From the BBC News Website:

 

The UK should take in some refugees from Syria's civil war, UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage has said.

 

He told BBC News that Western countries should agree to take an allocation, but he did not specify numbers.

 

Mr Farage, who has led opposition to allowing open immigration from Romania and Bulgaria in the new year, said refugees were "a very different thing".

 

The UK government is refusing to accept Syrian refugees, saying it is better to offer financial help.

 

Mr Farage said: "I think refugees are a very different thing to economic migration and I think this country should honour the 1951 declaration on refugee status that was agreed.

 

"It was agreed with the UN and even through the European Court, which sadly has changed its role.

 

"But the original ideas of defining what a refugee is were good ones and I think, actually, there is a responsibility on all of us in the free West to try and help some of those people fleeing Syria, literally in fear of their lives."

 

More than 100,000 people are estimated to have been killed since the unrest began in Syria more than two years ago.

 

There's quite a few things worth discussing both with this story in particular and the wider issues involved. Firstly, is this truly a reflection of UKIP's true feelings towards immigration, or is it either an attempt to 'soften' their image over immigration, or an attempt to appeal to voters? And should the UK accept refugees fleeing for their lives from Syria, or should the UK focus on giving aid to the region instead?

 

Debate away.

I think I'm in shock. Literally.

 

 

Going have to have a sweet tea before attempt to reply to this.

I think it is right to accept Syrians but only certain ones, professionals and entrepreneurs etc

I like to try and imagine what Craig's reaction would be if there were a murderous rampage on his street. Obviously he'd have the barred gates, knuckle dusters and a hunting rifle ready, but I think the apex of it all would be when some poor sod who's about be mowed down knocks on his door, begging to be let in before he's murdered, and Craig tells him to bugger off unless he can pay rent.

That aside though, old Nige is entirely right that there is a distinction between refugees and immigrants, and good on him for recognising it.

Obviously the UK should accept refugees, they have the same human rights as anyone else to live in a peaceful country and the arguments that go against having them here are usually exaggerated by the mass media.

 

I can't help feeling as if it's an attempt to appeal to voters though, as shown by the amount of surprise of his comments shown in this thread already.

I think it is right to accept Syrians but only certain ones, professionals and entrepreneurs etc

Should we have said the same about Jewish refugees in the 1930s?

it doesn't seem particularly in fitting with the ethos the party have projected thus far? it isn't how serious political parties work (whether it be a right or wrong turn)

 

how are these decisions made? it seems very much like they are made up as they go along and i find it all a bit disingenuous coming from farrage, a very cynical move to get people to warm up to him.

As ever the facts seem to have eluded Craig but here are a few to ponder.

 

Several months ago roughly one quarter of the people in Lebanon were Syrian refugees.

 

Also at that time one refugee camp in Jordan held more people than the population of almost every Jordanian city.

 

Since then the flow of refugees from the country has continues so the current position is even more extreme. Quite simply Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey (which has also taken in a huge number of refugees) cannot cope. The current situation is a perfect illustration of the lunacy of the argument that refugees should claim asylum in the first "safe" country they reach. A number of EU countries have agreed to accept a small number of refugees. The UK government has, yet again, allowed policy to be dictated by the editors of right-wing rags such as the Daily Mail and has refused to accept a single one. It should also be remembered that most of the refugees are desperate to return to Syria as soon as it is safe to do so.

 

Cameron (along with Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband) issued a statement yesterday calling for financial support. Cameron has shown himself to be a shameless hypocrite on many occasions but this takes some beating.

Credit to Farage for speaking some sense. I think it was probably devised as a tactical move as I would imagine the British public is far more receptive towards refugees than most immigrants so his views could accurately tap into the public psyche, however the UKIP membership will inevitably brand him a traitor and a soft touch. Maybe in the long term it could enhance his own prospects of winning a seat in 2015 at the expense of his party's (not that they'd win more than that anyway) as it becomes easier to separate his personal appeal from his party.

Should we have said the same about Jewish refugees in the 1930s?

 

We didn't have an out of control welfare state in the 1930s

 

I want people to come to this country who are going to make a difference to that country, we have enough home grown benefit claimants without importing any more so i welcome doctors, accountants, business owners, dentists, architects etc who are pretty sure to walk straight into a job or set up a business

 

Unskilled Syrians are far more likely to be a burden on the already out of control welfare budget, so it is right to cherry pick the cream of Syrian society

Edited December 29, 201311 yr by Sandro Raniere

We didn't have an out of control welfare state in the 1930s

 

I want people to come to this country who are going to make a difference to that country, we have enough home grown benefit claimants without importing any more so i welcome doctors, accountants, business owners, dentists, architects etc who are pretty sure to walk straight into a job or set up a business

 

Unskilled Syrians are far more likely to be a burden on the already out of control welfare budget, so it is right to cherry pick the cream of Syrian society

And we still don't.

And we still don't.

 

1/3 of all government spending is on social security benefits, yes a sizeable chunk of that is on pensions but JSA, income support, housing benefit, child benefit etc is a scary amount of money and needs reining in badly and fast

 

We can't afford as a country to have Syrians coming in and adding to it

Unskilled Syrians are far more likely to be a burden on the already out of control welfare budget, so it is right to cherry pick the cream of Syrian society

And it's also right to leave the rest to die so long as we don't have to shell out £70 a week to them?

And it's also right to leave the rest to die so long as we don't have to shell out £70 a week to them?

 

There are plenty of other countries that can take the poorer less educated ones, no reason for them to die, just should not be us

Why not us? Do you really think there aren't Italian/French/German Sandro equivalents making the exact same argument as you for why they shouldn't take in refugees?

Edited December 29, 201311 yr by Cassandra

Why not us? Do you really think there aren't Italian/French/German Sandro equivalents making the exact same argument as you?

 

They are far bigger countries than us in landmass plus i bet those countries don't spend 1/3 of their budget on social security

 

So Germany, France, Italy etc have far more space than us to accomodate refugees, we are a tiny island

 

And paying benefits to refugees would not eat into the finances like they do here

 

Those countries are far more suited than us

We are NOT a 'tiny island' and with the appropriate infrastructure we can support a population density substantially higher than it is now*. JESUS.

 

MALTA is a tiny island.

 

*not without its drawbacks but could we stop this tiny island talk like?

And paying benefits to refugees would not eat into the finances like they do here

How so?

 

 

We are NOT a 'tiny island' and with the appropriate infrastructure we can support a population density substantially higher than it is now*. JESUS.

 

MALTA is a tiny island.

 

*not without its drawbacks but could we stop this tiny island talk like?

 

Certainly in London and the South it is overcrowded to bursting point, doctors surgeries, hospitals, trains, schools, roads etc are bursting at the seams, there is a serious problem with overcrowding

 

Re welfare, we should be reducing heavily the welfare budget not unnecessarily adding to it which would be the case with many refugees, as well as giving them money to live on they have to be found accomodation which means they queue jump UK nationals who have been on the housing list for years

 

I am not a heartless person, merely an economic realist