Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Great Britain should take in more refugees

brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 6:43:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Yes or no?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 7:13:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 6:55:26 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
How many refugees are they currently accepting?

I think, not totally sure, it is ~ 5000.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 7:14:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 7:13:05 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/11/2016 6:55:26 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
How many refugees are they currently accepting?

I think, not totally sure, it is ~ 5000.

20,000 over five years, I just had to google that answer, why am I so lazy...

http://www.theguardian.com...
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 7:21:29 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 7:14:16 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 2/11/2016 7:13:05 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/11/2016 6:55:26 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
How many refugees are they currently accepting?

I think, not totally sure, it is ~ 5000.

20,000 over five years, I just had to google that answer, why am I so lazy...

http://www.theguardian.com...

I think that is pledged, not accepted.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 7:24:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 7:21:29 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/11/2016 7:14:16 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 2/11/2016 7:13:05 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/11/2016 6:55:26 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
How many refugees are they currently accepting?

I think, not totally sure, it is ~ 5000.

20,000 over five years, I just had to google that answer, why am I so lazy...

http://www.theguardian.com...

I think that is pledged, not accepted.

A considerably low number when spread through 5 years.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 8:24:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 7:24:59 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 2/11/2016 7:21:29 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/11/2016 7:14:16 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 2/11/2016 7:13:05 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/11/2016 6:55:26 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
How many refugees are they currently accepting?

I think, not totally sure, it is ~ 5000.

20,000 over five years, I just had to google that answer, why am I so lazy...

http://www.theguardian.com...

I think that is pledged, not accepted.

A considerably low number when spread through 5 years.

It really is. Like I said, I think the number "accepted" is like 5k. It could be a lot less really.

I had hope for the us, opinions were generally positive, but it has become a casualty to Trump election nonsense.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 8:39:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Sweden needs to take in FAR less, if not halting acceptance of refugees all together.

With strict security checks and etc, it wouldn't really hurt for the UK to take in some refugees here and there.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 9:14:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 8:39:02 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Sweden needs to take in FAR less, if not halting acceptance of refugees all together.

With strict security checks and etc, it wouldn't really hurt for the UK to take in some refugees here and there.

There is nearly 2m in turkey, another near 1m in Egypt. Yea, o think European countries can take a few more than they are. The US? Well half our population is so damn frightened that they are stocking up on guns and ammo waiting for the Muslim-zombie apocalypse.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:05:01 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 6:43:15 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Yes or no?

No as a UK resident I oppose the acceptance of any refugees entering the country. They are a threat to national security, a huge economic burden and a general threat to the country. Bringing in large numbers of homeless, unskilled individuals is a cultural disaster as seen in Germany and Sweden where large numbers of young Syrian men have shown themselves incapable of adapting to European culture, especially in their attitude towards women. David Cameron agrees with me. The 20 thousand he is letting in are just a symbolic gesture to shut up human rights campaigners and voters sympathetic to refugees. He has handled the situation admirably.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:17:08 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 8:39:02 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Sweden needs to take in FAR less, if not halting acceptance of refugees all together.

With strict security checks and etc, it wouldn't really hurt for the UK to take in some refugees here and there.

It would hurt the uk considerably to take in more migrants. Reasons-

1. Population of country already 64. 1million. A lot for a small island.

2. Net migration due to uncontrolled migration from the eu which due to law we cannot stop is already 336, 000 per year. Already to high.

3. Housing shortage due to rapidly increasing population.

4. National health service chronically short of staff and facilities due to rapid population growth.

5. National debt of "1. 6 trillion. Too high urgently needs to be reduced. Accepting unskilled, homeless, assetless individuals will hinder badly in this massive challenge.

6. Shortage of space in schools.

7. Budget deficit of "70 billion pounds.

8. General negative effects on the economy, society and British culture that accepting unskilled, assetless individuals cause.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 2:47:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/11/2016 9:14:59 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/11/2016 8:39:02 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Sweden needs to take in FAR less, if not halting acceptance of refugees all together.

With strict security checks and etc, it wouldn't really hurt for the UK to take in some refugees here and there.

There is nearly 2m in turkey, another near 1m in Egypt. Yea, o think European countries can take a few more than they are. The US? Well half our population is so damn frightened that they are stocking up on guns and ammo waiting for the Muslim-zombie apocalypse.

I've heard the stories coming from sweden of rape, maybe they shpuld be frightened. I also heard of one refugee who came over and raped a little boy so badly he needed hospitalization, and the refugee didn't even try to hide the fact. The guy thought the action was totally normal and okay and was confused as to why the police were arresting him. It's kinda understandable to think third world mentalities that lead these countries to be third world, will be bad for a first world country.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 3:11:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:17:08 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 8:39:02 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Sweden needs to take in FAR less, if not halting acceptance of refugees all together.

