'Refugees' Can not be trusted

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

Austerity is massive cuts to public spending - which have occurred; we're seeing the nhs budget being slashed, likewise the bbc, - public spending is being slashed.

:

PUBLIC SPENDING IS GOING UP. What part of that is hard for you to grasp?

In 2014 it was £734,6 billion, in 2015 £759.5 billion.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/piechart_2014_UK_total

The NHS has been ring fenced not slashed

I'll ask you again, how much do we pay in debt interest?

I understand you have absolutely no clue, but you can do a google search on the internet, right?

Reply 41

Stiff Little Fingers

Original post by Josb

I see four very wealthy countries, one of them being enormous and empty, that could accommodate every Syrian refugee.

Yeah, that's a minefield and a half, suffice to say Saudi Arabia and co are a bit mentalist; they just import kids from south and south east asia for an underground forced labour network, bar massive intervention from the west they'll never be places that refugees can rely on for help.

Original post by Good bloke

That makes no sense. I presume you have evidence to support your assertion.

It's been on local radio (BBC Radio Leicester) the past few days, interviews with the fire department - budget cuts mean they've got to scrap about 6 trucks and replace them with TRVs, which are about as effective as aforementioned transit van with a pressure washer.

You know that isn't true. They are refusing to register in safe countries until they reach the country that best fulfils their dreams of Utopia, generally Germany or Austria.

Which safe countries fall between those neighbouring countries and the likes of Germany, that haven't immediately shut their borders and adopted a NIMBY approach?

Original post by york_wbu

You seem to be ignoring my argument and just focussing on the irrelevant stuff. Answer my argument directly.

"What claim do they have to the UK? They are no longer unsafe, it's by no means a neighbouring country and we're not culturally similar. They're only coming to the UK for economic reasons.
We are not obliged to let them into the country, there is no reason for us to. We are, however, obliged to help them. So why don't we give aid and fund neighbouring countries?"

I didn't answer that part because I was on my phone at the time typing a quick response on my way out, but put simply they aren't coming to the uk for economic reasons, they hit the neighbouring countries (bar Saudi Arabia, but that's a whole different kettle of fish), find them to be incapable of supporting more, and have to then head onwards - so, they'll hit Greece, a basketcase financially and somewhere that has a massive neo-nazi problem, or Hungary, which has a pretty big anti-muslim racism problem; given the threats of attacks by locals, that's not a safe place for them to stop any more than Russia would be for any hypothetical LGBT refugees; so they have to push further on towards countries where they'll be safe and which have the capacity and inclination to help. Like Germany.

Reply 42

The_Internet

Original post by littlenorthernlass

Any so-called 'refugees' in Europe are not refugees. They ceased to be called that name when they passed plenty of safe countries on their way here.

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

The immediate safe countries around Syria have already taken in as many as they can handle, turkeys taken in well over a million, Lebanon and Jordan nearly as many - Going beyond these countries doesn't mean they aren't refugees anymore, it means they're being moved on because those countries simply can't take anymore. Also, that's not anything remotely approaching a definition of a refugee - the Dublin treaty recommends asylum be taken in the first safe country, but its simply not plausible for that number anyway.Edit: for the record, Lebanon has a nominal gdp of 50bn, a tiny fraction of ours, its population density is more than double ours even before the refugee crisis - it quite literally cannot afford to host the refugees, not does it have the space, and yet it's taken in 880k to go with the 280k it already took from Iraq when we decided to go world police on the place. So this "no space, no money" argument won't fly.Posted from TSR Mobile

Original post by The_Internet

And they're so called refugees, why lnl? Were the Jewish refugees "so called refugees" after WW2? They too passed safe countriesYou sound very much like the daily mail, who also called the Jewish refugees "so called refugees"See:

Equally, we've had people flee France and Spain from Napoleon's rule to go to the UK - when there were safe countries on the way. We've had the same happen during the American civil war as well, when people moved states despite there being "safe states" on the way, and in the English civil war, people moved despite there being "safe towns" on the wayBear in mind that travel was a hell of a lot harder just even 70 years ago, so by your logic you are calling the Jewish refugees "so called" refugees, in line with the daily heil?Also bear in mind that a good 95% of the refugees have gone to Arab nations. Hardly any have gone to Europe. Let's also bear in mind that the West has been complicit with both arming Assad, and unwittingly arming IS (Once upon a time, they were simply "rebels against the Assad regime" ) So this problem is partially the fault of the West - and specifically the US and the UK.... <--- We have a track record of following the Americans like a little lap dogSee what SLF said as well.

^ I promised that I'd reply to lnl

Reply 43

BaconandSauce

Original post by The_Internet

^ I promised that I'd reply to lnl

same old trope for you I see

Muslims are not the new Jews. They are however becoming the new Nazis.

Reply 44

chocolate hottie

Original post by The_Internet

And they're so called refugees, why lnl? Were the Jewish refugees "so called refugees" after WW2? They too passed safe countries

You sound very much like the daily mail, who also called the Jewish refugees "so called refugees"

See:

Equally, we've had people flee France and Spain from Napoleon's rule to go to the UK - when there were safe countries on the way. We've had the same happen during the American civil war as well, when people moved states despite there being "safe states" on the way, and in the English civil war, people moved despite there being "safe towns" on the way

Bear in mind that travel was a hell of a lot harder just even 70 years ago, so by your logic you are calling the Jewish refugees "so called" refugees, in line with the daily heil?

Also bear in mind that a good 95% of the refugees have gone to Arab nations. Hardly any have gone to Europe. Let's also bear in mind that the West has been complicit with both arming Assad, and unwittingly arming IS (Once upon a time, they were simply "rebels against the Assad regime" ) So this problem is partially the fault of the West - and specifically the US and the UK.... <--- We have a track record of following the Americans like a little lap dog

See what SLF said as well.

I am not quite sure what you are actually proposing?

Well done for pointing out that there have been peoples displaced by war throughout history, but really so what?

Four million "refugees," economic migrants whatever you want to call them are in camps in the middle east. Millions more are in their own countries and see this crisis as the opportunity of getting the dream ticket of EU citizenship. No-one can blame them.

Are you saying the UK should accept them all? The left is pretty dim sometimes, but I am guessing even you will see that that is impracticable and unaffordable.

In which case how many should we take, lefty? And do you seriously expect to get political consensus for whatever bonkers number you come up with??