Should we be taking refugees

Being realistic is not turning them away if they want to come here.
Too many of them are dying without food, shelter and water while politicians are thinking about what they can get out of it. It's straight forward humanity that's needed, not politics.

Here's an interesting statistic. There are more pets than people in the UK.
We can manage to feed and house all of them.

Yes, I think we should. In some places empty office blocks are being turned into luxury apartments that most cannot afford - perhaps these should be used as social housing. I'd like to live in a 'can do' rather than a 'can't do' society.

So would I ayes.

Pets don't require the services of the NHS Jen

I think the point is that we are a very rich country aka and it would not hurt us to take in a few refugees. Michael Howard's dad was a Romanian refugee. Same applies to Helen Mirren, her dad was a refugee. And Michael Portillo, I think, and Robert Maxwell if I remember rightly.

Interesting durhamjen but what is your source and what is included in "pets". (Wanders off thinking about people who have 30 cats... just how many of them are there behind closed doors ?)

I know what she was saying Jess and I would take in these poor people without quibble. But with that there goes a responsibilities to house, feed, employ, integrate, provide education and health care. To compare that to providing a tin of cat food and a place for a cat to curl up and sleep is frankly ludicrous.

What I don't understand is why these Sikhs didn't go to India.

They would have to travel through Pakistan, then how would they have been welcomed in India?

petra Are you talking about the people found in a container at Tilbury?

Jess, I was doing a search about population in this country. I remember when I was studying environmental science, there was a lot of work on population about that time. So I wondered what the rise in population has been in this country since then, as many people say this country is full up and we cannot take any more refugees.
In 1975 the UK population was 56 million. In 2010, the nearest I could find, it was just under 60 million.
I read in the paper today that there are a million people who have been displaced and are starving in Iraq. Even if all of them wanted to come here we are not going to be overrun. And they are not likely to do that, are they?
I have no idea where the pet statistics came up, but it includes goldfish and horses.
Sorry, Aka, for introducing a bit of levity in a serious debate, but the principle stands. Pet charities get more money given to them than people charities.

Jess, the Pet Food Manufacturers Association now says there are 71 million pets in the UK. 13 million households have pets.

Ayse, I seem to remember reading that the Shard is still all but empty, and is on the market before the owner goes bankrupt. Will they have to have "poor doors" to use it for social housing?

This report is from June this year:
www.bbc.com/news/uk-27972335
One of the problems with increasing population is that the South East becomes more and more crowded, whereas other areas remain static.

That's probably because the South East has the work, unlike the North East.

Nothing to do with whether we should take refugees, of course.
Those figures show that there were less than 200,000 immigrants last year. Not exactly overrun with Rumanians and Bulgarians, as some commentators suggested. In fact on the same page I noticed an article which said they were going back home.

So where are the properties that they are going to live in given that the current population are struggling to find somewhere to live? Where are the jobs given that the current population are struggling to find employment? What about healthcare - given that we hear that the NHS is 'already creaking under the strain'?

Offering temporary sanctuary to people is the right thing to do - but it has to be temporary with set restrictions to ensure that.

Seeing the images of the people from the container [and small kids wrapped in blankets] you feel that they have been through enough already, and we have to help them. However, does this then send the message; turn up in a container at our docks and we will always help and house you?Will it in fact encourage more people to do it?A realistic question.Still and all......... I think in this case we should.

I think they were asylum seekers not refugees rosesarered. Sikhs from Afghanistan.
BBC were just estimating half a million displaced people in Iraq. A lot whoever's estimates we are using.
This was back at the beginning of the year - Cameron saying he would take in a few hundred deserving Syrians.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25934659
And an update in June, saying only 24 Syrians admitted:
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/20/uk-24-syrians-vulnerable-persons-relocation-scheme

I challenge the statement that animal charities 'get more' donations. I've googled the top ten charities in the UK in 2013 and none of them are animal charities. I think that's an Urban Myth.

Asylum seekers or refugees [in the container] whatever they were, I think they should be allowed to stay.It still begs the question of do we allow all who arrive this way to stay.

But that is incidental. The real point is that the rise of extreme Islamists whose agenda is an Islamic State (followed by an Islamic World) and who intends to achieve this by slaughtering anyone who will not embrace Islam.
People are therefore fleeing in fear for their lives and the lives of their families. We cannot in all conscience just shrug and leave them to their fate.

I agree with that Aka

Yes I agree we should be taking some refugees that need extra support - but also we could be welcoming in some that have the skills to earn their living when they get here - e.g. computer programmers. Their taxes would contribute to the upkeep of the vulnerable ones. Surely even Cameron (who is of course terrified of UKIP) could actually do something about this, instead of just making empty announcements?

There is also the possibility of course that some refugees may be wolves in sheep's clothing. Bringing in half a million people all in one go is all very well when it's a volcanic eruption or flood - not that we've done that much either - but these people are coming from a country where there are morons who would just love to gain a place in their heaven by causing havoc here.

(I know, I know, I've just spouted forth on another thread about there are more good than bad in the world - but in this case it only needs one bad apple!)