With strict security checks and etc, it wouldn't really hurt for the UK to take in some refugees here and there.

It would hurt the uk considerably to take in more migrants. Reasons-

1. Population of country already 64. 1million. A lot for a small island.

The UK doesnt even rank in the top 50 for highest population density

https://en.wikipedia.org...

2. Net migration due to uncontrolled migration from the eu which due to law we cannot stop is already 336, 000 per year. Already to high.

source?

3. Housing shortage due to rapidly increasing population.

Which can easily be remedied http://www.theguardian.com...

4. National health service chronically short of staff and facilities due to rapid population growth.

Its actually due more towards budget cuts http://www.independent.co.uk...

5. National debt of "1. 6 trillion. Too high urgently needs to be reduced. Accepting unskilled, homeless, assetless individuals will hinder badly in this massive challenge.

There's no logic behind that conclusion whatsoever

6. Shortage of space in schools.

If only they could build more of something....

7. Budget deficit of "70 billion pounds.

8. General negative effects on the economy, society and British culture that accepting unskilled, assetless individuals cause.

Now youre just listing whatever it is you can think of
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 5:29:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 3:11:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:17:08 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 8:39:02 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Swed. en needs to take in FAR less, if not halting acceptance of refugees all together.

With strict security checks and etc, it wouldn't really hurt for the UK to take in some refugees here and there.

It would hurt the uk considerably to take in more migrants. Reasons-

1. Population of country already 64. 1million. A lot for a small island.

The UK doesnt even rank in the top 50 for highest population density

https://en.wikipedia.org...

That is irrelevant. just because other countries have greater population densities does not mean the uk can sensibly take on significantly more people. When a country becomes overpopulated it becomes completely dependant on food imports, has limited sites to build and constant housing shortages, school and hospital overcrowding and although I'm not concerned about animal rights or global warming it's fair to say people concerned about these issues oppose further development, building and population increase.
2. Net migration due to uncontrolled migration from the eu which due to law we cannot stop is already 336, 000 per year. Already to high.

source?

Google. I actually knew the figure anyway.

3. Housing shortage due to rapidly increasing population.

Which can easily be remedied http://www.theguardian.com...

Arguably it could be remedied through relaxing the planning regulations. I agree that it is Neccessary due to the current chronic housing shortage. However nobody wants new development where they live so almost all major building projects are strongly opposed by local residents, environmental groups and in many cases local councils.

4. National health service chronically short of staff and facilities due to rapid population growth.

Its actually due more towards budget cuts http://www.independent.co.uk...

I agree the nhs needs investment. Believe me it is in a dire state. Surely though admitting yet more people into the country would be a very stupid thing to do? Wouldent it make sense for British citizens to get some benefits from the proposed investment? The state of the government finances also means at best only limited funds are available, without spending recklessly beyond its means.

5. National debt of "1. 6 trillion. Too high urgently needs to be reduced. Accepting unskilled, homeless, assetless individuals will hinder badly in this massive challenge.

There's no logic behind that conclusion whatsoever

it's very simple logic. In what way do you disagree? Providing schools, hospitals, training, houses and benefits to these unskilled assetless people is very expensive. That will cause an increase in both the government debt and budget deficit. Quite simply it is economic stupidity to accept migrants.
6. Shortage of space in schools.

If only they could build more of something....

if only yes. If only we had billions in the bank to afford new schools and facilities. We can't really afford to build more schools but it's absolutely clear that any new schools should be for children of Britain's hard working taxpaying citizens not migrants.
7. Budget deficit of "70 billion pounds.

8. General negative effects on the economy, society and British culture that accepting unskilled, assetless individuals cause.

Now youre just listing whatever it is you can think of

If you do not control your budget deficit you end up with a bankrupt country. It's simple economics. Increased borrowing also leads to an increased amount of interest payments, a decrease in confidence of citizens and businesses, worried about potential government default on payments. This leads to a high risk of a recession which causes further government borrowing. It's also likely the imf will downgrade the countries credit rating. So some serious issues that need avoiding.

It's quite clear as seen in Germany, Sweden and eastern Europe large numbers of people from a different culture arriving in a short period of time struggle to adapt to local culture and often come into conflict with local communities. Why create problems when you can avoid them? Keep out the unskilled assetless migrants.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 6:24:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 5:29:32 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 3:11:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:17:08 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 8:39:02 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Swed. en needs to take in FAR less, if not halting acceptance of refugees all together.

With strict security checks and etc, it wouldn't really hurt for the UK to take in some refugees here and there.

It would hurt the uk considerably to take in more migrants. Reasons-

1. Population of country already 64. 1million. A lot for a small island.

The UK doesnt even rank in the top 50 for highest population density

https://en.wikipedia.org...

