Does Briton have a moral duty to take in as many Afghan refugees as possible?

growstuff Seriously? That was the only thing you took from my post? I did not watch the entire Commons debate - frankly it was a trainwreck and a complete waste of time (as are most Commons debates if we are going to be honest) - but Theresa May can STFU. Tugendhat if I remember correctly actually served in Afghanistan he is entitled to his opinion but it is just ONE opinion. I did not hear Rory Stewart but he would be well advised to jump ship to either Labour or the Lib Dems as he is not a conservative in any way, shape or form (and that has nothing to do with this subject).

Saetana Have Tom Tugendhat, Johnny Mercer, Toby Ellwood, Rory Stewart, David Davis and Theresa May joined Labour? That's the first I've heard of it.

biglouis

We should take those who can prove they were supporting the British (and their families) but not randoms who just want to get out of the country. We cant take everyone

Randoms? Are we going to start labelling people now? Why don't you watch the videos I posted previously? These are people who know what's happening on the ground in Afghanistan. There are millions of people whose lives are in danger. No, the rest of the world can't take them all, but it doesn't mean that we can't try to save as many as possible. This is just so reminiscent of what happened in the 1930s, when countries wouldn't take Jews and others trying to flee Nazi Germany.

Rosie51

There aren't that many mansions standing empty, honestly, and they are rather concentrated in one small area of London. London already has the highest population density of the whole UK , 5701 per sq km as opposed to Glasgow's (Scotland's most densely populated city) 3400 per sq km, Birmingham at 4200 per sq km, and Cardiff's 2500 per sq km. Of course we need to take as many refugees as possible, but to pretend some areas aren't already struggling with the numbers of homeless, people unable to register with a doctor or dentist, hospitals unable to serve the numbers already present is just absurd.
growstuff suggested each constituency could take just 30 each, these are people not parcels to be addressed and delivered! Is anyone going to tell them this is your allocated constituency and here you stay, of course not that would be inhumane. The resettlement of refugees is not going to be the easy task some would like to imply, but that doesn't mean we don't do it.

No, I wasn't suggesting that every constituency is allocated 30 refugees. I was trying to put the problem into some kind of context. 30 extra people in a constituency of about 90,000 people isn't going to make much difference.

Wow - a lot of hysteria going on in here. First - we commited to taking Afghans who worked with the British military months ago, the speed of the Taliban has taken us ALL by surprise including the Americans who were by far the dominant presence in Afghanistan. Now, how easy that will be to do at short notice may be another matter. As I understand it, the Taliban are definitely letting Westerners get through to the airport. Of course Afghans who wish to be extradited have not helped themselves by burning their identity papers - how on earth are we supposed to know who we have the biggest obligation to take?

Second - the only experience we have of the Taliban in government is 20 years old, at the moment the elders of the Taliban in Kabul are making the right noises about women still being allowed to work and study (within the framework of Islamic law). They have to work with the West as Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world and they will need our help - not just for the current humanitarian crisis but also for infrastructure and trying to get back to some kind of normality.

I am by no means lauding the Taliban as saviours - however nobody has ever been able to "conquer" Afghanistan, the Russians failed just as the western alliance has failed. We must understand that we cannot impose Western style democracy on countries who are as backwards as Afghanistan - it has failed every single time we have tried. Except, of course, for countries we colonised - but that is a dirty word in the 21st century.

Whilst I disagree with Joe Biden's ill-advised policy to speed up Trump's promised withdrawal of Western troops, we have to understand we could not stay there indefinitely. We were there for TWENTY YEARS and frankly not much has changed. For the Labour critics - we could NOT stay there without the Americans as we shared equipment with them. We did try, apparently, to get some support in Europe to ameliorate the withdrawal - no prizes for guessing that the cowards refused, same old same old when it comes to Europe.

We need to get out who we can as quickly as possible, then we need to enter into discussions with the Taliban (even if we have to hold our noses to do so) about the future of Afghanistan. This is a time for realism rather than hysteria.

Alegrias1

"So you want London to become a refugee camp?"

Oh dear. A wee bit of a giveaway there ??

Anywhere with empty houses should be considered.

We should take those who can prove they were supporting the British (and their families) but not randoms who just want to get out of the country. We cant take everyone

There aren't that many mansions standing empty, honestly, and they are rather concentrated in one small area of London. London already has the highest population density of the whole UK , 5701 per sq km as opposed to Glasgow's (Scotland's most densely populated city) 3400 per sq km, Birmingham at 4200 per sq km, and Cardiff's 2500 per sq km. Of course we need to take as many refugees as possible, but to pretend some areas aren't already struggling with the numbers of homeless, people unable to register with a doctor or dentist, hospitals unable to serve the numbers already present is just absurd.
growstuff suggested each constituency could take just 30 each, these are people not parcels to be addressed and delivered! Is anyone going to tell them this is your allocated constituency and here you stay, of course not that would be inhumane. The resettlement of refugees is not going to be the easy task some would like to imply, but that doesn't mean we don't do it.

Callistemon

^As I read it we are taking in 20,000 over 5 years and we should hang our heads in shame at this number^

I'm not even sure how we would achieve that number, barmeyoldbat.

Will any Afghan people who wish to leave be allowed to do so after this first rush of those trying to escape?

