to be sick of people on FB comparing Syrian refugees to the Jewish refugees

[paintandbrush]

Please stop bandying about the terms 'Kindertransport', 'Operation Pied Piper' and so on because I've studied the Holocaust extensively, and it's not actually the same, ok?

This article says it all better than I can, please read: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12130175/The-plight-of-Syrian-refugees-is-not-on-a-par-with-Jews-fleeing-the-Nazis.html

For the record, I really don't believe we should be bombing them to hell in the first place: in this day and age, wars are not won in the towns and fields of North Africa. Wars are won round a conference table somewhere in Switzerland.

The whole attitude of Cameron's government at the minute seems to be "Let's make their homeland hell on earth, then pat ourselves on the back for letting, say, 10% of them into the UK". What a bloody mess.

On what merit will you turn away 25,001?

Really? So Germany took in over a million migrants (and that was the problem; rather than targeting Syrians in refugee camps, Merkel's idiocy privileged those who could afford to pay criminal smugglers, most of whom were not actually Syrian, according to the UNHCR and Frontex). The UK should also take a million, I can see that going down really well. Or perhaps they should take none like Hungary?

You don't sound humane which I think is the point. People are suffering. Why talk like that about people who are dying and suffering to prove a point. How old are? Young I suspect.

Is anyone that thinks that the UK should accept more refugees part of a 'no borders crew' Limer?

Would you include the Daily Mail in the No Borders crew? They stated that the UK should take more child refugees.

The model, Sophie Dahl? The actress, Neil Morrissey? Do you think they are part of the No Borders crew? They have been calling for the UK to accept more refugees.

The Pope? No Borders is he? He says that Europe is ignoring its moral obligations and should accept more refugees.

Tory MP Heidi Allen and Save the Children have called for more refugee children to be accepted by the UK. Are they No Borders?

They want limits. You don't.

emily

"You want posters to give a figure so that you can mock them? What's the point of that, onewing?"

The point is that then we could calculate the insane cost of the open borders fantasies put forward so often on here. It would run to tens of billions of pounds per country, crushing the living standards of Europeans currently living here through colossal tax rises and spending cuts. The laughter would make it clear how ridiculous and unpopular those open borders policies really are.

emily

"Is anyone that thinks that the UK should accept more refugees part of a 'no borders crew' Limer?"

Prove us wrong by setting an upper limit. You never will, because you believe in open borders.

Onewing ok.. here's your own challenge.

At what cost were you willing to give up your humanity?

lurked101

"At what cost were you willing to give up your humanity?"

The day you start housing refugees in your own home at your own expense will be the day I start taking lessons in humanity from you.

How on earth would you know that, Limer?

What are your limits, Emily?

onewing you continue to say that, yet you know nothing about me or what part I play with charities.

Its even more ironic that on a thread about paralells between now and the 1930s you continue to repeat the arguments of the 1930's.

I could teach you a lot about humanity, you are evidently lacking in that department.

Lets put it this way. What are the limits that those who oppose having refugees would accept?

Why do you require lurked to house refugees, onewing?

I'm going to quote Augusta's earlier point, she put it better than I can.

'onewing, I'm perfectly happy to pay whatever is required through the normal taxation system for us to live in a fair society. I assume there may be particular requirements you have for the society you want to live in, e.g. universal education, proper health provision, a fair justice system. Do you feel you personally have to take children in to teach them, take ill people in to look after them, run trials in your home and build cells for prisoners? Or do you feel that that is what you expect your taxes and national insurance to be spent on?'

She makes it emily because she thinks that it makes my argument that we should be doing more to help refugees incorrect.

when actually its a typical Tu Quoque fallacy, which means her argument is fundamentally flawed. The argument that the UK could be doing more to aid the humanitarian crisis and could take more refugees is not disproved whether I take in a refugee myself at all.

It is therefore a fallacy, which discredits her argument.

lurked

"What are the limits that those who oppose having refugees would accept?"

The number the government is currently taking is my limit. Your turn.

"The argument that the UK could be doing more to aid the humanitarian crisis and could take more refugees is not disproved whether I take in a refugee myself at all."

Of course the UK could do more (at great cost): I'm arguing it should not. The fact that you and the rest of the open borders crowd will never take in a single refugee makes you look like massive hypocrites for forcing them on everyone else, which is enough for me.

emily

"I'm going to quote Augusta's earlier point, she put it better than I can.

'onewing, I'm perfectly happy to pay whatever is required through the normal taxation system for us to live in a fair society. I assume there may be particular requirements you have for the society you want to live in, e.g. universal education, proper health provision, a fair justice system. Do you feel you personally have to take children in to teach them, take ill people in to look after them, run trials in your home and build cells for prisoners? Or do you feel that that is what you expect your taxes and national insurance to be spent on?'"

The answer is simple - education, healthcare etc are necessary costs that we owe to British citizens who are entitled to them. But the open borders crowds want us to take on a completely optional expense - the tens of billions of pounds that letting in hundreds of thousands of refugees would cost. Since it is your decision to inflict a massive cost on the public purse that would otherwise not arise, it is your responsibility to shoulder a large part of the burden personally.

Otherwise it's just "do as I say, don't do as I do" - the motto of Open Borders.

I agree, lurked, it is a fallacy.

