Immigrants dying in the Mediterranean

[JFKvsNixon]

Yes. The UK is 1/1500 of the worlds land mass. So we should take 1 in 1500 of the refugees.

 

Ironically the Arab Emirates and Saudi ship in hundreds of thousands of migrant workers from Bangladesh & Pakistan to work as domestics, on construction and in industry. Yet the migrants by pass these places because the welfare system isn't generous enough.

 

Have you included the desert, polar, and unpopulated regions in places such as Siberia and and Canada in your calculations?

[evil woman]

Have you included the desert, polar, and unpopulated regions in places such as Siberia and and Canada in your calculations?

 

I included Kinderscout, Snowdonia, the Cairngorms, Lake Windermere and Kielder Forest.

[Guest sibon]

for your reading pleasure, courtesy of the UN.

 

Concerns Eritrea and 2013 Eritrean migration stats (since Eritreans currently constitute the bulk of Med-crossing migrants, but historically it's Syrians), but plenty more where that one came from.

 

Please turn to page 2, bottom right quarter: the percentages appear to be 55% to Sudan, 15% to Saudi, 14% to the USA, 8% to the UK, 7% to the UAE. Sudan also takes 47% of refugees, by the look of things.

 

But I suspect loraward will be along shortly to explain () how and why my percentages don't stack up

 

Here's a more global (and easier to digest) set of stats.

 

So, we've established quite clearly that most refugees go elsewhere, what are we going to talk about now?

[JFKvsNixon]

I included Kinderscout, Snowdonia, the Cairngorms, Lake Windermere and Kielder Forest.

 

And you believe that balances things out?

[evil woman]

Here's a more global (and easier to digest) set of stats.

 

So, we've established quite clearly that most refugees go elsewhere, what are we going to talk about now?

 

Actually you have established that 1/12 of refugees come to a country that only covers 1/1500 of the world. It is little wonder you want to talk about something else.

[Guest sibon]

Actually you have established that 1/12 of refugees come to a country that only covers 1/1500 of the world. It is little wonder you want to talk about something else.

 

Your calculator is broken.

 

I can link you to a working one if you like.

[L00b]

Actually you have established that 1/12 of refugees come to a country that only covers 1/1500 of the world. It is little wonder you want to talk about something else.

You seem to be as mathematically gifted as loraward

 

149,800 in the UK out of 10m globally (per the link) is 1.5%, not 8.3% (1/12).

 

As regards your 1/1500 figure, you might want to read this link. Note that (before you put words in my mouth) I'm not saying 'hey there's tons of room to put refugees on'. I'm simply saying that we in the UK live on around 7% (at most) of that 1/1500th global land area. Not exactly piled one on top of the other, or bursting at the seams, are we?

[Zamo]

Refugees.

 

Doesn't make a difference. Taking them in doesn't help address the root cause problems and arguably helps them to persist by removing opposition to them.

 

Taking these people in is no good for us (see my post 228 ) and is no good for their wider people. Life has dealt them a crappy hand but they need to play it out in their country so the same crap hand doesn't keep being dealt out. If we save them from their fate we only shifts that fate onto others. The people of these countries need to address the religious and cultural issues that make their countries so dysfunctional, unfair and violent... not bring them here.

[cuttsie]

I'm not so sure.

 

Care to back up your claim with some facts?

Have a walk around Dewsbury.

[Harrystottle]

Because they will be an ongoing financial burden, unable to stand on their own two feet in a Western society (lack of skills, education and the language and cultural barriers standing in their way). They will end up in ghettos (like those before them), be poor and poverty breeds crime. Future generations will blame wider society believing their lot is down to discrimination when it is actually a legacy gift of disadvantage bestowed on them by their culture/country of origin. Then the angry madness that lurks withing their culture/religion will start to raise it's' ugly head (like it has with those before them) and we will face threat, incur more cost and more losses of freedoms as the State attempts to contain the threat.

 

Experience tells us it is a bad idea to take these people in. No thanks.

 

 

Well said.