Gov have reduced no of child refugees from 3,000 to 350

That is some seriously dodgy assumptions you are making there...


The differing rhetoric between this issue and Brexit is hilarious. On one hand Britain is the 6th biggest economy in the world with loads to offer potential investors that is going to absolutely thrive outside the EU. On the other hand this country is awful, its falling to bits and we have so little money we can't even help a couple of thousand starving homeless children. Which one is the truth?

That is some seriously dodgy assumptions you are making there...


The differing rhetoric between this issue and Brexit is hilarious. On one hand Britain is the 6th biggest economy in the world with loads to offer potential investors that is going to absolutely thrive outside the EU. On the other hand this country is awful, its falling to bits and we have so little money we can't even help a couple of thousand starving homeless children. Which one is the truth?

3,000 child migrants = 12,000 migrants minimum once their families come over.

Has no-one seen the news this week about the NHS falling over? We can't look after, house, or educate the number of people here already, without bringing even more in. It's not necessarily a case of some moral crusade - it's simple practicalities too.

Tell this to the six million people who died as a result of Hitler, we could have helped some of those people by allowing refugees. But the antisemitic sentiment in Western countries at that time made it so the government did the same thing as they are doing now. This is because people are xenophobic, not because of anything to do with our economy.


Posted from TSR Mobile

How is the proposal that each child migrant might have 4 family members who would eventually follow them 'seriously dodgy'? I would have thought if anything it was a conservative estimate.

I don't really understand your other point. How does pointing out that this country has limited resources (albeit large compared to many other countries) relate to Brexit? No country, however rich, can afford to support an unlimited population. Particularly when the country in question is a small island.

Tell this to the six million people who died as a result of Hitler, we could have helped some of those people by allowing refugees. But the antisemitic sentiment in Western countries at that time made it so the government did the same thing as they are doing now. This is because people are xenophobic, not because of anything to do with our economy.


Posted from TSR Mobile

We did help some of them. It was called the kindertransport. And Lord Dubs was one of them.

We can't save the world, though. And we do have limited resources, unpleasant as this concept is. Other countries need to start doing their bit, particularly the Arab world.

You said 4 family members minimum, that is clearly ridiculous, the minimum amount of family members a person can have is two, presuming of course that neither of these child's parents have died which considering the situation in Syria is not all that likely.

The irony of you telling others to do more while advocating doing nothing yourself...

You used 'minimum' twice. I think you meant to say 'maximum'? Regardless, these people tend to come from family structures other than a 'nuclear' two parents and 2.4 children.. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that each child which immigrates will have four adult family members (extended or otherwise) who follow on later. It's a golden opportunity for them to immigrate to the UK.



I don't think I advocated 'doing nothing' anywhere - more careful reading required and less jumping to conclusions, methinks!

3,000 child migrants = 12,000 migrants minimum once their families come over.

Has no-one seen the news this week about the NHS falling over? We can't look after, house, or educate the number of people here already, without bringing even more in. It's not necessarily a case of some moral crusade - it's simple practicalities too.

You silly sausage, the entire basis is that they are without family.

The NHS is struggling because of the cuts the Tories have made over recent years, drastically reducing staff and resources to the point where it's squeezing blood out of a stone. That is the issue with the NHS, not an issue of over-crowding.

The government can easily fund more, or at least ease off on the cuts, but for some reason it places our national healthcare as a low priority.


But hey! Once we leave the EU we'll have that £350 million a week to help fund the NHS

So tell me, what are they fleeing from in France? It seems pretty safe, and they're already there. The ones who are honest refugees will have filed for asylum as soon as, the ones trying to get to the UK are nothing less than migrants at this point.

Umm I think we agree on this...? Read it again

This is about refugees (a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster), not migrants.

A lot of these people are already in safe countries in Europe so we should not take them in- it's the responsibility of the country they are in to deal with them. Whilst it would be great if we could somehow take in thousands of refugees, it is simply a waste of resources, especially at a time when institutions like the NHS and our education system are struggling with an ageing population and a higher dependency ratio. The money would be more beneficial if it was invested in our infrastructure, healthcare or education.

There is also the problem with security. These refugees have come from war torn parts of the Middle East and would find it difficult to adjust to the Western way of life and embrace our values. They might have been radicalised while in their home country and could pose a threat, especially young teenage males.

We should only be housing refugees, children or otherwise on the condition they return to their own country twenty years from now or whenever it is finally stable and safe to do so. They should absolutely not be allowed to stay here for the rest of their lives. Otherwise their children are here, and theirs and theirs, etc. It's simply not fair to the indigenous population having so many non-English people settle permanently in the UK.