That is irrelevant. just because other countries have greater population densities does not mean the uk can sensibly take on significantly more people.

It kind of does because it directly indicates that population density isnt nearly as big of a problem in the UK as it is in other places, such as half of the other countries in the world, meaning this is a dumb argument to make for being against admitting citizens.

2. Net migration due to uncontrolled migration from the eu which due to law we cannot stop is already 336, 000 per year. Already to high.

source?

Google. I actually knew the figure anyway.

You're going to have to do better then that otherwise ill just have to dismiss this claim as bs

3. Housing shortage due to rapidly increasing population.

Which can easily be remedied http://www.theguardian.com...

nobody wants new development where they live so almost all major building projects are strongly opposed by local residents, environmental groups and in many cases local councils.

That's not a good enough reason though to deny taking in refugees.

4. National health service chronically short of staff and facilities due to rapid population growth.

Its actually due more towards budget cuts http://www.independent.co.uk...

I agree the nhs needs investment. Believe me it is in a dire state. Surely though admitting yet more people into the country would be a very stupid thing to do?

A thousand extra refugees arent going to break the back of the UK healthcare system when 60 million Britons havent already. So no it is not stupid at all. In fact its stupid to draw the line at 60,010,000 yet be okay with 60,000,000 like you are doing

5. National debt of "1. 6 trillion. Too high urgently needs to be reduced. Accepting unskilled, homeless, assetless individuals will hinder badly in this massive challenge.

There's no logic behind that conclusion whatsoever

it's very simple logic. In what way do you disagree?

I have more than 7 functioning brain cells, for a start

Providing schools, hospitals, training, houses and benefits

which governments have always done and are capable to do even when it requires deficit spending

to these unskilled assetless people

Now youre just stereotyping/being racist

6. Shortage of space in schools.

If only they could build more of something....

if only yes. If only we had billions in the bank to afford new schools and facilities.

It hasnt stopped the UK government before, yet you seem to have decided that now it does matter simply because you dont like immigrants

7. Budget deficit of "70 billion pounds.

8. General negative effects on the economy, society and British culture that accepting unskilled, assetless individuals cause.

Now youre just listing whatever it is you can think of

If you do not control your budget deficit you end up with a bankrupt country.

Youre missing the point here you idiot, you cant hypocritically approve of deficit spending when it helps you on one hand and then want it to stop when it benefits people who arent you on the other hand.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
walker_harris3
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 7:53:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 6:24:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/12/2016 5:29:32 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 3:11:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:17:08 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 8:39:02 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Swed. en needs to take in FAR less, if not halting acceptance of refugees all together.

With strict security checks and etc, it wouldn't really hurt for the UK to take in some refugees here and there.

It would hurt the uk considerably to take in more migrants. Reasons-

1. Population of country already 64. 1million. A lot for a small island.

The UK doesnt even rank in the top 50 for highest population density

https://en.wikipedia.org...

That is irrelevant. just because other countries have greater population densities does not mean the uk can sensibly take on significantly more people.

It kind of does because it directly indicates that population density isnt nearly as big of a problem in the UK as it is in other places, such as half of the other countries in the world, meaning this is a dumb argument to make for being against admitting citizens.

What, so these refugees are going to go out and live on the pastures of Wales or in the highlands of Scotland where the population density is the lowest? Of course not.... They go to the big cities where there's actual job opportunity and chance of success. Population Density is a multi-faceted measure, in that it completely depends on how much of the land is actually hospitable for human life to live sustainably in large quantities.

The population density in Saudi Arabia is 14:1 sqkm. Money obviously isn't an issue there either and the culture is familiar for the migrants making it much easier to assimilate. So why don't we send the refugees there instead of a struggling country like Great Britain?
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 8:53:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 6:24:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/12/2016 5:29:32 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 3:11:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:17:08 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 8:39:02 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Swed. en needs to take in FAR less, if not halting acceptance of refugees all together.

With strict security checks and etc, it wouldn't really hurt for the UK to take in some refugees here and there.

It would hurt the uk considerably to take in more migrants. Reasons-

1. Population of country already 64. 1million. A lot for a small island.

The UK doesnt even rank in the top 50 for highest population density

https://en.wikipedia.org...

That is irrelevant. just because other countries have greater population densities does not mean the uk can sensibly take on significantly more people.

It kind of does because it directly indicates that population density isnt nearly as big of a problem in the UK as it is in other places, such as half of the other countries in the world, meaning this is a dumb argument to make for being against admitting citizens.

just because population density is a bigger problem in other countries does not mean it is not an issue here. Nor does it mean we should ignore the problem and allow it to get worse.
2. Net migration due to uncontrolled migration from the eu which due to law we cannot stop is already 336, 000 per year. Already to high.

source?

Google. I actually knew the figure anyway.

