If everyone posting on DS in support of it offered to have a couple in their home for a few weeks while they find jobs and housing for themselves sure. I don't see it happening anytime soon though.:D
Wait, you mean I'd have to actually talk to them and have them in my home?? Can't I just feel worthy from behind my keyboard in the sanctuary of my secure house?
No. It's not even due to the attacks and terrorism for me, it's the fact that the NHS is already crippling under pressure, we don't have enough homes/school places for our own citizens, let alone refugees, and a lot of the refugees get safe passage through other countries where they could settle - yet they still push for a place in the UK.
Sorry, but we've got to look after our own first and foremost. The UK does not have infinite resources, money and space. People need to realise that.
Oh yes, you're so right. We're merely the 6th richest nation in the world after all.
No. It's not even due to the attacks and terrorism for me, it's the fact that the NHS is already crippling under pressure, we don't have enough homes/school places for our own citizens, let alone refugees, and a lot of the refugees get safe passage through other countries where they could settle - yet they still push for a place in the UK.
Sorry, but we've got to look after our own first and foremost. The UK does not have infinite resources, money and space. People need to realise that.
The reason for this is government under-funding, not immigration, although immigration is the convenient excuse...
I have no problem with genuine refugees being admitted in to the UK, however the vast majority trying to get in to Europe are economic migrants, which is why they are largely young males, and not refugees and, has been seen repeatedly in Germany, many of those men show little respect for the country that has taken them.
Is there a way of actually confirming whether they are genuine refugees, i.e. fleeing from their home country due to threat of death or an oppressive regime, or whether they're fleeing because the prospect of living in Europe seems more attractive than staying at home (where they're not necessarily under any immediate threat)?
If so, come one, come all.
If not, please piss off.
Wait, you mean I'd have to actually talk to them and have them in my home?? Can't I just feel worthy from behind my keyboard in the sanctuary of my secure house?
Well yes you can Sir! it's actually acceptable to do that very thing round here.
After what I'm seeing across Europe, I am now inclined to say no. Unpopular I know, but these attacks are completely unacceptable.
Admittedly, some of them are by home-growns which is a big issue, but clearly something else can still be done.
Looking at the poll at the moment it seems you, me and 80% of the respondents are for no more asylum seekers, so it is far more popular than you think. I think the problem is that a vocal minority are all for allowing them in and use words like racist, little Englander and bigot if anyone dissents with their view to shut up the discussion and try and give the illusion their view is what most of the populace have.
There are 8.6m people in London, plus a ton of tourists. You could stick an extra 20,000 in and nobody would notice.
I'm sure the British people on the housing waiting list will notice, and British parents trying to get their child in to the local school might just notice too
The reason for this is government under-funding, not immigration, although immigration is the convenient excuse...
I have no problem with genuine refugees being admitted in to the UK, however the vast majority trying to get in to Europe are economic migrants, which is why they are largely young males, and not refugees and, has been seen repeatedly in Germany, many of those men show little respect for the country that has taken them.
Goverment under-funding? We have a massive national debt, where do you think the money to fund these things are going to come from?
Is there a way of actually confirming whether they are genuine refugees, i.e. fleeing from their home country due to threat of death or an oppressive regime, or whether they're fleeing because the prospect of living in Europe seems more attractive than staying at home (where they're not necessarily under any immediate threat)?
If so, come one, come all.
If not, please piss off.
We could just say we will take yazidis or Christians as these groups are actually being persecuted
The reason why the NHS, the education system, etc, are struggling is because of funding cuts and not because of immigration.
The reasons behind those cuts is an entirely separate issue to the point I was replying to.
The NHS hasn't had any spending cuts the coalition goverment and this Tory goverment ring fenced the NHS budget and even committed a further £6billion in this parliament
Ha! What if this had been the source of this story, the Mail, with another of their agenda's? Whinging about unemployed refugees living off the state, as they are being forced to do in splendid depressing isolation on Bute?
No doubt that will follow in time and the refugees will be attacked for that. Any excuse does.
Bute isn't isolated. Nor is it depressing. The refugees are allowed to work. The problem lies with the pair of refugees who complain. I wonder what the other refugee families think? And the children?
No. It's not even due to the attacks and terrorism for me, it's the fact that the NHS is already crippling under pressure, we don't have enough homes/school places for our own citizens, let alone refugees, and a lot of the refugees get safe passage through other countries where they could settle - yet they still push for a place in the UK.
Sorry, but we've got to look after our own first and foremost. The UK does not have infinite resources, money and space. People need to realise that.
Do we have any evidence that the NHS is overloaded because of immigrants? Most immigrants are in their 20s, 30s and 40s and you would imagine would be relatively healthy and not need hospital stays.
The situation with housing and schools is definitely a pertinent one but one would have thought the solution was to build more houses and schools and invest more money in education. The UK population would be steadily rising year on year without a single immigrant entering the country.
Do we have any evidence that the NHS is overloaded because of immigrants? Most immigrants are in their 20s, 30s and 40s and you would imagine would be relatively healthy and not need hospital stays.
