Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iy was my question to you.
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iy was my question to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, your question was "if we could, would you", and I said "if we could, yes". There is no way anyone could accommodate 10 million people at the drop of a hat.
You're trying to say the inability to accommodate such a large number of people is the same thing as you not wanting to accommodate a tiny number. It's not even an argument.
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iy was my question to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, your question was "if we could, would you", and I said "if we could, yes". There is no way anyone could accommodate 10 million people at the drop of a hat.
You're trying to say the inability to accommodate such a large number of people is the same thing as you not wanting to accommodate a tiny number. It's not even an argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Logistics might get a bit sticky. 10 million arrivals in one day? Ooft.
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Always a Legacy (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Said it earlier, but was ignored. Perhaps if I put it more succinctly: societies grow to accommodate the people in them.
These people won't just turn up and sit on the social, they'll turn up and, if they stay, they'll join the community and contribute to it. Someone's already pointed out that immigrants contribute more than they take out. Can't see how that is a problem really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you take 10 million if asked tomorrow?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've only got one spare room. We could get the camp bed down from the attic, but it'd still be a squeeze.
Anyway, with respect, that's a stupid question. No-one is going to expect any society to instantly accommodate that many people. We are being drip fed (although even drip is over stating it). That said, countries next to Syria, very much to their credit, have in the recent past very quickly accommodated people in their millions. Still not in one day, mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lebanon with a population of 7 million has 1.5 million Syrian refugees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We wouldn't go near ye. Took us 700 years to get yis out
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 16 minutes ago
Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The famine actually was a lot down to English policy in Ireland at the time
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Always a Legacy (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Said it earlier, but was ignored. Perhaps if I put it more succinctly: societies grow to accommodate the people in them.
These people won't just turn up and sit on the social, they'll turn up and, if they stay, they'll join the community and contribute to it. Someone's already pointed out that immigrants contribute more than they take out. Can't see how that is a problem really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you take 10 million if asked tomorrow?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've only got one spare room. We could get the camp bed down from the attic, but it'd still be a squeeze.
Anyway, with respect, that's a stupid question. No-one is going to expect any society to instantly accommodate that many people. We are being drip fed (although even drip is over stating it). That said, countries next to Syria, very much to their credit, have in the recent past very quickly accommodated people in their millions. Still not in one day, mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lebanon with a population of 7 million has 1.5 million Syrian refugees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of them are British you tool. Who is we?
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 16 minutes ago
Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The famine actually was a lot down to English policy in Ireland at the time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, fair enough, not a great comparison. Probably the same as asking why Iran hasn't taken too many Syrian refugees. Although, that's probably come up here before.
It is my opinion that Britain cannot indefinitely take thousands and thousands of families in, because in my experience we do not have the resources / facilitities to do so.
========
Do you ever stop making things up?
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 16 minutes ago
Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The famine actually was a lot down to English policy in Ireland at the time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, fair enough, not a great comparison. Probably the same as asking why Iran hasn't taken too many Syrian refugees. Although, that's probably come up here before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not a bad comparison as basically the starving people were told look after yourselves while there was tonnes of food being exported out of the country.
I'm not having a dig, before anyone accuses me. Not specifically aimed at you
The willingness of neighbouring countries in the Middle East to take Syrian refugees very much depends on whether they are predominately Shia or Sunni to begin with.
Unfortunately.
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Always a Legacy (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Said it earlier, but was ignored. Perhaps if I put it more succinctly: societies grow to accommodate the people in them.
These people won't just turn up and sit on the social, they'll turn up and, if they stay, they'll join the community and contribute to it. Someone's already pointed out that immigrants contribute more than they take out. Can't see how that is a problem really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you take 10 million if asked tomorrow?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've only got one spare room. We could get the camp bed down from the attic, but it'd still be a squeeze.
Anyway, with respect, that's a stupid question. No-one is going to expect any society to instantly accommodate that many people. We are being drip fed (although even drip is over stating it). That said, countries next to Syria, very much to their credit, have in the recent past very quickly accommodated people in their millions. Still not in one day, mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lebanon with a population of 7 million has 1.5 million Syrian refugees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the Arabs and black people from the depths of Africa? Would you take them with out crying?
comment by Beeb - Legacy Fan (U1841)
posted 29 minutes ago
The willingness of neighbouring countries in the Middle East to take Syrian refugees very much depends on whether they are predominately Shia or Sunni to begin with.
Unfortunately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Luckily we don't care what they are so we take them all in...
