Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moura)
    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.
    Most Syrians are presently safe and with somewhere to go – either in Europe or in refugee camps. There are many more people in the world in dire, immediate situations who could do with us taking them in. My point is that you cannot pick and choose who you allow in based on what is, essentially, fashionable. Where were people demanding refugees be allowed in during other crises with such passion? South Sudan?

    I think we should do something, but it shouldn't be taking in an arbitrary number of Syrian refugees on the back of this sudden desire to feel ethical. How do we choose who are the lucky 10,000 or 15,000, and what about the rest? We should look into tackling the cause and providing a longer-term solution.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Some facts you may have missed out on OP, since your libtard, self-righteousness seems to have gotten in the way of reality:

    •In total, more than 25,000 people claimed asylum in the UK in the 12 months up to June this year, and 11,600 got asylum or an alternative form of protection. Eritreans were the largest group making asylum applications (3,568), followed by Pakistanis (2,302).

    •Net long-term international migration = +330,000 (up 94,000 from YE March 2014), in the year ending (YE) March 2015.

    •Immigration = 636,000 (up 84,000), in the year ending (YE) March 2015.•Emigration = 307,000 (down 9,000), in the year ending (YE) March 2015.

    •The net migration figure was a statistically significant increase from 236,000 in YE March 2014 and is the highest net migration on record.

    •Net migration of EU citizens showed a statistically significant increase to 183,000 (up 53,000 from YE March 2014). The increase in non-EU net migration to 196,000 (up 39,000) was also statistically significant and is a result of an increase in immigration (not statistically significant) and a decrease in emigration (statistically significant).

    •The increase in long-term international immigration included a statistically significant increase for EU citizens to 269,000 (up 56,000), the highest recorded level for this group; and an increase for non-EU nationals to 284,000 (up 23,000) (not statistically significant).

    •53,000 Romanian and Bulgarian (EU2) citizens immigrated to the UK in YE March 2015, a statistically significant increase and almost double the 28,000 in the previous 12 months.

    •290,000 people immigrated for work in YE March 2015, a statistically significant increase of 65,000 from 225,000 in YE March 2014 continuing the upward trend.

    •There were statistically significant increases of immigration for work for both EU citizens (from 134,000 to 162,000 in YE March 2015) and non-EU citizens (from 48,000 to 64,000). Migration Statistics Quarterly Report, August 2015 | 27 August 2015 Office for National Statistics | 2 The increase for British citizens was not statistically significant. Of the 53,000 EU2 citizens immigrating to the UK, 42,000 were coming for work, a statistically significant increase of 20,000.

    •61% of EU citizens immigrating for work had a definite job to go to, whereas 39% were intending to look for a job rather than taking up an offer of employment.

    •Latest employment statistics show estimated employment of EU nationals (excluding British) living in the UK was 250,000 higher in April to June 2015 compared with the same quarter last year and non-EU nationals in employment increased by 7,000. Over the same period, British nationals in employment also increased (by 84,000), therefore three-quarters of the growth in employment over the last year was accounted for by foreign nationals. (These growth figures represent the net change in the number of people in employment, not the proportion of new jobs that have been filled by non-UK workers.)

    •In YE June 2015, work-related visas granted (main applicants) rose by 8,862 (or 8%) to 121,964, including a 5,177 (11%) increase for skilled work (Tier 2) visas.

    •Long-term immigration for study increased from 176,000 to 188,000 in YE March 2015 (not statistically significant). Over the same period, visa applications to study at a UK university (main applicants) rose to 166,481.

    •There were 25,771 asylum applications (main applicants) in YE June 2015, an increase of 10% compared with the previous 12 months (23,515). The number of applications remains low relative to the peak number of applications in 2002 (84,132).

    •The largest number of applications for asylum came from nationals of Eritrea (3,568), followed by Pakistan (2,302) and Syria (2,204). A total of 11,600 people were granted asylum or an alternative form of protection.Source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_414818.pdfBritain is the second largest donator in the world for charity and developmental aid, second only to the US. Britain annually donates £11.8 billion in foreign aid, 0.7% of our GDP. Only five other countries worldwide – Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark and the United Arab Emirates – met or exceeded the 0.7 per cent target in the years 2013/2014. (Source: http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...centage-income).

