Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees
So because of our geographic location we should not do our fair share ?
Please don't tell me you think 20000 over 5 years is reasonable we're almost as bad as the U.S.
And for those who were complaining about gulf states not assisting I'm just going to let you read this
https://www.saudiembassy.net/press-r...s09111501.aspx |
You're putting words in my mouth and I won't waste any more of my time if you keep doing that.
To prevent you doing so I'll summarise: if someone wants to come here, they will follow correct immigration laws and procedures for doing so.
If they are desperate to come here as they have no other option for survival or safety then yes we (as per other EU members) should accept them, providing there is no clear evidence that they're a danger to the UK.
This is why I have sympathy yet little or no support for those in Calais. So far nobody has been able to demonstrate to me why anyone's life or safety is more at risk there than in the UK. As for our geographic location, that's irrelevant. I support the notion of each EU country agreeing to a number of refugees based on a number of factors such as wealth, resources, space etc.
When a refugee arrives in a safe country the authorities then decide where they go. I have no problem with the people requesting certain countries (due to family or qualifications which would benefit that country etc) and this could be taken in to account but given how they must be desperate for safety their choice should not be the final say - it's up to the EU to allocate.