to think if the country is already 'too full up' we should probably stop having so many children?

[IceBeing]

After listening to a discussion on a bus between two women, it would seem that the country is far to stretched to take in any refugees at the moment! We are full to busting and not enough money for services for those already here.

AIBU to wonder where the concerns of these people were when they had the (apparently) six kids that were along with them?

The refugees are already alive and in need of shelter, food, medical aid etc. Our unborn need not come and add to the problem....

So, maybe a China style policy...although we could probably afford to do 2 kids per family....unless we really are full to busting as indicated.

Good luck with this thread......

The UK birth rate is less than 2 children per family already, and the China policy did not work out that well, so no.

thanks!

It's a genuine global environmental concern...the very worst thing you can do for the environment is reproduce....

All that recycling and cycling to work and undone and more in an instant!

So people should have less children for the benefit of immigrants? Yes they need shelter, and care but it's a bit extreme to control people's children for the benefit to do so.

I think no government policy is going to agree with that, it's just too unpopular.

ahhh so we are not "full" then?

I didn't say immigrants - I said refugees.

Yes, this will be an interesting one! I agree with you OP - I think 2 children per family is plenty for anyone. We are massively overcrowded (I live in London) and that can't all be blamed on people who come to the country as immigrants / refugees

And I'm childfree so I await my gold star

1984

1/10, for effort?

The current 'average' number of children per women in UK is 1.8 (up from 1.5 a decade or so ago).

Why would anyone bother to set a "limit" that is significantly higher than the actual current state?

lotta you may take as many flights as you like and buy a new car every year! You will still be damaging the planet less than I am!

Because although we are "full" we need the new generation to be born to be trained to look after our ever browning ageing population.

We need some immigration as without it us Brits don't have enough children to support our ever ageing. Bringing over many many adults will add to the ageing population not the new generation of people to look after the elderly.

When you look at the sheer numbers trying to get in, it's not viable. The NHS/schools/houses/local services are stretched and being cut. The gov are not going to change that if we let X amount of extra people in it will just be stretched even further.

A lot of those people are not asylum seekers though they are economic migrants.

So setting a limit will still reduce the birth rate as a significant majority are having more than 2 children.

And we are apparently so full up we can't take in a few thousand refugees...while we are completely happy with 600,000 new 'immigrants' a year from those who already live here?

Ah fine then, point still stands. Government policy will never support 2 children for refugees. It's still too unpopular.

chatty so we are full but need more people to support the aged?

How do you propose to resolve that conundrum? Soylent green perhaps?

That would be via the people who live here having children icebeing

chatty why? There tare already people in need...why should the unborn take precedence over the living?

zzzzz I agree...but actually we should reduce the global population - or at least not increase it. That is going to mean people having less than 2 kids each while we continue to live longer....

As Peter Adamson said

"It’s not that we’ve suddenly started breeding like rabbits. It’s just that we’ve stopped dying like flies."

A longer life expectancy and imbalance of resource has much more of an impact on the modern world than birth rates.

I couldn't get past "we're hugely overcrowded in London and it's not immigration at fault." hahahahahahahahahaha

Surely the true answer is why England? Many are already in other EU countries where they could claim asylum and get processed and then be able to enter the UK. However they don't they continue to travel though and will try to get here by criminal ways.

Do we want more criminals?

A fight broke out in Germany due to someone ripping up a Koran they trashed a place that country had let them use (broken windows etc) due to one persons actions. A mob mentality broke out that does not sound like the type of people who will help care for the elderly and abide by the countries laws and rules.

Agreed but I presume we wouldn't propose solving this by killing off people after the age of 70?

So we wouldn't prioritise our unborn over the existing population in that sense...though of course people are perfectly happy to do so when the existing population happen to have been born in a war torn country...

"so we are full but need more people to support the aged?"
"How do you propose to resolve that conundrum?"

Women who wish to have children should be encourage to have more (like in Singapore?) in order to raise the UK birthdate to the basic replacement rate of 2.

Or leave everything as it as it is, and set immigration caps (where you can) to a level that helps keep the rate as near 2 as possible.

chatty do we want more criminals? Well no. But maybe people who break laws in order to help their children survive are not so much to be condemned as those in our own country who break them for lesser motivations of greed....

Maybe we should let in the refugees and sterilise the convicted?