    The government has spent £900m from its foreign aid budget alone on helping the four million refugees who have fled Syria since the war began, and we are now accepting thousands of Syrian refugees who have que jumped the government waiting list. And on top of that, a further £100m in humanitarian aid for those in camps in Syria, Turkey, Jordan and the Lebanon is being donated by the UK government. In the last few months we have donated more to international charity than Saudi Arabia has Saudi Arabia, whilst a larger donor, has only ever donated to Islamic nations. In fact, the biggest feature of aid from the three major Arab donors, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the U.A.E., is that they give most of it (around 85 %) bilaterally, mostly in the form of loans, with a large share (about 50 % of national and multilateral Arab aid) going to Arab countries (source: http://www.cmi.no/publications/publi...ement-patterns). Kuwait has refused to take refugees on the basis that they are ‘too different’:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzPMAhl5_xs

    Despite the fact that we and several other nations saved Kuwait’s ass in the first Gulf War, Kuwait’s policy of not accepting refugees has not changed since 1991 when they refused Iraqi/Palestinian refugees from entering. In other words, they’re selfish *******s. But of course, WE are the bad guys in this situation as per usual.

    We give an anual supply close to £13 billion in foreign aid, second only to the US. Yet, retards like you seem to think we are stingey when it comes to giving help to those who have nothing to do with. Why don't you actually do something instead of moaning about how terrible we all are, OP? You want to help out, help those who are starving on the streets of the UK first before complaining about millions of wealth seekers who - far from harm's way in Turkey - have chosen to leech off of Europe's resources because we're better off. They're not in danger anymore, they're just trying to pick and choose now.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    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:



    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.
    Ok... and what are you suggesting they do in these countries they crossed that are in far less advantaged economic situations than our own? They have no family there, no way to start a life, no chance. They would probably just die there or be in at the very best slightly better standards of living, which is still pretty dismal. They are leaving their homes, everything behind. It's unlikely they would be able to survive in these poorer countries with no support or means to actually start a new life. These countries do not have the means to accept them. We do. If it was your family, your children, you would want the best chance of them surviving.

    I wasn't talking about people coming here illegally but since you mentioned it... as for the Syrian child who drowned... I think the fact the man put his son on a boat he knew to be dangerous is only proof of how desperate these people are and how little choice they have? Imagine you had a child... I doubt anyone who loved their child would put them in that situation unless they felt they absolutely had to.

    I am not saying just open the gates and see what happens, I am criticising the people saying we should not help anyone, that we should not allow any refugees into the country. They're free to protest but I'm equally free to disagree with them and argue what I think, I never understand why people mention this kind of thing. It's not like I'm going to stop saying my opinion just because they are allowed to express theirs? I'm not trying to take away peoples freedom of expression here.

    And not really... they are chavs... it's a descriptive term of their appearance and behaviour as I know these people. It's not because I disagree with them, there are chavs that feel the same way I do too.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    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.
    We should accept a reasonable number of refugees determined by how many it is feasible to support. What is wrong with a lottery? To state the obvious we cannot let every single family in, but it is better to allow some rather than none. If the government would like to run any assessment to decide whether or not they are affiliated with ISIS then that's probably a good thing (but not sure how realistic). I don't think you understood my OP. I am criticising people who do not want ANY refugees to come in.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Most Syrians are presently safe and with somewhere to go – either in Europe or in refugee camps. There are many more people in the world in dire, immediate situations who could do with us taking them in. My point is that you cannot pick and choose who you allow in based on what is, essentially, fashionable. Where were people demanding refugees be allowed in during other crises with such passion? South Sudan?

    I think we should do something, but it shouldn't be taking in an arbitrary number of Syrian refugees on the back of this sudden desire to feel ethical. How do we choose who are the lucky 10,000 or 15,000, and what about the rest? We should look into tackling the cause and providing a longer-term solution.
    Syria is a problem Europe is going to have to face due to the sheer quantity of people trying to enter Europe to escape. We can't help every person in the world but that does not detract from those we can help. Obviously if something gets more media coverage then more people are going to know about it and see what is going on. It's not to do with how fashionable it is. The Syrian refugees are on our doorstep heading to Europe and there are a lot of them. This is going to get more attention.

