Music1 min ago
Syrian Refugees
15 Answers
http://
/// European leaders should be ashamed by the paltry numbers of refugees from Syria they are prepared to resettle, human rights group Amnesty says. ///
/// Only 10 member states have offered to take in refugees and even then only 12,000, it complains. The UK and Italy have offered no places at all. ///
Why have the UK and Italy been specifically criticised for failing to take in any of these refugees, since there are 28 EU member states and only 10 of those have offered to take in any refugees, that leaves another 16 EU states which have also not taken any in.
So I repeat why criticise just the UK and Italy?
/// European leaders should be ashamed by the paltry numbers of refugees from Syria they are prepared to resettle, human rights group Amnesty says. ///
/// Only 10 member states have offered to take in refugees and even then only 12,000, it complains. The UK and Italy have offered no places at all. ///
Why have the UK and Italy been specifically criticised for failing to take in any of these refugees, since there are 28 EU member states and only 10 of those have offered to take in any refugees, that leaves another 16 EU states which have also not taken any in.
So I repeat why criticise just the UK and Italy?
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
FredPuli43
This was taken from The Times of India.
/// Only 10 member states have offered to take in only 1200 refugees. Britain has faced heavy criticism along with Italy for offering no places at all. ///
No matter the motive, it is totally unfair for Amnesty International to single out the UK and Italy, and not name the other 16 countries, who may be more suitable to take in yet more refugees, after all we don't know how many Bulgarians and Romanians are coming here yet.
Perhaps a good idea would be for Brussels to allow Britain to close it's doors to further EU immigrants, so that we can take in these Syrians who are much more in need of shelter than the EU immigrants?
This was taken from The Times of India.
/// Only 10 member states have offered to take in only 1200 refugees. Britain has faced heavy criticism along with Italy for offering no places at all. ///
No matter the motive, it is totally unfair for Amnesty International to single out the UK and Italy, and not name the other 16 countries, who may be more suitable to take in yet more refugees, after all we don't know how many Bulgarians and Romanians are coming here yet.
Perhaps a good idea would be for Brussels to allow Britain to close it's doors to further EU immigrants, so that we can take in these Syrians who are much more in need of shelter than the EU immigrants?
Europe cannot keep taking people from countries all over the world that are having problems.
Yes it is not nice what is happening in Syria, but there are over 2 million refuges so any we take would be a drop in the ocean.
As Cameron says, far better to sort these problems out in their own country than to bring people over here.
I think the "west" needs to get out of the idea that taking a handful of refugees from a war torn country will solve the problem.
Also many old people in the UK will die this winter because they are too cold and cannot afford the heating. Far better money is spent on helping OUR deprived people than those from another country.
Yes it is not nice what is happening in Syria, but there are over 2 million refuges so any we take would be a drop in the ocean.
As Cameron says, far better to sort these problems out in their own country than to bring people over here.
I think the "west" needs to get out of the idea that taking a handful of refugees from a war torn country will solve the problem.
Also many old people in the UK will die this winter because they are too cold and cannot afford the heating. Far better money is spent on helping OUR deprived people than those from another country.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I would imagine that the UK and Italy are specifically singled out because they are 2 of the larger economies within the EU.
Amnesty can point the finger all they like, but it is a political decision. Many feel that, rather than taking in refugees, it would be better to keep them in the local vicinity of Syria - and many of those displaced and living in refugee camps would rather that too. What does seem to be urgently required is far more help with warm clothing, materials for building warmer shelters than tents, stoves, fuel, food, and all that sort of thing.
Amnesty can point the finger all they like, but it is a political decision. Many feel that, rather than taking in refugees, it would be better to keep them in the local vicinity of Syria - and many of those displaced and living in refugee camps would rather that too. What does seem to be urgently required is far more help with warm clothing, materials for building warmer shelters than tents, stoves, fuel, food, and all that sort of thing.
-- answer removed --
What a blasted cheek of Amnesty, we have given the largest amount of aide to Syria for the refugees, bringing them to our shores is a no no, let one of the many Islamic states take them in - after all Syria is about 88% islamic - mind you they will not be able to demand he handouts obtainable over here.
1 to 15 of 15