' rather than targeting Syrians in refugee camps, Merkel's idiocy privileged those who could afford to pay criminal smugglers, most of whom were not actually Syrian, according to the UNHCR and Frontex)'

Shins, there also refugees from countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Eritrea and Sudan, so some not being Syrian is irrelevant. Anyway, I contest the point you seem to be making, that those that pay people smugglers are not deserving of help.

If my town was on fire and bombed daily and I could pay to get out, I would. So would you.

The refugees my other half met in Serbia must all have paid smugglers. Many of them were Syrian. Some had injuries, as is common for refugees.

You seem to think people can be encouraged to pay smugglers. If there is no legal way to leave, then you will pay if you can. You cannot prevent refugees trying to leave. As Danica, refugee of the Bosnian war states,

'Firstly, we should all understand what being a war refugee means: it is neither voluntary, nor planned. There is nothing that you or any European government can do to “encourage” or “discourage” such behaviour, because it is not a behaviour. War refugees are people literally running to save their lives.

They will use any transportation, pay any amount of money, just to get away from certain death, imprisonment and/or torture. I am not being over-dramatic, that is how it is. It might be difficult to fully understand the position of a civilian in war conflict, especially for those in privileged parts of Europe (such as Paris), for those who are not professionally or emotionally involved (if you don’t have a family yourself, or you are not working for the UN or a similar organization).'

Danica's family paid smugglers to leave a warzone,

'We drove through the war zones, passing many barricades, paying our way through to every military-like group that we had encountered. Payment was in the then popular German Marks or in some form of gold that the driver asked us for, even though there were no more than five adults – all mothers – in the bus'.

Yet Danica notes that as a refugee she was vulnerable to mistreatment and charges of being an illegal immigrant. Can we call her 'privileged'?

'We all expect that after being victimised by the destruction of war, we will have some hope once we get past the country’s borders. As I discovered, that is far from the truth. Segregation, discrimination, lack of medical care, or availability of only ambulant medical treatments, false incrimination, violence of all kinds, and complete absence of any professional development or integration, were all part of our refugee lives'.

It felt like we were being punished for being victims of a war, the one we had no control over.

Shins, you ask,'The UK should also take a million, I can see that going down really well. Or perhaps they should take none like Hungary?'

Hungary has something akin to a quasi fascist government. Of course the UK is doing better than that, that's hardly surprising but not saying much.

Link to Danica's story blog.prosper.community/the-life-of-a-war-refugee/

"The fact that you and the rest of the open borders crowd will never take in a single refugee makes you look like massive hypocrites for forcing them on everyone else, which is enough for me."

Tu Quoque again...

Again you know nothing about what I do as part of my charitable life, I'm not going to tell you, but your point about the "public purse" is again the same as was made in the 1930s.

Also when it comes to the "public purse" you think maybe some of the taxes from the Arms companies who are supplying Assad in Syria ( there are 3 current contracts) or the rebels ( we supply them too) or even the ones selling illegally through proxy agents to ISIS could maybe be used to support the poor civillians who got caught up in the middle of it all?

Do you think we could have left Iraq in a better state or managed not to join in with the illegal war there? You know, ISIS would never have gained such power and been able to do so much without the hornets nest that we stirred up there.

How about we stop doing arms deals with the Saudis? Who can, and do, pass on weapons to rebel factions fighting the Wahabi cause?

Your portrayl of the "public purse" is not only the same as the 1930s, but when you coinsider the role of the UK in creating this mess, how bout we do something more about it than we are now.

You want a number? Ok, maybe we can't match Germany ( although I don't see why not) So why don't we just go a little bit better thant the French and take 80,000. That might get past all of those who would start quaking in their boots at actually helping someone.

I'd go for the EU average my self and per 100,000 of the population that would give us 169,000 refugees, not many, not too costly. But enough to make your eyes swivvle I bet.

What, as a one-off or every year? 169,000 on top of the UK's annual net migration figure of circa 350,000? Yes to object to that makes you "swivel-eyed" I'm sure (you forgot Daily Mail etc etc -bingo!)

You're basically saying that the general public has to suffer this because of their government's ill-advised interventions in the Middle East. Because history in that region began in 2003 and the 1400 year old Shia-Sunni conflict is also the fault of "the west".

Emily it is relevant that most of the migrants aren't Syrian as you started off talking about Syrians and have now deliberately fudged the issue by dragging half the world into the mix. I also have to point out that you don't live in the UK so are not really in a position to lecture.

lurked

"169,000 refugees, not many, not too costly."

But it's too costly for even a single one of them to live with you, right?

169,000 would cost an astronomical sum to support - let's have a special tax on the virtue-signallers to pay for it.

Onewing, Shins, for you

Tu quoque Latin for, "you also" or the appeal to hypocrisy, is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2]
An example would be

Jill: "I think the gun control bill shouldn't be supported because it won't be effective and will waste money."
Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're wrong now."

It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument. It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of fact about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.

This debate isn't worth having if your going to make the same points repeatedly is it?

Don't bother Emily, they're not quite smart enough to realise what they sound like.

lurked

Home Office figures estimate the cost of supporting each Syrian refugee in the UK at between £10,720 and £23,420 per year.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34567209

That means the 169,000 refugees you propose would cost us between £1.811 billion and £3.957 billion every year. That's if the 169,000 were a one-off.

So, will you be volunteering to pay billions more in tax and / or suffer billions more in cuts? Or are other people meant to pay the price of your principles again?