This is an act of kindness - it might stop children's families paying people traffickers to help them make dangerous crossings into Europe.
If you support it, you are basically giving a green light to families paying people traffickers to get their children into Europe in the hope that, on being granted asylum, the rest of the family will be able to join.
x
Turn on thread page Beta
-
Grand High Witch
- Follow
- 7 followers
- 6 badges
- Send a private message to Grand High Witch
Offline6ReputationRep:- Follow
- 81
- 28-04-2016 22:12
Last edited by Grand High Witch; 28-04-2016 at 22:13. -
- Follow
- 82
- 28-04-2016 22:19
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
I don't see why citizens of this nation need anymore help. No one is starving to death on the streets. They have access to free healthcare and protection. They are not being forced into sex slavery.
3000 children do not have access to such provisions and would be a relatively small burden on our welfare system. -
infairverona
- Follow
- 31 followers
- 21 badges
- Send a private message to infairverona
Offline21ReputationRep:- Follow
- 83
- 28-04-2016 22:20
I am sad for them but allowing them here isn't going to help. Who is going to look after them? Childrens' homes here are already overrun, it's so difficult to find parents wanting to adopt older children and even foster carers are in short supply. I don't know how the rest of the EU fares on this but bringing those children into a country where it's extremely unlikely that nobody will be willing to actually parent them is not a good idea at all
-
Grand High Witch
- Follow
- 7 followers
- 6 badges
- Send a private message to Grand High Witch
Offline6ReputationRep:- Follow
- 84
- 28-04-2016 22:21
(Original post by toblerone eater)
This is a terrible argument.
What you are saying comes down to: unless we can solve all of the world's problems, we shouldn't even attempt to partially solve any of the world's problems.
3000 children fleeing war and all manner of severe distress/trauma given a better life is 3000 children whose lives we have helped. Maybe this doesn't mean anything to you, but that doesn't degrade the argument that where we can help especially vulnerable people, we should.
It sounds like help for help's sake - 3,000 is an arbitrary number. It may make some people sleep better at night to know 3,000 children have been resettled in the UK, but it doesn't at all resolve this migrant crisis or the issue of children across the world who require help and support. -
- Follow
- 85
- 28-04-2016 22:22
(Original post by Josb)
...but will be less likely to become thugs. -
DorianGrayism
- Follow
- 32 followers
- 19 badges
- Send a private message to DorianGrayism
- Visit DorianGrayism's homepage!
Offline19ReputationRep:- Follow
- 86
- 28-04-2016 22:23
(Original post by Grand High Witch)
This is an act of kindness - it might stop children's families paying people traffickers to help them make dangerous crossings into Europe.
If you support it, you are basically giving a green light to families paying people traffickers to get their children into Europe in the hope that, on being granted asylum, the rest of the family will be able to join. -
DorianGrayism
- Follow
- 32 followers
- 19 badges
- Send a private message to DorianGrayism
- Visit DorianGrayism's homepage!
Offline19ReputationRep:- Follow
- 87
- 28-04-2016 22:27
(Original post by joecphillips)
Except people are starving on the streets. -
- Follow
- 88
- 28-04-2016 22:32
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Really? How many people starved to death last year in the UK? -
Grand High Witch
- Follow
- 7 followers
- 6 badges
- Send a private message to Grand High Witch
Offline6ReputationRep:- Follow
- 89
- 28-04-2016 22:33
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
As far as know, a refugee child has no right to sponsor their family to move to the UK. So that is wrong.
Even if what you're saying is true, the family probably won't know British law and will go on what they have heard in the press/word of mouth. -
Jammy Duel
- Follow
- 49 followers
- 21 badges
- Send a private message to Jammy Duel
- Political Ambassador
Offline21ReputationRep:Political Ambassador- Follow
- 90
- 29-04-2016 15:24
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
I didn't say they were equivalent.
I said the refusal to provide refuge to Jews led to millions being murdered when at least some more lives could have been saved.
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
That is exactly what it does.
"Our affairs are not in order" is just an appeal to emotion. You have not had one fact so far to support it so I have no reason to believe it .