    It's not to do with "suddenly" feeling ethical so you feel superior and better about yourself either, it's about people wanting to help other people they see are suffering, you know, a (hopefully) normal human response. And even if it were about people wanting to feel good about themselves (which I don't believe it is) why are you speaking as if that is a negative thing? At least something good is coming out of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evening)
    Some facts you may have missed out on OP, since your libtard, self-righteousness seems to have gotten in the way of reality:

    •In total, more than 25,000 people claimed asylum in the UK in the 12 months up to June this year, and 11,600 got asylum or an alternative form of protection. Eritreans were the largest group making asylum applications (3,568), followed by Pakistanis (2,302).

    •Net long-term international migration = +330,000 (up 94,000 from YE March 2014), in the year ending (YE) March 2015.

    •Immigration = 636,000 (up 84,000), in the year ending (YE) March 2015.•Emigration = 307,000 (down 9,000), in the year ending (YE) March 2015.

    •The net migration figure was a statistically significant increase from 236,000 in YE March 2014 and is the highest net migration on record.

    •Net migration of EU citizens showed a statistically significant increase to 183,000 (up 53,000 from YE March 2014). The increase in non-EU net migration to 196,000 (up 39,000) was also statistically significant and is a result of an increase in immigration (not statistically significant) and a decrease in emigration (statistically significant).

    •The increase in long-term international immigration included a statistically significant increase for EU citizens to 269,000 (up 56,000), the highest recorded level for this group; and an increase for non-EU nationals to 284,000 (up 23,000) (not statistically significant).

    •53,000 Romanian and Bulgarian (EU2) citizens immigrated to the UK in YE March 2015, a statistically significant increase and almost double the 28,000 in the previous 12 months.

    •290,000 people immigrated for work in YE March 2015, a statistically significant increase of 65,000 from 225,000 in YE March 2014 continuing the upward trend.

    •There were statistically significant increases of immigration for work for both EU citizens (from 134,000 to 162,000 in YE March 2015) and non-EU citizens (from 48,000 to 64,000). Migration Statistics Quarterly Report, August 2015 | 27 August 2015 Office for National Statistics | 2 The increase for British citizens was not statistically significant. Of the 53,000 EU2 citizens immigrating to the UK, 42,000 were coming for work, a statistically significant increase of 20,000.

    •61% of EU citizens immigrating for work had a definite job to go to, whereas 39% were intending to look for a job rather than taking up an offer of employment.

    •Latest employment statistics show estimated employment of EU nationals (excluding British) living in the UK was 250,000 higher in April to June 2015 compared with the same quarter last year and non-EU nationals in employment increased by 7,000. Over the same period, British nationals in employment also increased (by 84,000), therefore three-quarters of the growth in employment over the last year was accounted for by foreign nationals. (These growth figures represent the net change in the number of people in employment, not the proportion of new jobs that have been filled by non-UK workers.)

    •In YE June 2015, work-related visas granted (main applicants) rose by 8,862 (or 8%) to 121,964, including a 5,177 (11%) increase for skilled work (Tier 2) visas.

    •Long-term immigration for study increased from 176,000 to 188,000 in YE March 2015 (not statistically significant). Over the same period, visa applications to study at a UK university (main applicants) rose to 166,481.

    •There were 25,771 asylum applications (main applicants) in YE June 2015, an increase of 10% compared with the previous 12 months (23,515). The number of applications remains low relative to the peak number of applications in 2002 (84,132).

    •The largest number of applications for asylum came from nationals of Eritrea (3,568), followed by Pakistan (2,302) and Syria (2,204). A total of 11,600 people were granted asylum or an alternative form of protection.Source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_414818.pdfBritain is the second largest donator in the world for charity and developmental aid, second only to the US. Britain annually donates £11.8 billion in foreign aid, 0.7% of our GDP. Only five other countries worldwide – Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark and the United Arab Emirates – met or exceeded the 0.7 per cent target in the years 2013/2014. (Source: http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...centage-income).

