The Student Room Group

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

I do think we should take in Syrian refugees, but I think we are very lucky to have a sea border so that we do not face the same problems as countries on the continent if this exodus of people spirals out of control, which it could do.

The Channel has served us well in the past and is continuing to do so.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Lady Comstock
I do think we should take in Syrian refugees, but I think we are very lucky to have a sea border so that we do not face the same problems as countries on the continent if this exodus of people spirals out of control, which it could do.

The Channel has served us well in the past and is continuing to do so.


I think we have an moral obligation to take in refugees from Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya as our country created the circumstances in which these refugees were created. Unfortunately I don't think our country will even rise to that minimum moral standard never mine taking in their fair share of refugees from Syria.
Original post by HItchslapped
I think we have an moral obligation to take in refugees from Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya as our country created the circumstances in which these refugees were created. Unfortunately I don't think our country will even rise to that minimum moral standard never mine taking in their fair share of refugees from Syria.


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?
Original post by Lady Comstock
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?


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, the immigration is a small problem in the equation...have a look at some statistics, NHS is under strain more due to poor financing and leadership, due to abusing the services, take a look in A&E on any given day and you will find loads of people that should not be anywhere near A&E, same with the GPs; if anything NHS would collapse without the staff born abroad. Same issue with the benefits, foreigners claim a small percentage of the benefits total in the country, but thanks to some parts of the media are blowing these issues out of proportions.
Original post by Lady Comstock
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 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?!
Original post by Vlad_Tepes
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, the immigration is a small problem in the equation...have a look at some statistics, NHS is under strain more due to poor financing and leadership, due to abusing the services, take a look in A&E on any given day and you will find loads of people that should not be anywhere near A&E, same with the GPs; if anything NHS would collapse without the staff born abroad. Same issue with the benefits, foreigners claim a small percentage of the benefits total in the country, but thanks to some parts of the media are blowing these issues out of proportions.



Right! Considering that refugees come here to work and so therefore pay tax which funds public services such as the NHS, I have no clue where these people get these absurd assumptions from (probably the Daily Mail). Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt have taken in over 95% of the total number of refugees from Syria and we, the fourth richest country in the world, have people moaning about taking in a tiny fraction of the remaining 5% of Syrian refugees fleeing to Europe. I am ashamed to be British.
Original post by HItchslapped
Right! Considering that refugees come here to work and so therefore pay tax which funds public services such as the NHS, I have no clue where these people get these absurd assumptions from (probably the Daily Mail). Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt have taken in over 95% of the total number of refugees from Syria and we, the fourth richest country in the world, have people moaning about taking in a tiny fraction of the remaining 5% of Syrian refugees fleeing to Europe. I am ashamed to be British.


Agreed. Daily Mail, in my opinion, is the most vile media outlet in this country... Beyond their horrible history, the sad thing is that it is also one of the most read newspapers in Britain.
Original post by HItchslapped
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?!


Idealism is all very well and good (that we should take responsibility for the refugee crisis), but I asked for a number, or at least a rough number, on how many we can take before our public services are too strained. And if there is a limit, which there surely must be, how is it fair for us to welcome a random group of refugees, but then say 'no thanks' to the unlucky rest?
No... Because as soon as the Mafia and smugglers in Europe get to calais, they will be selling rubber dinghies for £5000. Another dead child will wash up on the south coast and consequently we will let in another 20,000 immigrants or so,
Original post by Vlad_Tepes
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, the immigration is a small problem in the equation...have a look at some statistics, NHS is under strain more due to poor financing and leadership, due to abusing the services, take a look in A&E on any given day and you will find loads of people that should not be anywhere near A&E, same with the GPs; if anything NHS would collapse without the staff born abroad. Same issue with the benefits, foreigners claim a small percentage of the benefits total in the country, but thanks to some parts of the media are blowing these issues out of proportions.


Whether you think the NHS is poorly financed or not, the fact remains that a large number of refugees will put a strain on the NHS, as it does not have infinite resources and capacity. So the question remains as to how many we take in, and whether it's fair to say no to the unlucky ones who somehow don't make that selection.
Original post by Betelgeuse-
No... Because as soon as the Mafia and smugglers in Europe get to calais, they will be selling rubber dinghies for £5000. Another dead child will wash up on the south coast and consequently we will let in another 20,000 immigrants or so,


Slightly easier to police than the Med though?
Original post by Lady Comstock
Whether you think the NHS is poorly financed or not, the fact remains that a large number of refugees will put a strain on the NHS, as it does not have infinite resources and capacity. So the question remains as to how many we take in, and whether it's fair to say no to the unlucky ones who somehow don't make that selection.


So why do our newspapers devote so much thought and criticism to the one and not the other? Could it possibly be because the government can point at immigrants and sweep its supply side errors and sabotage under the carpet.

If you think the ~3000 (0.005% of population) at Calais or the ~30,000 (0.05%) asylum applications received or even the ~300,000 (0.5%) per year net immigration are going to have the barest influence on public services compared to underinvestment, or even on the demand side changes in native culture like feminism (twice the houses needed, twice the price, half the jobs?), I weep for British empiricism
Original post by Lady Comstock
Idealism is all very well and good (that we should take responsibility for the refugee crisis), but I asked for a number, or at least a rough number, on how many we can take before our public services are too strained. And if there is a limit, which there surely must be, how is it fair for us to welcome a random group of refugees, but then say 'no thanks' to the unlucky rest?



