Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    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?
    How is the proposal that each child migrant might have 4 family members who would eventually follow them 'seriously dodgy'? I would have thought if anything it was a conservative estimate.

    I don't really understand your other point. How does pointing out that this country has limited resources (albeit large compared to many other countries) relate to Brexit? No country, however rich, can afford to support an unlimited population. Particularly when the country in question is a small island.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    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?
    We can afford it but shouldn't. This is a great decision, not before time.

    Time for the Muslim world to step up. And before you say Turkey, I am talking about the rich Gulf States who have done [email protected] all for their fellow Muslims.
    Offline

    7
    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.
    Tell this to the six million people who died as a result of Hitler, we could have helped some of those people by allowing refugees. But the antisemitic sentiment in Western countries at that time made it so the government did the same thing as they are doing now. This is because people are xenophobic, not because of anything to do with our economy.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itsmeellenb)
    Tell this to the six million people who died as a result of Hitler, we could have helped some of those people by allowing refugees. But the antisemitic sentiment in Western countries at that time made it so the government did the same thing as they are doing now. This is because people are xenophobic, not because of anything to do with our economy.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    We did help some of them. It was called the kindertransport. And Lord Dubs was one of them.

    We can't save the world, though. And we do have limited resources, unpleasant as this concept is. Other countries need to start doing their bit, particularly the Arab world.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    How is the proposal that each child migrant might have 4 family members who would eventually follow them 'seriously dodgy'? I would have thought if anything it was a conservative estimate.

    I don't really understand your other point. How does pointing out that this country has limited resources (albeit large compared to many other countries) relate to Brexit? No country, however rich, can afford to support an unlimited population. Particularly when the country in question is a small island.
    You said 4 family members minimum, that is clearly ridiculous, the minimum amount of family members a person can have is two, presuming of course that neither of these child's parents have died which considering the situation in Syria is not all that likely.

    (Original post by itsmeellenb)
    Tell this to the six million people who died as a result of Hitler, we could have helped some of those people by allowing refugees. But the antisemitic sentiment in Western countries at that time made it so the government did the same thing as they are doing now. This is because people are xenophobic, not because of anything to do with our economy.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Correction, the Nazi's killed over 12 million people.

    (Original post by Reality Check)
    We did help some of them. It was called the kindertransport. And Lord Dubs was one of them.

    We can't save the world, though. And we do have limited resources, unpleasant as this concept is. Other countries need to start doing their bit, particularly the Arab world.
    The irony of you telling others to do more while advocating doing nothing yourself...
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    You said 4 family members minimum, that is clearly ridiculous, the minimum amount of family members a person can have is two, presuming of course that neither of these child's parents have died which considering the situation in Syria is not all that likely.
    You used 'minimum' twice. I think you meant to say 'maximum'? Regardless, these people tend to come from family structures other than a 'nuclear' two parents and 2.4 children.. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that each child which immigrates will have four adult family members (extended or otherwise) who follow on later. It's a golden opportunity for them to immigrate to the UK.

    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    The irony of you telling others to do more while advocating doing nothing yourself...
    I don't think I advocated 'doing nothing' anywhere - more careful reading required and less jumping to conclusions, methinks!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    They are economic migrants, not refugees. They are already in safe countries (Greece, France, Italy) and just want to come to England for the social system. Most of them are not children and look older than 18. Local governments are stretched to breaking point and don't have the resources to house young economic migrants with free housing, board and social services. I would rather see resources directed to elderly care and NHS ( for people who paid into the social system).

    I think the government made a wise decision.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    You used 'minimum' twice. I think you meant to say 'maximum'? Regardless, these people tend to come from family structures other than a 'nuclear' two parents and 2.4 children.. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that each child which immigrates will have four adult family members (extended or otherwise) who follow on later. It's a golden opportunity for them to immigrate to the UK.



    I don't think I advocated 'doing nothing' anywhere - more careful reading required and less jumping to conclusions, methinks!
    Your the one who brought up minimum in the first place. Why would I say maximum? Can you have a maximum amount of family members? Do brothers and sisters not count as family members? It would only be a golden opportunity if the UK government let it be one.

    So you think that the UK along 350 children is not only a fair reflection of this nations ability to help, but affords the UK the moral high ground to criticise others?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of these people are already in safe countries in Europe so we should not take them in- it's the responsibility of the country they are in to deal with them. Whilst it would be great if we could somehow take in thousands of refugees, it is simply a waste of resources, especially at a time when institutions like the NHS and our education system are struggling with an ageing population and a higher dependency ratio. The money would be more beneficial if it was invested in our infrastructure, healthcare or education.