    The government has spent £900m from its foreign aid budget alone on helping the four million refugees who have fled Syria since the war began, and we are now accepting thousands of Syrian refugees who have que jumped the government waiting list. And on top of that, a further £100m in humanitarian aid for those in camps in Syria, Turkey, Jordan and the Lebanon is being donated by the UK government. In the last few months we have donated more to international charity than Saudi Arabia has Saudi Arabia, whilst a larger donor, has only ever donated to Islamic nations. In fact, the biggest feature of aid from the three major Arab donors, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the U.A.E., is that they give most of it (around 85 %) bilaterally, mostly in the form of loans, with a large share (about 50 % of national and multilateral Arab aid) going to Arab countries (source: http://www.cmi.no/publications/publi...ement-patterns). Kuwait has refused to take refugees on the basis that they are ‘too different’:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzPMAhl5_xs

    Despite the fact that we and several other nations saved Kuwait’s ass in the first Gulf War, Kuwait’s policy of not accepting refugees has not changed since 1991 when they refused Iraqi/Palestinian refugees from entering. In other words, they’re selfish *******s. But of course, WE are the bad guys in this situation as per usual.

    We give an anual supply close to £13 billion in foreign aid, second only to the US. Yet, retards like you seem to think we are stingey when it comes to giving help to those who have nothing to do with. Why don't you actually do something instead of moaning about how terrible we all are, OP? You want to help out, help those who are starving on the streets of the UK first before complaining about millions of wealth seekers who - far from harm's way in Turkey - have chosen to leech off of Europe's resources because we're better off. They're not in danger anymore, they're just trying to pick and choose now.
    Yes, attack my character, because that makes any point you have to make valid

    In case you didn't read my OP, it is aimed at the people of this country who are saying we shouldn't let any refugees into our country. At no point have I criticised the government by saying they do nothing to help foreigners in need. You also do not know enough about what I do in my personal life to comment on what I need to do instead of expressing my opinion.

    I would not call Turkey "far from harms way".

    But thank you for taking the time to reply.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Moura)
    Ok... and what are you suggesting they do in these countries they crossed that are in far less advantaged economic situations than our own? They have no family there, no way to start a life, no chance.
    And what chance do they have here? What do you propose we do with them once they're here? The speed with which you're advocating we take them in, we would be letting in more people than we can count, with no way to keep track of them. Not to mention not enough jobs, school places, nor the means to provide them with healthcare. All of which, by the way, is economic migration, not refuge-seeking.

    And you seem to have missed the point entirely: the point of seeking refuge isn't to 'start a life' where you have family, it is to flee from danger, which is accomplished once they reach Turkey. You keep calling them refugees; they cease to be that when they've left the nearest safe country for improve economically.

    I also don't understand what economic advantage you're talking about. There is a sizable deficit in the government's budget, which has required punishing cuts to housing benefit and other parts of the welfare state. So where exactly do you think we're going to put them up, given we don't seem able to house the homeless people already here?

    Yours isn't an opinion; it's a dogma to which you're clinging without evidence. This isn't new for me. I've argued with plenty of idealists on this forum and this is usually the point when I predict the discussion is increasingly going to take the form of 'well, what about [new thing not considered a problem until this point in time]' because you're going to change tack as many times as it takes to make your view stick. I hope I'm wrong but I'm usually right about this sort of thing.

    They would probably just die there or be in at the very best slightly better standards of living, which is still pretty dismal. They are leaving their homes, everything behind. It's unlikely they would be able to survive in these poorer countries with no support or means to actually start a new life.
    Again, what do we have to give them? The Treasury is worse than broke, if you haven't noticed. Any provision for these 'refugees' would require either more borrowing, increased taxation, or a huge charity drive of the kind that has yet to be seen.

    And again... Why do you keep going on about starting a new life? That is not what a refugee is supposed to do, that is what an economic migrant does. Why should we let a few opportunists jump to the front of the queue while others wait patiently for months to get all their paperwork sorted? Your view seems to rest on nothing but emotion.

    These countries do not have the means to accept them. We do. If it was your family, your children, you would want the best chance of them surviving.
    No, we don't. Any support for these people would have to be provided by the government which, as I've already said, is worse than broke.

    I was wondering when the 'if it was your family...' line of attack would come up. Let's get this clear: I am not faulting genuine refugees for trying to save their lives. I am merely saying that decisions have to be made on a rational basis rather than an emotional one, and that these are not always easy ones to make. To say that the government should constantly put itself in the shoes of other people and spend money it doesn't have and potentially take in a brigade or two of ISIS operatives is fallacious in the extreme.

    I wasn't talking about people coming here illegally but since you mentioned it... as for the Syrian child who drowned... I think the fact the man put his son on a boat he knew to be dangerous is only proof of how desperate these people are and how little choice they have? Imagine you had a child... I doubt anyone who loved their child would put them in that situation unless they felt they absolutely had to.
    You really must be joking... Are you seriously defending the father's behaviour in that case? I already told you that they were already in Turkey; the father was not valiantly putting his son on a lifeboat, choosing to stay behind on a sinking ship like in the Titanic film.