You're going to have to do better then that otherwise ill just have to dismiss this claim as bs

source-

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

3. Housing shortage due to rapidly increasing population.

Which can easily be remedied http://www.theguardian.com...

nobody wants new development where they live so almost all major building projects are strongly opposed by local residents, environmental groups and in many cases local councils.

That's not a good enough reason though to deny taking in refugees.

maybe in your view but this is a democratic country and building is unpopular. It's not just me saying this. The reality is their are UK citizens that are homeless or desperately in need of a house. In my view and I'm sure if you polled it 90% of UK citizens would agree it makes sense to provide these individuals with housing first before taking in migrants. Surely you agree that is a fair and logical approach? Their are many UK citizens in poverty. They deserve welfare before any migrants.
4. National health service chronically short of staff and facilities due to rapid population growth.

Its actually due more towards budget cuts http://www.independent.co.uk...

I agree the nhs needs investment. Believe me it is in a dire state. Surely though admitting yet more people into the country would be a very stupid thing to do?

A thousand extra refugees arent going to break the back of the UK healthcare system when 60 million Britons havent already. So no it is not stupid at all. In fact its stupid to draw the line at 60,010,000 yet be okay with 60,000,000 like you are doing

Well your approach is basically saying- a service is under severe pressure due to population increase so let's just forget it and put it under even more pressure. If you don't take steps to control a problem it gets out of control. Those 10, 000 would make a difference.

5. National debt of "1. 6 trillion. Too high urgently needs to be reduced. Accepting unskilled, homeless, assetless individuals will hinder badly in this massive challenge.

There's no logic behind that conclusion whatsoever

it's very simple logic. In what way do you disagree?

I have more than 7 functioning brain cells, for a start

basically you dont have a way of disproving me. Hence you havent offered anything other than an insult.
Providing schools, hospitals, training, houses and benefits

which governments have always done and are capable to do even when it requires deficit spending

to these unskilled assetless people

Now youre just stereotyping/being racist

no I'm not. I'm sure if you checked out the financial status of refugees you would find they have no assets. You would also find very few have skills transferable to effectively contribute towards the uk economy. Also im not racist at all.
6. Shortage of space in schools.

If only they could build more of something....

if only yes. If only we had billions in the bank to afford new schools and facilities.

It hasnt stopped the UK government before, yet you seem to have decided that now it does matter simply because you dont like immigrants

Lack of funding for education has long been an issue. Again when there is a shortage of school spaces and outdated facilities, don't you think it is more logical to sort it out first before admitting more children into an overcrowded school system? Another point is our democratically elected government is attempting to deal with our budget deficit so spending on infrastructure is generally off the agenda.
7. Budget deficit of "70 billion pounds.

8. General negative effects on the economy, society and British culture that accepting unskilled, assetless individuals cause.

Now youre just listing whatever it is you can think of

If you do not control your budget deficit you end up with a bankrupt country.

Youre missing the point here you idiot, you cant hypocritically approve of deficit spending when it helps you on one hand and then want it to stop when it benefits people who arent you on the other hand.

What are you on about? I support controlled immigration into the uk based on a points system allowing in people beneficial to the economy. I'm not racist at all. I support the government's policy on deficit reduction through spending cuts. I believe any investment in UK infrastructure should be for UK citizens who have paid the tax to fund such projects. I oppose the admission of any refugees or asylum seekers in any circumstances. Their are no benefits. If refugges/ migrants knew we had a zero tolerance policy they would stop risking their lives to sneak in here illegally. It is more logical to spend money to deal with problems facing migrants at their source, helping millions of people. Rewarding the few who sneak here illegally is morally and economically wrong and entirely pointless.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:36:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 9:11:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
UK needs to learn how to take a proper kick to the balls.

What are you trying to imply/ suggest?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:58:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:36:55 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:11:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
UK needs to learn how to take a proper kick to the balls.

What are you trying to imply/ suggest?

The swarm is coming. Take it like a man.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 11:08:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:58:08 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:36:55 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 9:11:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
UK needs to learn how to take a proper kick to the balls.

What are you trying to imply/ suggest?

The swarm is coming. Take it like a man.

We have uncontrolled migration from the eu unfortunately but luckily our island setting and non membership of the schengen area combined with sensible government policy means no swarms of migrants that aren't eu citizens are entering the uk any time soon.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 12:41:37 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 8:53:29 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 6:24:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/12/2016 5:29:32 PM, beng100 wrote:

That is irrelevant. just because other countries have greater population densities does not mean the uk can sensibly take on significantly more people.

It kind of does because it directly indicates that population density isnt nearly as big of a problem in the UK as it is in other places, such as half of the other countries in the world, meaning this is a dumb argument to make for being against admitting citizens.

just because population density is a bigger problem in other countries does not mean it is not an issue here. Nor does it mean we should ignore the problem and allow it to get worse.