The situation with housing and schools is definitely a pertinent one but one would have thought the solution was to build more houses and schools and invest more money in education. The UK population would be steadily rising year on year without a single immigrant entering the country.
I didn't say immigrants overload the NHS, I said it's already crippling under pressure - immigrants would only add to that, most of the ones let into the country have children (who get free prescriptions) and need regular check ups, and are more prone to illness.
And yes, the UK population obviously rises without immigrants, however if we let more immigrants in, the population will rise even more.
In Cambridge we have a housing crisis. People are on the council house waiting list for years before getting a look in, they're wanting to build more houses (even though the latest addition near the hospital is very densely built and horrible, and very few are social houses) - where are we supposed to build them, on fields and green spaces? I don't speak for everyone, obviously, but I'd rather look at a field than a housing estate. We don't have enough money to invest in more housing and education, let alone space. This isn't even to mention the roads, which Cambridge council bitch about because there's so much traffic during rush hour. They're happy to get more money from selling land for houses, but don't have much of an answer for the traffic they'll contribute - alas, another topic there.
There are many of UK citizens that are homeless on the streets, some through no fault of their own, why should refugees (especially ones that pass through Europe solely to get to the UK when they could settle in other peaceful countries) get preferential treatment?
There are many of UK citizens that are homeless on the streets, some through no fault of their own, why should refugees (especially ones that pass through Europe solely to get to the UK when they could settle in other peaceful countries) get preferential treatment?
The BIB doesn't apply. The 20,000 refugees are coming directly from camps in the Middle East.
Do we have any evidence that the NHS is overloaded because of immigrants? Most immigrants are in their 20s, 30s and 40s and you would imagine would be relatively healthy and not need hospital stays.
The situation with housing and schools is definitely a pertinent one but one would have thought the solution was to build more houses and schools and invest more money in education. The UK population would be steadily rising year on year without a single immigrant entering the country.
Is there a way of actually confirming whether they are genuine refugees, i.e. fleeing from their home country due to threat of death or an oppressive regime, or whether they're fleeing because the prospect of living in Europe seems more attractive than staying at home (where they're not necessarily under any immediate threat)?
Yes, there is.
Mr Cameron told MPs many of those to be given sanctuary would be children, describing it as the "modern equivalent of the Kinder transport" during World War Two.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees would be responsible for identifying those most in need, with all those considered for resettlement to be subject to security checks.
No. It's not even due to the attacks and terrorism for me, it's the fact that the NHS is already crippling under pressure, we don't have enough homes/school places for our own citizens, let alone refugees, and a lot of the refugees get safe passage through other countries where they could settle - yet they still push for a place in the UK.
Sorry, but we've got to look after our own first and foremost. The UK does not have infinite resources, money and space. People need to realise that.
....and it has nothing to do with the fact that the government has cutting back funding for the NHS and their policy on building homes. Still, if you're alright, who cares about the rest, eh?
We are a small island that is in debt. We don't have infinite resources and space!
I didn't say immigrants overload the NHS, I said it's already crippling under pressure - immigrants would only add to that, most of the ones let into the country have children (who get free prescriptions) and need regular check ups, and are more prone to illness.
And yes, the UK population obviously rises without immigrants, however if we let more immigrants in, the population will rise even more.
In Cambridge we have a housing crisis. People are on the council house waiting list for years before getting a look in, they're wanting to build more houses (even though the latest addition near the hospital is very densely built and horrible, and very few are social houses) - where are we supposed to build them, on fields and green spaces? I don't speak for everyone, obviously, but I'd rather look at a field than a housing estate. We don't have enough money to invest in more housing and education, let alone space. This isn't even to mention the roads, which Cambridge council bitch about because there's so much traffic during rush hour. They're happy to get more money from selling land for houses, but don't have much of an answer for the traffic they'll contribute - alas, another topic there.
There are many of UK citizens that are homeless on the streets, some through no fault of their own, why should refugees (especially ones that pass through Europe solely to get to the UK when they could settle in other peaceful countries) get preferential treatment?
Indeed, and look at the costs. You also have the EU costs on top....that's a lot of money.
Resettlement of 20,000 Syrian refugees estimated to cost half a billion pounds
Resettling 20,000 Syrian refugees in Britain will cost more than half a billion pounds, the Government has revealed.
Syrian Refugee Minister Richard Harrington said he estimated the resettlement scheme set up by David Cameron at the height of the migration crisis would cost at least £589 million up to 2021.
Home Affairs Committee chair Keith Vaz said the cost was "huge" and bemoaned an "unacceptable lack of transparency" over how the money will be used.
But it is unclear where the rest of the £589 million will come from.
Britain to pay £500 million under EU's grand migrant swap plan for Turkey
British taxpayers will pay £500 million in aid, up from an initial £250 million agreed in October as EU leaders acceded to Turkey’s surprise demand to double its pay outs to €6 billion (£4.6 billion) by the end of 2018.
