U.K. 'Quietly' announced it won't be taking anymore unaccompanied child refugees

[Motherofhowmany]

Absolutely appalling, we've only resettled 350 of the promised 3000.

I work with some of these children. The things they have seen are horrendous.

www.independent.co.uk/news/only-350-syrian-refugee-children-will-be-allowed-to-settle-in-britain-thousands-less-than-promised-a7569691.html

And I would prefer to use the resources elsewhere. NHS. Social care. Homeless of those already here. Cancer drugs bill. Cancer research.
Which is your priority? Refugees? Over NHS? Not allowed to say there is money for everything. There isn't. We have to prioritise. It's not a children's Santa wish list!

Why am I not allowed to say there is enough money? There is, and it is disingenuous to pretend there isn't.

It is a question of priorities. You are kidding yourself if you think that any money not spent on refugees would be spent on fixing the nhs or whatever

But even if there is enough money there still isn't enough foster homes. We can't just magic up foster homes and as has been pointed out already the children can't always go to family that they might have here straightaway. So where do you propose we house all these unaccompanied minors?

Any spare money that you think there is, which as we are in debt, there isn't spare money, it can only be taken from somewhere else, I want to be spent on the priorities l listed.

If you choose to list refugees over the NHS, that's your decision. But there is not unlimited money.

Housing 3000 in private foster care at £700 a week is £ 100 million a year.
To buy houses for the chikdren to live in in groups of four, given the average price of a house is £280000, would be over £210 million. That's just capital housing cost, not furnishing. Not carers salary.

There is probably enough money to help refugee children now, but has anybody considered how much that child will cost to support in the long run. Social workers, education, health care etc, all of which will have to be paid out for many years , will run into the hundreds of thousands.
So it's not a matter of whether we have enough money to care for a child in the short term. The bigger picture, namely the long term cost of supporting the child well into adulthood also has to be taken into account.

We could take money from the defence budget. Trident, for instance.

It's interesting that some posters are framing this as NHS vs refugees, as though the NHS budget allocation is totally up for grabs, but nothing else is

It's even more interesting that this is framed by other posters as 'since we cannot save everyone we must save no one'

Housing 3000 in private foster care at £700 a week is £ 100 million a year.
To buy houses for the chikdren to live in in groups of four, given the average price of a house is £280000, would be over £210 million. That's just capital housing cost, not furnishing. Not carers salarly.

I think the well meaning (slightly naive) among us think it's merely a case of providing food, shelter and some toys for those children. As you say, the true cost is much different.
The average cost of raising a child in the UK is £130 000, and that's before taking into account all the additional needs the children will need such as social services involvement, language help, extra support in school that each child will require.
All of those things don't come for free.

We could take money from the defence budget. Trident, for instance.
You are doing exactly the same by saying, well why not take it from here.

But what about the countries that are paying to host refugees? What about their health budget?

These countries all have less money than the UK. The predominant idea on this thread seems to be that refugees should be someone else's problem. They are geographically closer to a conflict zone so they should have to deal with it all. Despite the fact that the UK is generally far more likely to bear some responsibility for these conflicts owing to its foreign policy decisions and reliance on the profit from the arms trade.

Yes. I am saying, why not take it from here. I think my point is, it is not some NHS vs refugees battle royale

Yes, it will cost money. I appreciate that to some, saving lives from torture and death pales in significance next to whatever else they'd rather spend the money on. Fair enough. My issue is with the argument that it cannot be done.

It can.

As a nation, the U.K. doesn't want to, and that is a completely different thing.

Now that could be an idea. We use the money we make from selling arms to the Middle East to house refugees!

the uk doesn't even want to stop selling arms to the people who create refugees in the first place, never mind not wanting to accept refugees themselves

Oooh snap Grace

Common sense dictates that we are not an endless pit of money to support every problem throughout the world,
Sort our own problems out first is my opinion,we have enough on the streets homeless already that need help and lots of other issues that we need to deal with first.

Sadly, we don't want to sort out our own issues either.

Convenient, as that in turn justifying not sorting anything else out either

I've made this point about three times now and not had a response. Most of the countries housing refugees have less money than us. What would happen if they all took the attitude that they put their own first?? Should all refugees just be drowned so no country has to pay for them? Refugees exist, it's a fact. As a wealthy country we have a responsibility to take a share of them.

What about the entirety of a country in famine? They are dying too. The whole if Africa. Why not?
You don't feel we need a defence budget?
By providing a home for some children, we encourage others to demand to come.
I'd rather extend breast cancer screening for under 50s. People are dying here because that is not in place.

The pressure would lessen grace. If you pay each refugee a million pounds for example, can you imagine how many would want to come?
Do nothing? What would happen then? The same demand?
Not all refugees are from war torn areas. Some are from poor areas.
Better to spend the money helping more chikdren get an education, all over in poor areas. The UN / unicef suggest it's only about £ 8 per person. I'd rather help more, than treat a few to luxury housing and care here.

again, it's not a zero sum game.

If there was the political will to extend mammograms or whatever else, we would do it. It isn't because someone is handing out luxury homes to refugees

Gracegrape Why do you think we have a responsibility for others ?
If other country's are happy to fill up let them get on with it,as far I'm concerned were already full.

Yes but we have always taken our share and give a generous aid budget.

We do not have enough housing as it is and what about their ideology. Some of the newcomers hate our values but that's just wonderful.

Carol see mine or uncontrolled's posts re arms trade.

IT is a zero sum game. You can only spend what you have! Do you personally spend more than you have? Continually? Or do you think it's not a zero sum so I'll have the holiday, new car and the new kitchen? Spending more on one area, usually means you cut back on other areas.

Oh and our arms trade is just that. Trade. Jobs. Which people depend on to feed their families.

The arms trade is exactly that a business like all other businesses it's not a government business they are all private businesses with licences to trade so it's not even relevant whether they sell chocolate,guns or peanuts it's a business