A couple thousand will have no impact on a country that numbers in the tens of millions....

nobody wants new development where they live so almost all major building projects are strongly opposed by local residents, environmental groups and in many cases local councils.

That's not a good enough reason though to deny taking in refugees.

maybe in your view but this is a democratic country and building is unpopular.

So is paying taxes, you want the country to stop demanding citizens from paying those too?

I agree the nhs needs investment. Believe me it is in a dire state. Surely though admitting yet more people into the country would be a very stupid thing to do?

A thousand extra refugees arent going to break the back of the UK healthcare system when 60 million Britons havent already. So no it is not stupid at all. In fact its stupid to draw the line at 60,010,000 yet be okay with 60,000,000 like you are doing

Well your approach is basically saying- a service is under severe pressure due to population increase

Are you illiterate or just stupid? Thats not what im saying at all. Re-read the previous post that was quoted and try to understand the meaning of words

Providing schools, hospitals, training, houses and benefits

which governments have always done and are capable to do even when it requires deficit spending

to these unskilled assetless people

Now youre just stereotyping/being racist

no I'm not. I'm sure if you checked out the financial status of refugees you would find they have no assets. You would also find very few have skills transferable to effectively contribute towards the uk economy.

If you have a pulse and can move all of your limbs properly than guess what, you can contribute towards the economy in some way. Almost all of the Syrian refugees qualify for that which means that all of them can contribute if given a chance that you refuse to give them for a list of stupid reasons

if only yes. If only we had billions in the bank to afford new schools and facilities.

It hasnt stopped the UK government before, yet you seem to have decided that now it does matter simply because you dont like immigrants

Lack of funding for education has long been an issue.

So no budget is okay for building schools for mostly white people for years and years and years, but when a few (emphasis on few) more need to be built to accommodate Syrian refugees, that crosses the line for you?

That makes you look really stupid if thats the case

Youre missing the point here you idiot, you cant hypocritically approve of deficit spending when it helps you on one hand and then want it to stop when it benefits people who arent you on the other hand.

I believe any investment in UK infrastructure should be for UK citizens who have paid the tax to fund such projects.

Basically f*ck refugees AND poor people. Gotcha.

I oppose the admission of any refugees or asylum seekers in any circumstances.

Oh got it, youre not stupid, just irrational.

Well maybe its both
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
mc9
Posts: 1,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 1:18:46 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/11/2016 9:14:59 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/11/2016 8:39:02 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Sweden needs to take in FAR less, if not halting acceptance of refugees all together.

With strict security checks and etc, it wouldn't really hurt for the UK to take in some refugees here and there.

There is nearly 2m in turkey, another near 1m in Egypt. Yea, o think European countries can take a few more than they are. The US? Well half our population is so damn frightened that they are stocking up on guns and ammo waiting for the Muslim-zombie apocalypse.

Lol
mc9
Posts: 1,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 1:20:07 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 10:05:01 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 6:43:15 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Yes or no?

No as a UK resident I oppose the acceptance of any refugees entering the country. They are a threat to national security, a huge economic burden and a general threat to the country. Bringing in large numbers of homeless, unskilled individuals is a cultural disaster as seen in Germany and Sweden where large numbers of young Syrian men have shown themselves incapable of adapting to European culture, especially in their attitude towards women. David Cameron agrees with me. The 20 thousand he is letting in are just a symbolic gesture to shut up human rights campaigners and voters sympathetic to refugees. He has handled the situation admirably.

People thought that Jewish refugees might were spies so we shouldn't let them in, we let them in, did anything bad happen?
mc9
Posts: 1,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 1:23:53 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 7:53:49 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 6:24:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/12/2016 5:29:32 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 3:11:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:17:08 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 8:39:02 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Swed. en needs to take in FAR less, if not halting acceptance of refugees all together.

With strict security checks and etc, it wouldn't really hurt for the UK to take in some refugees here and there.

It would hurt the uk considerably to take in more migrants. Reasons-

1. Population of country already 64. 1million. A lot for a small island.

The UK doesnt even rank in the top 50 for highest population density

https://en.wikipedia.org...

That is irrelevant. just because other countries have greater population densities does not mean the uk can sensibly take on significantly more people.

It kind of does because it directly indicates that population density isnt nearly as big of a problem in the UK as it is in other places, such as half of the other countries in the world, meaning this is a dumb argument to make for being against admitting citizens.

What, so these refugees are going to go out and live on the pastures of Wales or in the highlands of Scotland where the population density is the lowest? Of course not.... They go to the big cities where there's actual job opportunity and chance of success. Population Density is a multi-faceted measure, in that it completely depends on how much of the land is actually hospitable for human life to live sustainably in large quantities.

