…. Are we no longer capable of such responses? Not one of those situations was fun or easy, and Britain’s response was by no means perfect; not every landing was happy; and there was always plenty of rancour. But Britain did, in its muddling-through way, help despairing people improve their lot. It could again.
The second lesson is simpler. Why spend taxpayers’ money on keeping a few thousand people out, when (apart from any moral consideration) they would only add dynamism to British life? And it would be a mistake to see them cynically as a new army of cheap labour. It is plain that this stream of refugees is full of digital-savvy, resourceful people. And if we asked some of them to visit our schools in order to point out, from bitter first-hand experience, that Isis has rather less glamour in real life than it does on the videos – well, how bad would that be? [1537 comments]
[TOP RATED COMMENT 317 votes] We shouldn’t accept economic migrants for a number of reasons:
1. There are too many. Potentially millions could come and that’s no exaggeration as I think most people realise by now.
2. Sorry, but they are mostly Muslim. From experience in the UK and elsewhere, we know the majority do not integrate or appreciate British (European) values. 2-3rd generation British-Muslims still wearing headscarves and Islamic garb? Come on!
3. We have our own poor, homeless, unemployed and sick who need caring for and are infrastructure is already creaking.
4. Genuine refugees should be placed in neighbouring countries so they can return as soon as the conflict is over. EU can definitely fund these camps and help more.
5. It’s just not fair on the native population no matter how sad some of the ‘refugee’ stories might be. These are our (European) homelands and the only ones we have.
[2ND 284] Hugenots integrated and assimilated.
Jews, Hungarians, Vietnamse have [mostly] integrated and assumed the British way of life.
Some traditions/cultures do not want to adapt to the host society, but believe that their culture/tradition is superior and that the host society should adapt to their way of life – or at least accommodate it – even when it is in utterly contrary to our established values and way of life.
[3RD 231] We took Huguenots, Jews, Vietnamese. So why not Syrians?
What religion were the Huguenots? What religion are Jews and the Vietnamese? Have there been any Jewish, Huguenot or Vietnamese terrorist attacks? Are there any cities in Europe that are circa 20-30% Huguenot, Jewish or Vietnamese (a la Marseilles and Birmingham)? Was there widespread concern that Europe might one day become majority Huguenot, Jewish or Vietnamese at the time?
[4TH 224] Our island is over populated.
[5TH 223] Were the Vietnamese, Jewish & Huguenots throwing rocks & poles chanting “God Is Great” with their fists in the air? No didn’t think so.
[6TH 214] A COMMENT SAID: “Speaking as a Hugenot, I can only agree”
Your ancestors came as 50,000 people over the course of two centuries Vs a current rate of 500,000+ over the course of two years. It’s hardly the same situation.
[7TH 187] “We took Huguenots, Jews, Vietnamese. So why not Syrians?”
Because they’re likely to import their sectarian violence. As has been seen previously with immigrant Muslim communities, they frequently fail to integrate into the host country and its culture, and tensions between them and other ethnic groups seems to inevitably follow.
Of course, the disastrous Iraq war was a major reason for the current conflicts in Syria and Iraq, so the UK (and other countries involved) are morally obliged to take in a certain number of carefully screened, genuine refugees.
But to open the gates to all and sundry – many of whom seem to be economic migrants rather then refugees – could have long-lasting detrimental effects to the UK and other European countries.
[8TH 186] Numbers, my dear man, numbers. And why do editors insist upon showing us pictures accompanying such articles of women and children when the vast, vast majority of these illegal immigrants are young males? [Guardian Cif] Read more