Should UK accept thousands of refugees because 423,000 people signed a Petition?

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Well I'd be up for a massive increase in housebuilding, because stud walling, plastering and rendering is my game, bring it on I say.
In my part of the world we have pretty much run out of brown-field sites and everybody is lusting over the green belt because the only other option is building 'up' blocks of flats and the like.
I know a few blokes who bought up tracts of land (fields) around urban areas for next to nothing, just renting them out for a hundred quid a month to people with horses, and they are almost salivating at the thought that planning restrictions could be eased.

Yep, it could be a massive boost to the economy, provide many needed homes, and plenty of work for people like me.

Open the doors of the UK for anyone who makes it to the EU, like Germany before building those houses though?
Nah, not my cup of tea. The majority of fighting age males rolling off those trains concerns me for a start. I would want them vetted first, that is a sensible option for obvious reasons.

I support taking vulnerable people from the UN camps outside of Syria, you know, those folk who haven't the money to pay people smugglers. I support more than 20,000 of those folk coming here, final figure, I guess that depends on resources and sums, but I'd be happy to pay an extra 2% income tax, that would raise £11 Billion a year.

Yep I want to help vulnerable people but under terms dictated by the UK, not a free for all clashing with police and forcing entry to the UK.
All rather reasoned and humanitarian inspired thoughts from me here, but I expect to be deemed a hater because I'm not showing as much outrage and emotion as some of the more pious figures here seem to expect as everyones reaction.

a reply to: grainofsand

Agreed.

The job opportunities it could create alone would be an economic boost of massive proportions.
Not even asking for major development...
Just 10% development including what's already done would turn us into the world's superpower again in my opinion.



I don't think anyone wants a free for all, GoS.
And I'm sure we have all double glanced at the demographic who are arriving. (ie a lot of males)
I know I did.
But I also saw a hell of a lot of children.

So my hesitancy towards those males is overridden by my compassion for the kids.


If I had my way, I'd only accept the kids...
But starting a new life as an orphan isn't that compassionate, so I guess we'll shall see how it goes.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

We find much agreement then.
I'm more concerned for those poor folk in the UN camps than those who were able to afford the high fees charged by the people smugglers to get into the EU.
If the rest of the EU agreed to take (vetted and registered) people from similar places there would be no market for the smugglers. I think Germany's move has just sent the message out that crossing the Med' is the best option, and it will result in more folk risking their lives.

The people in those UN camps are the ones who lacked the resources or physical health to attempt the illegal entry route. I feel more sorry for them than the males of fighting age who are fighting Hungarian police after buying their way out of Syria.

And yep, I'm open to much higher figures than the 20,000 quoted by Cameron, if they are all vetted and registered vulnerable people stuck in UN camps, of course the UK can afford it.
But a free for all open border move such has the Germans have done is the most stupid idea I've seen in ages, and all emotionally inspired before reasoned planning.

I am still shocked at the ratio of women/children compared to fighting age males rolling off those trains.
Every news feed shows the same, every one. I worry that it will bite Germany on it's arse in the next few weeks.
We saw how they reacted to attempts to control their movement. Let's see how they react when the conditions of residency the Germans offer is not as good as they demand or expect.
Time will tell I guess.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

It makes sense if you're gonna pay people traffickers and have a limited budget to send the people most likely to survive the trip and go on to thrive in the host country, which would tend to be young adult males. The kids, well nobody wants their children to be caught up in a warzone.

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

It makes sense if you're gonna pay people traffickers and have a limited budget to send the people most likely to survive the trip and go on to thrive in the host country, which would tend to be young adult males. The kids, well nobody wants their children to be caught up in a warzone.

Yeah, it makes sense to leave your sisters, grandparents, disabled family members etc to rot in a UN camp because either they could not afford, or could not manage to complete an exit through use of people smugglers.
Sounds even worse to me now after reading your observation.

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: pikestaff

I AM a European, English to be exact, and worked with many Poles and eastern Europeans, and quite a few Afghan refugees and others I didn't know well, in factories in hard times. I have read reports, and I have also experienced reality.

No gated community here, yet no fear. Wonder why?

Oh, and yes we do get food delivered right to our doors. By Muslims, if its 2 for one kebab Thursday.

We, Poles are europeans, and as you probably know this - we CAN work hard.
Problem with Europe is, that GERMANY rules there.
Opening gates for aliens is insanity, if you ask me.
p.s. ..forcing countries to accept this situation is double insanity.
Look - if they are fleeing from warzone, think about it - why there are no old men, and almost no women there?
Why only children I have seen were used to German propaganda_
Think about it.
So - is this allright to leave WEAKEST ONES behind?

Imho, only way to stop this is destroying SOURCE of all of this.

a reply to: grainofsand

Dunno man, I've never been put in a position where I was forced to make that decision. I don't think these people are gonna go on to cause problems for the countries that welcomed them but that remains to be seen.

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
a reply to: grainofsand

Dunno man, I've never been put in a position where I was forced to make that decision. I don't think these people are gonna go on to cause problems for the countries that welcomed them but that remains to be seen.