The population density in Saudi Arabia is 14:1 sqkm. Money obviously isn't an issue there either and the culture is familiar for the migrants making it much easier to assimilate. So why don't we send the refugees there instead of a struggling country like Great Britain?

Because Saudi Arabia has horrible policies and should be sanctioned and no one should be sent there
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:35:40 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 12:41:37 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/12/2016 8:53:29 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 6:24:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/12/2016 5:29:32 PM, beng100 wrote:

That is irrelevant. just because other countries have greater population densities does not mean the uk can sensibly take on significantly more people.

It kind of does because it directly indicates that population density isnt nearly as big of a problem in the UK as it is in other places, such as half of the other countries in the world, meaning this is a dumb argument to make for being against admitting citizens.

just because population density is a bigger problem in other countries does not mean it is not an issue here. Nor does it mean we should ignore the problem and allow it to get worse.

A couple thousand will have no impact on a country that numbers in the tens of millions....

It will have some impact. That is clear. Remember the op was suggesting we take in more refugees. Do you think accepting large numbers like Germany and Sweden is a good idea? Is that clever? You call me stupid but it's Germany, Sweden and the eu in general that are the stupid ones. Do you not think taking in a million refugees a year creates unsustainable population growth?
nobody wants new development where they live so almost all major building projects are strongly opposed by local residents, environmental groups and in many cases local councils.

That's not a good enough reason though to deny taking in refugees.

maybe in your view but this is a democratic country and building is unpopular.

So is paying taxes, you want the country to stop demanding citizens from paying those too?

there are a lot of UK citizens who need housing, including homeless people and people living in poverty. I would prioritize them for social housing. There are tens of thousands of these people.
I agree the nhs needs investment. Believe me it is in a dire state. Surely though admitting yet more people into the country would be a very stupid thing to do?

A thousand extra refugees arent going to break the back of the UK healthcare system when 60 million Britons havent already. So no it is not stupid at all. In fact its stupid to draw the line at 60,010,000 yet be okay with 60,000,000 like you are doing

Well your approach is basically saying- a service is under severe pressure due to population increase

Are you illiterate or just stupid? Thats not what im saying at all. Re-read the previous post that was quoted and try to understand the meaning of words

No I just have common sense. More people means more pressure on services. It's that simple.

Providing schools, hospitals, training, houses and benefits

which governments have always done and are capable to do even when it requires deficit spending

to these unskilled assetless people

Now youre just stereotyping/being racist

no I'm not. I'm sure if you checked out the financial status of refugees you would find they have no assets. You would also find very few have skills transferable to effectively contribute towards the uk economy.

If you have a pulse and can move all of your limbs properly than guess what, you can contribute towards the economy in some way. Almost all of the Syrian refugees qualify for that which means that all of them can contribute if given a chance that you refuse to give them for a list of stupid reasons

You are simply wrong. Unskilled assetless migrants hinder the economy for the reasons I have stated plus many others. We don't need low skilled labourers plenty of them come from eastern Europe each year.
if only yes. If only we had billions in the bank to afford new schools and facilities.

It hasnt stopped the UK government before, yet you seem to have decided that now it does matter simply because you dont like immigrants

Lack of funding for education has long been an issue.

So no budget is okay for building schools for mostly white people for years and years and years, but when a few (emphasis on few) more need to be built to accommodate Syrian refugees, that crosses the line for you?

That makes you look really stupid if thats the case

Youre missing the point here you idiot, you cant hypocritically approve of deficit spending when it helps you on one hand and then want it to stop when it benefits people who arent you on the other hand.

I believe any investment in UK infrastructure should be for UK citizens who have paid the tax to fund such projects.

Basically f*ck refugees AND poor people. Gotcha.

I oppose the admission of any refugees or asylum seekers in any circumstances.

Oh got it, youre not stupid, just irrational.

Well maybe its both

Do you think the insults prove anything?

I'm not proposing anything against poor people so that is just complete nonsense. Where did you get that from?

My approach to dealing with the refugee crisis is to end the war is Syria by supporting the reinstallation of the bad bar al Assad dictatorship. Either through diplomatic or military means. Money should be spent rebuilding Syria's destroyed infrastructure and all of Turkey's refugees could go back home. I would also police the Mediterranean with military vessels, capture illegal migrants send them back to where they came from and arrest and prosecute people traffickers. I would give the traffickers the death penalty to deter future similar crimes.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 9:11:42 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 8:35:40 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/13/2016 12:41:37 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/12/2016 8:53:29 PM, beng100 wrote:

just because population density is a bigger problem in other countries does not mean it is not an issue here. Nor does it mean we should ignore the problem and allow it to get worse.

A couple thousand will have no impact on a country that numbers in the tens of millions....

