Why should there be no cap on the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK?
Mr Cameron told the Observer he welcomed people fleeing persecution and was committed to granting them asylum, "taking them to our hearts, and feeding and clothing and schooling them".
Hosting asylum seekers does nothing to resolve the underlying domestic problems of the home country they are fleeing.
Does Charles Kennedy know of any leadership vacancies in the Liberal Democrats if David Cameron should change parties if "he meant what he was saying"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hosting asylum seekers does nothing to resolve the underlying domestic problems of the home country they are fleeing.
I'm not sure... wasn't this a line from the movie Holocaust?
Lone Primate, no idea, I've never seen the film!
No doubt Robert Mugabe is really worried about all the asylum seekers fleeing Zimbabwe!
No doubt Robert Mugabe is really worried about all the asylum seekers fleeing Zimbabwe!
This is sort of the point. If he's not -- and clearly, he isn't -- then somebody should be.
In 1939, Canada was asked by a delegation of Jews from Europe, "How many Jews will Canada take in?" The infamous reply of one of our immigration officials was, "None is too many." It's a little late in history for anyone -- especially the home of the Mother of Parliaments -- to incline its thinking in that direction.
Lone Primate, it's a good point.
Should Canada have accepted all 6m Jews at risk of persecution by the Nazis or accept a "fair share", suggesting a limit on numbers?
How about those fleeing the Spanish Civil War? Chinese fleeing persecution following the Japanese invasion? Kulaks before they were murdered by Stalin? Ukranians before they were starved to death by Stalin?
Did Canada have a good welfare system in the 1930s? Should they have offered a home to millions of unemployed Americans following the depression or is there a limit on numbers?
Post a Comment