These 3,000 child refugees.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
El Matador said:
Then the cynic would be an idiot if they think families send a child off alone in the hope that at some point in the future the British government might at some point in the future allow 3000 vulnerable children refuge in Britain.
How the fuck could anyone know Britain would announce that today ?
Paranoid conspiracy shite.
Click to expand...

Yes....these people never risk the lives of their families to get to Europe
 


Newcastle Fan said:
I suspect there would be very few objections to taking in 3000 refugees if we hadn't been forced to accept mass-immigration for the last 15 years+, with any concerns having being shouted down as racist. Like it or not, this existing situation with high levels of immigration and public services already being stretched will mean plenty of ordinary, decent folk think 'enough is enough', and are struggling to muster much compassion or concern for these kids.

Me personally? I don't mind 3000, but I would much prefer it if they are distributed equally across constituencies. But we already know that won't happen. Instead they'll be clustered together in communities with very little integration.

It's really easy to take a moral high ground on this issue when you know it's not your community that will shoulder the burden. I couldn't personally turn these children away, I have a natural desire to help others, I probably always will. But I understand the idea that at some point you have to draw the line, and that we can't help everyone in the world.
Click to expand...

Just five Northern towns will take a third of the 20,000 earmarked for the next 5 years.
 
El Matador said:
Since when have any South American countries, China, India or New Zealand been bombing the fuck out of Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria ? Unlike the European countries and Britain they haven't. Britain and Europe have a moral responsibility to aid these children who are homeless and living away from their country because of our countries foreign policy and actions.
Click to expand...
You can't Base immigration policy on how many bombs you drop. Donald Trump would shit his pants.
 
Horatio Pugwash said:
As I posted earlier Denmark found 72% of their "children" asylum seekers were adults.
Click to expand...
You failed to add that the head of the commision you seem to be referring to stated “Such an examination will always have a certain degree of uncertainty and should if possible not be the sole basis for assessing a person’s age ".
Your 72% figure came purely from the examination that the head of the commision said wasnt reliable and should not be the sole basis. Which it was.
 
El Matador said:
Then the cynic would be an idiot if they think families send a child off alone in the hope that at some point in the future the British government might at some point in the future allow 3000 vulnerable children refuge in Britain.
How the fuck could anyone know Britain would announce that today ?
Paranoid conspiracy shite.
Click to expand...
The concern is more about the 'pull factor'. The worry that in the immediate future families may be tempted to send their kids forwards first, and that it's very hard to work out if a family does actually qualify for asylum based only on the situation of their kid that they sent forward.
 
Lord Alfred said:
They also met Majid, 17, from Syria, who has spent the past year trying to reach his mother and brother who are already in Birmingham. He showed them the scars on his hands from barbed-wire injuries incurred during his nightly attempts to board trains to get to England. He told them he was hoping to return to school and wanted to study to be a surgeon in England

The MPs also heard about the deteriorating condition of S, a 17-year-old Iranian boy travelling without his family who has been on hunger strike for the past three weeks, and who has stitched his lips together to protest against human rights abuses in the camp.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...es-to-let-lone-child-refugees-come-to-britain
Click to expand...
So you don't think 17 year olds are children ? Vulnerable ones ?
Seriously ?
 
Can't wait for more kids to be missed by social services and abused to fuck
 
Firstly children should not be left to suffer anywhere in the world. However why can't we give immigrants shelter until their situation becomes stable, then ask them to return to their homeland. Surely letting a friend sleep on your couch doesn't mean he has to stay with you forever. Could then prioritise orphaned kids to settle here.
 
Boris Bear said:
How is it really a shit position to take? You don't live here....you don't have to live with the decisions we take...you don't feel the impact of public services being stretched to the point of breaking....you don't feel the cultural impacts....you're not invested in any of this whatsoever. You take a pure humanitarian view and good for you but you take it from a position where none of this impacts you and you don't deal with any of the fallout.
Click to expand...
All total guesswork Boris. You know the sum total of fuck all about me or my family.
 
El Matador said:
You failed to add that the head of the commision you seem to be referring to stated “Such an examination will always have a certain degree of uncertainty and should if possible not be the sole basis for assessing a person’s age ".
Your 72% figure came purely from the examination that the head of the commision said wasnt reliable and should not be the sole basis. Which it was.
Click to expand...
Even given an error rate of 20%( and that's just a guess) that still leaves a he'll of a lot of adults/ adolescents pretending to be kids.
Anyone caught sneaking into the country this way should automatically be barred for life.
Hopefully any tests conducted in the UK will be more rigorous/ reliable
 
Lord Alfred said:
I've given you links to some of the arguments I've put forward. By and large "unaccompanied minors" are male and adolescents.....15-17. This doesn't mean that they're not vulnerable of course but showing a little girl with big eyes clutching a teddy bear is disingenuous and vastly unrepresentative.