    Your inability to imagine a parent who would do this unless they absolutely had to is not evidence. You're speculating. Don't try to second-guess the father's intentions to try to make them noble. He knew perfectly well what he was doing handing his child over to people smugglers. My god, your view of the world is so romantic... Do you live under a rock?

    I am not saying just open the gates and see what happens, I am criticising the people saying we should not help anyone, that we should not allow any refugees into the country.
    But you are demanding that we let some in with no further delay. The fact is that we do not know who is a refugee, who is an economic migrant and who is an ISIS operative among any of these people. The people in Calais are almost certainly not refugees. Unless we know which of them are refugees, I'm sorry, this sordid affair must continue.

    They're free to protest but I'm equally free to disagree with them and argue what I think, I never understand why people mention this kind of thing. It's not like I'm going to stop saying my opinion just because they are allowed to express theirs? I'm not trying to take away peoples freedom of expression here.
    You complained in the OP that people shouldn't encourage people to protest against taking 'refugees.' That is what I complained about; I did not ask you to 'stop saying my opinion.'

    And not really... they are chavs... it's a descriptive term of their appearance and behaviour as I know these people. It's not because I disagree with them, there are chavs that feel the same way I do too.
    It's a classist term. 'N*gger' is a descriptive term of someone based on their appearance too. Would that be acceptable to you? I hope not.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Moura)
    What is wrong with a lottery?
    What's wrong with a lottery? Perhaps that the outcome cannot be decided? Perhaps that we would let in a mix of refugees, economic migrants, and ISIS operatives? Come on, you can't be this innocent.

    (Original post by Moura)
    We should accept a reasonable number of refugees determined by how many it is feasible to support. What is wrong with a lottery? To state the obvious we cannot let every single family in, but it is better to allow some rather than none. If the government would like to run any assessment to decide whether or not they are affiliated with ISIS then that's probably a good thing (but not sure how realistic). I don't think you understood my OP. I am criticising people who do not want ANY refugees to come in.
    I understood it perfectly, thanks. You were complaining about 'chavs' - what you think is an acceptable term for people who dress or behave in a way that you deem inferior - and how they're heartless individuals because they won't agree to let in thousands of mostly economic migrants for the very valid reason that the government can't even keep the people already here off the streets.

    I don't see why you're finding this so difficult to understand. Perhaps putting it in bullet form would help:

    • The government does not have enough money to keep people who are already here off the streets, clothed, fed, healthy and educated.
    • Most of the people coming are economic migrants, not refugees.
    • There's a good chance there are hundreds of ISIS operatives among these migrants.
    • Letting in economic migrants who kick the door down instead of waiting in line like other migrants is unfair to those who follow the system and encourages lawlessness.


    I hope I'm being clear...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moura)
    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.
    These migrants are perfectly safe in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Poland, Greece, Italy, Austria, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Portugal yet why do they continue trying to get to the UK, Germany and Sweden? Because they want to milk the welfare state dry, they are economic migrants, not scared for their lives because last time I checked the countries above are not engaged in war.

    Secondly Ministers in Lebanon and Turkey have said over 3 in 100 now are jihadis coming to Europe. It only takes a handful to replicate the London bombings you know.

    Also various ministers across Western Europe have stated that Eastern European economic migrants have jumped on the bandwagon and making the journey too. These are apparently making up a large proportion of some of those arriving.

    The UK is donating more money to the refugee camps than the rest of Europe put together. We are the 2nd highest in the world after America. We have countless naval vessels in the med saving lives. We are fighting ISIS and supporting Kurdish/coalition forces in northern Syria and Iraq to break the flow of ISIS into refugee camps. We are doing more than our fair share.

    The UK is stretched in regards to services. You lefties say the Tories are crippling the NHS, the Tories are destroying schools, The Tories are not building homes, the Tories are bringing services to their knees and then say we need to take 100s of thousands of migrants and put more pressure on these services you claim are in dire need of help. Grow up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Most Syrians are presently safe and with somewhere to go – either in Europe or in refugee camps. There are many more people in the world in dire, immediate situations who could do with us taking them in. My point is that you cannot pick and choose who you allow in based on what is, essentially, fashionable. Where were people demanding refugees be allowed in during other crises with such passion? South Sudan?