    There is also the problem with security. These refugees have come from war torn parts of the Middle East and would find it difficult to adjust to the Western way of life and embrace our values. They might have been radicalised while in their home country and could pose a threat, especially young teenage males.
    Offline

    18
    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.
    You silly sausage, the entire basis is that they are without family.

    The NHS is struggling because of the cuts the Tories have made over recent years, drastically reducing staff and resources to the point where it's squeezing blood out of a stone. That is the issue with the NHS, not an issue of over-crowding.

    The government can easily fund more, or at least ease off on the cuts, but for some reason it places our national healthcare as a low priority.


    But hey! Once we leave the EU we'll have that £350 million a week to help fund the NHS :woo:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    You silly sausage, the entire basis is that they are without family.

    The NHS is struggling because of the cuts the Tories have made over recent years, drastically reducing staff and resources to the point where it's squeezing blood out of a stone. That is the issue with the NHS, not an issue of over-crowding.

    The government can easily fund more, or at least ease off on the cuts, but for some reason it places our national healthcare as a low priority.


    But hey! Once we leave the EU we'll have that £350 million a week to help fund the NHS :woo:
    Silly sausage love it.

    I understand the notion that they're unaccompanied refugees, but I struggle to believe that all of them have absolutely no extended family remaining, or that these families won't come out the woodwork once the child is settled in Britain. That's my point really.

    I agree with you that the NHS has been chronically underfunded, and that has contributed to the state it's currently in. But surely it would be disingenuous to suggest that the massive increase in demand driven in part by population growth from migration, hasn't had any effect on the NHS's ability to cope?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    So often we become desensitised to the struggles of other and brain washed by mass media. We see migrant or refugee deaths as statistics and detach ourselves for the suffering of others.

    Watch this quick interview with three boys who came to the UK as refugees 7 years ago and hopefully it will allow you to empathise with what thousands of young children are currently going through.

    Or even take 5 minutes out of your day to watch this video to try and put into local or more familiar context what these children are going through.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an_atheist)
    So tell me, what are they fleeing from in France? It seems pretty safe, and they're already there. The ones who are honest refugees will have filed for asylum as soon as, the ones trying to get to the UK are nothing less than migrants at this point.
    Umm I think we agree on this...? Read it again
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    Umm I think we agree on this...? Read it again
    Ignore me. I missed the point you were making.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think we should match Saudi and take in the same number they do.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (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.
    As soon as they're in central Europe (and I feel I am being generous giving them that far) they have certainly stopped being refugees, a refugee should not be striving to make it to the breadbaskets of Europe over a thousand miles from their homeland. They should be content wiuth safety near home ready for their return
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    We should only be housing refugees, children or otherwise on the condition they return to their own country twenty years from now or whenever it is finally stable and safe to do so. They should absolutely not be allowed to stay here for the rest of their lives. Otherwise their children are here, and theirs and theirs, etc. It's simply not fair to the indigenous population having so many non-English people settle permanently in the UK.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    If the UK was actually on the border with Syria or a similar country, then I'd have more sympathy with the refugees waiting outside. However, these children have been marched by their elders through 100s of miles of safe, secure Europe, which they turned down, with the intent of reaching the legendary Benefits Kingdom. They could quite easily turn around and be settled somewhere else. The UK is already using its own public resources and risking its security taking these people in. Direct your criticism to the continent and to these children's elders, not to the UK.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    A lot of these people are already in safe countries in Europe so we should not take them in- it's the responsibility of the country they are in to deal with them. Whilst it would be great if we could somehow take in thousands of refugees, it is simply a waste of resources, especially at a time when institutions like the NHS and our education system are struggling with an ageing population and a higher dependency ratio. The money would be more beneficial if it was invested in our infrastructure, healthcare or education.

    There is also the problem with security. These refugees have come from war torn parts of the Middle East and would find it difficult to adjust to the Western way of life and embrace our values. They might have been radicalised while in their home country and could pose a threat, especially young teenage males.
    We help less people = countries in Europe not capable of helping anymore = less refugees in Europe = no longer the safe places for refugees in Europe...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markova21)
    We should only be housing refugees, children or otherwise on the condition they return to their own country twenty years from now or whenever it is finally stable and safe to do so. They should absolutely not be allowed to stay here for the rest of their lives. Otherwise their children are here, and theirs and theirs, etc. It's simply not fair to the indigenous population having so many non-English people settle permanently in the UK.
    They tried this in the FRG after the migrant workers went over after the War. This didn't work because children who were born there and only spoke German, and then suddenly when they go back (for example) to Turkey they couldn't fit in with their culture or speak the language. This policy just wouldn't work...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.