Grim Reading

[KARL]

The UN's figures are sobering:
https://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html
However, is there now hope that once the UK enters its prosperous post-Brexit future that it will crawl up from the bottom end of the spectrum regarding taking in refugees (not talking about migrants) ? The comparison with what other countries, mostly way poorer, have done and continue doing has perhaps been excusable until now by the UK's preoccupation with internal matters and general navel gazing but, hey, everything is about to become so much better (isn't it) ?

[naomi24]

From that link I can’t actually see the UK’s positon on the ‘spectrum’, but I don’t understand why you appear to think that opening the floodgates to a limitless number of refugees will result in everything here becoming ‘so much better’.

[10ClarionSt]

Current problems in this country are the result of immigration and assylum seekers. Housing shortage; burden on the NHS; over-crowded schools etc. Immigration should be reduced, not increased.

[davebro]

If you take in refugees and they don't ever go home (most don't) aren't they then migrants?

[New Judge]

Blurring the line between "migrants" and "refugees" (in so much as how many people we allow to settle here) is unhelpful. Whatever they are they need jobs (or welfare), homes, education and healthcare. As far as the last three are concerned this country is "full up". As far as the first is concerned more people in the country may mean more jobs but the jobs are of the type that do little to enrich the lives of those already here.

The NHS is creaking at the seams (and in some parts has actually split); every available patch of land is being built upon (unless you think it's OK to build homes on rural land which won't help because the newcomers all want to live in cities and most of them prefer London); people struggle to get their children into a school near their homes.

I see nothing "grim" about the UK being low on the list of refugee acceptance figures. In fact I'm quite pleased about it and hope it becomes grimmer. This country has seen the influx of two to three hundred thousand people a year for many years. Remember that's the "net" figure and does not illustrate the "population exchange" that is hidden in the gross figures. To suggest that we should take in even more, many of whom will have onerous requirements which will place an even greater strain on our services, is simply ludicrous. It's a shame that so many people are being displaced from countries where people seem simply unable to get on with each other (usually due to religion). But life's tough and there's no reason why that misery should be shared among the people of nations who seem to have managed to maintain a reasonably civilised lifestyle.

[KARL]

Naomi, I'll assume you genuinely (not deliberately) misunderstand what I said so I will elaborate a little.

Yes, the "floodgates" to the UK have been firmly shut for decades and the total number of Syrian refugees taken in, to mention but one group, is 20,000 (check out the figures, especially the Syrian total overall). We are constantly told that the UK can't afford to be more generous (in political terms that is undoubtedly true) but that, on pretty much everything, once "the will of the people", "democracy", etc. have been forced through then everything will be so much better (for the UK). My question is whether in the light of such comfort the UK's attitude will then change at all.

I am, as you no doubt are as well, aware that there exist advocates for completely suspending controls on the movement of people worldwide. While it would be nice if that ultimately became the case, in my opinion introducing it would/will take a long time and right now the differences from area to area are too large for even a generous relaxation to be possible without serious chaos resulting. I think even the advocates of freedom (that kind) will acknowledge this and I am not aware of anyone suggesting "limitless numbers" of refugees be given unfettered access to anywhere as things stand - although Uganda, Turkey, et al have hitherto more or less permitted that (go compare).

Now I trust you understand that I was not saying that "opening the floodgates to a limitless number of refugees will result in everything here becoming ‘so much better’" - but I think I too may correctly understand why you took it that way.

The wider perspective opened by the figures gives at least me pause for thought as to the misery suffered by far too many. Some of us are very fortunate, so many are not - are we to bar the doors forever to see to it that our luxuries do not drain away to others by even the smallest drop (I'm all right Jack) ?

[douglas9401]

The door is open a wide as it needs to be, via recognised channels.

If you want in, apply and wait, if you're thinking of paying some scumbag thousands instead of £40 on a Ryanair flight when permission is granted then you ain't getting in.

[Spicerack]

Go live in an immigrant infested slum & earn half the money you earned 15yrs ago.
Take some of your fellow Champagne Socialists with you. You'll get a realistic view of why international capitalism want to do away with borders and an even warmer feeling of smug satisfaction.

[ToraToraTora]

So you want toopen the doors Kark? Merkel style? how did that go?

[ToraToraTora]

So you want to open the doors Karl? Merkel style? how did that go?

[Old_Geezer]

Hopefully it'll remain top of sensible nations insisting it's not open house to all envious who demand to enter but genuine refugees flee to neighbouring safe countries so they may easily integrate with their host and return once safe. Hopefully the idiocy of importing economic migrants just hoping to grab a piece of where a nation has achieved a decent standard, ultimately diluting any national advancement it made, will remain a pipe dream for naive fantasists only.

[Old_Geezer]

Even worse is the suggestion of playing Lady Bountiful whilst we are recovering from change in the status quo. That is madness.

We pay out to help in the world already, we don't need to have open doors ruining what we try to achieve, as well.

[KARL]

Although, like any country in the world, the UK is affected by outside factors and events, it is my belief that most of the UK's woes are purely British and have next to nothing to do with those awful foreigners, be they over here or over there. Fortunately for the UK, over the ages some refugees have indeed stayed on, just like some colonisers stayed on over there, although in a different context and with different results.

I agree wholeheartedly that it is a sad reflection on the state of things that people often fail to get on with each other - examples abound everywhere, including within the UK. Yes, the UK (not just the NHS) is creaking and in a state of failure. Pride in the elitism of abandoning people to their fate as a matter of policy to preserve a perceived advantage is unattractive, even if the advantage is actually smaller than it is perceived to be.

[margarettom]

I think ones needs to remember that the UK is part of the Commonwealth and we have, quite rightly, always had immigration from the Commonwealth countries. I don't think, as a small island, we can be expected to also support a large number of refugees. Our ties to the Commonwealth should come first.

[naomi24]

Karl, sneaking Brexit in here is … well … sneaky. If we spend, as you seem to be suggesting, potentially newly acquired wealth on welcoming refugees, the net result will negate any benefit. More housing, more jobs, more schools, more hospitals, more benefits – more everything – and everything has to be paid for. This country cannot – and should not - take responsibility for the ills of the world – its problems are eternal and insurmountable. Furthermore, I can’t think of a single area that has benefited or been improved by the presence of newcomers from the third world. Why do you want more?

[Theland]

Naomi - I concur.