Turn on thread page Beta

Should affluent nations accept more refugees? watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Right, I apologise for misunderstanding. I just didn't think you were being THAT extreme.
    Suggesting that we consider an asylum application in the same way as an immigration application is quite extreme?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Than we should withdraw from it. Simple.
    Don't get me started, I had the opportunity to tell Michael Howard himself exactly how I feel about that issue. Suffice to say I don't think we should withdraw.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thebucketwoman)
    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.
    But those refugees are breaking the rules of your beloved Geneva Convention. Surely we should attempt to uphold them to stop the treaty becoming a mockery?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    But those refugees are breaking the rules of your beloved Geneva Convention. Surely we should attempt to uphold them to stop the treaty becoming a mockery?
    Countries are bound by the convention, not refugees.
    And anyway I'm sure there is nothing in the convention that states refugees cant accept asylum in a country willing to take them.

    Also, the convention explains which refugees you are obliged to take, not how many you are allowed to take. Its a minimum not a maximum.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    One the one hand, it would be nice to have some sort of preference or requirement for asylum seekers to demonstrate that they attempted to gain asylum in other nations along their route to Britain. However, the risk then becomes that suddenly Britain would be getting "asylum rejects," who may or may not have been declined by other nations for a lack of useful skills.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i dont like the term 'asylum rejects;. Remember where talking about people not argos wardrobes. A person cant be a 'reject' they all have the possibility to do great things as long as we give them the oppurtunitys. If asylum seekers come here and fester on benefits its because we have failed them in exactly the same way we fail our own folks who are unemployed, criminals, drug users, etc etc...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markgg)
    i dont like the term 'asylum rejects;. Remember where talking about people not argos wardrobes. A person cant be a 'reject' they all have the possibility to do great things as long as we give them the oppurtunitys. If asylum seekers come here and fester on benefits its because we have failed them in exactly the same way we fail our own folks who are unemployed, criminals, drug users, etc etc...

    They fail themselves. Despite massive support, they still cant sort their lives out. What more do they want? Though it cant be argued that the govt is responsible for unemplyment as it has too much involment with the economy from taxes to red tape.

    A part of me thinks we should open our borders so many pour iin who than take full advantage of our welfare state. This would cause uproar so much that the government would abolish the welfare state!! Though the main problem is that a bunch of socialists would come along, promise to bring it back, get elected because there are so many people who dont want to work and so we'd be even in a worse position with a bigger welfare state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markgg)
    i dont like the term 'asylum rejects;. Remember where talking about people not argos wardrobes. A person cant be a 'reject' they all have the possibility to do great things as long as we give them the oppurtunitys. If asylum seekers come here and fester on benefits its because we have failed them in exactly the same way we fail our own folks who are unemployed, criminals, drug users, etc etc...
    I put it in quotations because it was the simplest way to describe it. You're reading into the terminology too much if you feel that it is some negative judgment. If one is rejected for asylum, then the term fits. Let's not be forced into elaborate euphemisms, like "asylum-impaired" that mean the exact same thing, but sound *so* much friendlier. :rolleyes:

    If someone is rejected for asylum elsewhere, the reason could very well be that the individual has less-than-stellar qualities. It's not to say that all of them are worthless human beings, but they may not be the cream of the refugee crop.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Bus driving and warehouse distribution can be done by this country's many skivers, ahem I mean jobseekers of course.
    Yeah but are you going to force them to do it. They just don't turn up and are lazy. Its a poor show.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well how come a labour governemnt have a very low unemployment rate at the mo, and the conservatives record on this is terrible. That is no coincidnece.

    and our borders are open anyway, and still only thousands not millions of refugees turn up.

    I think youre typically conservative and im typically social democratic. Its going to be difficult to agree on stuff. (-;
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    well my belief is that if a person is failing it is the society that is failing them, with some input from themsleves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rachaelmarie)
    Yeah but are you going to force them to do it. They just don't turn up and are lazy. Its a poor show.
    Yes, I'd stop unemplyment benefits for those who refuse to accept a certain amount of jobs. Or alternatively make them so low that working is a much better idea.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I think people here don't understand the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker. A refugee must file for refugee status while still living in their native country. An asylum seeker either travels illegally to the new country or overstays their visa and then applies for asylum (while in the new country). Thus, by definition, a refugee can't sneak into the new country, while all asylum seekers do so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    unemployment benefit is alreday so low you can hardly live on it. it is just above the poverty line.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markgg)
    well my belief is that if a person is failing it is the society that is failing them, with some input from themsleves.
    wow, I don't even know where to start.. erm you're wrong.
    If I'm a bit too thick to get a well-paid job, is it the society's fault?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markgg)
    well my belief is that if a person is failing it is the society that is failing them, with some input from themsleves.
    So, I'm not responsible for my own failures, I'm just responsible for everyone else's? A rather juvenile take on responsibility, really. It absolves the individual of guilt, and yet places the locus of control of everyone else's problems in such a vague position that one can't possibly feel very guilty when his neighbor fails, either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markgg)
    unemployment benefit is alreday so low you can hardly live on it. it is just above the poverty line.
    What's the poverty line? Having to buy Tesco value bread if you've been going to the pub too often that month?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You need to look at issues like this from an all around perspective
    It starts from when youre little, if youre failed by the schools, colleges or jobcentres things like that, thats what turns you lazy or thick. People arnt born lazy or stupid.

    Society is far too complex for you to say the reason people dont work is because theyre a bit thick.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markgg)
    unemployment benefit is alreday so low you can hardly live on it. it is just above the poverty line.
    Poverty is subjective. As such, there will always be poverty, even in the most advanced nations. To complain that someone's wage is near the poverty line, you are asking that someone else to be placed near the poverty line in his stead. Who is more deserving of being near the poverty line, the man without any employment, or the one with the lowest level of employment?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,257

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.