Our governement can'teven look after it's own people so we can't take in refugees

This is a phrase I am seeing on my facebook a lot recently from the chavs in my home town I left behind a long time ago. They were swiftly deleted.

This makes me so angry. How can they be so heartless? How can they compare people on the dole or stacking shelves at tesco to the level of suffering and death experienced by the refugees? We have our problems, the number of homeless people I see on my way to work is heartbreaking... but we have SO MUCH PRIVILEDGE in this country. We have the NHS, we have freedom, we have security... we have education. I could better understand an American saying this.. but not a Brit. We have the ability to save people from a real life horror story... and there are idiots like this saying we shouldn't and encouraging other people to protest the refugees coming here.

It's disgraceful. I don't understand how anyone could lack empathy to this degree.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

anosmianAcrimony

People are afraid that refugees will somehow swamp the country and change its demographics and its politics, and that fear makes them angry. I'm in agreement with you, though - compassion should come first.

Reply 2

username1391301

Try asking a homeless person how much they enjoy sleeping on the street. This should not be happening anywhere, let alone the UK. I find it rather insulting that you think a homeless person should consider it a priviledge to be sleeping on the street.

In need of a reality check!

Reply 3

Moura

Original post by Hachik0

Do you work for the Sun thinking up their headlines by any chance? I definitely did not say that.

Reply 4

DiddyDec01

So refugees are more important than homeless people?

Reply 5

Moura

Original post by DiddyDec

So refugees are more important than homeless people?

People on this website are really good at completely misquoting people and making up conclusions that are very far away from what the person originally said.

I said we have problems in this country, for example homelessness... but that does not detract from the immense priviledge the majority of the people in this country have compared to much of the world, especially these refugees who have been forced to flee their homes. It also does not mean we cannot help other people that are suffering to the extent the refugees are.

Reply 6

DiddyDec01

Original post by Moura

Clearly you missed the question mark at the end. There is no misquoting at all, just a question.

Reply 7

Namandi

Original post by Moura

If people would rather care about homeless people than refugees then so what?
At least they are caring about a group of people in need
We live in a democracy do we not? You know, where there's this thing called the freedom of choice.

Do get over yourself and your self righteousness.

Reply 8

Moura

Original post by DiddyDec

Clearly you missed the question mark at the end. There is no misquoting at all, just a question.

The "so" implies you are summarising/concluding something I said... I was clarifying :smile:

Reply 9

WhiteRefugee

Hungary have it right

They said openly that they want Hungary to remain Hungarian and it's not exactly the wealthiest country in the world...

To say the opposite you are supporting democide, perhaps even genocide given the population is destroyed through intermixing?

Reply 10

DiddyDec01

Original post by Moura

The "so" implies you are summarising/concluding something I said... I was clarifying :smile:

Reply 11

Moura

Original post by Namandi

They aren't though... I mentioned homeless people as an example of a problem we have... not them. They are not caring about anyone, I only quoted a snippet of the general gist of their statuses cos I'm not going to post their statuses word for word here... they are basically saying there's no room for the asylum seekers here because it might make them lose out in some way.. the people they are saying the government can't look after are people who do have a roof over their heads and do have access to medical care and clean water and do not fear for their life every single day... as well as tons of materialistic items... they are just unhappy with the job or life they have but don't want to do anything about it themselves so blame other people like immigrants. It's not fair enough to encourage other people to not let refugees in just because you're unhappy with your lot. If they would explain who the government isn't looking after and how they aren't and also how accepting refugees would harm these people then maybe they would have a point.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 12

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by Namandi

Sure, we have the freedom of choice, but it doesn't protect us from any opprobrium we might face on the basis of those choices. And it says a lot for your argument that the best justification you have for it is that it isn't literally illegal to express.

Reply 13

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by Hachik0

Somebody's definitely in need of a reality check. Believe it or not, and whether or not they'd realise as much, a British homeless person actually has it pretty easy compared to a lot of the world's population. As the OP has been pointing out, a British homeless person has access to clean drinking water, food packages, the NHS, the internet through libraries and work centres, and the many other benefits, monetary and otherwise, of British citizenship. Perhaps most importantly, they don't have to worry about thugs with assault rifles looting, murdering, raping, and burning their way around the country in which they live. Can you really say that a British vagrant needs our help more than someone who has recently fled a war zone?

