Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    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.
    you're saying we *deserve* having burdens because we got richer than the poorer countries? I'm sorry but that's insane. the UK doesn't *deserve* any burden that we didn't cause. you cannot sit here and tell me that the UK should be condemned to take burdens for no reason at all just because we have more money.

    this is the thing you don't understand: refugees shouldn't come only to rich countries; they should go to the poorer countries first, if they really are "refugees" who only care about surviving, not about a ****ing welfare state.

    if they are real refugeees, they *should* go to eastern europe first and stay there. when those countries get filled, then MAYBE we should take in actual refugees, but right now, you are doing nothing but convincing me that these are ECONOMIC MIGRANTS. if poland is willing to play realpolitik then we have ever ****ing right to do so as well. this money is our money and money is not a bad thing or a burden-attractor. **** that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    you're saying we *deserve* having burdens because we got richer than the poorer countries? I'm sorry but that's insane. the UK doesn't *deserve* any burden that we didn't cause. you cannot sit here and tell me that the UK should be condemned to take burdens for no reason at all just because we have more money.

    this is the thing you don't understand: refugees shouldn't come only to rich countries; they should go to the poorer countries first, if they really are "refugees" who only care about surviving, not about a ****ing welfare state.

    if they are real refugeees, they *should* go to eastern europe first and stay there. when those countries get filled, then MAYBE we should take in actual refugees, but right now, you are doing nothing but convincing me that these are ECONOMIC MIGRANTS. if poland is willing to play realpolitik then we have ever ****ing right to do so as well. this money is our money and money is not a bad thing or a burden-attractor. **** that.
    Well unfortunately, the UK (and allies) did cause it by destabilising the Middle-East.

    That aside, do you also believe that richer people shouldn't pay more tax than poorer people?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Well unfortunately, the UK (and allies) did cause it by destabilising the Middle-East.

    That aside, do you also believe that richer people shouldn't pay more tax than poorer people?
    no, syria =/= the middle east.
    syria was destabilised by the civil war, and the civil war occurred via the arab spring trend and the fact that syrian people resented assad's tyranny.
    the UK had *nothing* to do with the syrian civil war beginning. the civil war is why "refugees" (and, again, most of these people are not only non-syrian but economic migrants from all over the middle east and africa) are coming - because assad simply wasn't going to give up. so it's assad's fault, or the free syrian army's fault

    and I think everybody should pay the same % of tax - in that sense, richer people will STILL pay more. e.g. 20% of £10,000 = £2000. 20% of £1,000,000 = £200,000. this is WITHIN a state and concerning citizens. your issue concerns the difference between citizens and non-citizens. this concerns the nature of a state; if there was no % but a raw amount of cash to be the tax, then there would be no point in taxes at all when everybody could pay for their own services/laws via anarchy. europe is not a state. europe is a collection of states. you can't say "some european countries are poor therefore they should pay less" - that assumes we're one single country. we're not. we have no obligation to do anything more than any other nation regardless of money, because we had no hand in starting the syrian civil war. and do you think I even supported the syrian civil war? no. I don't support any interventions in the middle east at all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vinny1900)
    Many Syrians are University educated.
    Universities in Syria are not of the same standard as in the West.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    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.
    At least you're acknowledging that refugees are a burden. Some people said that these hordes of engineers and doctors were going to benefit our economy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    no, syria =/= the middle east.
    syria was destabilised by the civil war, and the civil war occurred via the arab spring trend and the fact that syrian people resented assad's tyranny.
    the UK had *nothing* to do with the syrian civil war beginning. the civil war is why "refugees" (and, again, most of these people are not only non-syrian but economic migrants from all over the middle east and africa) are coming - because assad simply wasn't going to give up. so it's assad's fault, or the free syrian army's fault

    and I think everybody should pay the same % of tax - in that sense, richer people will STILL pay more. e.g. 20% of £10,000 = £2000. 20% of £1,000,000 = £200,000. this is WITHIN a state and concerning citizens. your issue concerns the difference between citizens and non-citizens. europe is not a state. europe is a collection of states. you can't say "some european countries are poor therefore they should pay less" - that assumes we're one single country. we're not. we have no obligation to do anything more than any other nation regardless of money, because we had no hand in starting the syrian civil war. and do you think I even supported the syrian civil war? no. I don't support any interventions in the middle east at all.
    ISIS is present in Syria, and ISIS is as powerful as it is largely due to the destabilisation of the ME. We are partly responsible.

    You believe that people should pay tax proportional to their income. I believe countries should take refugees proportional to their income. It's exactly the same.

