Turn on thread page Beta

Should affluent nations accept more refugees? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Should affluent nations accept more refugees? :confused:
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by jo tan)
    Should affluent nations accept more refugees? :confused:
    May I amplify a bit and say....
    Should affluent nations accept more refugees, illegal aliens and asylum seekers ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No.

    In the UK we're renowned for being a soft spot. People seek asylum from africa/eastern europe and instead of going to the first safe country (as they should) they make their way to the UK due to the benefits/ease to get in.

    Real refugees I don't have a problem with. Economic migrants I do.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ynox)
    No.

    In the UK we're renowned for being a soft spot. People seek asylum from africa/eastern europe and instead of going to the first safe country (as they should) they make their way to the UK due to the benefits/ease to get in.

    Real refugees I don't have a problem with. Economic migrants I do.
    On the contraty this country should accept economic skilled immigrants.Even if you are talking about illegal economic immigrants, this country shouldnt just ban it. Just think. Illegal immigrant, say for example plumber from Ukraine will charge you only 20% of what actually British plumber will charge. It means that you spend much less and spend more money on things that will benefit the country. This illegal immigrant then sends only a very small proportion of money to Ukraine, around 10% to his family, whereas he spends the rest 90% in UK, investing in British economy. Britain has benefited a lot even from accepting new Eastern countries into EU, especially Lithuania, Poland, Latvia.
    Skilled economic immigrants are a very good thing. Doctors, businessmen should come to this country, because there is simply a lack of such skilled people. They will also invest into UK economy by their efforts and their salaries.
    In fact this country shouldnt accept refugees. A great number of refugees come from Africa, Asia, before some Balkans countries. Who benefited?No one except them.the country doesnt benefit at all. I am not saying UK should be inhuman and just dont accept any refugees. They should put limit on the number of them. However before they accepted too many of them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    the eu should accept more immigrants for our own demographic interests and to promote our image an open society which can produce its own Lincoln, Kissinger, or Rice. I'd much rather see an able immigrant in the corridors of power than another Burlusconi.

    yet Europe is some way off from achieving a meritocracy. However, this does not mean admitting those whose values openly clash with ours. Multi-culturalism is a double edged sword. yeah, we eat chicken tikka and bollywood is on bbc2. but that's where it should end. As a condition for entry to our liberal democracy immigrants should not need to produce evidence of their Anglo-saxon blood or even evidence of persecution as is the case in Germany in order to receive citizenship. on entry, tests should be administered on the subject of freedom of religion, of the press and the very pillars on which liberty rests. classes on the history and culture of the West should be given but no tests on this subject should be taken. it is perfectly accceptable for tastes in clothing, food and private religion to differ. as long as we ensure we all have the same essential values and know our common enemies, immigration will be a positive thing for europe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not necessarily, the focus should be on addressing the problems that create refugees.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ynox)
    No.

    In the UK we're renowned for being a soft spot. People seek asylum from africa/eastern europe and instead of going to the first safe country (as they should) they make their way to the UK due to the benefits/ease to get in.

    Real refugees I don't have a problem with. Economic migrants I do.
    Hardly any of them come to Britain, most of them do stay in the other safe countries.

    Out of 14 EU countries that take asylum seekers, Britain ranks 12th for the number of applications for asylum made here. Pakistan, a country that is extremely densily populated and impoverished, takes 3% of the world's refugees. Britain, a rich and booming country, receives 0.01% of world asylum applications.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The British government only has an obligation to Britain, we should only accept those who can benefit our economy. If they cant they should not be accepted.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thebucketwoman)
    Hardly any of them come to Britain, most of them do stay in the other safe countries.

    Out of 14 EU countries that take asylum seekers, Britain ranks 12th for the number of applications for asylum made here. Pakistan, a country that is extremely densily populated and impoverished, takes 3% of the world's refugees. Britain, a rich and booming country, receives 0.01% of world asylum applications.
    Perhaps that has something to do with our geographical location. I think there is a rule (is it in teh Geneva convention?) that seekers have to claim asylum at their first port of call. Travelling through the whole of Europe to get to a country they consider to be "soft", clearly invalidates their claim.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    The British government only has an obligation to Britain, we should only accept those who can benefit our economy. If they cant they should not be accepted.
    I think you are confusing refugees and economic migrants.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Travelling through the whole of Europe to get to a country they consider to be "soft", clearly invalidates their claim.
    That was my point, the vast majority of them don't.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    The British government only has an obligation to Britain, we should only accept those who can benefit our economy. If they cant they should not be accepted.
    The 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees says otherwise.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Real refugees I don't have a problem with. Economic migrants I do.
    And those economic migrants are working in our hospitals, on our buses, in the warehouses of distribution companies. Who will do those jobs if they all go home.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Britain should accept economic immigrants, both skilled and unskilled. Both will invest in the economy. But i d say less unskilled. Britain shouldnt accept much of asylum seekers. Only a small proportion should be accepted on condition that they will start working in one year or less so that they are not dependant for the whole life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thebucketwoman)
    That was my point, the vast majority of them don't.
    But you agree that those that do should be deported to their first port of call, to apply for asylum there?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    I think you are confusing refugees and economic migrants.
    Im not. the question was 'Should affluent nations accept more refugees?'. Im saying we should accept those who are benefical to our economy, thus by implication im saying we should not accept refugees, if they happen by coincidence to be good for the economy, than yes accept them, if not dont accpet them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thebucketwoman)
    The 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees says otherwise.
    Than we should withdraw from it. Simple.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rachaelmarie)
    And those economic migrants are working in our hospitals, on our buses, in the warehouses of distribution companies. Who will do those jobs if they all go home.
    Bus driving and warehouse distribution can be done by this country's many skivers, ahem I mean jobseekers of course. Skilled jobs such as medicine do need immigration to fill them if large numbers of British people are too stupid to qualify.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Im not. the question was 'Should affluent nations accept more refugees?'. Im saying we should accept those who are benefical to our economy, thus by implication im saying we should not accept refugees, if they happen by coincidence to be good for the economy, than yes accept them, if not dont accpet them.
    Right, I apologise for misunderstanding. I just didn't think you were being THAT extreme.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    But you agree that those that do should be deported to their first port of call, to apply for asylum there?
    I wouldn't support that, if we only took the refugees that we were legally obliged to take, then we wouldn't take any at all as there are no impoverished/inhumane countries next door.

    I'm sure some people would disagree that we should take refugees anyway, but I think its our moral obligation.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,163

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
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.