Where will all the refugees live?

Marktheshark

Has anyone got an answer to the question yet ?
Or is "lazy Brits" the common answer to all awkward questions

CLAPTON

Marktheshark wrote: »

Has anyone got an answer to the question yet ?
Or is "lazy Brits" the common answer to all awkward questions

if you want a serious answer then note that 630,000 (plus many uncounted) arrived in the UK last year and about 250,000 left

so unless the numbers of refugees was large then they would be absorbed in the usual way.

i.e. as demand for housing grows at a faster rate than supply, people squeeze in a little more tightly

Marktheshark

CLAPTON wrote: »

if you want a serious answer then note that 630,000 (plus many uncounted) arrived in the UK last year and about 250,000 left

so unless the numbers of refugees was large then they would be absorbed in the usual way.

i.e. as demand for housing grows at a faster rate than supply, people squeeze in a little more tightly

Oh thats ok then, they will be absorbed ?
Oh well fling open the doors.

Movingon5464

This is not an awkward question, it is a complicated question with no easy answer. Sadly, a world without dictators, corrupt governments or terrorist groups will probably never exist so there will always be desperate people needing help from those of us lucky enough to be born into a better life.

CLAPTON

Marktheshark wrote: »

Oh thats ok then, they will be absorbed ?
Oh well fling open the doors.

You asked for an explanation which I have provided.

That is not a value judgement or a guide as to what action to take.

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

given the state of the world, the wars, famines, inequality, homophobia, racial suppression, FGM, religious / ethnic cleansing etc. it would be reasonable to suppose that there are at least 1,000 million people who would benefit from fleeing their own country and coming to live here.

what criteria would a reasonable and non prejudiced person use for determining who and how many should come here ?

Ahh the true compassionate position: We can't help everyone in the world starving to death, being killed etc so we shouldn't help anyone at all. If there were two children drowning and you couldn't reach them both, would you let them both drown to avoid being unfair?

We have the capacity to accept 100,000's of refugees, and if that was the only way we could help I'd support it; however I think we could help considerably more people, and provide a more lasting benefit by spending considerably more money abroad in the first place; and using our political/economic clout to encourage more action by other countries.

There are dozens of countries with vastly lower populations and average incomes that we could partner with. £1 billion is more than 100,000 times the average income in many countries in eastern europe, mid-asia and Africa. We could partner with a handful of countries, spend perhaps £3 billion pa for 5 years and provide far more than adequate financial assistance for ~300-500k refugees. It would help the economies of the countries, and help the refugees.

We could also spend a huge amount more on providing direct support near the conflicts themselves, and on trying to avert them in future.

kabayiri

mayonnaise wrote: »

Why?

I'd say spreading them out is preferable. Concentrating them in a few selected areas and 'refugee only' classrooms would only encourage ghettoization.
Nothing wrong with spreading the burden over all local authorities nationwide either.

Why?

A camp provides for more efficient administration and tracking, while their claims are processed.

Why should I care about refugee only classrooms? We are already supporting refugee only classrooms out in places like Turkey. They already exist.

Generali

I believe that the correct answer to the OP's question is, "Germany". What do I win?

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

Ahh the true compassionate position: We can't help everyone in the world starving to death, being killed etc so we shouldn't help anyone at all. If there were two children drowning and you couldn't reach them both, would you let them both drown to avoid being unfair?

That is your position and not mine.

I raised the question of what criteria we should use to help people.

You only seem interested in showing that you we are full of compassion and virtue and are morally superior to others.

Marktheshark

Same answers all round again, nobody knows and nobody cares, other than taking some moral high stance or saying yes we should let them in, not one ounce of thought on where they will all live.
Same old again.
This is why I call for a put your money where your mouth is list.
Those who want them here, take them in to their own homes, on sofas if need be, no excuses, no backing out, you want them you house them.
Those people vocally shouting for more are quite happy to see someone on a waiting list not have a house at all.

They should be forced to take them in, a straight yes or no referendum, you vote yes, you have to put them up.