    What makes a non-citizen worth less than a citizen? Why is someone sleeping on the streets in Britain a tragedy and a problem that we need to solve, but people in other countries going through things too awful for either of us could even comprehend should be left to get on with it? I don't think a British life is worth more than any other, and people in Syria are suffering far more than anyone in the UK.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    ISIS is present in Syria, and ISIS is as powerful as it is largely due to the destabilisation of the ME. We are partly responsible.
    .
    Explain how. Please explain precisely Western causes of the civil war in Syria and and the rise of ISIS.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Explain how. Please explain precisely Western causes of the civil war in Syria and and the rise of ISIS.
    Have a read. The West armed the Syrian opposition. They also invaded Iraq. It's really not that difficult to understand how illegally invading a country might cause just a little bit of hatred toward the invaders, but people would far rather pretend it's a problem with Islam than accept responsibility.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vinny1900)
    Many Syrians are University educated.
    I think just looking at the student room alone it's got to the point where being 'university educated' means **** all.2

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    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.
    No. We should have taken more than 10,000 at the start of the war. That doesn't mean we take in all of them.

    In the same sense, taking 3000 refugee children is a small number but it is better than nothing.


    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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
    Where did I say to do nothing?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonstruck16)
    I think just looking at the student room alone it's got to the point where being 'university educated' means **** all.2

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    How did you arrive @ that conclusion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    ISIS is present in Syria, and ISIS is as powerful as it is largely due to the destabilisation of the ME. We are partly responsible.

    we didn't create ISIS.
    and funny, syria was so stable until that civil war happened, which didn't begin with ISIS at all.

    You believe that people should pay tax proportional to their income. I believe countries should take refugees proportional to their income. It's exactly the same.

    ...but countries aren't citizens. countries aren't a part of a world government. also, you said these refugees were "burdens" - taxes aren't burdens in that they result in government services :|

    What makes a non-citizen worth less than a citizen? Why is someone sleeping on the streets in Britain a tragedy and a problem that we need to solve, but people in other countries going through things too awful for either of us could even comprehend should be left to get on with it? I don't think a British life is worth more than any other, and people in Syria are suffering far more than anyone in the UK.
    because they don't contribute to the finances that fund the state.
    someone sleeping on the streets in the UK isn't necessarily a tragedy - it depends how they got there - for example, they might deserve it by being useless and unproductive. some people like this *do* exist, and it's no wonder where they end up.
    and yeah, and it's not our fault that they're there, just like homeless people in the UK - the UK state doesn't do anything for homeless people though.
    british life >>>> middle eastern life. yes. because we pay our taxes and we've been paying for a while. if they want to come here, they should give us a financial incentive, e.g. productivity.
    suffering isn't part of this equation, or else we should take in every north korean individual alive right now.

    this internationalism of yours isn't *grounded* in anything, it's just pure subjective emotion
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Just because somebody went to university does not give them an advantage in things like this. You need to be more specific.

    Even you can't be completely oblivious to the argument that too many people in this country are going to university, studying 'mickey mouse degrees', or going getting abysmal marks and not caring just because they know they'll get a degree at the end, even if they know they aren't going to use it.

    Anyway, a refugee who is a university graduate shouldn't have an immediate advantage over an other because they may not necessarily be the bigger benefit to society.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonstruck16)
    Just because somebody went to university does not give them an advantage in things like this. You need to be more specific.

    Even you can't be completely oblivious to the argument that too many people in this country are going to university, studying 'mickey mouse degrees', or going getting abysmal marks and not caring just because they know they'll get a degree at the end, even if they know they aren't going to use it.

    Anyway, a refugee who is a university graduate shouldn't have an immediate advantage over an other because they may not necessarily be the bigger benefit to society.
    (Original post by Vinny1900)
    How did you arrive @ that conclusion.
    .....
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonstruck16)
    .....
    WHAT
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vinny1900)
    WHAT
    Sorry I wrote a post in reply to yours but didn't actually reply to you so quoted you in,

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    No. We should have taken more than 10,000 at the start of the war. That doesn't mean we take in all of them.

    In the same sense, taking 3000 refugee children is a small number but it is better than nothing.




    Where did I say to do nothing?
    We are taking more than 10,000... And if there are no domestic issues then the logical conclusion is that those things are not actually problems, so do we have domestic issues to deal with, or are those things not problems?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    We are taking more than 10,000... And if there are no domestic issues then the logical conclusion is that those things are not actually problems, so do we have domestic issues to deal with, or are those things not problems?
    When did I say that 10,000 needed to be taken in?

    I am talking about the 3000 children.

    I didn't say there were no domestic issues. So you are just making things up as you are going along.

    I said those domestic issues are not significant enough to deny 3000 children refugee status.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    pure subjective emotion
    as opposed to objective emotion.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    When did I say that 10,000 needed to be taken in?

    I am talking about the 3000 children.

    I didn't say there were no domestic issues. So you are just making things up as you are going along.

    I said those domestic issues are not significant enough to deny 3000 children refugee status.
    This is a political stunt. It has nothing to do with compassion for refugees. If the government had said "yes", the opposition would have demanded 6,000. There is no winning position for government here; so do nothing, shut up and let Labour talk themselves out on the matter.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.