Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Tory MP's vote AGAINST allowing 3000 refugee children into the UK watch

    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Except people are starving on the streets.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    This is basically a lottery. What about the children not included in the 3,000? What about children elsewhere in the world who would benefit from asylum?

    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    ...but will be less likely to become thugs.
    Children raised without the father around are more likely to become thugs
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    As far as know, a refugee child has no right to sponsor their family to move to the UK. So that is wrong.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Except people are starving on the streets.
    Really? How many people starved to death last year in the UK?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Really? How many people starved to death last year in the UK?
    I don't know the number but are you saying that people don't starve to death is completely wrong.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Source?

    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (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.
    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.

    (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 .
    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
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Unbelievable inhumanity.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    There's plenty of jobs around.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Vinny1900)
    There's plenty of jobs around.
    Right?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Right?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (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.
    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
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    I was answering your doubt about there being a lack of jobs, read back on the comment trail.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Many Syrians are University educated.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Vinny1900)
    I was answering your doubt about there being a lack of jobs, read back on the comment trail.
    There's an unemployment rate that still appears to be a fair bit above the natural rate given the structure of the jobs that exist; there are many vacancies but also many more unemployed

    (Original post by Vinny1900)
    Many Syrians are University educated.
    However doing a quick bit of research their rates are relatively low

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    It's not remotely relevant how many other countries have taken. Everyone else being an ******** isn't justification for us being one.

    Why is it stupid to expect the richest countries to bear most of the burden? I think you've got that a bit backwards.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.