Oh wait!
comment by RB&W - Always a Legacy (U21434)
posted 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Always a Legacy (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Said it earlier, but was ignored. Perhaps if I put it more succinctly: societies grow to accommodate the people in them.
These people won't just turn up and sit on the social, they'll turn up and, if they stay, they'll join the community and contribute to it. Someone's already pointed out that immigrants contribute more than they take out. Can't see how that is a problem really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you take 10 million if asked tomorrow?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've only got one spare room. We could get the camp bed down from the attic, but it'd still be a squeeze.
Anyway, with respect, that's a stupid question. No-one is going to expect any society to instantly accommodate that many people. We are being drip fed (although even drip is over stating it). That said, countries next to Syria, very much to their credit, have in the recent past very quickly accommodated people in their millions. Still not in one day, mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lebanon with a population of 7 million has 1.5 million Syrian refugees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of them are British you tool. Who is we?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
England
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iy was my question to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, your question was "if we could, would you", and I said "if we could, yes". There is no way anyone could accommodate 10 million people at the drop of a hat.
You're trying to say the inability to accommodate such a large number of people is the same thing as you not wanting to accommodate a tiny number. It's not even an argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We both agree there is a maximum, we just dont agree on the number.
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 13 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 32 minutes ago
"The UK signed up to the 1951 convention yet there is no legal way for asylum seekers to come to the UK."
-------
Are you sure?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Refugee watch/action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.. incorrect.
You can clarify it from red cross
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you provide a link?
Amnesty international say there is no provision yet asylum application can only be made once in UK.
Right to remain say similar.
Joint council for welfare of immigrants say there is no safe or legal process.
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 13 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 32 minutes ago
"The UK signed up to the 1951 convention yet there is no legal way for asylum seekers to come to the UK."
-------
Are you sure?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Refugee watch/action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.. incorrect.
You can clarify it from red cross
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you provide a link?
Amnesty international say there is no provision yet asylum application can only be made once in UK.
Right to remain say similar.
Joint council for welfare of immigrants say there is no safe or legal process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called refugee resettlement.. ( different terminology)
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 3 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 13 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 32 minutes ago
"The UK signed up to the 1951 convention yet there is no legal way for asylum seekers to come to the UK."
-------
Are you sure?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Refugee watch/action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.. incorrect.
You can clarify it from red cross
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you provide a link?
Amnesty international say there is no provision yet asylum application can only be made once in UK.
Right to remain say similar.
Joint council for welfare of immigrants say there is no safe or legal process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called refugee resettlement.. ( different terminology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Third country resettlement is not a process through which refugees seek asylum.
It is a mechanism used by international bodies and usually overseen by UNHCR through which groups of refugees which already have already been granted asylum (having registered as a refugee with the UNHCR and undergone the Refugee Status Determination) can later be resettled in different countries.
It isn’t a programme or process individual or families of refugees can trigger. It’s a completely different concept to that of seeking asylum.
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 3 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 13 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 32 minutes ago
"The UK signed up to the 1951 convention yet there is no legal way for asylum seekers to come to the UK."
-------
Are you sure?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Refugee watch/action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.. incorrect.
You can clarify it from red cross
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you provide a link?
Amnesty international say there is no provision yet asylum application can only be made once in UK.
Right to remain say similar.
Joint council for welfare of immigrants say there is no safe or legal process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called refugee resettlement.. ( different terminology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not every asylum seeker is recignised as a refugee and BUY every refugee is an asylum seeker initially.
That's once they've got here, usually illegally as there is no legal way.
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 13 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iy was my question to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, your question was "if we could, would you", and I said "if we could, yes". There is no way anyone could accommodate 10 million people at the drop of a hat.
You're trying to say the inability to accommodate such a large number of people is the same thing as you not wanting to accommodate a tiny number. It's not even an argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We both agree there is a maximum, we just dont agree on the number.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. But you know that. I assume.
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 16 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Rest in Peace Lucky Dube - Nobody can stop Reggae (U1282)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 18 minutes ago
52 - My position is nothing to do with race or colour and to suggest otherwise is daft and actually quite offensive.
It is my opinion that Britain cannot indefinitely take thousands and thousands of families in, because in my experience we do not have the resources / facilitities to do so.
That opinion doesnt change if those wanting to come here are white, Black, Asian or whatever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You use terms like indefinitely but nobody says it'll go on forever. At some points we were exporting more people than we were importing and the situations will always change with time.
Who said it'd be indefinite? Why are you basing your argument on that? Remove that word and your argument doesn't make much sense.
