Are we taking in fewer people because we are the second highest donating country even though we're about 7th on the list of wealthiest countries?
Bit of a balancing act but that's the only reason I can see for taking in fewer refugees.

I'm not saying we should or shouldn't, I don't even vote so I've got no room to comment really.

that was the arguement given ,that i heard in the discussion, and that more are helped per £ if supported near syria than just homing a few though the latter makes some feel better ie done their bit
 
Oct 31, 2013 - Every illegal immigrant in Britain costs the taxpayer up to £4,250 a year ... said there were as many as 860,000 illegal immigrants in the country.

how many illegal immigrants are in the USA then??.plus you are taking unlimited syrians as well.:rolleyes: plus the UK are only taking the most vulnerable refugees,ie women,children and the disabled etc,then when it is safe they will be taken back home to syria if they want too.
 
Last edited:
how many illegal immigrants are in the USA then??.plus you are taking unlimited syrians as well.:rolleyes: plus the UK are only taking the most vulnerable refugees,ie women,children and the disabled etc,then when it is safe they will be taken back home to syria if they want too.



"The UN High Commission for Refugees - which backs our new resettlement programme - has said the highest priority should go to women and girls who have experienced or are at risk of sexual violence; the elderly; survivors of torture and individuals with disabilities, so that's who we'll target.
 
Immigrants don't get far in my country, most of the time they get kicked to the ground at the airport whilst on fire

Surely that's a health and safety risk? The flames would be up the kilt and cause some severe damage, or do you have fireproof jockstraps? Can you not set fire to them elsewhere rather than the airport?
 

Similar threads