room Group

I've had a major change of heart..

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Original post by Ciel.
Someone is racist here.


For your information, reverse racism doesn't exist since it was created by white people in the first place, look it up.

Secondly that's not being racist because it is well known and understood that the media is majority white and male. The owners of vast media are white and male, it's not my personal belief it's a description of the reality.
Original post by kirsty953
How?

Waiting lists for houses are already long and we have many homeless on our streets already. What if we can't find them all houses? I'm sure you wouldn't want them on the streets. If we need to build more, where do we get the funds? I greatly admire the people who have agreed to let them into their homes, but why has it taken a migrant crisis for this charity to show?


There are six hundred thousand empty homes in the UK.

[quote]The NHS is already under strain due to an ageing population and I can't see how letting in more refugees is going to help it. They may not need physical treatment, but, coming from an area of conflict, I think it's likely many may suffer mental health problems. Can we afford this? Funding for treatment is being cut again and people are being turned away: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31970871

Schools are also struggling to cope under the growing number of children needing a place, and, whilst our unemployment rates have improved lately, we still have many people currently out of work and needing a job. Will we have enough work for them all? A huge country debt doesn't help matters either.

Unfortunately, our funds aren't unlimited. Whilst I agree we could take some, there has to be a limit.


They can find jobs and therefore pay into the pots that fund these things. An influx of youthful, skilled workers will be a welcome shot in the arm for the economy.
Original post by Lord Samosa
Why don't people understand Turkey/Jordan etc can't take the burden of all the refugees, it's only right we (or other countries if not us) help out?


we are helping out

but can you explain why this helping out should also making these people citizens of our countries?
Original post by Mr JB
Exactly. The people who are claiming that we need to help out the homeless on British streets are mostly just hypocrites anyway. More often than not they walk passed these people. They are just using the 'we need to look after our own' line to suit their own underlying agenda of not actually helping anyone. Its actually sickening that they're using the bad predicament many British nationals find themselves in to support their argument against helping those externally. All these people really care about is themselves, money and material goods no matter how much they preach otherwise.


How is it hypocritical at all? We have 2 million, mostly Brits, on the social housing waiting list. Our NHS is struggling and barely getting along as it is. You want to add more people to this already small island? Absolute madness. The reality is that we can't even house our own and we want to bring in more?

We do not have a surplus of jobs and housing. These people will more or less be on welfare checks for the foreseeable future.
Original post by MC armani
If I were fleeing war, famine and persecution, "value for money" and economic opportunity wouldn't even cross my mind. I'd be accepting the first safe refuge I could find




So were many people around the world. Are you making a case for taking in all the downtrodden and impoverished globally?

At some point you're going to have to decide whether you're talking about refugees or illegal economic migrants here. They are two very discrete groups and should be treated as such.


You can't say that as if you've never been in the situation.

They escaped the danger, they have no home, they have to settle, so they'd go to find the best they can. If your whole life has been uprooted you might as well try to make it worth it.

Improve standards globally, eventually. But right now, there's a human crisis there, should focus there now.

Ideally we'd wipe out the conflict there so the people can go back.

Even if Refugees become economic migrants, I don't blame them, like I've said, if I had to change my whole life, I wouldn't bother settling for a refugee camp, I'd try and find the best I can for my family.

Now they should go through the correct avenues for that...
Reply 65
Original post by Ghaniza
For your information, reverse racism doesn't exist since it was created by white people in the first place, look it up.

Secondly that's not being racist because it is well known and understood that the media is majority white and male. The owners of vast media are white and male, it's not my personal belief it's a description of the reality.


Just because you read that it doesn't exist in "black, biased media" doesn't mean it doesn't exist in reality. What you just said about white people being biased in media proves this point. It's got nothing to do with majority being white and male, it's the fact that you're claiming they're liars, manipulating information because they are white - that's racist.
Reply 66
Original post by MC armani
Well here's something that doesn't require any reading. One simple question:

Can you explain for me why a true refugee would reject food and water and shelter in Hungary in order to walk hundreds of miles to Germany, endangering their own lives and the lives of their children in the process? Or are they seeking refuge from Hungary now lol


If i was a mother who has children i'd have the highest hopes for me and my family and yes, to get a better life i would put everything at risk.

They rejected food because it was a protest, outrage and you can only guess why..
Look at us discussing this when we're privileged.
One thing i'll tell you, no one can question the actions of a human being when they're facing such a big struggle.
I am not in that situation so i have no idea how i would react and how the circumstances would change me into making decisions, i never thought i would.
The media hardly reports on certain matters, let alone give reasoning to why these people won't eat.
Original post by Ghaniza
Of course we should help the homeless but this argument always comes up but none of these people are actually doing anything to contribute.

