Forums Forums National News Rich Countries

I was listening to David Milliband earlier stating that it is the duty of the richer countries to take in more refugees, what I want to know is how do they define a country as being rich? is it how much money or wealth it is worth, or is it the living standards and quality of life of its populace, because one doesn't actually equate to the other, we are told that the UK is the fifth richest country in the world, yet we have poverty,an aging poulation cuts to essential services, a struggling NHS, food banks,shortage of housing so how can we afford to bring in more refugees who will put a bigger burden on all these services( because refugees cant work so cant contribute via taxes)along with all the different cultural and religious differences that also cost extra resources, who will pay, were will this money come from this government tells us we must accept cuts to save the economy, so who's kidding who?

Lots of factors go into the equation to decide which countries are rich.Gross national income is probably the most common.Refugees can work and thus pay taxes if they have permission to stay with refugee, humanitarian protection status or discretionary leave to remain. Most asylum seekers cannot work in the UK.
The thing to remember is that people in this country are infinitely better off than those seeking refuge here. They have seen their homes and neighbourhoods completely destroyed.

Good points Salmon, but the lines are blurred when trying to define between asylum seekers and refugees could they not be one and the same? estimates given on the numbers coming through suggest that 70% of the total are economic migrants mainly young men who claim that they are coming to make a home and send for their families, yet if they are in that much fear of their lives why would they leave their wives and children? It just seems to me that many are grasping the opportunity for a better life at the expense of the genuine, as to people being infinitely better off in this country,well that is debatable in how you define better off, perhaps those sleeping on the streets here may disagree with you.

In this country people only sleep on the streets out of choice or because of anti-social behaviour.

Got to disagree with you on that point DD, yes to some its a choice, but a lot have been damned by the system for many reasons, many are from Europe, lost their jobs cant pay rent so have lost accommodation no address no money to live or pay their fares back home,we have an acute shortage of housing, immigrants both legal and illegal living 10 or 12 in a 3 bedroom property, and so it goes on, more and more coming to less and less.

Many on the streets because of mental illness. 20 to 25% of homeless in US have schizophrenia---which sadly was not there choice to get. Similar stats in UK.

Many of our "poor" are still relatively rich . Was in Uganda and was able to tip people nearly a days wage and think nothing of it.(one less beer or coffee !)

Countries with capacity could take more in with help (financial or otherwise)from other countries. If you look at an OS map and built 1 house to house 4 or 5 people in every city , town, village, hamlet named you could take in 1000s and not make a huge difference.

An asylum seeker is somebody who has made an application for protection in line with UN 1951 Refugee Convention. To apply for asylum they must have well founded fear of persecution in their home land.The person is subjected to a long process at the end of which they hope to be accepted as a refugee with the right to stay in Uk for 5 years and be able to work. There is no such thing as an economic refugee and the vast majority of refugees are hard working law abiding people.They deserve and need our help.

The term economic refugee is well used and recognised as a legitimate description of those that migrate to seek a better standard of life, the 70% I quote is also a legitimate estimate given by those who were/are monitoring the present exodus, and yes you are right the genuine do deserve our help, however is it not also fair to expect the same assistance for those that need it in this country?

I really cannot fathom how any sensible thinking person can even consider comparing the plight of the poor refugees fleeing their homelands which are completely devastated by bombings and gunfire with homeless people in this country.

Don't forget how many conscription dodgers are fleeing their homelands as well.

Really Salmon, are they not "all people" looking for help and assistance? should we pick and choose who we help? should we really ignore the plight of some in favour of others? when I see ranks of well dressed young men with mobile phones pushing themselves forward in front of women and children then one wonders if some really are "poor refugees" or opportunists.

You won't see the Sauds, Bahrainis, Iranians or all the other oil rich countries taking anyone in, just want us mugs to do it.