How do you figure a rich country like this one cannot afford to take in more people when poorer countries are doing it? Is it not a bit embarrassing that some poor countries are doing more than us, without half the moaning?
Absorbing refugees is a global effort, many countries are playing their part having played no role in creating the conflicts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indefinite doesnt mean forever, but if you dont think its indefinite, when do you think we will stop taking in asylum seekers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When there are no asylum seekers left.
No one would ever be in a position where they have to take in 10m million asylum seekers.
Even if you opened the floodgates there'd only be 100k or so per year.
You have to exaggerate and lie in order to prove your point.
The situation is not as desperate as they want you to think it is. Talking to people in this country you'd be forgiven for thinking we've gone past the breaking point when we aren't even near it.
When places and houses in England are set aside for refugees and asylum seekers, English people form groups to go there and protest against it, shouting at them to go back to their country and we're full up in here.
All this while the country is absorbing a tiny number of refugees and asylum seekers compared to other countries where you hardly ever see such protests.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Citizen (U22721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Rest in Peace Lucky Dube - Nobody can stop Reggae (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
No one would ever be in a position where they have to take in 10m million asylum seekers.
Even if you opened the floodgates there'd only be 100k or so per year.
You have to exaggerate and lie in order to prove your point.
The situation is not as desperate as they want you to think it is. Talking to people in this country you'd be forgiven for thinking we've gone past the breaking point when we aren't even near it.
When places and houses in England are set aside for refugees and asylum seekers, English people form groups to go there and protest against it, shouting at them to go back to their country and we're full up in here.
All this while the country is absorbing a tiny number of refugees and asylum seekers compared to other countries where you hardly ever see such protests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you see the Britain first knuckle draggers who were tricked into protesting outside a hotel with no one in it.
It did make me laugh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not seen that one tbh.
Sign in if you want to comment
Immigration
Page 15 of 18
14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18
posted on 20/10/21
Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
posted on 20/10/21
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iy was my question to you.
posted on 20/10/21
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iy was my question to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, your question was "if we could, would you", and I said "if we could, yes". There is no way anyone could accommodate 10 million people at the drop of a hat.
You're trying to say the inability to accommodate such a large number of people is the same thing as you not wanting to accommodate a tiny number. It's not even an argument.
posted on 20/10/21
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iy was my question to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, your question was "if we could, would you", and I said "if we could, yes". There is no way anyone could accommodate 10 million people at the drop of a hat.
You're trying to say the inability to accommodate such a large number of people is the same thing as you not wanting to accommodate a tiny number. It's not even an argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Logistics might get a bit sticky. 10 million arrivals in one day? Ooft.
posted on 20/10/21
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Always a Legacy (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Said it earlier, but was ignored. Perhaps if I put it more succinctly: societies grow to accommodate the people in them.
These people won't just turn up and sit on the social, they'll turn up and, if they stay, they'll join the community and contribute to it. Someone's already pointed out that immigrants contribute more than they take out. Can't see how that is a problem really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you take 10 million if asked tomorrow?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've only got one spare room. We could get the camp bed down from the attic, but it'd still be a squeeze.
Anyway, with respect, that's a stupid question. No-one is going to expect any society to instantly accommodate that many people. We are being drip fed (although even drip is over stating it). That said, countries next to Syria, very much to their credit, have in the recent past very quickly accommodated people in their millions. Still not in one day, mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lebanon with a population of 7 million has 1.5 million Syrian refugees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We wouldn't go near ye. Took us 700 years to get yis out
posted on 20/10/21
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 16 minutes ago
Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The famine actually was a lot down to English policy in Ireland at the time
posted on 20/10/21
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Always a Legacy (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Said it earlier, but was ignored. Perhaps if I put it more succinctly: societies grow to accommodate the people in them.
These people won't just turn up and sit on the social, they'll turn up and, if they stay, they'll join the community and contribute to it. Someone's already pointed out that immigrants contribute more than they take out. Can't see how that is a problem really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you take 10 million if asked tomorrow?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've only got one spare room. We could get the camp bed down from the attic, but it'd still be a squeeze.
Anyway, with respect, that's a stupid question. No-one is going to expect any society to instantly accommodate that many people. We are being drip fed (although even drip is over stating it). That said, countries next to Syria, very much to their credit, have in the recent past very quickly accommodated people in their millions. Still not in one day, mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lebanon with a population of 7 million has 1.5 million Syrian refugees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of them are British you tool. Who is we?
posted on 20/10/21
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 16 minutes ago
Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The famine actually was a lot down to English policy in Ireland at the time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, fair enough, not a great comparison. Probably the same as asking why Iran hasn't taken too many Syrian refugees. Although, that's probably come up here before.
posted on 20/10/21
It is my opinion that Britain cannot indefinitely take thousands and thousands of families in, because in my experience we do not have the resources / facilitities to do so.