This has nothing to do with my post of showing some humanity.
You could have been born on the other side of the globe in their shoes.
In fact we are privileged.

Before getting all political, one must be human first.
Of course we should help the homeless.
It's not just UK i'm pissed at for not letting some people shelter, i'm pissed of at the Muslim countries such as Saudi Arab, who aren't taking in any people, other countries should contribute to help humans out, families like mine.

We need to start seeing people of other countries as HUMAN BEINGS first, then we can move forward.
Capitalism has drained our sense of empathy for other, we have become desensitized to people of other countries and their pain because we are so focused on the political affairs with world leaders which don't represent the people that we stop seeing them similar to us


Our current homeless aren't doing anything to contribute? How are they supposed to contribute? They have little/no money, only the clothes on their backs which after being on the streets become dirty and torn. What is the chance of them being offered a job looking as they do?
Also, the most common reasons for homelessness is family/friends unable to support them and relationship breakdown. Just because they're homeless, it doesn't mean they haven't worked and contributed all their life.
If you are basing who to help on how much they have contributed, when have these refugees contributed? They haven't as many haven't been here before.

Yes, the refugees are humans. They have suffered much and I do sympathise. But then, our homeless are humans too.
Reply 68
Britain has a duty to take in more refugee, atleast 30,000 because of the responsibility it has for the crisis. Anything below this is despicable and vile.
Original post by L'Evil Fish
Now they should go through the correct avenues for that...


This is precisely the point. To legally choose where they settle they must register as EU citizens first - that's black-letter law. If they reject the refugee camps and the humanitarian aid being offered and instead choose to smuggle themselves illegally across Europe then I'm afraid they forfeit any sympathy.
Reply 70
Original post by Duncan2012
No, you've missed the point. They should have claimed asylum and been processed in Turkey. At that point the UK and all other countries should take their fair proportion of the accepted refugees to resettle and provide new lives for them, in accordance with their legal and moral obligations.


Totally incorrect. Turkey is not in the EU so is not actually required to comply with the EU legislation of.... 'Under EU rules, asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first safe country they come to.' - Turkey could send them all onwards if they wished to do so. Even if they claimed asylum in another EU country they could then later on, once they have a residency card, move on to the UK or Germany and settle just as any other EU citizen could. All you would be doing is drawing out the process which would actually be a much more expensive exercise due to the extra layers of bureaucracy involved.
Reply 71
Original post by Ciel.
Just because you read that it doesn't exist in "black, biased media" doesn't mean it doesn't exist in reality. What you just said about white people being biased in media proves this point. It's got nothing to do with majority being white and male, it's the fact that you're claiming they're liars, manipulating information because they are white - that's racist.


Oh lord, you can't be argued with.
Hopeless.
I am not claiming that, that's the way it is. Racism was a construct created by people of superiority such as white men, the media is run by white men, you're living in your little bubble so you have no idea. Vast media is owned by white men including newspapers.

You could say i can discriminate, be prejudice but i can't be racist because I'm not white.

For eg a bully pushes a boy and hurts him, the boy get back and pushes back, the bully says 'Yo that's reverse bullying' make sense?
--- it's not reverse bullying because the boy was defending himself or reacting to a situation created by that bully.

Done
Original post by thesabbath
You do have the room. You are just accustomed to luxury and feel that you don't wish to share it. Most of your fellow citizens are of the same opinion.

Here is what will happen if the State takes in millions of refugees:

Someone will knock at the door of your house in your nice middle class community. When you will open the door you will find commissar Jamal and commissar Hussein, who will tell you that having such a big house for yourself is not what a moral citizen does and 2 families of migrants will be moving in with you. You will be allowed to keep part of one room and a bed and necessary personal belongings. Everything else in the house will be shared.


and then zombie Stalin will kick you in the balls.

Why not commissar Bob or commissar John?
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 73
Original post by Ghaniza
Oh lord, you can't be argued with.
Hopeless.
I am not claiming that, that's the way it is. Racism was a construct created by people of superiority such as white men, the media is run by white men, you're living in your little bubble so you have no idea. Vast media is owned by white men including newspapers.

You could say i can discriminate, be prejudice but i can't be racist because I'm not white.

