UK to accept 'thousands' more refugees

a reply to: elephantstone exactly, 100 million isn't a huge amount these days, not when it's the cost of 2 Fernando Torres. Messi is estimated at just 87 million

originally posted by: muse7
a reply to: MrCrow

Any country that has partaken, or is partaking in the bombing of these refugees homelands should be FORCED to accept these refugees.

Absolutely.

Voices have become louder in recent weeks that the USofA should finally pay their fair share to the nations that are now carrying the increasing burdens / 'fallout' of US-led wars in the Middle East.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: MrCrow

Welp, all the folks here in ATS were gripping about illegal immigration and refugees coming there via illegal channels.

So now it's legal channels. I wonder what the argument will be against. Although I do understand that the social services are already strained under the current number of folks claiming benefits.

~Tenth

Two types going on at the minute, refugees and economic migrants. The majority at Calais who are causing chaos are economic migrants, only want to get here for the benefits etc, the second lot, in Hungary, Turkey etc are fleeing Syria due to IS, the second lot dont have an option and face death at the hands of IS if they stay. Somalies etc, at Calais do not face the threat of death in their home country every day. Two slightly different scenarios and i, most certainly would let the Syrians in as it is partly our fault that the country is in the mess it is.

The £100 million is already budgeted for, has been for decades, its called overseas aid, he has not pulled this money out of his hat, lots "used" to go to India who, among other things, used it to fund their Space Programme.

Just saying

CbG

a reply to: MrCrow

It's crazy,100 million is nothing today,its not gonna scratch the surface,
and didn't Osborne just promise 500 million to upgrade trident?

I just don't understand the values of todays world

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Gareth Bale ? £100 million,Syrian mums and children nil.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: gortex

I'm all for it, I wish Canada would do the same. We can afford it and we have the room. Whole damn country is pretty much empty.

~Tenth

It may be empty but people don't go where it is empty. They go to civilized towns and cities where the tax burden is already more than many current inhabitants can bear. And where are they pulling out these jobs that these people will need to live on?? Tell you what, you be a sponsor and you open your home first if that is what you want to do.

originally posted by: elephantstone
a reply to: woodwardjnr

Gareth Bale ? £100 million,Syrian mums and children nil.

So the Farther's and other Men don't count huh?

a reply to: MrCrow

This is the tip of the iceberg...

Bleeding-heart liberals and their illogical political correctness will invite the end of western civilization.

Another £100mil down the drain.

originally posted by: whatnext21

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: gortex

I'm all for it, I wish Canada would do the same. We can afford it and we have the room. Whole damn country is pretty much empty.

~Tenth

It may be empty but people don't go where it is empty. They go to civilized towns and cities where the tax burden is already more than many current inhabitants can bear. And where are they pulling out these jobs that these people will need to live on?? Tell you what, you be a sponsor and you open your home first if that is what you want to do.

The Syrians have been destroyed as a nation by outside meddling. Time to help as they are being massacred by Isis. If Canada has been working against Syria in any form ethn they owe the persecuted secular supporters within Syria a refuge.

a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

Haha,you got me,of course they count,but 'women and children first'

Rules is rules.

over here in the US people worry about foreigners showing up, settling down and then living off the kindness of the government, ie sponging off the rest of the taxpaying public
I don't believe that is what happens, usually immigrants are hard workers and do as much as possible to make it here

a reply to: MrCrow

That's the problem. Thousands more immigrants will put pressure on housing, NHS, roads, litter, public health etc. If they are allowed to work then it will put pressure on employment in the areas they are housed in.

I feel that you best help refuges by helping then in adjacent countries. As stated, the UK is the second largest provider of aid to the dispossessed in these areas, so the UK has been doing much more then everyone else.

Migration is nothing new, it's pretty much been going on for the past 70,000 years. Since humans left the African planes. It's not just going to stop now because it's inconvenient to western nations.
genographic.nationalgeographic.com...

a reply to: whatnext21

It may be empty but people don't go where it is empty.

And economic actions plans to encourage rural development would be a sound decision don't you think?

tax burden is already more than many current inhabitants can bear.

This is false because the the more people you add to the tax pool, the more taxes are being collected. So it only burdens the system if these people don't get employment.

And where are they pulling out these jobs that these people will need to live on??

There are plenty of jobs us Canadians aren't willing to do. Which is why companies like Tim Hortons started hiring foreign workers to begin within. Not their fault that we feel to good to serve coffee to people for 10.50$ an hour.

Tell you what, you be a sponsor and you open your home first if that is what you want to do.

I have sponsored several people over the last 2 decades. So..what's your point?

~Tenth

a reply to: elephantstoneIt doesn't really put anything into perspective for me. It simply indicates the irrelevance of money.

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: MrCrow

This is the tip of the iceberg...

Bleeding-heart liberals and their illogical political correctness will invite the end of western civilization.

Another £100mil down the drain.

That's pretty much what Globalization and the NWO/One World Gov't is all about. And the UK problems are compounded by the fact the Pound isn't a world reserve currency so they can't just "print" funny money endlessly like the US.

a reply to: MrCrow

thank you

I do understand the reasons behind the accept ion thousands of migrants but I do have some concerns

Firstly .. How many of these will be criminally checked. How long before we see a news paper article that's says something like 'woman raped by Syrian male' if unchecked persons entering the UK it won't be long before we hear something along those lines. Yet the UK govt won't allow a US rapper into the country because of his criminal history yet we are going to let all these unchecked people in

Secondly... Our benefit system. Now we all know why a lot of migrants want to come to the UK is because our benefit system is a joke. I work 36.5 hours a week (full time) yet I earn less than people on the benefit system. Now we are going to let's thousands more in that will rinse the benefit system dry

As I said I understand the reasons of the mass migration of people but at the same time I think the UK needs more stricter policies for their benefits. It also bugs me that they have all passed through safe countries where they can claim asylum yet carry on to the UK because we are a walk over when it comes to giving benefits out

I don't know the figures but why haven't the likes of Germany France Belgium Spain Italy Holland Switzerland Austria .. I could carry on ... Haven't had their fair share of migrants

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker
Pretty much every country on your list has taken more asylum seekers than the UK.