AIBU to think Europe should let refugees in

[Gin96]

Surely Europe has room for these people?

www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/world-news/eu-accuses-turkey-of-using-desperate-migrants-for-political-purposes/07/03/

Define 'refugee'.

WomanIstaken hordes what else do you call them? Perfectly well-behaved group of gentlemen? It doesn’t matter what you call them, it’s not the point.
I am waiting for people on this thread to demonstrate their support for these (mainly) men and put up pictures of evidence that they have taken them into their own homes out of goodwill and compassion. I guess I can wait for ever...now you have Brexit this invasion won’t affect you I guess. Let continental Europe deal with that kind of shit.

European countries have traditionally taken a lot more refugees proportionally than the UK does.

Don't quite understand how one is supposed to stay and fight being bombed by the Syrian and Russian air forces
In Idlib.
Anyone with any gumption would do everything they could to get their families out.

It doesn’t matter what you call them

Yet you choose to call them horses, unwashed and uneducated.

Have you actually met or talked to any of these men?

(It's hard to wash properly when you're fleeing your country or a refugee camp, btw)

sacredcauses but that is one of the points being made isn’t it. That these men bugger off- they don’t get their families out. They leave them.

If you want refugees please take them from camps and not this free-for-all which just fuels nasty human trafficking and god knows what else

An excellent idea, which might also help to prioritise those in severest need rather than economic migrants hoping to gain access among the chaos

I've every sympathy with everyone taking a proper share of refugees, just so long as that's what they really are

I’m not sure why my children are more entitled to food, healthcare or a safe place to live than a child born in Damascus or Djibouti

We have built a society where far more children than ever are raised safe and healthy. But it wasn’t so long ago that children died and suffered in large numbers in the UK.

A country must be committed to doing this for their citizens; to build the long-term institutions that will provide this for their people; and be held to account when they fail.

It seems to me that you are taking all this for granted. You can’t change things in Syria but you can certainly change things here!

where we allow children to starve to death because they are black?

Who is this ‘we’? Who is allowing black children to starve? It’s not us, now is it? How are we responsible for poor governance? You can send aid, but do you really know where it’s going or if it is making a positive impact (sometimes aid actually hurts ...)

Djmomo
While I generally agree with your points using inflammatory arguments undermines your arguments and does make you sound racist rather than generally concerned about the impact of refugees/ migrants on infrastructure.

I can’t help but think that the keyboard warriors on MN who airily argue to let in thousands of economic migrants are completely cushioned from the effects of bringing them in.

They are not on council house waiting lists, trying to get low skilled jobs, competing for school places, doctors appointments or having their children’s education effected by a high concentration of non-English speaking and traumatised DC in their class or living in areas which feel even more unsafe because many young male migrants are housed.

But obviously those who are living in poverty in this country and relying on already stretched resources should just move over and make way for 1000s more. The OP will probably donate a bag of clothes or £20 a month, so everything will be ok. Now she can switch on her kettle (without any fear of the electricity meter running out), make tea and congratulate herself on her altruism.

I agree but not into already overpopulated towns and cities. Rural areas and areas such as oxford who believe they don’t need to should as well. Our town has taken many as it should but it’s not equal round the country.

Smiley:
A generalisation I know but many do get their families into refugee camps on the Turkish border, then go ahead to try and secure asylum in Europe.
I would do the same, rather than subject young children to the horrors of the actual trek.

They leave them

They have either lost their families or are sent ahead, for the most part.
It's less safe for women and children to make that trip.

Can someone who doesn’t agree with nation states explain what their alternative system of government is?

We as a community come together and agree collectively that we will be democratically governed, abide by a set of laws, make group decisions together and pay for things together through taxation.

Now some people have started acting as if democracy is actually fascism. So what is the alternative political system they are proposing?

Also, how many refugees a country takes is not an indicator of how much help you’ve provided. You can help many more people by paying for facilities where they are rather than encouraging some survival of the fittest march across Europe.

Why have peoples attitudes changed so much since 2015? I remember when that little boy’s body turned up on the beach, a lot of people partitioned Cameron to take more refugees in, not anymore, the tides of humanity have turned, why?

I'm not sure there's anyone who doesn't agree with nation states.

And not sure what democracy has to do with letting or not letting refugees in.

The issue here is that there are millions of refugees in Turkey. The EU mainly thinks it's a problem for Turkey, who happen to have a border with Syria.
The numbers taken by the EU are very small by comparison.

It's a shitty situation for all.
The EU doesn't have the capacity to absorb those many refugees in a short time. They'd have to be kept in more refugee camps, compounded by the winter cold.

Long term, though, the bigger the working force, the bigger market too.
The lack of services or housing is mainly led by poor government choices. It's not immigrants or refugees causing it.

The UK take families from Syrian camps which is far better than letting untold numbers of economic migrants from various countries to flood into the country. To those saying we should open our borders to them, unless you're prepared to take some of these men into your homes and are happy to pay for them, all you are really doing is virtue signalling.

Now some people have started acting as if democracy is actually fascism. So what is the alternative political system they are proposing?

They have fallen out of love for democracy because the pesky locals just won’t cooperate.

But seriously, a country has the right to decide these things and put it to a vote. We should be able to determine how many we think we can support, and then take that number from refugee camps. Why not more elderly and women? The men can go back and rebuild the land into a place worth living in.

I would say Europe is heading towards a 2008 style financial crisis, letting unlimited migrants in at the same time will actually do right wing parties a huge favour.

I do know many people, as well as seeing people online, who claim there should be no borders, that we (and we are the nation state) don’t have more responsibility for citizens than others.

I would consider that to be not believing in democracy and the nation state.

Given that over half the population voted to leave the EU, partly so we could keep white Europeans out, I doubt taking in non-white people in large numbers would be a very popular move.

I also make a distinction between refugees who have been bombed out of house and home, and those who just decide the UK is a nicer place to live.

Yes we should take a fair share of refugees but from the camps.

But so should the likes of Russia and Japan.

Worth reading to look at the actual numbers of refugees in the UK and comparison with previous years.

10 years ago the UK received about twice as many as in more recent years.

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/insights/migration-statistics-how-many-asylum-seekers-and-refugees-are-there-in-the-uk/

But @Lostkeyagain that is because our government chooses not to invest enough in healthcare, education or housing. We could and should have more resources available to more people but we chose not to. And yet we continue to vote Tory.

Yes it is a shame that your child’s education is affected by another child’s lack of English. But what’s the alternative? Sod the refugee child, my child is more important? Why should one child get a fantastic education and another child get nothing by virtue of where they were born?

Syria in particular was not a war torn country ten years ago. There were teachers and doctors and office workers, normal people doing normal things. Just like we are now.

I’d love to know how some people would feel if the tables suddenly turned and you were suddenly faced with the choice of having to live in amongst constant terror and brutality with no force of good anywhere to fight for. These people have lost absolutely everything, it’s a tragedy that we continue to speak of them in the way that @DjMomo does.

I do know many people, as well as seeing people online, who claim there should be no borders

You asked in this thread. Have any here claimed that?

If we have money to spend on international issues, I’d rather spend it on areas where people are starving and at risk of famine. We pretty much eradicated famine for twenty years, and now we have famines again. That is a bigger humanitarian crisis.