For eg a bully pushes a boy and hurts him, the boy get back and pushes back, the bully says 'Yo that's reverse bullying' make sense?
--- it's not reverse bullying because the boy was defending himself or reacting to a situation created by that bully.

Done


Keep telling yourself that. But discrimination towards any person based on their skin color - including white, is just blatant racism.
Original post by gladders
An influx of youthful, skilled workers will be a welcome shot in the arm for the economy.

Could you please enlighten us as to which skills you think they'll be bringing? Many of them will barely speak English, with no comparable education to that of the West. They're coming from a vastly different culture and society. There are pros and cons to the debate, but claiming they're a skilled workforce is farcical.
Original post by MC armani
This is precisely the point. To legally choose where they settle they must register as EU citizens first - that's black-letter law. If they reject the refugee camps and the humanitarian aid being offered and instead choose to smuggle themselves illegally across Europe then I'm afraid they forfeit any sympathy.


I still have sympathy for them, they just want a better life in the quickest possible way.

Also, I doubt they're clued up on the law.
Reply 76
Original post by Fango_Jett
How is it hypocritical at all?
Because you are rejecting migrants due to the country being full and resources are overused, and yet you expect Turkey, that has the same problems, to take in all these migrants. You are asking another country to do exactly what you don't want the UK to do. Why the hell should Turkey accept them when the UK won't?


We have 2 million, mostly Brits, on the social housing waiting list.

Due to bad governance and fiscal mismanagement. Blame the politicians. Go and protest in London outside Westminster for change. Do not scapegoat migrants just because you are too apathetic to fight for real change.


Our NHS is struggling and barely getting along as it is.

See above.


You want to add more people to this already small island? Absolute madness.

Absolute rubbish. Small island? There's plenty of undeveloped land in the UK in both Wales, northern England and Scotland. I haven't even factored in protected land in the South of England because people want to protect this religiously. Again, maybe if you actually fought for the needed change people would be homed as money would get put back into local communities. Instead, its easy to scapegoat migrants.


The reality is that we can't even house our own and we want to bring in more?

See above.
Original post by Ghaniza
If i was a mother who has children i'd have the highest hopes for me and my family and yes, to get a better life i would put everything at risk.

They rejected food because it was a protest, outrage and you can only guess why..


So having fled a war-torn and life-threatening situation in Syria to reach a safe refuge in a safe, democratic country like Turkey, risking your life and the lives of your kids just to reach a peaceful haven, you would then risk it all again just to get to choose a different democracy like Germany? As a refugee, that would be insanity, not desperation. Of course if you were an economic migrant, it would make perfect sense...

One thing i'll tell you, no one can question the actions of a human being when they're facing such a big struggle.
I am not in that situation so i have no idea how i would react and how the circumstances would change me into making decisions, i never thought i would.
The media hardly reports on certain matters, let alone give reasoning to why these people won't eat.


These people don't just get free rein because they're in a tough situation. It is humane to provide them with refuge and food and water etc in a safe country until a more permanent resettlement solution can be found. But the articles of Geneva Convention and the EU consititution that relate to the fair treatment of refugees don't simply cease to exist because people decide they want a better deal when none is available.
Original post by gladders
There are six hundred thousand empty homes in the UK.


Really? Can you find evidence for that? If that is the case, I wonder why we have so many people still struggling for housing.



Original post by gladders
They can find jobs and therefore pay into the pots that fund these things. An influx of youthful, skilled workers will be a welcome shot in the arm for the economy.


It isn't that easy, unfortunately. Whilst there will be some highly trained and very well educated people amongst them, the majority will be rather poorly educated and will have to apply for low-level jobs. Competition for these jobs is already very high, and they, like our current unemployed are likely to struggle to get the work, especially those who can't speak English. How will we manage whilst they train/look for work/learn the language?

(Sorry if I'm taking ages to reply, my computer keeps changing every word I write into a name for some reason. Think it's time I changed it!:smile:)
Original post by Ghaniza


For eg a bully pushes a boy and hurts him, the boy get back and pushes back, the bully says 'Yo that's reverse bullying' make sense?
--- it's not reverse bullying because the boy was defending himself or reacting to a situation created by that bully.

Done


Very poor analogy, though not unexpected from the tumblr-tier SJW.

From the Oxford dictionary, the definition of bullying: Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants:


Someone fighting back is not bullying, they are not using their own force to intimidate someone else, only to limit their own harm.

If that bullied kid grew 2 feet and 20 kilos of muscle the next day, and started bullying the kid who did it to him, would that still be acceptable?
(edited 8 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending