That's what I don't get about the debate. It's almost as if we present enough straw-man arguments, the whole thing will go away. Muslamist rapists / The country is full / We've done our bit by sending them bags of food and bottled water / They should look after their own / We can't afford it / It's all a media conspiracy / Most of them are Pakistani or from somewhere else, just pretending to be Syrians / They aren't poor, they've got mobiles / Ze Chermans are only taking them because they need people to sustain their economy / They all want to take over more of our cities than they've already done /They're economic migrants / We'll all be living under Sharia Law / They wouldn't do it for us if we needed help It's all nonsense to divert away from the matter at hand. There are people who will 100% be killed if they stay where they are. We have a moral obligation as a 1st world power to help people who are less well off than ourselves. By saying we won't take more than a handful of refugees (and even then, only on our terms) we're basically saying that we don't care enough to intervene, that we're content with you dying where you are or that we believe someone else should take responsibility because it's too much to expect us to do it. As for the argument that we can't afford it, that's the biggest amount of hooey I've ever heard. We are all having this debate on smartphones, tablets, laptops, sitting in our nice homes, wasting vast amounts of food, energy and money as a nation every day. We've had a string of Governments who waste resources on vanity projects and we let big business off their tax liabilities while demonising those that take "hand-outs". What we're really saying is that we don't care enough about the problem as a nation to inconvenience ourselves.