Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    2
    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
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itsmeellenb)
    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
    Pray tell why they need to be in Europe in the first place, last I checked Syria did not border any European state (and for this I am classifying Turkey as an Asian state as the border is in the Asian bit of the country).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    good, got to be cruel to be kind, we need to tighten our borders and cut foreign aid as soon as possible.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itsmeellenb)
    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
    There are people who have lived here for decades who don't speak the language or fit in with the culture.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markova21)
    There are people who have lived here for decades who don't speak the language or fit in with the culture.
    Yeah but if you're born in a country and have only spoke the native language then you're more likely to integrate. If you're forced to move to a country you have never lived because your parents were born there is not fair.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danny Dorito)
    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.
    Next time you create a click-bait debate thread.. at least make it clear that you will be so obviously promoting your own opinion rather than presenting it as a neutral debating platform.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danny Dorito)
    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?
    It's 350 from FRANCE not in total.

    They are in a safe country they can claim asylum in.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    You silly sausage, the entire basis is that they are without family.
    But they are not without family. Who do you think has paid the thousands of pounds to the traffickers to bring them to the shores of France? That is why the French want us to stop. These are not children who have scavenged their way across Europe.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)

    They are in a safe country they can claim asylum in.

    You do realise this principle that asylum should be claimed in the first safe country is just a bit of EU law. It drops away as soon as we Brexit.

    A genuine refugee (ie someone with a well founded fear of persecution in their country of origin (not anywhere they happen to be passing through)) will be perfectly entitled to say, after we leave the EU "I satisfy the definition of a refugee in the UN Convention which you, the UK, have signed up to and I have claimed asylum here because I don't like the food in France and I prefer the Premier League to the Bundesliga."
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    As others have said, I really don't see why we should be taking any in - there's a whole planet out there, with countries with closer match their own culture. Let them go there!!
    If children were to be brought here, the authorities should be without a doubt they are actual children, unlike those "kids" who were obviousily pushing thirty, they should be placed in families which aren't muslim, so they can leave that culture out the door, and they should cut off all ties with their family, so they can't come here after them.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danny Dorito)
    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?
    It's about 350 too many.

    I'm pretty libertarian on immigration in that i'm perfectly fine with a net immigration rate of 300,000 (though i would change the makeup) however the idea that should we take a bunch of people (children or not) who are deprived, uneducated and neither ethnically nor culturally one of us is barmy and for that reason i oppose almost all asylum in the UK. The fact they are children makes the example even more stark because they will a continued on the taxpayer.

    (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.
    International definition is quite clear here in that a refugee must seek sanctuary in the first safe counry. Once they crossed the Turkish border into Europe, they became economic migrants.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:



    Protecting our borders! Finally! Bloody immigrants. Coming to our country and taking our food !
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm completely behind the Government on this one and quite frankly even 350 is 350 too many.

    Yes in an ideal world we'd look after everyone but we don't have the resources to properly look after UK citizens without adding more people who will, in all honesty, just be a burden on the state for the remainder of their lives. There are plenty of other "safe" countries they can go to.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    It's about 350 too many.

    I'm pretty libertarian on immigration in that i'm perfectly fine with a net immigration rate of 300,000 (though i would change the makeup) however the idea that should we take a bunch of people (children or not) who are deprived, uneducated and neither ethnically nor culturally one of us is barmy and for that reason i oppose almost all asylum in the UK. The fact they are children makes the example even more stark because they will a continued on the taxpayer
    Took the words right out of my mouth. I have absolutely no problem with skilled immigration but i'm against this.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I knew a few families that wanted to adopt children from Syria. I wonder how this will effect them
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I still don't understand why they didn't or won't seek asylum in France or the other 'safe' countries they journeyed through.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladymusiclover)
    I still don't understand why they didn't or won't seek asylum in France or the other 'safe' countries they journeyed through.
    Because they want to stay in an English speaking 4 star hotel rather than a ex-Soviet council flat.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    """"""child""""""

    """"""refugees""""""
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    You do realise this principle that asylum should be claimed in the first safe country is just a bit of EU law. It drops away as soon as we Brexit.

    A genuine refugee (ie someone with a well founded fear of persecution in their country of origin (not anywhere they happen to be passing through)) will be perfectly entitled to say, after we leave the EU "I satisfy the definition of a refugee in the UN Convention which you, the UK, have signed up to and I have claimed asylum here because I don't like the food in France and I prefer the Premier League to the Bundesliga."
    1. We still haven't left the eu

    2. The un says something similar to the eu on this also.

    3. To gain asylum here they have to apply there people are trying to hide in lorrys rather than do what they are supposed to do


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    1. We still haven't left the eu
    "as soon as" implies an event in the future

    2. The un says something similar to the eu on this also.


    No it doesn't. I underlined the significant difference in the previous posting.



    3. To gain asylum here they have to apply there people are trying to hide in lorrys rather than do what they are supposed to do
    No. To gain asylum, the Applicant merely has to be here and be a genuine refugee. If this in not the first EU country the Applicant has had an opportunity of claiming in we can transfer him and his claim to that country.

    We can't turn down his claim because he should have applied elsewhere. If he has come from a non-EU country, we have to decide his claim. So for example, a Syrian refugee who climbs into a lorry in Turkey and is transported across Europe is our problem.

    However we have to provide him with asylum. We don't have to provide him with asylum here. If we can persuade the Turks or the Canadians to take him, that discharges our obligations. That isn't the same as what happens within the EU. Within the EU, the claim is transferred elsewhere. Outside the EU, we have already decided he is refugee and we can only pack him off somewhere else if that somewhere else has agreed to take him, not merely consider his claim.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.