Mentioning the issue of you not living here is valid I think.....I can relate accurately and intimately how immigration to this country has affected me personally whereas you can only be anecdotal about it as you choose not to live here. You are of course fully entitled to have your views and voice them as an ex-pat.
Click to expand...
So children then. Vulnerable ones at that. Pleased we cleared that up.

I guarantee immigration to Britain has affected me on a daily basis over many years than it has yourself. Nothing anecdotal about it.
Out of interest which part of the country do you live in ?

Boris Bear said:
Yes....these people never risk the lives of their families to get to Europe
Click to expand...
As a father Boris let me ask you this........if you were living in a country in a state of civil war with religious nutters running around and being bombed by hi tech,high explosives would you get your children out of that country ?
I know I certainly would.

pillars of hercules said:
You can't Base immigration policy on how many bombs you drop. Donald Trump would shit his pants.
Click to expand...
:lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
pillars of hercules said:
Firstly children should not be left to suffer anywhere in the world. However why can't we give immigrants shelter until their situation becomes stable, then ask them to return to their homeland. Surely letting a friend sleep on your couch doesn't mean he has to stay with you forever. Could then prioritise orphaned kids to settle here.
Click to expand...
I agree, that's been my position for a while now ... a middle ground to placate everyone if not completely satisfy those at either end of the spectrum. A five year licence to remain (shorter should the situation change appreciably for the better) that implicitly doesn't imply future citizenship / absorption ... when the situation in their country of origin is safe then they should go back and help to rebuild their homelands ... hopefully using knowledge and skills they've acquired during their enforced absence. Acceptance of the licence and their safety comes with the caveat that they won't then subsequently claim hardship / rights to remain / unfair treatment etc. The suitability of their country of origin for resettlement can be decided by an international panel perhaps.

I think both 'sides' need to make compromises.
 
Boris Bear said:
:lol:

What's that got to do with anything?

Local authorities are funded to look after local authorities, not based on where taxes come from. Local authorities in the north have already underwent disproportionate (in comparison with the south) budget cuts in recent years so how does bunging asylum seekers up north seem like a fair solution? Put funding aside....wouldn't London, a much more culturally diverse place, be much better suited to place these children?
Click to expand...
What on earth are you on about? That's drivel from first letter to last
 
AlpineExile said:
I thought we were talking about kids. What do you want us to do, send them down the pits or up chimneys? Because neither occupations exist today.
Click to expand...
You were the one who mentioned the 20,000 Dave has already agreed to give refuge to. They were families in which there will be working age people. Absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be able to work and support their families once they get on their feet.
The 3000 vulnerable children are a different thing.

AlpineExile said:
The concern is more about the 'pull factor'. The worry that in the immediate future families may be tempted to send their kids forwards first, and that it's very hard to work out if a family does actually qualify for asylum based only on the situation of their kid that they sent forward.
Click to expand...
Given that Europe seems to have shut it's borders there may not be too many more arriving so how would that "pull factor" work then ? The 3000 Dave has agreed to take are already in Europe.

Boris Bear said:
@El Matador is having a nightmare here
Click to expand...
*Yawn* Boris.

AlpineExile said:
In the country where you currently live is it legal for you to shag a 17 year old?
Click to expand...
Yes. Does that make them an adult ? Is that really the criteria you are using ? Sex !

Can they vote...........no.
Can they buy alcohol.........no.
Can they buy weed.........no.
Are they classified as adults.........no.
 
Last edited:
Flavonoids said:
I agree, that's been my position for a while now ... a middle ground to placate everyone if not completely satisfy those at either end of the spectrum. A five year licence to remain (shorter should the situation change appreciably for the better) that implicitly doesn't imply future citizenship / absorption ... when the situation in their country of origin is safe then they should go back and help to rebuild their homelands ... hopefully using knowledge and skills they've acquired during their enforced absence. Acceptance of the licence and their safety comes with the caveat that they won't then subsequently claim hardship / rights to remain / unfair treatment etc. The suitability of their country of origin for resettlement can be decided by an international panel perhaps.

I think both 'sides' need to make compromises.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with this
Just can't see it being workable
Unfortunately
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top