========
Do you ever stop making things up?
posted on 20/10/21
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 16 minutes ago
Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The famine actually was a lot down to English policy in Ireland at the time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, fair enough, not a great comparison. Probably the same as asking why Iran hasn't taken too many Syrian refugees. Although, that's probably come up here before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not a bad comparison as basically the starving people were told look after yourselves while there was tonnes of food being exported out of the country.
I'm not having a dig, before anyone accuses me. Not specifically aimed at you
posted on 20/10/21
The willingness of neighbouring countries in the Middle East to take Syrian refugees very much depends on whether they are predominately Shia or Sunni to begin with.
Unfortunately.
posted on 20/10/21
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Always a Legacy (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Said it earlier, but was ignored. Perhaps if I put it more succinctly: societies grow to accommodate the people in them.
These people won't just turn up and sit on the social, they'll turn up and, if they stay, they'll join the community and contribute to it. Someone's already pointed out that immigrants contribute more than they take out. Can't see how that is a problem really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you take 10 million if asked tomorrow?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've only got one spare room. We could get the camp bed down from the attic, but it'd still be a squeeze.
Anyway, with respect, that's a stupid question. No-one is going to expect any society to instantly accommodate that many people. We are being drip fed (although even drip is over stating it). That said, countries next to Syria, very much to their credit, have in the recent past very quickly accommodated people in their millions. Still not in one day, mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lebanon with a population of 7 million has 1.5 million Syrian refugees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the Arabs and black people from the depths of Africa? Would you take them with out crying?
posted on 20/10/21
comment by Beeb - Legacy Fan (U1841)
posted 29 minutes ago
The willingness of neighbouring countries in the Middle East to take Syrian refugees very much depends on whether they are predominately Shia or Sunni to begin with.
Unfortunately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Luckily we don't care what they are so we take them all in...
Oh wait!
posted on 20/10/21
comment by RB&W - Always a Legacy (U21434)
posted 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Always a Legacy (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Said it earlier, but was ignored. Perhaps if I put it more succinctly: societies grow to accommodate the people in them.
These people won't just turn up and sit on the social, they'll turn up and, if they stay, they'll join the community and contribute to it. Someone's already pointed out that immigrants contribute more than they take out. Can't see how that is a problem really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you take 10 million if asked tomorrow?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've only got one spare room. We could get the camp bed down from the attic, but it'd still be a squeeze.
Anyway, with respect, that's a stupid question. No-one is going to expect any society to instantly accommodate that many people. We are being drip fed (although even drip is over stating it). That said, countries next to Syria, very much to their credit, have in the recent past very quickly accommodated people in their millions. Still not in one day, mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lebanon with a population of 7 million has 1.5 million Syrian refugees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of them are British you tool. Who is we?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
England
posted on 20/10/21
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iy was my question to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, your question was "if we could, would you", and I said "if we could, yes". There is no way anyone could accommodate 10 million people at the drop of a hat.
You're trying to say the inability to accommodate such a large number of people is the same thing as you not wanting to accommodate a tiny number. It's not even an argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We both agree there is a maximum, we just dont agree on the number.
posted on 21/10/21
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 13 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 32 minutes ago
"The UK signed up to the 1951 convention yet there is no legal way for asylum seekers to come to the UK."
-------
Are you sure?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Refugee watch/action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.. incorrect.
You can clarify it from red cross
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you provide a link?
Amnesty international say there is no provision yet asylum application can only be made once in UK.
Right to remain say similar.
Joint council for welfare of immigrants say there is no safe or legal process.
posted on 21/10/21
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 13 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 32 minutes ago
"The UK signed up to the 1951 convention yet there is no legal way for asylum seekers to come to the UK."
-------
Are you sure?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Refugee watch/action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.. incorrect.
You can clarify it from red cross
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you provide a link?
Amnesty international say there is no provision yet asylum application can only be made once in UK.
Right to remain say similar.
Joint council for welfare of immigrants say there is no safe or legal process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called refugee resettlement.. ( different terminology)
posted on 21/10/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 21/10/21
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 3 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 13 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 32 minutes ago
"The UK signed up to the 1951 convention yet there is no legal way for asylum seekers to come to the UK."
-------
Are you sure?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Refugee watch/action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.. incorrect.
