Turn on thread page Beta

Gov have reduced no of child refugees from 3,000 to 350 watch

Announcements
    • TSR Community Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    The Government have quietly announced that they will be dramatically reducing the amount of child refugees, who are without families, they will be welcoming into the UK.

    They have said they are doing so as they do not want to incentivize dangerous journeys across Europe, particularly "by the most vulnerable children".

    Find out more here.

    These are children, who have no family and are fleeing war torn country.

    Do you think the government are wrong for doing this? How many child refugees should we help? Or do you think the government are doing the right thing?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Excellent news

    Also; they are not 'fleeing' anything other than the French perhaps.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Its disgusting that we are turning our backs on defenceless child refugees many of whom are oprhans and stuff who have seen horrible things in wars and who will otherwise probably be raped and killed in the overcroweded calais refugee camps that the french government likes to burn down every couple of weeks.
    You're welcome to adopt as many as you can.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    3,000 child migrants = 12,000 migrants minimum once their families come over.

    Has no-one seen the news this week about the NHS falling over? We can't look after, house, or educate the number of people here already, without bringing even more in. It's not necessarily a case of some moral crusade - it's simple practicalities too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    3,000 child migrants = 12,000 migrants minimum once their families come over.

    Has no-one seen the news this week about the NHS falling over? We can't look after, house, or educate the number of people here already, without bringing even more in. It's not necessarily a case of some moral crusade - it's simple practicalities too.
    What families? The children have no families that is why they're being allowed in the UK.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AishaGirl)
    What families? The children have no families that is why they're being allowed in the UK.
    They have no 'immediate' family... Regardless, we simply do not have the resources to be welcoming in boatloads more migrants.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    You're welcome to adopt as many as you can.
    Inshallah, why not? Following the footsteps of Christ :heart:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Inshallah, why not? Following the footsteps of Christ :heart:
    There's actually a non muslim family down the road from me who adopted a Syrian refugee

    May allah swt reward them for their deeds.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The best term would probably be economic migrants - we're under no obligation to take them in.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AishaGirl)
    There's actually a non muslim family down the road from me who adopted a Syrian refugee

    May allah swt reward them for their deeds.
    Wallah? That's so wonderful,mashallah

    May god bless them
    • TSR Community Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    3,000 child migrants = 12,000 migrants minimum once their families come over.

    Has no-one seen the news this week about the NHS falling over? We can't look after, house, or educate the number of people here already, without bringing even more in. It's not necessarily a case of some moral crusade - it's simple practicalities too.
    This is about refugees(a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster), not migrants.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danny Dorito)
    This is about refugees (a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster), not migrants.
    Change 'migrants' to 'refuges' in my post then if you'd rather. The overall point I'm making remains the same, doesn't it? Just because you're classing them as refugees rather than migrants doesn't suddenly magic up a load of school places, NHS resources and social housing for them!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danny Dorito)
    This is about refugees (a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster), not migrants.
    There are no refugees in Calais.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    There are no refugees in Calais.
    *have never been
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    *have never been
    Well I'm sure there were some when the Germans were invading
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Meanwhile we continue to spend more, by a mile, on front line refugee help in Lebanon and Turkey, in the places we want the bulk of the refugees to stay until they can return home, instead of encouraging them to make long and dangerous journeys, many falling prey to the people traffickers.

    It isn't the mid twentieth century any more, the problem has changed.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    3,000 child migrants = 12,000 migrants minimum once their families come over.

    Has no-one seen the news this week about the NHS falling over? We can't look after, house, or educate the number of people here already, without bringing even more in. It's not necessarily a case of some moral crusade - it's simple practicalities too.
    That is some seriously dodgy assumptions you are making there...


    The differing rhetoric between this issue and Brexit is hilarious. On one hand Britain is the 6th biggest economy in the world with loads to offer potential investors that is going to absolutely thrive outside the EU. On the other hand this country is awful, its falling to bits and we have so little money we can't even help a couple of thousand starving homeless children. Which one is the truth?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    *have never been
    Pretty sure there are some
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danny Dorito)
    This is about refugees(a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster), not migrants.
    All economic migrants claim to be refugees.

    It is the easiest route to the land of milk and honey.
    Offline

    17
    I don't understand why refugees are meant to journey all the way to Europe for safety anyway. Am I missing something?
    All the people displaced by the war with boko haram are in refugee camps within the country so I'm confused as to why refugees from Syria need to travel such a long distance when they can be safely housed in stable countries nearby :confused:

    Maybe the situation in Syria is different or I'm being obtuse? Someone please explain.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.