It will have some impact. That is clear.

50 thousand divided by 60 million is 0.08 Percent, which is less than 1% of 1%

So it will not have an impact. Learn to math

maybe in your view but this is a democratic country and building is unpopular.

So is paying taxes, you want the country to stop demanding citizens from paying those too?

there are a lot of UK citizens who need housing, including homeless people and people living in poverty. I would prioritize them for social housing. There are tens of thousands of these people.

And they have just about everything in common with refugees yet you continuously fail to see that

Well your approach is basically saying- a service is under severe pressure due to population increase

Are you illiterate or just stupid? Thats not what im saying at all. Re-read the previous post that was quoted and try to understand the meaning of words

No I just have common sense. More people means more pressure on services. It's that simple.

Not when its a less than 1% of 1% increase, idiot

If you have a pulse and can move all of your limbs properly than guess what, you can contribute towards the economy in some way. Almost all of the Syrian refugees qualify for that which means that all of them can contribute if given a chance that you refuse to give them for a list of stupid reasons

You are simply wrong. Unskilled assetless migrants

You keep using that phrase as if you think you actually know what you are talking about, when you clearly do not.

I oppose the admission of any refugees or asylum seekers in any circumstances.

Oh got it, youre not stupid, just irrational.

Well maybe its both

Do you think the insults prove anything?

I'm not proposing anything against poor people so that is just complete nonsense. Where did you get that from?

The 'services should be provided for taxpayers' bit, aka NOT people who pay taxes, aka poor people.

My approach to dealing with the refugee crisis is to end the war is Syria by supporting the reinstallation of the bad bar al Assad dictatorship. Either through diplomatic or military means.

Which would cost money that Britain doesnt have and take lots of time that the refugees also dont have.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 10:20:03 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 9:11:42 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/13/2016 8:35:40 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/13/2016 12:41:37 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/12/2016 8:53:29 PM, beng100 wrote:

just because population density is a bigger problem in other countries does not mean it is not an issue here. Nor does it mean we should ignore the problem and allow it to get worse.

A couple thousand will have no impact on a country that numbers in the tens of millions....

It will have some impact. That is clear.

50 thousand divided by 60 million is 0.08 Percent, which is less than 1% of 1%

So it will not have an impact. Learn to math

ok so you don't think the "3. 7 billion pounds wasted annually is a concern? Maybe to you it's not much but in my view its a huge problem. It equates to over 5% of the total budget deficit. It's an issue that needs dealing with. Every extra illegal migrant costs money. They should be deported.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

maybe in your view but this is a democratic country and building is unpopular.

So is paying taxes, you want the country to stop demanding citizens from paying those too?

there are a lot of UK citizens who need housing, including homeless people and people living in poverty. I would prioritize them for social housing. There are tens of thousands of these people.

And they have just about everything in common with refugees yet you continuously fail to see that

Well there is a key difference. They are UK citizens. We have a responsibility to look after our own citizens before foreign nationals. Maybe in your view nationality is irrelevent but even so if there are people in the country in need of housing why take in more and leave existing people inside the country homeless and on the streets? It's common sense.

Well your approach is basically saying- a service is under severe pressure due to population increase

Are you illiterate or just stupid? Thats not what im saying at all. Re-read the previous post that was quoted and try to understand the meaning of words

No I just have common sense. More people means more pressure on services. It's that simple.

Not when its a less than 1% of 1% increase, idiot

The fact is it makes some difference. Obviously the more migrants come in the bigger the problem. How many migrants do you want to send to the uk? The fact is every extra person creates extra pressure on services in a time of public spending cuts.

If you have a pulse and can move all of your limbs properly than guess what, you can contribute towards the economy in some way. Almost all of the Syrian refugees qualify for that which means that all of them can contribute if given a chance that you refuse to give them for a list of stupid reasons

You are simply wrong. Unskilled assetless migrants

You keep using that phrase as if you think you actually know what you are talking about, when you clearly do not.

so you claim migrants in the jungle camp in Calais have considerable assets? You claim they have any significant skills or qualifications transferable to the uk? The reality is they have nothing. They need housing, healthcare, schools, benefits, food and significant training that often includes learning the English language. That's the reality. I do no what I'm talking about. I actually live in the UK and know the reality of the situation.

Have you ever experienced a long wait in accident and emergency department in a UK hospital?

A long wait in a UK doctors surgery?

Were you educated in a delapitated UK school under special measures with class numbers in the mid 30s, 1960s facilities and shockingly poor teaching standards?

Ever entered the uk through the channel tunnel from france passing through the hoard of migrants, who all happen to be young men trying to sneak into lorries, vans and cars?

What do you think of the migrants involved in the Paris terrorist attacks?

Or the migrants involved in the mass attacks on women in cologne?
I oppose the admission of any refugees or asylum seekers in any circumstances.

