Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Fatboy123, 25 Nov 2021.
Probably an old Butlins or Pontins holiday camp would do the trick.
If I entered any country illegally I would expect to be arrested. UK on the other hand is ordering dominos and giving them hotels. We are encouraging them to come. These people have shown they are willing to circumvent the rules and break laws, hardly the people we want in our country, I would think. We don’t wish ill on anyone just some law and order. If you have a nice restaurant or club they have an entry policy , it’s not a free for all. I don’t think your local Hilton is going to stay nice if you get the occasional person finding their way in through the fire escape and staying for free.
Cheesy is suggesting we open our borders and just let everybody in.
Whatever feeling of sympathy you might have for the less well-off (not necessarily in danger, remember, just poor), I cannot see how inviting everybody to rock up in this country, expecting to be housed and fed and schooled and cared for on the NHS... how is that even possible?
I'm fairly left wing myself, but surely you have to have some eye for what is pragmatic and what is downright impossible.
When asked, Cheesy said he thought we could deal with an unlimited/unbounded number of migrants - if we had the political will to do so.
I suspect that would involve diverting a massive amount of treasury resource to make this possible. Frankly, we don't even build enough housing and schooling and hospitals for the populace we already have.
And the reality is, the people currently in charge don't have the political will even to help the poor already in this country. Heaven only knows what would happen if we had truly open borders and just took all comers. I suspect we'd have people simply living on the streets, and local councils would fold financially under the pressure.
Don't forget UK govt have already cut funding to local councils and many services have ceased and staff numbers reduced. Local councils will not be able to cope with unlimited migration.
This is not an easy problem and the solution is not simply to "care more about others". It's also a problem of practical reality.
Brush Embassy, hello?
A detention centre until you judge/find out who you are letting in is reasonable, every other country on earth does it.
You don't let every Tom,dick,Harry in give them keys to property and say welcome to England?
It will swing round to the other end of the spectrum eventually and all those who sit on their hands will have blood on their hands
Some of the comments by the usual posters in thus thread are absolutely vile. Some of you really need to take a look at yourself.
answer this .. would you take them in your home ? or move them into your street ?
What has thay got to do with the disgraceful comments? And for what its worth yes I would...why wouldn't I?
Now go educate yourself on how to claim asylum in the UK
They should get no money or housing for 10 years.
And only free health for the kids.
Why should the tax payer, pay for these people?
What has that got to do with people not caring if these kids you talk about drown? Where as a person do you have to be to not care that a pregnant woman has drowned...thats just twisted.
Ok so you take an asylum seeker in who lets say gets into an accident, not their fault whatsoever, do we just point and laugh then or what?
Because that's not a terrible thing to do. Compassion or understanding of and for others doesn't need to be at a perceived cost to you (which is what you care about) anymore than the much more priveledged people than yourself view what they can do to help you; a man of limited capacity and breath-taking feats of ignorance muddied by a streak of close to nastiness.
Because other people are better than you is why you have the things you take for granted, including your awful sensibilities.
You pick your boat and take a chance.
They could of stayed anywhere in the EU.
But they picked to cross one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.
At the end of the day.
Someone has to pay for them for many years to come.
It's a silly thing to do.
Not even the US do it.
Haven't you left the UK?
You don't even understand the qualifier you're trying to use. Also, no.
Yes but I haven't left my common decency while doing so.
e: for typo.
I think I'm right in saying that NZ only allow 1000-1500 asylum people in a year.
The UK have that many asylum seekers come in every MONTH.
As the old saying goes.
Put your own home in order first, before having a go at someone else's.
The money would be better spent helping disabled children get way better electric chairs.
And homes being built for the blind ECT.
The populations and geography are very different here but I take your point. My point is that you seem to wish other people ill will. That's not about numbers, that's a mindset.
I actually don't know if you're trying to say that 1000-1500 (it's closer to 1,000) asylum seekers is good or not.
Opportunity cost sure is a thing, I agree.
It is funny how even French politicians refer to the English channel rather than La Manche. Normally they try to avoid calling things by English names.
Trying to infer we own the problem?
Personally I'm OK with the concept of the water lapping onto the shores of France being English, not sure that French fishermen agree.
Show me where I said that.
The last UK bomber was a failed asylum seeker.
But people like you(who don't live here or pay tax)say...LET THEM IN!
Separate names with a comma.