Syrian Refugees

[emmie]

Britain to take in some refugees, good or not..

http://news.sky.com/story/1202591/syrian-refugees-to-be-taken-in-by-britain

[Baldric]

Not much of a U-turn there, but then, why not? everyone else gets in.

[emmie]

i heard that it would be the vulnerable, women and children, how many, and for how long?

[LazyGun]

Good idea, I think.

[emmie]

ok, but how many should we take, and for how long should they be here, in consideration of how long this conflict has been going on and doesn't look to stop any day soon.

[LazyGun]

As many as we can, consistent with our treaty obligations and our commitment to humanitarian and compassion belief.

As for how long- as long as it takes for the situation to stabilise.

[emmie]

so if it doesn't stabilise, they stay here.

[ladybirder]

Yes of course we should take some if we have a compassionate bone in our bodies. If these are not the sort of people we should be helping then who? They will be the most vulnerable, women in danger of rape, children, the old and the disabled. I would rather give these people sanctuary than some others who are already here. The Guardian says 500, other papers talk of in the hundreds. I have read on BBC news site that it is temporary, not permanent.

[LazyGun]

"so if it doesn't stabilise, they stay here"

Absolutely, unless in the meanwhile they get a better offer from a different country.

[emmie]

wouldn't it have been wiser, kinder even for those to be housed in a country that has a similar outlook, setup, same religious beliefs, surely those neighbouring Syria, to be shipped so far away seems rather a folly.
Is it because we already have Syrians who live and work here,

[viv38]

I thought 'not good' at first because we let enough in as it is, but then I read ladybirder's thread and I changed my mind. Well said ladybirder.

[LazyGun]

Well they have already tried that, haven't they? around 2million displaced people, maybe more, all in camps in countries around Syria itself.

But we are not talking about your straightforward displaced person. We are talking about the most vulnerable of those, given some kind of humanitarian aid in initiatives from around the globe, including rehoming for the duration of the conflict. The numbers are necessarily going to be limited, and it seems a perfectly fine, compassionate initiative to me. I applaud the government for rethinking their stance.

[emmie]

from BBC
cases "where evacuation from the region is the only option", said the home secretary, and will "prioritise help for survivors of torture and women and children in need of medical care", as recommended by the UNHCR. There would also be a focus on rescuing the victims of sexual violence, Mrs May told MPs.

"This is in the spirit of the UNHCR programme but it is not technically part of it," she added, saying it would provide "greater flexibility".

She said 3,500 Syrian refugee asylum seekers were already in the UK.

[jake-the-peg]

The 3,500 will be just people who've managed to make it to the UK under their own steam.

The people we're talking about here will be amoungst those who need our help the most - people who if left in camps or fending for themselves would most likely die or be abused.

That means we probably have to limit the numbers more because they'll need support here.

Of course rather than spend taxpayers money in giving a chance to some foreigners who'd otherwise die we could mend a few more potholes in the roads over here

[emmie]

how many countries around the globe have the following, war, civil war, famine, drought, should we take people from every place, the Syrian conflict is not going to go away any day soon nor be resolved in a way that many will be able to return home at least to the one they left behind.
How much has Britain pledged or given in humanitarian aid, wouldn't that be better, and send our politicians to talk to their politicians, and anyone who will try and resolve this conflict.

[LazyGun]

"how many countries around the globe have the following, war, civil war, famine, drought, should we take people from every place, the Syrian conflict is not going to go away any day soon nor be resolved in a way that many will be able to return home at least to the one they left behind.
How much has Britain pledged or given in humanitarian aid, wouldn't that be better, and send our politicians to talk to their politicians, and anyone who will try and resolve this conflict."

We are talking specifically about about the Syrian conflict. If you want to open the door to a more general programme of "sanctuary", be my guest.

Giving money is great, and we have indeed been generous donors in giving aid for Syrian refugees, but why should that be the limit of our compassion in instances like this, especially where the number of refugees is small?

And we are "sending our politicians to talk to their politicians". What do you think the Geneva meeting currently going on is all about?

[jno]

or we could kill two birds with one stone and get the refugees to fill the potholes, jake?

[emmie]

who from Britain is at these talks,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25926282

[LazyGun]

William Hague, for a start.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-un-peace-talks-syrian-foreign-minister-calls-opposition-fighters-traitors-9076574.html

[ChillDoubt]

There was a similar question on a thread a couple of weeks ago.
As I said then, yes we should take them, but quantified that by also saying we should take no more nor no less than all the other EU countries, who must share the burden, along with Arab neighbours who ought to take the majority.