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

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Butbutbutbut Michael Gove and Boris Johnson told us we have no control over our borders!!!!!!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This makes me incredibly sad.

    1. It's only 3000 - I am sure we can fit 3000 vulnerable children in
    2. They're children - I know people object to letting refugees in because they "don't share the same values as us", however, they're children. I doubt these children have any set values - children can learn and adapt.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drowzee)
    This makes me incredibly sad.

    1. It's only 3000 - I am sure we can fit 3000 vulnerable children in
    2. They're children - I know people object to letting refugees in because they "don't share the same values as us", however, they're children. I doubt these children have any set values - children can learn and adapt.
    Well do something about it. Volunteer to sponsor a refugee child in a camp.

    Send them all your spare money. Go and work with refugees so you feel less "sad."

    Do something constructive to help rather than emoting on a student website.

    Even if we did help this 3000 so what? There are millions of people in desperate situations like this all over the world. We can't do anything about it as a country, won't do anything about it.

    Any more than you will, individually.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Well do something about it. Volunteer to sponsor a refugee child in a camp.

    Send them all your spare money. Go and work with refugees so you feel less "sad."

    Do something constructive to help rather than emoting on a student website.

    Even if we did help this 3000 so what? There are millions of people in desperate situations like this all over the world. We can't do anything about it as a country, won't do anything about it.

    Any more than you will, individually.
    It's easy to be an armchair philanthropist because you can feel all good and superior without having to put in any real time and effort into a cause.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    they'll likely go to some *other* european welfare state, no worries
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Well do something about it. Volunteer to sponsor a refugee child in a camp.

    Send them all your spare money. Go and work with refugees so you feel less "sad."

    Do something constructive to help rather than emoting on a student website.

    Even if we did help this 3000 so what? There are millions of people in desperate situations like this all over the world. We can't do anything about it as a country, won't do anything about it.

    Any more than you will, individually.
    Well said. This my friends is the distinct difference between virtue and virtue signalling
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Boo hoo, we're not letting some people.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Well do something about it. Volunteer to sponsor a refugee child in a camp.

    Send them all your spare money. Go and work with refugees so you feel less "sad."

    Do something constructive to help rather than emoting on a student website.

    Even if we did help this 3000 so what? There are millions of people in desperate situations like this all over the world. We can't do anything about it as a country, won't do anything about it.

    Any more than you will, individually.
    That's a crap argument, nothing wrong with arguing that taxpayers should house the 3000, it's not YOUR money it's OUR money.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Children or "children"?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm ashamed to be British sometimes. These are kids, they aren't ****ing jihadis. It was 3000. 3000 kids that will now have to continue living in absolute poverty, being picked up by child traffickers and having their whole future taking away.

    We aren't full. You can't get a GP appointment or a place in your school of choice because YOUR GOVERNMENT IS CUTTING FUNDING TO THE NHS AND SCHOOLS. House prices are going up BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T BUILDING ENOUGH HOUSES.

    This is pure and simple greed. Mostly from people who think they're "suffering" because they can't afford a new smart phone or they had to wait a few hours in A&E. Most people in this country couldn't even begin to comprehend the suffering that these refugees go through daily, because they've lived immensely privileged lives.

    I'm honestly disgusted. I hate this country.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    That's a crap argument, nothing wrong with arguing that taxpayers should house the 3000, it's not YOUR money it's OUR money.
    Exactly, it's everyones money, not just those that believe we should help or those that believe we shouldn't. The default position of spending however, would be not to pay for it.

    Although it's difficult to say what the majority want in this regard, as the house of commons does not represent the voting population.
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    . Most people in this country couldn't even begin to comprehend the suffering that these refugees go through daily, because they've lived immensely privileged lives.
    This may be so, and that is a great argument for donating time and money to helping them on an individual basis. It is not however, a strong argument for donating other peoples money to those outside of the society.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Exactly, it's everyones money, not just those that believe we should help or those that believe we shouldn't. The default position of spending however, would be not to pay for it.

    Although it's difficult to say what the majority want in this regard, as the house of commons does not represent the voting population.
    This may be so, and that is a great argument for donating time and money to helping them on an individual basis. It is not however, a strong argument for donating other peoples money to those outside of the society.
    I'm not rich. I don't have enough money to save 3000 people.

    We're one of the richest countries in the world. We have a moral obligation to help these people.

    What really disgusts me, though, are the people who ***** on and on as if we can't afford it, and as if they're the poorest, worst-off people in the world. Just living in the UK makes you one of the most privileged and well-off people ever to have lived. These people really don't understand how lucky they are.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    I'm not rich. I don't have enough money to save 3000 people.
    That's the argument I hear all the time. "I can't help them, but I want to force everyone else to."


    (Original post by JordanL_)
    We have a moral obligation to help these people.
    No we dont.

    (Original post by JordanL_)
    What really disgusts me, though, are the people who ***** on and on as if we can't afford it,
    I'm not saying we cant afford it, of course we can. I'm saying we shouldn't, surplus should be helping the citizens of the nation, not citizens of other nations.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    I'm ashamed to be British sometimes. These are kids, they aren't ****ing jihadis. It was 3000. 3000 kids that will now have to continue living in absolute poverty, being picked up by child traffickers and having their whole future taking away.

    We aren't full. You can't get a GP appointment or a place in your school of choice because YOUR GOVERNMENT IS CUTTING FUNDING TO THE NHS AND SCHOOLS. House prices are going up BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T BUILDING ENOUGH HOUSES.

    This is pure and simple greed. Mostly from people who think they're "suffering" because they can't afford a new smart phone or they had to wait a few hours in A&E. Most people in this country couldn't even begin to comprehend the suffering that these refugees go through daily, because they've lived immensely privileged lives.

    I'm honestly disgusted. I hate this country.
    *looks at data* I didn't realise that cutting of funding means more money is given, bit of an odd definition you have there. As for housing, it is not the responsibility of the government to build homes, the closest to it you get is arguably their responsibility to encourage house building.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    That's the argument I hear all the time. "I can't help them, but I want to force everyone else to



    I'm not saying we cant afford it, of course we can. I'm saying we shouldn't, surplus should be helping the citizens of the nation, not citizens of other nations.
    👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Even if we did help this 3000 so what? There are millions of people in desperate situations like this all over the world. We can't do anything about it as a country, won't do anything about it.
    That is a rather defeatist attitude. Could and can't are completely different things. As a country, we could do something about it. Sadly though, the comfortable MPs of the Home Counties have decided to turn a blind eye and leave the problem to someone else.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    I'm ashamed to be British sometimes. These are kids, they aren't ****ing jihadis. It was 3000. 3000 kids that will now have to continue living in absolute poverty
    They rejected a proposal to take in 3000 children who are already claiming asylum in other European countries, presumably mostly Germany, Sweden and Austria. They did not reject the proposal to take 3000 from Syria directly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Poor children, born into civil unrest and developed countries are unable to help them. No their fault they were born into this and yet we as a nation that can help choose to keep our hands clean.

    Humanity is cruel and heartless.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Youngmetro)
    Poor children, born into civil unrest and developed countries are unable to help them. No their fault they were born into this and yet we as a nation that can help choose to keep our hands clean.

    Humanity is cruel and heartless.
    I'm not sure what the relevance of it not being their fault is, is it ours?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.