Turn on thread page Beta

Reasons why the UK shouldn't take more refugees. watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The UK has always been a welcoming country , accepting people. With this current "migrant crisis" with all these "marauding migrants" coming in their "swarms" what I don't understand is why we're not accepting our fair share of these refugees. These people are coming from Eritrea and Syria - yet we're turning them away. I'm just making this thread because I find it impossible to think of valid reasons why we shouldn't accept the same amount per person as for example Sweden and Germany. So could someone please give me some reasons why we shouldn't accept more than we already do?

    **thsi is my first time posting in the debate and current affairs forum so if I'm in the wrong place could someone redirect me please?**
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calsiwm_Silicad)
    The UK has always been a welcoming country , accepting people. With this current "migrant crisis" with all these "marauding migrants" coming in their "swarms" what I don't understand is why we're not accepting our fair share of these refugees. These people are coming from Eritrea and Syria - yet we're turning them away. I'm just making this thread because I find it impossible to think of valid reasons why we shouldn't accept the same amount per person as for example Sweden and Germany. So could someone please give me some reasons why we shouldn't accept more than we already do?

    **thsi is my first time posting in the debate and current affairs forum so if I'm in the wrong place could someone redirect me please?**
    Our resources are stretched. There is not enough housing. Our population compared with the size of our country says we are overpopulated as an island. We can barely afford to sustain our existing population in terms of health care, education, housing, security and food. Why should we accept more?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anon0098)
    Our resources are stretched. There is not enough housing. Our population compared with the size of our country says we are overpopulated as an island. We can barely afford to sustain our existing population in terms of health care, education, housing, security and food. Why should we accept more?
    Because we're humans. Humans who care about other humans. We may be a little stretched but I can guarantee we have more housing , security and food than Syria. Would you rather wait a little longer for a GP appointment knowing that your country was looking after some of the world's most vulnerable people?
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    These people would be of little to no benefit. They would damage the ethnic and cultural profile of the country (I don't want more Muslims) and we already take lots of third world immigrants.

    In short, if we want migrants then lets take them from North America and Australasia rather than the third world.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    These people would be of little to no benefit. They would damage the ethnic and cultural profile of the country (I don't want more Muslims) and we already take lots of third world immigrants.

    In short, if we want migrants then lets take them from North America and Australasia rather than the third world.
    Why those specifically?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    These people would be of little to no benefit. They would damage the ethnic and cultural profile of the country (I don't want more Muslims) and we already take lots of third world immigrants.

    In short, if we want migrants then lets take them from North America and Australasia rather than the third world.
    Blame the British empire, not the immigrants.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    We have a choice

    we can end the welfare state and allow immigrants to come and if they fail then there will be no one to support them

    Or we can continue the welfare state

    Or we restrict the welfare state for new immigrants which would be discriminatory given the policy for EU members
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    People are people. If we were in the shoes of refugees, we would want help for ourselves and our families. In addition, I think immigration is far more of a positive than a negative, both socially and economically. Besides, why should the UK, which has plundered so much from other countries in the past, not give a little back?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calsiwm_Silicad)
    Would you rather wait a little longer for a GP appointment knowing that your country was looking after some of the world's most vulnerable people?
    No

    they need to make changes to their own societies rather than have a negative impact on mine
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    No

    they need to make changes to their own societies rather than have a negative impact on mine
    How can you expect Eritrea and Syria , two of the most dangerous countries in the world , to make changes within their society?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    These people would be of little to no benefit. They would damage the ethnic and cultural profile of the country (I don't want more Muslims) and we already take lots of third world immigrants.

    In short, if we want migrants then lets take them from North America and Australasia rather than the third world.
    We can probably get rid of a lot of English/British people who already live here then since they are of no benefit and actually suck the system dry. Would you propose dropping them in the sea or sending them to other countries?

    The UK is currently taking less referees than other countries like Germany and France by a significant amount.

    What if the migrants from North America and Australasia are muslim? Does that mean they can still come over or is the bar that they are muslim? Why not just say you only want white non-muslims to come over but that you're not a racist.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Demilb)
    Why those specifically?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Largely ethnically and culturally similar. Rich and educated populations. Pool of near enough a billion people when you add Europe.

    (Original post by Anon0098)
    Blame the British empire, not the immigrants.
    The empire is not to blame, that's a cop out.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calsiwm_Silicad)
    How can you expect Eritrea and Syria , two of the most dangerous countries in the world , to make changes within their society?
    Because they can if they wanted to but they seem to suffer from shortsightedness in they want the reward without making the effort to achieve it.

    Tell me why they can't make changes to their societies?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calsiwm_Silicad)
    How can you expect Eritrea and Syria , two of the most dangerous countries in the world , to make changes within their society?
    Well it is very easily agued that that is not your problem. Yes they are human beings but the UK cannot save the world.

    Your problem is twofold.

    1. the Tories and the media have made out that immigrants and assylum seekers are the worst things in the world, one step below the drain that is the ever increasing welfare work shy scum bags like the disabled and the sick.

    2. The recources currently arent there. Its all very well and good saying build new houses, build more schools (and i agree) but despite the UK being so wealthy it wont do it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anon0098)
    Blame the British empire, not the immigrants.
    What does the British Empire have to do with Syria and the Arab Spring?
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    We can probably get rid of a lot of English/British people who already live here then since they are of no benefit and actually suck the system dry. Would you propose dropping them in the sea or sending them to other countries?

    The UK is currently taking less referees than other countries like Germany and France by a significant amount.

    What if the migrants from North America and Australasia are muslim? Does that mean they can still come over or is the bar that they are muslim? Why not just say you only want white non-muslims to come over but that you're not a racist.
    Such huge shifts in population would breed instability, better that we simply improve social mobility.

    There would be a few but a statistically low number.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Why should we? I'm sick of people browbeating how we're a heartless nation. We are very generous with aid and have taken plenty of refugees. Its not this generations fault but people like to bring up the past like we should all pay for what happened over a century ago. The main point is that you can't rehome the whole of Syria etc in Europe just because they want to run away from their problems rather than face them. You let a load in and more will come, simple as that. Then its a never ending cycle. There needs to be a hard line so they don't keep coming over thinking they'll just walk in and get instant residence. Our housing and NHS are already stretched and we don't need a load of unskilled refugees/migrants who can't speak english (with completely different cultures) putting further strain on us. The only way this will end well is if we help them re-establish their countries. That's generous enough.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Economically we cannot afford to house and feed these people who most likely have little skills or worth for our economy. Sure we are humans and we should treat them like that and how we want to be treated, but honestly, it's deeper than that. We can't go around picking up everyone that needs help, there's not enough room, people resist having immigrants/refugees very strongly in some areas and these people generally don't add to the economy. It angers taxpayers who pay money to non-British people who aren't in work. Lots of people also see it as the refugees abusing the welfare system which whilst it isn't the case they are still dependent on it and it annoys people.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by breenm)
    People are people. If we were in the shoes of refugees, we would want help for ourselves and our families. In addition, I think immigration is far more of a positive than a negative, both socially and economically. Besides, why should the UK, which has plundered so much from other countries in the past, not give a little back?
    Immigration from skilled workers that this country needs, yes. Not unskilled workers who don't speak english. Who cares about the past, that was a long time ago. Its not this generation's problem.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Largely ethnically and culturally similar. Rich and educated populations. Pool of near enough a billion people when you add Europe.



    The empire is not to blame, that's a cop out.
    I think you're forgetting North America is more than two countries :s

    Also I don't really understand why you feel ethnicity should be a factor
    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?
Useful resources

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.