Comments
They would if one of them decided to slit a priest's neck in the name of ISIS.
Wait, you mean I'd have to actually talk to them and have them in my home?? Can't I just feel worthy from behind my keyboard in the sanctuary of my secure house?
Stabbing in London shocker.
Oh yes, you're so right. We're merely the 6th richest nation in the world after all.
The reason for this is government under-funding, not immigration, although immigration is the convenient excuse...
I have no problem with genuine refugees being admitted in to the UK, however the vast majority trying to get in to Europe are economic migrants, which is why they are largely young males, and not refugees and, has been seen repeatedly in Germany, many of those men show little respect for the country that has taken them.
If so, come one, come all.
If not, please piss off.
Well yes you can Sir! it's actually acceptable to do that very thing round here.
Looking at the poll at the moment it seems you, me and 80% of the respondents are for no more asylum seekers, so it is far more popular than you think. I think the problem is that a vocal minority are all for allowing them in and use words like racist, little Englander and bigot if anyone dissents with their view to shut up the discussion and try and give the illusion their view is what most of the populace have.
I'm sure the British people on the housing waiting list will notice, and British parents trying to get their child in to the local school might just notice too
Goverment under-funding? We have a massive national debt, where do you think the money to fund these things are going to come from?
We could just say we will take yazidis or Christians as these groups are actually being persecuted
The existing Foreign Aid budget.
Muslims aren't? ISIS have slaughtered more Muslims than anyone else and Assad is slaughtering his own Muslim citizens.
The reason why the NHS, the education system, etc, are struggling is because of funding cuts and not because of immigration.
The reasons behind those cuts is an entirely separate issue to the point I was replying to.
The NHS hasn't had any spending cuts the coalition goverment and this Tory goverment ring fenced the NHS budget and even committed a further £6billion in this parliament
Bute isn't isolated. Nor is it depressing. The refugees are allowed to work. The problem lies with the pair of refugees who complain. I wonder what the other refugee families think? And the children?
Did they arrive here before or after the Brexit referendum?:p:D
Do we have any evidence that the NHS is overloaded because of immigrants? Most immigrants are in their 20s, 30s and 40s and you would imagine would be relatively healthy and not need hospital stays.
The situation with housing and schools is definitely a pertinent one but one would have thought the solution was to build more houses and schools and invest more money in education. The UK population would be steadily rising year on year without a single immigrant entering the country.
I didn't say immigrants overload the NHS, I said it's already crippling under pressure - immigrants would only add to that, most of the ones let into the country have children (who get free prescriptions) and need regular check ups, and are more prone to illness.
And yes, the UK population obviously rises without immigrants, however if we let more immigrants in, the population will rise even more.
In Cambridge we have a housing crisis. People are on the council house waiting list for years before getting a look in, they're wanting to build more houses (even though the latest addition near the hospital is very densely built and horrible, and very few are social houses) - where are we supposed to build them, on fields and green spaces? I don't speak for everyone, obviously, but I'd rather look at a field than a housing estate. We don't have enough money to invest in more housing and education, let alone space. This isn't even to mention the roads, which Cambridge council bitch about because there's so much traffic during rush hour. They're happy to get more money from selling land for houses, but don't have much of an answer for the traffic they'll contribute - alas, another topic there.
There are many of UK citizens that are homeless on the streets, some through no fault of their own, why should refugees (especially ones that pass through Europe solely to get to the UK when they could settle in other peaceful countries) get preferential treatment?
Plenty of spare seats round here!
The BIB doesn't apply. The 20,000 refugees are coming directly from camps in the Middle East.
Are people not dying anymore?
Yes, there is.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34171148
....and it has nothing to do with the fact that the government has cutting back funding for the NHS and their policy on building homes. Still, if you're alright, who cares about the rest, eh?
Indeed, and look at the costs. You also have the EU costs on top....that's a lot of money.
Resettlement of 20,000 Syrian refugees estimated to cost half a billion pounds
Resettling 20,000 Syrian refugees in Britain will cost more than half a billion pounds, the Government has revealed.
Syrian Refugee Minister Richard Harrington said he estimated the resettlement scheme set up by David Cameron at the height of the migration crisis would cost at least £589 million up to 2021.
Home Affairs Committee chair Keith Vaz said the cost was "huge" and bemoaned an "unacceptable lack of transparency" over how the money will be used.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/resettlement-of-20000-syrian-refugees-estimated-to-cost-half-a-b/
The first year of the scheme will be funded with money from the overseas aid budget and the Government has already allocated £129 million to help local authorities with costs for the remaining years.
But it is unclear where the rest of the £589 million will come from.
Britain to pay £500 million under EU's grand migrant swap plan for Turkey
British taxpayers will pay £500 million in aid, up from an initial £250 million agreed in October as EU leaders acceded to Turkey’s surprise demand to double its pay outs to €6 billion (£4.6 billion) by the end of 2018.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/12185806/EU-leaders-meet-to-discuss-migrant-crisis-latest.html