[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Many people have insulated themselves from the very real refugee crisis…terrible but no great surprise.
Far right and hard liners who believe illegal immigrants only take the risk because they want a free ride from the taxpayer for life and who scoff and refuse to listen when you try and explain that they are in fact escaping the ensuing chaos and terror of their home land.

Why don’t they stay in the first safe country? Most of them do. Turkey is deemed the first safe country for Syrians to reach and Turkey already hosts over 3 million refugees but the refugees in Turkey are refused work permits and only 45% of the children are getting any form of education. There’s a further million in Lebanon and 1.5 million in Saudi Arabia. Qatar and Oman. Another 800,00 in Egypt and Jordan. The people fleeing to Britain are merely a trickle in comparison to these other countries.

The UK will always be an attractive place to people fleeing war, persecution, poverty and starvation but for this problem to be resolved; gleefully uninformed sanctimonious finger pointing is the first thing that needs to stop.

Instead of having an extraordinarily harsh response to refugees, try having a little compassion (it is Christmas after all).

Nothing said above changes anything and attempting to label people as far-right for giving priority to their own is just distraction tactics and a good example of why an amicable disagreement on this subject will likely never be achieved.

Some people give priority to economic migrants whilst others give priority to people in need in their own countries. As, in particular, the views of the former have considerable impact on those the latter support it will only likely serve to harden their resolve.

For many of us charity begins at home, especially as these people do have other options. Many of those coming in attempting to claim 'refugee' status are not even from war-torn Syria but from parts of Africa or Afhganistan and don't meet the criteria for such status. Like it or not many are taking the pee and we don't have the pockets or the inclination to accommodate them.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Nothing said above changes anything and attempting to label people as far-right for giving priority to their own is just distraction tactics and a good example of why an amicable disagreement on this subject will likely never be achieved.

Some people give priority to economic migrants whilst others give priority to people in need in their own countries. As, in particular, the views of the former have considerable impact on those the latter support it will only likely serve to harden their resolve.

For many of us charity begins at home, especially as these people do have other options. Many of those coming in attempting to claim 'refugee' status are not even from war-torn Syria but from parts of Africa or Afhganistan and don't meet the criteria for such status. Like it or not many are taking the pee and we don't have the pockets or the inclination to accommodate them.

This is a thread about 5000 deaths, can you not go off on a tangent about how little you can for them.
(Right wing people tend to care for them, the far-right are less progressive)

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

This is a thread about 5000 deaths, can you not go off on a tangent about how little you can for them.
(Right wing people tend to care for them, the far-right are less progressive)

Maybe you need to care more about your own and their need to be cared about.

It works both ways so no gold star for taking the moral high ground.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Maybe you need to care more about your own and their need to be cared about.

It works both ways so no gold star for taking the moral high ground.

Are you suggesting we care more for these refugees than we care for our own near and dear ones? Or are you suggesting there isn’t enough care to go round?

Just unbelievable

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Are you suggesting we care more for these refugees than we care for our own near and dear ones? Or are you suggesting there isn’t enough care to go round?

Just unbelievable

Just as it was suggested myself and others don't care about genuine refugees, I am suggesting that those making such allegations don't care about those in this country that need help as much as they do about the migrants.

Clearly there isn't enough care to go around or are you unaware of the crisis in the NHS and other public services.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Just as it was suggested myself and others don't care about genuine refugees, I am suggesting that those making such allegations don't care about those in this country that need help as much as they do about the migrants.

How does that logic work?

All I have to go on is ‘impression’ and you have given me the impression that you believe there’s far too many refugees and immigrants (including genuine ones) living or trying to get into this country.

Just as I have to accept some British opinion is going to border on being hateful, you must accept that some of us will have a lot more empathy and tolerance with those trying to flee war torn areas.

I do believe that Merkel’s unilateral open-borders policy was counter-productive. Allowing such a large influx of people in without going through adequate checks was bound to miss the criminals. What those criminals have done is tarnish the word “refugee” and the only people who have gained from that are the far right.

