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

Your link is based on a tiny sample of 1600 people in UGANDA.. I assume its obvious to you why this is not comparable although I am beginning to wonder.

How are these poor poor destitute people going to create new employment positions without a penny to their name?

What skills do you think these migrants are bringing that the UK has a need for? The labour market is saturated. Bringing poor unskilled people to this country will just suppress wages further and increase the demand on other services and infrastructure. It is very simple economics unless you think we are handpicking a bunch of Doctors out of the refugee camps (We're not)

Our public services and economy are already under unimaginable strain

http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/ "1.5 trillion and counting" Effectively 4.8 Trillion with pensions"

http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/17-cancer-drugs-withdrawn-patients-NHS/story-27751677-detail/story.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32325490

Social housing lists, 1.8 Million households on the waiting lists. "This means that some families living in desperate conditions are being forced to wait years for a suitable home."

http://england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/Improving_social_housing

Surely this is enough evidence for you to reassess your position?

For a survey size 1600 is a pretty large demographic and yeah maybe this is not comparable. For instance Uganda is a far more impoverished country than ours.

I am sorry I asked for evidence which suggest that the 20,000 migrants taken in by Cameron over a five year period would lead to strain. Not sending me a link which has a national debt clock on it.

advocating free speech is being pro-Islamist?

while in the same week condemning an anti-Islamist for exactly the same thing. The Guardian follows a long tradition of wealthy lefties sympathising with Islamists

Right i see, so whats the point in you asking me for evidence when you are only going to click on 1 of the 4 links I have supplied you with?

Can I ask you why you are so keen to maintain your position in the face of such evidence?

I can ask the same to you. I gave you evidence on how refugees can act as a stimulus to the economy in the long run and you go on to complain about survey sizes.

Furthermore you gave a few articles arguing that the NHS and social housing are under strain which they almost certainly are however you have not giving evidence that this strain is due to refugees.

Almost two years ago, Britain opened its borders to workers from Bulgaria and Romania and waited expectantly for a flood of “benefit scroungers” looking to milk our social services system for all it was worth. Instead, there was a steady stream of people who, like those before them from countries such as Poland, mainly came to work. Many have set up their own businesses. It does take some adjustment in local economies but overall and over time the benefits can be great. The same goes for Jewish refugees which has been an amazing stimulus to the economy and of course there we people who were bitterly opposed to it.

link please

You have already admitted the ONE link you posted was not sufficient nor representative due to disparity between UK and Uganda's situations ...??

I HAVE NEVER SAID THEY ARE UNDER STRAIN DUE TO REFUGEES??
Where is your reading comprehension???

I said the disparity was in favor of the UK as we are a far richer and less impoverished country with more developed public services. Fact of the matter is that if I gave you two links then you would moaning and groaning about the two and not the one and the same would be so if I gave you a third.

That's the question I put toward you. Find me evidence in which the 20,000 refugees would put the nhs under strain? That's the whole point of this discussion.

No, No you did not. Here is your quote see (1)

(1)"For a survey size 1600 is a pretty large demographic and yeah maybe this is not comparable. For instance Uganda is a far more impoverished country than ours"


(2)"Fact of the matter is that if I gave you two links then you would moaning and groaning about the two and not the one and the same would be so if I gave you a third."

Evidence?


(3) That's the question I put toward you. Find me evidence in which the 20,000 refugees would put the nhs under strain?

Why don't you provide evidence that adding 20,000 dependents to an overburdened state will not put the NHS under strain? Alls you have done in this thread is be contrarian to nearly every single post and asked for evidence without yourself putting forth reasoning or evidence despite your own contrarian stance (Not just my own)

Now you are obfuscating the discussion because I have provided you with the evidence you asked for which makes your original position untenable. I think this dictative discussion is over

Ahh that argument............. If you are going to answer my question with a question then I will still answer it.

Well first I gave you evidence that a much poorer country such as Uganda can take in 350,000 refugees and the net result was that the refugees acted as a stimulus for the economy. Then earlier I argued that if Germany can take in over 100000 Syrian refugees and Sweden can take in 40,000 refugees, then why have we only taken in 5000 Syrian refugees.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-06-20-networked-and-trading-study-clears-myths-about-refugees

How many do we take until our public services are under too much strain? And how do we take some but not others if there is a limit?

I see I have no interest in a dictative "discussion" in which you can demand evidence and ask questions and others cannot. I HAVE RESPONDED TO YOUR ASSERTION ABOUT GERMANY AND SWEDEN... YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE IT AGAIN BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SUIT YOUR AGENDA. GO BACK AND READ

Now please respond to my questions in my earlier response THANKS

OH LOOK!

(Original post by HItchslapped)
Well I am not too sure whether 'Fuhrer' Merkel is calling the shots when currently Germany houses more Syrian refugees then nearly the rest of Europe combined ( certainly more than the UK, France, Sweden and Italy together). We have taken in 4 times less syrian refugees than Sweden.

Sorry but can I actually have solid evidence that if we took in the number of refugees the UN have requested based on out GDP, employment and Population the country won't cope.What on Earth are you on about? Merkel has invited the Syrian migrants and as I have told you before has an very low unsustainable Birthrate of 1.4. Simply put, Germany is not replacing its citizens quickly enough. We have a different situation.

Sweden has had an open door policy for years and as a consequence has hundreds of ghettos with grenade and gun attacks monthly, and of course would you believe has the SECOND HIGHEST NUMBER OF RAPES OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD -

Do you think it is Moral to to subject Britains children to this level of violence and danger? The theme of your posts is we have a moral duty to these economic migrants, does Britain not have a moral duty to its own suffering citizens?

ARE YOU GOING TO FLOSS OVER THIS FOR A SECOND TIME?

And once again still avoiding the question by posing another question and changing the topic.



Find me evidence in which the 20,000 refugees would put the nhs under strain? That's the whole point of this discussion?

Ok dude were done here. Nice trolling, nice hand

I am not qualified to give you an exact number and I dare say you are too. However when our government is already flat out rejecting a single refugee already based in Europe I think it's a disgrace. As I repeated if much poorer countries such a Lebanon and Turkey and Jordan can take in 95% of the total number of Syrian refugees, then we can take in a fraction of that remaining 5% at least. Unless you think that every refugee arriving in the UK would enroll on Benefits and watch Jeremy Kyle all day, then yes, public services will suffer. However since the vast majority of refugees are young (certainly way below ages of 65) and have suffered and endured a harder life then you and I could bear to imagine. Those refugees will work and pay just as much tax as you and I pay which goes to fund public services such as the NHS. Migrants and foreigners have nothing to do with the current dire straits the NHS is in, if anything the NHS would collapse if it weren't for migrants.

I am not talking about Idealism, I am talking about elementary moral standards. If we can't even live up to that basic moral level, then we have not right to talk. We are Hippocrates.

Did I miss the news about the housing crises ending?
(Don't give me bs about building more houses, that takes ages.)

Did I miss the news about the housing crises ending?
(Don't give me bs about building more houses, that takes ages.)