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.
Original post by Betelgeuse-
No... Because as soon as the Mafia and smugglers in Europe get to calais, they will be selling rubber dinghies for £5000. Another dead child will wash up on the south coast and consequently we will let in another 20,000 immigrants or so,


Unlikely since the Med Sea is over 10 times the length of the Channel and is far more militarized by UK and French forces. I have no idea where you are getting 20,000 immigrants into the UK from Calais from. Out of thin air I guess.
Original post by HItchslapped
Unlikely since the Med Sea is over 10 times the length of the Channel and is far more militarized by UK and French forces. I have no idea where you are getting 20,000 immigrants into the UK from Calais from. Out of thin air I guess.


France has LOTS of border, the fact the med sea is 10x bigger is irrelevant

20,000 is the number that we will seek out from anywhere including calais after newspapers photograph a body on the south coast
Original post by Betelgeuse-
France has LOTS of border, the fact the med sea is 10x bigger is irrelevant

20,000 is the number that we will seek out from anywhere including calais after newspapers photograph a body on the south coast


First of all you mentioned Calais not the entire french border and second having a border crossing which is 10x bigger than the channel is not insignificant. Any logical individual would realise that if you have more open sea space to patrol then if would be harder to detect fleeing refugees crossing the border. Add to that the channel is far more militarized than the med.

Right in other words 20,000 refugees that you pulled out of thin air completely unsubstantiated. That's a nice fairy-tale. One lie after another, it's astonishing.
Original post by HItchslapped
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 pure hysteria. The sectarian civil war killed the vast majority of those. By saying that we killed them by removing Saddam Hussein, you're saying that the only thing that stops these people from savagely murdering each other over brutal and backwards sectarianism is a brutal, oppressive, genocidal dictator who forces subservience to himself and nothing else.

That's racist because you're labelling Muslims in the region as being incapable of living without brutal dictatorship.
Original post by KimKallstrom
That's pure hysteria. The sectarian civil war killed the vast majority of those. By saying that we killed them by removing Saddam Hussein, you're saying that the only thing that stops these people from savagely murdering each other over brutal and backwards sectarianism is a brutal, oppressive, genocidal dictator who forces subservience to himself and nothing else.

That's racist because you're labelling Muslims in the region as being incapable of living without brutal dictatorship.


Well let's take a look at the facts. According to the Lancet survey which is the most prominent and oldest medical journal in the world. The British Journal concludes that US led invasion of Iraq led to over 600000 violent deaths. If you want to take a look at more conservative estimates the death toll amounts to several hundreds of thousands. The death toll is our responsibility because we choose to invade Iraq and commit a blatant act of aggression by bombing and devastating the country leaving millions in starvation which is illegally under international law.

One of the main effects of the U.S. invasion of Iraq—there are many horrible effects, but one of them was to incite sectarian conflicts, that had not been there before. If you take a look at Baghdad before the invasion, Sunni and Shia lived intermingled—same neighborhoods, they intermarried. Sometimes they say that they didn’t even know if their neighbor was a Sunni or a Shia. It was like knowing what Protestant sect your neighbor belongs to. There was pretty close—it wasn’t—I’m not claiming it was—it wasn’t utopia. There were conflicts. But there was no serious conflict, so much so that Iraqis at the time predicted there would never be a conflict. Well, within a couple of years, it had turned into a violent, brutal conflict. You look at Baghdad today, it’s segregated. What’s left of the Sunni communities are isolated. The people can’t talk to their neighbors. There’s war going on all over. The ISIS is murderous and brutal. The same is true of the Shia militias which confront it. And this is now spread all over the region. There’s now a major Sunni-Shia conflict rending the region apart, tearing it to shreds.

If you want me to run through the long and extensive diplomatic record on how the west primarily the US supported atrocities by Saddam at the peak of all the killing right up to the early 1990s when he invaded Kuwait, I will be happy to.
Meanwhile, you can throw all the dirt you want by calling me a racist. It has nothing to do with the facts.
Original post by HItchslapped
First of all you mentioned Calais not the entire french border and second having a border crossing which is 10x bigger than the channel is not insignificant. Any logical individual would realise that if you have more open sea space to patrol then if would be harder to detect fleeing refugees crossing the border. Add to that the channel is far more militarized than the med.

Right in other words 20,000 refugees that you pulled out of thin air completely unsubstantiated. That's a nice fairy-tale. One lie after another, it's astonishing.


It should be a given that the entire French border will be used should smugglers indeed start putting people on boats. When you are dealing with a land mass the size of the french border, the fact that the med routes are 10x bigger is irrelevant. The entire coast it not going to be patrolled and monitored lol - Given the reaction to the the past week with the Syrian child and subsequent government uturn, its not unreasonable to think the consequence on drowned migrant of the south coast would open the door too thousands more migrants being granted access to the UK

Its good you aspire to me as intelligent as Hitch but you lack the intelligence and capacity. Not a good look
Original post by Betelgeuse-
It should be a given that the entire French border will be used should smugglers indeed start putting people on boats. When you are dealing with a land mass the size of the french border, the fact that the med routes are 10x bigger is irrelevant. The entire coast it not going to be patrolled and monitored lol - Given the reaction to the the past week with the Syrian child and subsequent government uturn, its not unreasonable to think the consequence on drowned migrant of the south coast would open the door too thousands more migrants being granted access to the UK

Its good you aspire to me as intelligent as Hitch but you lack the intelligence and capacity. Not a good look


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.

Quick Reply

Latest