    I think we should do something, but it shouldn't be taking in an arbitrary number of Syrian refugees on the back of this sudden desire to feel ethical. How do we choose who are the lucky 10,000 or 15,000, and what about the rest? We should look into tackling the cause and providing a longer-term solution.
    I believe we should introduce a controlled system of migration to limit numbers to at most half the number we get net per year. This would release strain on services and let communities adapt to migration more effectively than they have under mass migration.

    This would also allow for an opportunity to take a reasonable number of refugees- the real refugees including kids, the vulnerable, the injured and especially the orphaned kids who are victims of war. We could take many more than we do now and as my system involves less immigration as a whole we can welcome many more actual refugees. Not grown men who could be ISIS affiliates. The injured, the sick and the vulnerable. Majority can have temporary refuge here for as long as required until the region has stabilised. Such a policy here would of course have to be funded by the foreign aid budget which all too often is wasted, at least in the UK we could actually direct the funds to real foreign victims instead of dictators.

    In the meantime we launch extensive military action against ISIS. Talks are not possible with these people. This time we have reason to launch a military offensive. ISIS is the spawn of the devil and we need to destroy it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moura)
    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.
    I am educated to Masters level and still agree with the sentiment.

    I could not give a flying fig about refugees fleeing war unless they want to illegally enter the UK/EU. We already have a problem with inequality, these economic migrants are taking what little crumbs there are for the locals, which in our capitalist system is no more than a serf.

    So yeah, charity starts at home. Make sure everyone in Britain has enough money first. Then worry about the nuisance making their way North.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    The worry isn't that the country will be swamped and its demography and politics irrevocably warped - that's already happened. It's that this is wasting money at a time where we as a nation have very little to spend even on ourselves.


    Posted from the TSR app - no updates since 2013!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    2 Million people on the waiting list for social housing. Schools already at bursting point with severe teacher shortages. An NHS at breaking point with services and funding already being slashed down as it is. You want to bring in more people in? Good grief.

    Please don't talk about being heartless when you use products made off of cheap labour in developing countries at near slave-like conditions, and spend your time here in the UK in comfort rather than volunteering in Africa or other Red Cross refugee camps where people are dying every day. You demand that we all pay for the sake of your conscience rather than actually go out there and do something.

    You are just as bad as the rest of us. Difference being we don't delude ourself into being the good guys.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    2 Million people on the waiting list for social housing. Schools already at bursting point with severe teacher shortages. An NHS at breaking point with services and funding already being slashed down as it is. You want to bring in more people in? Good grief.

    Please don't talk about being heartless when you use products made off of cheap labour in developing countries at near slave-like conditions, and spend your time here in the UK in comfort rather than volunteering in Africa or other Red Cross refugee camps where people are dying every day. You demand that we all pay for the sake of your conscience rather than actually go out there and do something.

    You are just as bad as the rest of us. Difference being we don't delude ourself into being the good guys.
    Agreed. +1
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I think we should cut foreign aid.
    Offline

    18
    I like how the OP has quietly left, lacking the humility to concede defeat before doing so. :lol:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I like how the OP has quietly left, lacking the humility to concede defeat before doing so. :lol:
    Well given how this thread went I think this would be apt.

    Offline

    18
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Well given how this thread went I think this would be apt.

    True. xD
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    So refugees are more important than homeless people?
    Those refugees are really... if they are neither lazy nor overcunning.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    All these people are doing is raising the same point that Jeremy Corbyn is raising:

    - Why in a rich country do we have people reliant on food banks
    - Why in a rich country do we have pensioners that can't afford to pay for heating
    - Why in a rich country do we have people sleeping on the streets

    The Westminster elite of course will turn a blind eye to this and tell us all that wanting to address these problems is "out of touch" and "fantasy politics" that does not connect to the real voters, to connect to the real voters you have to ignore those issues and talk about how to make already comfortable families, more comfortable...

    But there is now a growing groundswell of people who are asking these questions - why can a rich country not look after its own poor? Whether or not we take refugees this question needs to be asked. The problem with the existing government, isn't that they are trading helping our own poor for helping refugees, it's that even if there were no refugees, they weren't going to do anything about it anyway...
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 17, 2015
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.