Arguments over the number of refugees allowed into the UK shows a failure to feel what it’s like to be in their shoes, the Archbishop of Wales will say in his Christmas sermon.
Dr Barry Morgan, speaking at Llandaff Cathedral in Cardiff today, will argue that the UK has lost its sense of proportion by agreeing to take 20,000 people over the next five years.
Dr Morgan said: “The debate seems to be centred on how many refugees we should accept.
“We forget to ask or perhaps we choose to forget why there are so many refugees in the first place. As one Somali poet puts it, ‘Why does a mother put her children at risk in a flimsy dinghy on the open sea? It is because she believes the sea is safer than the land’.
“These are people fleeing persecution and death in Syria and Afghanistan where British involvement is certainly in part responsible for the crisis. Meanwhile, Jordan and Lebanon have four million people in refugee camps and we quibble about 20,000. Is not that a failure of imagination on our part?
“And where is our sense of proportion? Five hundred million people live in the European Union – only three hundred and fifty thousand refugees have fled – less than a tenth of one percent of the total population of Europe.
“And as we come to worship the God revealed in the Christ child, the irony is that a few weeks later, He too faced persecution and had to flee to Egypt. That is why God can so easily put Himself in the shoes of refugees – for He too was once one.”
20,000 too many in my mind. We should be accepting none.
The migrant crisis is not our problem. Wanting to accept migrants causes the death of more migrants. People often ignore this point but one cannot coherently argue in favour of migrants to protect them, while ignoring that it is a pull factor to other migrants which cause more deaths as more migrants make the dangerous journey. Dr Barry Morgan fails to realise the migrants do not need to board the boat to Europe as Turkey and other camps in the Middle East are safe. Europe should work to keep them all out, and systematically remove all currently in Europe.
The herd – often young men being violent against border guards – is a cancerous growth on the face of old Europe. Like with cancer, if left untreated it aggressively grows until it becomes fatal. Two attackers in the recent Paris attacks is the cancer spreading to another cell and organ. Let us stop it before it is too late.
The surgery to remove the tumour is removal of migrants from Europe back to where they came from. The chemotherapy here is using force to make safe the countries where they came from. The death here is inevitable with Guardian-reading and believing, left-wing do-gooders controlling the country.
Europe can not save the world, it can give aid to those in need and it can use force when and where it is necessary but it can not take in, house, support and feed every last refugee. How many homeless people do we have in the U.K, 100’000? 200’000? Charity begins at home and before we take 1 refugee we should find accommodation for our own homeless.
Yes, I was in Cardiff this week and there were many homeless, we need to provide for them too. I am relaxed about genuine refugees but having met people who claim to be asylum seekers and obviously are not there needs to be proper controls.
There will not be controls until we leave the EU, hopefully this will be next year, but I will not hold my breath. BIg business and the weird politics of Tory and Labour conspire against the interests and wishes of the population.
How many refugees are the chuch in wales putting up in all the property they own,i should imagine none .Trevor Smith
About as many as the fabulously rich Moslem states cater for!
They all hypocrites. In September Bob Geldof, JK Rowling etc were saying how they would take Syrian families into their homes. Geldof said he would take 4 families into his various homes … over 3 months later, none have actually taken 1 Syrian between them.
I heard on Radio 4 today that the Syrian Christians, who used to number around 10 million, rely absolutely for protection on the Assad regime. If that protection was not there they would be persecuted or killed by the many armed groups fighting in the country.
Perhaps Dr. Morgan should concentrate his concerns for these Christians?
Yes – but that goes against the anti-Assad PR doesn’t it.
I’m more concerned by what the Archbishop isn’t saying rather than what he is. How many should we take? 40,000? 100,000? 1 million? These folk seem to act as some kind of liberal mouthpiece for the establishment on subjects like this.
The best thing to do, I would suggest, is stick with the 20,000 for now and, say, in ten years time look at what kind of country Germany has become. Or Sweden, which seems even more bent on self-destruction.
100 years from now Christianity will not be the dominant religion in this country. You know what will.
Religion is a red herring here.
For hundreds of years religion has been used as a distraction for the benefit of the ruling elite. The poor masses always seem to fall for it though.
The real problems will only start to be seen next year. As Sweden & Germany encourage these migrants to risk leaving the safety of Turkey for the treacherous sea towards Greece, there will be even more drownings.