You can clarify it from red cross
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you provide a link?
Amnesty international say there is no provision yet asylum application can only be made once in UK.
Right to remain say similar.
Joint council for welfare of immigrants say there is no safe or legal process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called refugee resettlement.. ( different terminology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Third country resettlement is not a process through which refugees seek asylum.
It is a mechanism used by international bodies and usually overseen by UNHCR through which groups of refugees which already have already been granted asylum (having registered as a refugee with the UNHCR and undergone the Refugee Status Determination) can later be resettled in different countries.
It isn’t a programme or process individual or families of refugees can trigger. It’s a completely different concept to that of seeking asylum.
posted on 21/10/21
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 3 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 13 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Kingdom of Davids (U21957)
posted 32 minutes ago
"The UK signed up to the 1951 convention yet there is no legal way for asylum seekers to come to the UK."
-------
Are you sure?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Refugee watch/action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.. incorrect.
You can clarify it from red cross
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you provide a link?
Amnesty international say there is no provision yet asylum application can only be made once in UK.
Right to remain say similar.
Joint council for welfare of immigrants say there is no safe or legal process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called refugee resettlement.. ( different terminology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not every asylum seeker is recignised as a refugee and BUY every refugee is an asylum seeker initially.
That's once they've got here, usually illegally as there is no legal way.
posted on 21/10/21
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 13 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
Not "there we go" at all. 10 million people turning up isn't the question, it's a nonsense.
"And im sure we would try to accomodate the Scots, Welsh or Irish if they had a simlar fate to Syria."
I'm not sure 'we' would at all, you need to read up on the Irish Potato famine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iy was my question to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, your question was "if we could, would you", and I said "if we could, yes". There is no way anyone could accommodate 10 million people at the drop of a hat.
You're trying to say the inability to accommodate such a large number of people is the same thing as you not wanting to accommodate a tiny number. It's not even an argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We both agree there is a maximum, we just dont agree on the number.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. But you know that. I assume.
posted on 21/10/21
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 16 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Rest in Peace Lucky Dube - Nobody can stop Reggae (U1282)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 18 minutes ago
52 - My position is nothing to do with race or colour and to suggest otherwise is daft and actually quite offensive.
It is my opinion that Britain cannot indefinitely take thousands and thousands of families in, because in my experience we do not have the resources / facilitities to do so.
That opinion doesnt change if those wanting to come here are white, Black, Asian or whatever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You use terms like indefinitely but nobody says it'll go on forever. At some points we were exporting more people than we were importing and the situations will always change with time.
Who said it'd be indefinite? Why are you basing your argument on that? Remove that word and your argument doesn't make much sense.
How do you figure a rich country like this one cannot afford to take in more people when poorer countries are doing it? Is it not a bit embarrassing that some poor countries are doing more than us, without half the moaning?
Absorbing refugees is a global effort, many countries are playing their part having played no role in creating the conflicts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indefinite doesnt mean forever, but if you dont think its indefinite, when do you think we will stop taking in asylum seekers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When there are no asylum seekers left.
posted on 21/10/21
No one would ever be in a position where they have to take in 10m million asylum seekers.
Even if you opened the floodgates there'd only be 100k or so per year.
You have to exaggerate and lie in order to prove your point.
The situation is not as desperate as they want you to think it is. Talking to people in this country you'd be forgiven for thinking we've gone past the breaking point when we aren't even near it.
When places and houses in England are set aside for refugees and asylum seekers, English people form groups to go there and protest against it, shouting at them to go back to their country and we're full up in here.
All this while the country is absorbing a tiny number of refugees and asylum seekers compared to other countries where you hardly ever see such protests.
posted on 21/10/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 21/10/21
comment by Citizen (U22721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Rest in Peace Lucky Dube - Nobody can stop Reggae (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
No one would ever be in a position where they have to take in 10m million asylum seekers.
Even if you opened the floodgates there'd only be 100k or so per year.
You have to exaggerate and lie in order to prove your point.
The situation is not as desperate as they want you to think it is. Talking to people in this country you'd be forgiven for thinking we've gone past the breaking point when we aren't even near it.
When places and houses in England are set aside for refugees and asylum seekers, English people form groups to go there and protest against it, shouting at them to go back to their country and we're full up in here.
All this while the country is absorbing a tiny number of refugees and asylum seekers compared to other countries where you hardly ever see such protests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you see the Britain first knuckle draggers who were tricked into protesting outside a hotel with no one in it.
It did make me laugh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not seen that one tbh.
Page 15 of 18
14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18