I don’t think we should hang our heads in shame at that number at all, far from it.
Apart from the ones already settled here, and the ones already at the airport and hopefully flown out soon, it will be a matter of assisting those who make it to Pakistan, otherwise negotiating with the Taliban government to see if they will allow it.The hope is that many will choose to stay there, if there really isn’t going to be retribution.It is their country which they love after all.

"So you want London to become a refugee camp?"

Oh dear. A wee bit of a giveaway there ??

SueDonim

As Alegrias has said, much of Scotland is not suitable for habitation. On the other hand, according to media reports, there are numerous mansions standing empty in London. Let’s requisition those to house refugees.

So you want London to become a refugee camp? Or maybe you think the UK is like the tardis?

As I read it we are taking in 20,000 over 5 years and we should hang our heads in shame at this number

I'm not even sure how we would achieve that number, barmeyoldbat.

Will any Afghan people who wish to leave be allowed to do so after this first rush of those trying to escape?

As Alegrias has said, much of Scotland is not suitable for habitation. On the other hand, according to media reports, there are numerous mansions standing empty in London. Let’s requisition those to house refugees.

I suspect many people who likewise see it don’t post for fear of being branded heartless, cruel and racist.

Oh dear! What snowflakes! Maybe they're fearful of admitting that that's exactly what they are!

There's not only large parts of Canada that are uninhabitable but parts of the UK are too. We have areas of outstanding natural beauty which we don't want to build on. But we will end up doing just that if we run out of space. We have farming land which is being swallowed up at an alarming rate because our towns and cities are expanding so rapidly with new developments. Building more and more homes is not a great solution is it? But that is what some people are advocating, because we will never have enough homes for all the people already here or arriving here.

We should pull out all the stops, abandon the Pretti Patel rules ( which would have kept her own parents out of the UK) and give sanctuary to as m,any Afghans as we can transport here asap/

Definitely, there's no if nor buts about it. Poor people, they must be going through hell.

Well done Cossy for a good post. We have room here and we have jobs at all levels to fill, this useless corrupt government just needs to get its act together as we have a duty of care. As I read it we are taking in 20,000 over 5 years and we should hang our heads in shame at this number. Maybe we could give out less visas to the like of India.

Just as an aside those of you that truly believe the Afghan men should stay and fight for their country ? Firstly it’s a civil war - secondly with what ??? They have no weapons - the taluban have had 20 years to accrue new a members, money, weapons etc The only others with weapons were the US and UK forces and they didn’t leave them behind !

Shirlb

Where are they going to live? This country can’t cope with the people already here wasn’t that the reason for brexit?

Pretty disgusted by your comment if I’m honest! Ignorant to a fault and actually I didn’t vote for Brexit nor did I vote in this toxic, dithering and incompetent government. In fact it’s due to Brexit we are starting to see staff shortages in our NHS, empty shelves in our supermarkets and lack of staffing for things like seasonal farming work !!

Furthermore, according to the news this morning we will only actually be taking 5,000 this year, working towards the 20,000 total next year and the year after (if they’re not already dead!) We currently are around number 10 on the list of countries who have taken in refugees and they make up just under 1% of our population

Absolutely no question in my head, yes, yes, yes ! I’ve worked with refugees and many of them came here as unaccompanied children. Many of them experienced things we’d never even imagine in our worst nightmare !!

Most refugees are honest, decent hardworking people and will be an asset to us. Despite many people protestations we do have room here and simply need to organise things properly. In almost every large town and City in the UK we have dozens of empty houses and office blocks, time for local and central government to sort out the housing crisis

Sparklefizz

Population Densities:

UK as a whole: 279 people per square km.

England : 434 people per square km.

Scotland : 70 people per square km.

France: 119 " " " "

Germany: 234 " " "

Canada: 3 " " "

USA: 33 " " "

I think this puts it all in perspective. At these figures, no wonder Alegrias says there is "plenty of room" but to quote a well-known phrase "opinions may vary" for those of us in England.

extra 20,000 people = 0.00001 person per sq km. approx (I got varying figures for the area of GB)

I think we can manage...

It made interesting listening today. So many politicians saying the government isn’t doing it right-I’ll go with that.
None of the critics, including me unfortunately, coming up with a viable solution for the practicalities of how many, where, when and how to organise infrastructure to cope with extra people. 5000 isn’t enough. OK so how many?
It would be helpful if politicians stated what they would do, without using the excuse that they can’t do it, because of how the government has already got things wrong.

Sparklefizz

westendgirl

Someone said earlier this is not a competition. We must not let these people down any more than we have already done and we should not let the tarnished reputation of this country worsen any more. Surely there is only one answer and that is yes , with no ifs and buts.
By the way well said GillT57

No, it's not a competition which you will see I actually said at the start of this thread, but we also have to be practical in what we can manage to do. How would we be helping refugees if we can't house them or medically treat them or educate them? We need to be able to follow through, surely, with what we have readily available at the moment.

Am I the only person who can see that?

The fault may lie with the Government, as GillT says, but the UK has to work with what is available now, not what should have been available as and when.

Alegrias There's no need to be sarcastic. We can take refugees in the UK as Scotland has plenty of room.

Sparklefizz, indeed you’re not the only person who can see this. I suspect many people who likewise see it don’t post for fear of being branded heartless, cruel and racist.