The world has recently become aware of a shocking crisis in Europe. Migrants from around the world are making the perilous journey from their own war-torn poverty-stricken lands to the safer prosperous nations within the EU. As the most affluent continent in the world, we should be expected to welcome the immigrants and grant them a safe place to live. However we treat them with a xenophobic prejudice, as though they have come only to pillage and plunder both patria and populace. We are told that they are an incessant evil that we cannot afford to allow into our society, when in fact, those who arrive on the shores of Calais are utterly traumatised people who desperately need our help. We are told as a country that we must do more to aid those
…show more content…
This is extremely ruthless and utterly psychotic. It would be cold blooded murder to send war victims back into the carnage that they had risked their lives to be free from. These people are recklessly desperate and are willing to take any risk, including the perilous voyage across the Mediterranean to arrive at the shores of Europe and be told to go back to where they came from. In fact, in 2014, 3,500 drowned on their journey to safety and, in this year alone, over 1,900 have perished in the waters. This shows their immense determination and their terrifying lack of safety, which demonstrates that fact that wherever these people have come from, there is absolutely no way that they would consider going back. In fact, Syrian refugee, Abu Jana, said, “I don’t think, even if they decided to bomb migrant boats, it would change people’s decision to go.” This highlights the horrific atrocities that are currently occurring in these nations. The argument of sending people back to their country is a tremendously apathetic conclusion to come to. Considering these awful conditions and the lengths these people are willing to go to, are you really considering sending them back to their certain …show more content…
This seems plausible because of the amount of people simply living off benefits here. However, the minority of migrants are fleeing poverty and 70% of migrants are refugees of war and can be applicable for asylum. Even on our renowned benefits, for asylum seekers life is far from the luxurious fairy tale we expect them to be living here. In Britain, the asylum seekers allowance is a meagre £36.95 a week. Living on this miniscule sum is very harsh, the average cost of one week of grocery shopping for two people costs £60 which is almost double what asylum seekers are meant to live off. Keeping in mind this terribly small sum, many in Britain think by getting rid of asylum seekers and other migrants will boost our economy as though all of our money is funded into the asylum seekers allowance. This is an absurd idea as the majority of this benefit money is actually going to the benefits for British people who can’t be bothered to work. When we take this into account, we can understand that the migrants who are travelling here are here for the safety of this country and not for an ulterior motive. This shows that the argument is not strong enough to be used as an attack against helping the poor and innocent reach a safe and secure
This is extremely ruthless and utterly psychotic. It would be cold blooded murder to send war victims back into the carnage that they had risked their lives to be free from. These people are recklessly desperate and are willing to take any risk, including the perilous voyage across the Mediterranean to arrive at the shores of Europe and be told to go back to where they came from. In fact, in 2014, 3,500 drowned on their journey to safety and, in this year alone, over 1,900 have perished in the waters. This shows their immense determination and their terrifying lack of safety, which demonstrates that fact that wherever these people have come from, there is absolutely no way that they would consider going back. In fact, Syrian refugee, Abu Jana, said, “I don’t think, even if they decided to bomb migrant boats, it would change people’s decision to go.” This highlights the horrific atrocities that are currently occurring in these nations. The argument of sending people back to their country is a tremendously apathetic conclusion to come to. Considering these awful conditions and the lengths these people are willing to go to, are you really considering sending them back to their certain …show more content…
This seems plausible because of the amount of people simply living off benefits here. However, the minority of migrants are fleeing poverty and 70% of migrants are refugees of war and can be applicable for asylum. Even on our renowned benefits, for asylum seekers life is far from the luxurious fairy tale we expect them to be living here. In Britain, the asylum seekers allowance is a meagre £36.95 a week. Living on this miniscule sum is very harsh, the average cost of one week of grocery shopping for two people costs £60 which is almost double what asylum seekers are meant to live off. Keeping in mind this terribly small sum, many in Britain think by getting rid of asylum seekers and other migrants will boost our economy as though all of our money is funded into the asylum seekers allowance. This is an absurd idea as the majority of this benefit money is actually going to the benefits for British people who can’t be bothered to work. When we take this into account, we can understand that the migrants who are travelling here are here for the safety of this country and not for an ulterior motive. This shows that the argument is not strong enough to be used as an attack against helping the poor and innocent reach a safe and secure