Is Britain's sea border its biggest asset during this refugee crisis?

Sorry I waiting to hear where you obtained a figure of 20,000 migrants arriving in the UK?

I don't mind when people throw all the dirt.

Well if we are taking in 10,000 refugees as expected to be announced tomorrow due to the poor child washing up on a Turkish beach, you can bet the outcry and pressure on the government will be much higher if the incident happens again only this time on our own or France's coast. I dont understand why your so fixated on the figure, yes its guesswork based of recent events but hardly unreasonable or outlandish

Because people who base their arguments on figures that are completely made up and unsubstantiated should not be taken seriously. By the way can you send the link in which 10,000 refugees will be accepted by the UK?

I am going to be completely candid on this matter. With regards to Iraq, our country along with the US bombed and killed nearly a million people, leaving several more million in starvation and thus creating the circumstances in which ISIS emerged. We invaded Afghanistan killing hundreds of thousands of people, now it has the third largest number of refugees fleeing the country. We bombed Libya creating the largest uncontrolled border crossing from North Africa to Europe and have left that country devastated with no rule of law. And you're still contemplating whether we should even take in refugees we created?!

That's a hard number to figure out to be honest. Anyway, you should try to think why many services are under strain, like NHS for example. While many people like to point the finger at migration and immigrants living in this country (...)

So you don't believe you can predict future actions or behavior by looking at recent examples?

http://news.sky.com/story/1547608/syria-condemns-any-uk-military-interference


"Sky News understands that the Government is currently preparing to accept at least 10,000 people from camps on the Syrian border."

So the women of Afghanistan preferred it before we went in, when they were forbidden from attending school? When it was illegal to play football in the street?

Oh god what big bad nasty people we are.....

To be honest with you, 10,000 is a miserly number considering that Germany will and has taken in several times that number already

Germany is much bigger, and we have a higher population density, so it's fair enough.

Comparatively speaking the number of refugees we are wiling to accept compared to the number Germany has and will accept makes any argument regarding population and land mass completely obsolete.

Not really. Why should we take more than we can fit?

Who exactly is saying that the equal distribution of refugees in Europe based on population, GDP, unemployment would be taking in more than we can fit?

Our low landspace and high population density, maybe? GDP isn't really relevant.

that argues that the fair share of refugees we have been asked to take in by the UN is way way way off the charts?

Any amount of refugees is a fair amount, becaused we have no obligation to bring them in.

Actually if you want to be serious the west actually supported and allowed the Taliban to exist in Afghanistan.

Besides I am interested to know how solving the issue of the Taliban was to bomb and invade the country killing hundreds of thousands of people as a result of the invasion and leaving the country devastated, millions in starvation. Now the Taliban and suicide bombing is rife and growing in popularity. Meanwhile Afghanistan is now the third largest source of refugees in the Middle east.

So far from being sarcastic.... I agree to your qualification Oh god what big bad nasty people we are.

If our government and the US wanted to stop the Taliban then they should of supported internal democratic forces since the Taliban was no popular at the time instead of bombing and invading the country.

Britain killed hundreds of thousands of Afghans?

Two of which we invaded with ground forces and the other we bomb the country to rubble. Leaving the countries in devastation without rule of law and millions in starvation as a result of our acts. There's no right or wrong answer but if that is your moral standard then that's your moral standard.

We have a higher GDP. But that's besides the point. Comparatively speaking the number of refugees we are wiling to accept compared to the number Germany has and will accept makes any argument regarding population and land mass completely obsolete. I am not arguing we should take in the same numbers that Germany has done however we should take in our fair share, in particular the refugees we created, which our government has flat out rejected

It's certainly not fair enough that Lebanon which is around the size of Wales has, according to the UNHCR taken in nearly 2 million refugees.