More migrants will risk it, as more people smugglers will seek to make big money by exploiting them.
The 20,000 have 5yrs to stay. In that time they will be housed in private rented accomadation. They will require translaters to help them and their children access health, education and other state benefits … this is a huge cost.
Then after 5yrs they will have to reapply to stay. Syria will be a no go area for atleast another 25yrs, so they will be staying indefinitely without doubt.
But they will not be funded directly by the government as they will be the first 5yrs. So they will be put onto the council housing list, and all other additional benefits will stop … If they cannot speak English by then – how will they work?
These migrants are not the ones who could afford to pay the people smugglers – so they will be the poorest & less educated ones … their opportunities after 5yrs look bleak.
It’s easy for rich politicians or celebrities to cry out to allow more migrants in.
We see what hypocrites they are when they make a fuss about wind turbines spooling the views of their country houses.
Denmark and Sweden Closing its borders and introducing tougher controls on their borders with Germany, where does that leave freedom of migration with the EU?
It leaves it restricted, which is a step in the right direction.
Not according to EU convention it is`nt a step in the right direction, it breaks a basic tenent of it, good, bad, or indefferent, a step this Country will never take of course.
Sod the EU, do not accept any. Ultimately international law has very little consequences if you are a developed national with a global economy than has an impact. both Germany and France (the two big players in Europe) will not allow the EU to punish Britain as Britain is too much of an important market for them (Britain is Germany’s second biggest country for German exports).
Would`nt it be good to have a few comments on this subject from welsh Assembly politicians, they will all be seeking our vote next May, Whittle included, he has enough to say about Christmas Lights, and `doing the rounds of Christmas teas etc, how about a bit of grown up politics from the lot of them, Labour, Lib Dems and Cons included.
At least Councillor Richard Williams has the guts to put his head above the wall on this and other difficult matters, I dont see any other local Councillors saying anything, perhaps they dont want us to know what their views are until after next years elections?.
You may have to wait a long time for any comments from politicians. Modern politics is about the sound bite, the photo opportunity and not being seen as ‘devisive’, which is the big ‘crime’ of modern public life. Why having a point of view, or even a principle, is seen as being bad I can’t understand.
Well I don’t see things that way. When I vote I want to know what the person standing for election is actually standing for. Being just a party member is does not cut it for me; is the candidate versed in history? – Is the candidate well educated? – Will the candidate stand up for local people even if against the wishes of his/her party? – Is the candidate willing to debate, whether with the people or other politicians? All these things, and more, matter more to me, as a voter, than the colour of the rossette they are wearing.
Ahh, free homes for migrants but crippling bills and lawsuits for flood victims. Justice at it’s finest. It sure makes me proud of Britain (note the sarcasm).
I wonder how much aid will pour in from other countries to assist the flood victims of the North West? I await news with interest. Meanwhile our government will continue to borrow money to give away to others. The UK national debt is set to be £1.53 Trillion by March 2016 but that does not stop our governent giving away £11.3 Billion this year.
It is right that we give aid to people who are victims of disaster abroad but even more vital that we help our own people when they suffer from natural catastrophe. Instead our government is intent on giving away a fixed portion of our gross national income, this works out as about three and a half times more than the USA in comparative terms. This makes Britain about the most generous country in the world. Beneficiaries of our money include Russia, India and China.
I see, today, that due to an EU directive, the dredging of river beds to either keep them clear, or, to ensure an `efficient` flow of water is now `illegal` in the UK.? and has been for a few years? could this `possibly`be true?.
Partly true yes, the subject is a little more complex than a simple ban. Dredging is theoretically allowed but the ‘European Water Framework Directive’ of 2000 makes it difficult.
Left to her own devices Britain had in place a very effective system of drains and dredging that had evolved over centuries. The EU law makes it impossible for the drainage boards, that once operated locally, to function. The only authority allowed to permit dredging is now the Environment Agency which, like all government departments, dare not face the wrath of the EU.
Allowing dredging would now be expensive as the spoil lifted from the river would now have to be treated as hazardous waste requiring special disposal. To be on the safe side we do not dredge anymore.
Hopefully the British people vote to leave the anti democratic EU and we shall be able to manage our land and resources as we once did. EU interference goes far further than draining land, our fisheries and agriculture are also being destroyed by the EU.