What we have is tolerance and goodwill versus religious hatred and wilful ignorance. Which side are you choosing?

Clearly there isn't enough care to go around or are you unaware of the crisis in the NHS and other public services.

I’m pretty sure you have read my past posts about the NHS.

The flailing NHS is one of the most contentious subjects out there. The Daily Mail takes first prize for that juicy bit of confirmation bias about immigrants throwing the NHS into untold financial pressure.

Between 2014-2016 estimated additional costs for immigrants runs at £160 million which sounds like a lot until you realize that rising costs and wages in that same period cost the NHS an additional £2.8 billion, new technology and expanded treatment cost the NHS an additional £1.6 billion and people growing older had cost the NHS an additional £1.4 billion.

The question you should be asking is, are immigrants taking more out of the system than putting in? keep in mind that a large percentage of immigrants pay tax.

Research it yourself through the proper channels. The answer may surprise you.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

How does that logic work?

All I have to go on is ‘impression’ and you have given me the impression that you believe there’s far too many refugees and immigrants (including genuine ones) living or trying to get into this country.

Just as I have to accept some British opinion is going to border on being hateful, you must accept that some of us will have a lot more empathy and tolerance with those trying to flee war torn areas.

I do believe that Merkel’s unilateral open-borders policy was counter-productive. Allowing such a large influx of people in without going through adequate checks was bound to miss the criminals. What those criminals have done is tarnish the word “refugee” and the only people who have gained from that are the far right.

What we have is tolerance and goodwill versus religious hatred and wilful ignorance. Which side are you choosing?



I’m pretty sure you have read my past posts about the NHS.

The flailing NHS is one of the most contentious subjects out there. The Daily Mail takes first prize for that juicy bit of confirmation bias about immigrants throwing the NHS into untold financial pressure.

Between 2014-2016 estimated additional costs for immigrants runs at £160 million which sounds like a lot until you realize that rising costs and wages in that same period cost the NHS an additional £2.8 billion, new technology and expanded treatment cost the NHS an additional £1.6 billion and people growing older had cost the NHS an additional £1.4 billion.

The question you should be asking is, are immigrants taking more out of the system than putting in? keep in mind that a large percentage of immigrants pay tax.

Research it yourself through the proper channels. The answer may surprise you.

Tolerance and goodwill are constantly abused. As a country we give a lot in foreign aid but something has to give. We cannot also keep taking in people at this rate and putting up with the negative effects of that on our society.

If you are constantly going to accuse anyone who disagrees with your opinions on this as belonging to the 'far-right' (in effect playground Namecalling) then quite frankly it's pointless arguing the toss with you.

Are immigrants taking out more than they put in - I and many others believe they are. I'm sure those in a position to categorically disprove this would do so as it would help their cause. I await such an outcome with interest and scepticism.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Nothing said above changes anything and attempting to label people as far-right for giving priority to their own is just distraction tactics and a good example of why an amicable disagreement on this subject will likely never be achieved.

Some people give priority to economic migrants whilst others give priority to people in need in their own countries. As, in particular, the views of the former have considerable impact on those the latter support it will only likely serve to harden their resolve.

For many of us charity begins at home, especially as these people do have other options. Many of those coming in attempting to claim 'refugee' status are not even from war-torn Syria but from parts of Africa or Afhganistan and don't meet the criteria for such status. Like it or not many are taking the pee and we don't have the pockets or the inclination to accommodate them.

The real meaning of “charity begins at home” is, “children learn about being charitable in the home they are raised in”.

Britain ruled half the world until 70 years ago - whilst you may of washed your hands of that legacy, I haven't. How about we give back all the wealth we extracted before we claim other countries troubles are nothing to do with us.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

The real meaning of “charity begins at home” is, “children learn about being charitable in the home they are raised in”.

Britain ruled half the world until 70 years ago - whilst you may of washed your hands of that legacy, I haven't. How about we give back all the wealth we extracted before we claim other countries troubles are nothing to do with us.

Good for you. As I said I believe charity begins at home and as taking in so many has a significant impact on them that's where my main concern lies.