That's the point, we don't know, so I think what Germany has done was a rather foolish emotionally inspired action with little reasoned thinking behind it.
I repeat, I'll be up for many tens of thousands of vulnerable people from the UN camps, safe flights to the UK, no need to pay people smugglers which those poor folk in the camps are clearly unable to do. Registered, vetted on need first, organised. Again, I say I'm happy for a 2% income tax rise to pay for it.

What Germany has created is chaos, and when it is a majority of fighting age males who they have 'saved' from Hungary and Turkey there are obvious security concerns.
The German decision has also made life threatening attempts at crossing the Med' much more attractive.
Foolish.

My thoughts are reasoned and humanitarian, of which there seems to be little of that here judging by the wailing and bleating of 'hater' towards anyone who thinks about this world problem rationally.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I'd rather see more greenland than concrete, glass an metal! We have enough of that already ruining my view!

a reply to: grainofsand

I would agree that's quite a reasoned and pragmatic approach. I wouldnt mind paying extra taxes either although I do think this could be entirely funded by going after tax dodging corporations or by increasing taxes/imposing fines on the companies who directly profited from creating this mess.

You don't strike me as some kind of racist hater here. There are others that seem to be exhibiting irrational paranoia about EU passports being handed out and the usual fear of the imminent destruction of indigenous British culture that's been going on and regurgitated since the 50s.

a reply to: grainofsand Germany is actually an ageing population who needs a young skilled workforce. I read that 40 % of these refugees are graduates, so they are welcoming this new potential workforce it's certainly not all done without any reasoning at all or purely an altruistic gesture. Germans are not stupid. I think we all can recognise that

a reply to: MagnaCarta2015

Completely agree about how we could fund it by cracking down on corporate tax and government wastage/mismanagement of budgets.
Heck, with an average 'new build' house costing £70,000 in materials/labour, just not paying the UK membership fee (Edit - for EU) of £8 Billion per year would pay for over 100,000 homes annually. Or lets say divide that same figure into a per head contribution of £10,000 per year per refugee to improve conditions in UN camps - that would fund 800,000 refugees in comfort.

Even 1% extra on income tax in the UK would raise £5.5 billion, that would pay for 550,000 refugees in camps at £10,000 each per year.

I'm open to all solutions except the most obviously stupid one which was a free for all into the EU encouraging people to risk their lives crossing the Med' through the use of smugglers and criminals, unregistered, and unvetted.
That really was madness, but again, emotions clouding the reasoning skills of too many folk on ATS.
I do not include your good self in that statement.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Then I am pleased for Germany if it works out for them, their population issues are of course different to the UK's, but at the same time I am pleased that the UK never signed up to the Schengen free borders agreement.
I guess just watch this space, and I wish Germany the best of luck with their decision.

Should UK accept thousands of refugees because 423,000 people signed a Petition?

NO!

I would be apprehensive about accepting any refugees at all.

Just exactly don't know WHO is in the mix with them.

Could be ISIS themselves trying to infiltrate the west to wage' jihad'.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Very true. People forget how Syria was not even 10 years ago. Not perfect but things were good there, it was a secular government where all religions were left alone, they clashed with each other sometimes but it was more of a live and let live attitude. There was high levels of education. Then the drought hit.

a reply to: Kali74

Then the drought hit.

Then the Saudi's hit.

The civil war in Syria, whose Alawite regime Saudi Arabia's Sunny monarchy has long plotted against, and the prospect of a war with Shiite Iran over its reported drive to acquire nuclear weapons, preoccupy Riyadh while, Abdallah, Canute-like, strives to keep the democratic wave from breaking on its shores.

www.upi.com...

a reply to: neo96

It's a lot more complicated than that. Assad was brutal with the farmers, the more brutal he got the more the people rose up and the more the people rose up the more infighting happened among the people... and then the vultures showed up. Saudi Arabia? Without doubt... but they aren't the only ones to blame for the creation of ISIS, nor their infiltration into Syria, are they?

originally posted by: neo96
Should UK accept thousands of refugees because 423,000 people signed a Petition?

NO!

I would be apprehensive about accepting any refugees at all.

Just exactly don't know WHO is in the mix with them.

Could be ISIS themselves trying to infiltrate the west to wage' jihad'.

I agree and also disgree if that makes sense?

The UK i agree should be extremely careful on who we let in.

But

The UK has played its part in screwing the region up, we like most the west do have some responsibility to bare.


So yes we should be letting some in. But on the other side they needs to be extensively vetted.
Women and children first so to speak.

a reply to: Kali74

ithout doubt... but they aren't the only ones to blame for the creation of ISIS, nor their infiltration into Syria, are they?

Pretty much they are.

You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

It appears -- even now -- that Saudi Arabia's ruling elite is divided. Some applaud that ISIS is fighting Iranian Shiite "fire" with Sunni "fire"; that a new Sunni state is taking shape at the very heart of what they regard as a historical Sunni patrimony; and they are drawn by Da'ish's strict Salafist ideology.

While other countries includiing both East, and West have played their parts.

Top 'honors' goes to the House of Saud, and the House of the Supreme Leader.

a reply to: crazyewok

All i see is more problems for the UK like we saw with British soldiers getting spit on, and getting their heads cut off.

In my humble there will be a price to bear, and that was before Syria.