Posted from TSR Mobile -
- Follow
- 91
- 29-04-2016 15:27
(Original post by AliRizzo)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36134837
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...child-refugees
Was surprised not to see this thread already, although I may have missed it, it seems the Tory powers that be on here have nothing to say. -
- Follow
- 92
- 29-04-2016 15:28
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
So we should have taken on all the Jews in Europe despite that being about 20pc of the population of the UK. Further, the two situations are not comparable, the children being refused are those in Europe, not in the middle East; those that are hundreds or thousands of miles away from the cause of their displacement, not about to be put on a train to go do hard labour and be killed.
So you're saying that having public services failing the population and homeless people on the street is actually a perfectly good thing and we should do nothing to improve said services and reduce homelessness?
Posted from TSR Mobile -
Jammy Duel
- Follow
- 49 followers
- 21 badges
- Send a private message to Jammy Duel
- Political Ambassador
Offline21ReputationRep:Political Ambassador- Follow
- 93
- 29-04-2016 15:38
(Original post by Vinny1900)
There's plenty of jobs around.
Posted from TSR Mobile -
- Follow
- 94
- 29-04-2016 15:40
-
Jammy Duel
- Follow
- 49 followers
- 21 badges
- Send a private message to Jammy Duel
- Political Ambassador
Offline21ReputationRep:Political Ambassador- Follow
- 95
- 29-04-2016 15:51
(Original post by Vinny1900)
Yes, they're not filled. There's a shortage of curry chefs. English people like to eat curry, and there's not enough chefs for the market demand.
Posted from TSR Mobile -
- Follow
- 96
- 29-04-2016 15:56
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
So you're saying that we should employ children who probably don't even know how to cook a curry as curry chefs?
Posted from TSR Mobile -
- Follow
- 97
- 29-04-2016 15:57
Many Syrians are University educated.
-
Jammy Duel
- Follow
- 49 followers
- 21 badges
- Send a private message to Jammy Duel
- Political Ambassador
Offline21ReputationRep:Political Ambassador- Follow
- 98
- 29-04-2016 16:11
(Original post by Vinny1900)
I was answering your doubt about there being a lack of jobs, read back on the comment trail.
(Original post by Vinny1900)
Many Syrians are University educated.
Posted from TSR Mobile -
BubbleBoobies
- Follow
- 8 followers
- 3 badges
- Send a private message to BubbleBoobies
Offline3ReputationRep:- Follow
- 99
- 29-04-2016 17:54
hm, well, let's wonder: how many people have portugal taken?
actually, this question is two sided:
1) portugal *will* take immigrants (er I mean refugees, lmao)
2) but these "refugees" don't go there because their welfare state is smaller so they'll get less
I say the UK shouldn't take a single migrant more from the middle east/africa until these poorer states get filled up first
because it is stupid to expect the countries with the biggest welfare states to take the most migrants - **** this - this is beyond belief
if poland isn't going to take any, then why the **** should we? I thought the EU was about uniting countries?
poland's perfectly happy filling up our country with theirs, but when it's a country filling up *their* country then suddenly it's not okay?
**** these useless hypocritical countries, and **** the EULast edited by BubbleBoobies; 29-04-2016 at 17:55. -
- Follow
- 100
- 29-04-2016 18:14
(Original post by BubbleBoobies)
hm, well, let's wonder: how many people have portugal taken?
actually, this question is two sided:
1) portugal *will* take immigrants (er I mean refugees, lmao)
2) but these "refugees" don't go there because their welfare state is smaller so they'll get less
I say the UK shouldn't take a single migrant more from the middle east/africa until these poorer states get filled up first
because it is stupid to expect the countries with the biggest welfare states to take the most migrants - **** this - this is beyond belief
if poland isn't going to take any, then why the **** should we? I thought the EU was about uniting countries?
poland's perfectly happy filling up our country with theirs, but when it's a country filling up *their* country then suddenly it's not okay?
**** these useless hypocritical countries, and **** the EU
Why is it stupid to expect the richest countries to bear most of the burden? I think you've got that a bit backwards.
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Related discussions:
- Corbyn voted new labour leader.
- If the General Election was tomorrow who would you vote for?
- US Presidential Election 2016 official thread
- The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV
- Does anyone still think Jeremy Corbyn is 'unelectable'?
- Miscellanous Thread VI
- Miscellaneous Thread V
- Annoying attitudes of SJWs towards Islam, Muslims and ...
- Miscellaneous Thread Part II
- Labour MP Jo Cox killed in shooting incident in West ...
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.
This forum is supported by:
Updated: May 1, 2016
Share this discussion:
Tweet