Reply 14

Lady Comstock

Original post by Moura

Many people in the world are suffering a 'real life horror story', so why do you subjectively pick and choose those who we allow to settle in our country above others? Unless you're suggesting we allow everyone to settle in this country who is suffering a real life horror story?

Reply 15

troubadour.

Original post by Moura

While the reasoning of these 'chavs' is completely flawed, their position is not a mere case of heartlessness. It's in situations like these that there is a strong push from the idiot electorate of this country to go ahead with an action that we will collectively regret for years to come on the basis of emotion. What's worse is that this emotion often comes from their sudden awakening to a truth that has been true for much longer than they've been aware of it. So there was a dead Syrian child washed up on a beach. Tragic, I agree. But are we really to believe that no child died unnecessarily before the start of this refugee crisis? I certainly don't.

I have my deepest sympathies for those refugees who are fleeing war. But I should tell you this: most of the people who are in Calais are not refugees. If they were, they would've stopped in the nearest safe country they reached. But did they? No, they trekked all the way from all parts of Africa and Asia, through more than a dozen safe countries, to arrive at the coast of France to get to Britain. Why did they do this? Well, go look at the BBC interviews with the people in Calais. They have heard tall tales of how the government provides free housing and education and healthcare in this country. That is economic migration.

And what of the poor Syrian child? Here's some advice for future situations like these, OP: beware of those who will give you simple answers to complicated problems. To link the child's death to our government's refusal to take more migrants/refugees (I'm not denying there are some genuine refugees among them) is to lie to ourselves and make the public at large even more ignorant than they are at present. His father was later photographed crying his eyes out, and yet it was mentioned only briefly that he had willingly put his son - one of the most important people in this life, surely - on a boat from Turkey to Greece.

He had done so despite knowing the enormous risk associated with people smuggling. But he did it anyway, because when you send the message that people will be allowed to stay if they simply barge in without following the proper procedure (yes, that is what it is - they're not running from ISIS in Turkey), they will do stupid things of this sort, putting their children on dangerous boats. So think about what it is that you're asking for when you say that we should take 'refugees' because we are privileged and they are not.

These people have to be thoroughly checked out at offshore detention centres. That is the only agreeable suggestion I've heard so far. No, we don't have to do it like Australia. But to say that we should blindly take in anybody from areas occupied by the Islamic State is to sign your own death warrant.

This bit particularly gets me:

We have the ability to save people from a real life horror story... and there are idiots like this saying we shouldn't and encouraging other people to protest the refugees coming here.

No, we don't. If you have the ability to save these people, go right ahead and save them, without the proper vetting procedures. But don't expect the rest of us to welcome a potential ISIS infiltration on pain of being publicly indicted and charged with 'lack of empathy.'

Also, the right to protest is a fundamental freedom. If people want to protest the 'refugees' coming here, they're free to do so. In the same way that people like you are currently protesting with placards reading 'refugees welcome.'

I'm somewhat unsure whether to take you seriously or take it that you're a troll. Your post is far too naive for me to be sure. Life isn't always full of easy choices with no consequences. One emotional knee-jerk decision now and you'll regret it for the rest of your days.

P.S. Any moral superiority you think you have is lost in the first sentence of your post when you use a demeaning term like 'chav' to describe people you don't agree with.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 16

Moura

Original post by Lady Comstock

Are you saying let's just not do anything? We obviously can't let every single person who is in this kind of situation into our country... why is that a reason arguing against what I said? Currently there are thousands of Syrians leaving their country with nowhere to go... we should help them and let some come here.

Reply 17

Zamestaneh

Original post by Hachik0

People say this like this will magically spur the Government to help the homeless; the reality is that the Government always has and always will ignore that problem, with or without refugees, so in practicality, your objection is just the echoed whimper of an already broken system. We/the Government will either leave the homeless as they are whilst turning refugees away or they will leave the homeless but helping some refugees. Loss-Loss vs Loss-Win...

Reply 18

scrotgrot

You have to laugh at the same sort of people who spent the past five or ten years bullying benefit claimants suddenly coming over all conscientious and concerned.

Reply 19

troubadour.

Original post by Moura

Which ones should we let in, then? To simply 'let some come here' would be to turn it into a lottery, which is why offshore detention centres are needed to properly process these people to determine who's who in this mass of people you seem so eager to let in.