Oh got it, youre not stupid, just irrational.

Well maybe its both

Do you think the insults prove anything?

I'm not proposing anything against poor people so that is just complete nonsense. Where did you get that from?

The 'services should be provided for taxpayers' bit, aka NOT people who pay taxes, aka poor people.

most poor people actually pay or have paid some form of taxes. You are insulting them to say they do not.

My approach to dealing with the refugee crisis is to end the war is Syria by supporting the reinstallation of the bad bar al Assad dictatorship. Either through diplomatic or military means.

Which would cost money that Britain doesnt have and take lots of time that the refugees also dont have.

I don't propose Britain does this alone. In the long term ending the Syrian conflict is in everyone's interest. NATO and Russia should cooperate to ensure the Assad dictatorship regains control and the eu should pay significant sums of money rebuilding Syria to stop the mass migration.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 4:48:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 10:20:03 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/13/2016 9:11:42 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/13/2016 8:35:40 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/13/2016 12:41:37 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/12/2016 8:53:29 PM, beng100 wrote:

just because population density is a bigger problem in other countries does not mean it is not an issue here. Nor does it mean we should ignore the problem and allow it to get worse.

A couple thousand will have no impact on a country that numbers in the tens of millions....

It will have some impact. That is clear.

50 thousand divided by 60 million is 0.08 Percent, which is less than 1% of 1%

So it will not have an impact. Learn to math

ok so you don't think the "3. 7 billion pounds wasted annually is a concern?

The government spent 700 Billion pounds last year, 3.7 billion is half of 1%

Like I said, learn to math

there are a lot of UK citizens who need housing, including homeless people and people living in poverty. I would prioritize them for social housing. There are tens of thousands of these people.

And they have just about everything in common with refugees yet you continuously fail to see that

Well there is a key difference. They are UK citizens. We have a responsibility to look after our own citizens before foreign nationals.

Do you even know how being a refugee works? They flee their country to become CITIZENS of another country willing to take them in. How do you even dress yourself in the mornings?

No I just have common sense. More people means more pressure on services. It's that simple.

Not when its a less than 1% of 1% increase, idiot

The fact is it makes some difference.

0.08% is statistically zero, indicating that no, it does not make a difference. Idiot.

You are simply wrong. Unskilled assetless migrants

You keep using that phrase as if you think you actually know what you are talking about, when you clearly do not.

so you claim migrants in the jungle camp in Calais have considerable assets? You claim they have any significant skills or qualifications transferable to the uk? The reality is they have nothing.

The reality is that any refugee is already qualified to work unskilled menial jobs. You just fail to accept that for your underlying racist objections.

My approach to dealing with the refugee crisis is to end the war is Syria by supporting the reinstallation of the bad bar al Assad dictatorship. Either through diplomatic or military means.

Which would cost money that Britain doesnt have and take lots of time that the refugees also dont have.

I don't propose Britain does this alone. In the long term ending the Syrian conflict is in everyone's interest. NATO and Russia should cooperate to ensure the Assad dictatorship regains control and the eu should pay significant sums of money rebuilding Syria to stop the mass migration.

You have absolutely no idea how the Syrian Civil War started in the first place do you?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
walker_harris3
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 1:23:53 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 7:53:49 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 6:24:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/12/2016 5:29:32 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/12/2016 3:11:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/12/2016 10:17:08 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/11/2016 8:39:02 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Swed. en needs to take in FAR less, if not halting acceptance of refugees all together.

With strict security checks and etc, it wouldn't really hurt for the UK to take in some refugees here and there.

It would hurt the uk considerably to take in more migrants. Reasons-

1. Population of country already 64. 1million. A lot for a small island.

The UK doesnt even rank in the top 50 for highest population density

https://en.wikipedia.org...

That is irrelevant. just because other countries have greater population densities does not mean the uk can sensibly take on significantly more people.

It kind of does because it directly indicates that population density isnt nearly as big of a problem in the UK as it is in other places, such as half of the other countries in the world, meaning this is a dumb argument to make for being against admitting citizens.

What, so these refugees are going to go out and live on the pastures of Wales or in the highlands of Scotland where the population density is the lowest? Of course not.... They go to the big cities where there's actual job opportunity and chance of success. Population Density is a multi-faceted measure, in that it completely depends on how much of the land is actually hospitable for human life to live sustainably in large quantities.

The population density in Saudi Arabia is 14:1 sqkm. Money obviously isn't an issue there either and the culture is familiar for the migrants making it much easier to assimilate. So why don't we send the refugees there instead of a struggling country like Great Britain?

Because Saudi Arabia has horrible policies and should be sanctioned and no one should be sent there

Agreed, I hate the evil Saudis with a passion, but Sunni Muslims don't.