英國(guó)人均接收烏克蘭難民數(shù)少于歐洲大多數(shù)國(guó)家
UK takes in fewer Ukrainians per capita than most of Europe譯文簡(jiǎn)介
“不同的角色在團(tuán)隊(duì)中扮演不同的角色。”——《衛(wèi)報(bào)》報(bào)道。
正文翻譯
UK takes in fewer Ukrainians per capita than most of Europe
-Figure of 10 Ukrainian refugees per 10,000 population is lowest but one out of 28 European countries
英國(guó)人均接收烏克蘭難民數(shù)少于歐洲大多數(shù)國(guó)家
——“每1萬(wàn)人接收10名烏克蘭難民”的數(shù)字在28個(gè)歐洲國(guó)家中倒數(shù)第2
-Figure of 10 Ukrainian refugees per 10,000 population is lowest but one out of 28 European countries
英國(guó)人均接收烏克蘭難民數(shù)少于歐洲大多數(shù)國(guó)家
——“每1萬(wàn)人接收10名烏克蘭難民”的數(shù)字在28個(gè)歐洲國(guó)家中倒數(shù)第2
(Refugees from Ukraine queue for further transport at the Medyka border crossing in south-east Poland in March.)
(今年3月,來(lái)自烏克蘭的難民在波蘭東南部的梅迪卡邊境檢查站排隊(duì)等待運(yùn)送。)
新聞:
The UK has taken in fewer Ukrainian refugees per capita than all but one of 28 European countries, a Guardian analysis of official figures from across the continent has found.
英國(guó)《衛(wèi)報(bào)》對(duì)歐洲大陸官方數(shù)據(jù)的分析發(fā)現(xiàn),在28個(gè)歐洲國(guó)家中,英國(guó)接收的烏克蘭難民人均數(shù)量排倒數(shù)第2。
英國(guó)《衛(wèi)報(bào)》對(duì)歐洲大陸官方數(shù)據(jù)的分析發(fā)現(xiàn),在28個(gè)歐洲國(guó)家中,英國(guó)接收的烏克蘭難民人均數(shù)量排倒數(shù)第2。
Seven million people have fled Ukraine for other European countries since Russia invaded on 24 February, according to the United Nations high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR).
據(jù)聯(lián)合國(guó)難民事務(wù)高級(jí)專員辦事處稱,自2月24日俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭以來(lái),已有700萬(wàn)人逃離烏克蘭前往其他歐洲國(guó)家。
據(jù)聯(lián)合國(guó)難民事務(wù)高級(jí)專員辦事處稱,自2月24日俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭以來(lái),已有700萬(wàn)人逃離烏克蘭前往其他歐洲國(guó)家。
The Home Office put the number of Ukrainians who had arrived in the UK as of 29 May at 65,700 – equivalent to about 10 refugees per 10,000 population.
英國(guó)內(nèi)政部表示,截至5月29日,抵達(dá)英國(guó)的烏克蘭人數(shù)量為6.57萬(wàn)人,相當(dāng)于每萬(wàn)人中約接收10名難民。
英國(guó)內(nèi)政部表示,截至5月29日,抵達(dá)英國(guó)的烏克蘭人數(shù)量為6.57萬(wàn)人,相當(dāng)于每萬(wàn)人中約接收10名難民。
As of 11 May, 720,000 Ukrainian refugees had arrived in Germany, which has a population of similar size to the UK’s, working out at 87 per 10,000 population.
截至5月11日,已有72萬(wàn)烏克蘭難民抵達(dá)德國(guó),德國(guó)的人口規(guī)模與英國(guó)相當(dāng),每1萬(wàn)人中接收87人。
截至5月11日,已有72萬(wàn)烏克蘭難民抵達(dá)德國(guó),德國(guó)的人口規(guī)模與英國(guó)相當(dāng),每1萬(wàn)人中接收87人。
France is the only European country with a roughly equivalent per capita figure to the UK’s, with just over 57,500 arrivals as of 25 May, or nine refugees per 10,000 population – although figures from individual prefectures indicate that 93,000 have now arrived in the country, significantly more than the most recently available official figure.
法國(guó)是唯一一個(gè)人均收入與英國(guó)大致相當(dāng)?shù)臍W洲國(guó)家,截至5月25日,難民人數(shù)剛剛超過(guò)57500人,即每1萬(wàn)人中接收9名難民——然而來(lái)自各轄區(qū)的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,目前已有9.3萬(wàn)人抵達(dá)法國(guó),這一數(shù)字遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過(guò)了最新的官方數(shù)據(jù)。
法國(guó)是唯一一個(gè)人均收入與英國(guó)大致相當(dāng)?shù)臍W洲國(guó)家,截至5月25日,難民人數(shù)剛剛超過(guò)57500人,即每1萬(wàn)人中接收9名難民——然而來(lái)自各轄區(qū)的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,目前已有9.3萬(wàn)人抵達(dá)法國(guó),這一數(shù)字遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過(guò)了最新的官方數(shù)據(jù)。
Some much smaller countries by population, including Austria, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, have admitted many more refugees in both absolute and relative terms, according to their governments. Bulgaria, for example, was the initial destination for more than 290,000 people fleeing the war, equating to 423 per 10,000 population.
一些人口規(guī)模小得多的國(guó)家,包括奧地利、捷克共和國(guó)和保加利亞,其政府表示,無(wú)論從絕對(duì)數(shù)量還是相對(duì)數(shù)量來(lái)看,都接納了更多的難民。比如,保加利亞是29萬(wàn)多難民逃離戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的最初目的地,相當(dāng)于每1萬(wàn)人中接收423人。
一些人口規(guī)模小得多的國(guó)家,包括奧地利、捷克共和國(guó)和保加利亞,其政府表示,無(wú)論從絕對(duì)數(shù)量還是相對(duì)數(shù)量來(lái)看,都接納了更多的難民。比如,保加利亞是29萬(wàn)多難民逃離戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的最初目的地,相當(dāng)于每1萬(wàn)人中接收423人。
The countries bordering Ukraine have, as would be expected, admitted many more still: UNHCR data shows that a combined 5 million refugees have entered Poland, Romania and Hungary. Poland has admitted the highest rate of Ukrainian refugees of any EU country, taking in 957 refugees per 10,000 population.
與烏克蘭接壤的國(guó)家,正如預(yù)期的那樣,接納了更多的難民:聯(lián)合國(guó)難民署的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,總共有500萬(wàn)難民進(jìn)入了波蘭、羅馬尼亞和匈牙利。波蘭是接納烏克蘭難民比例最高的歐盟國(guó)家,每1萬(wàn)人接收了957名難民。
與烏克蘭接壤的國(guó)家,正如預(yù)期的那樣,接納了更多的難民:聯(lián)合國(guó)難民署的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,總共有500萬(wàn)難民進(jìn)入了波蘭、羅馬尼亞和匈牙利。波蘭是接納烏克蘭難民比例最高的歐盟國(guó)家,每1萬(wàn)人接收了957名難民。
While it is the case that many refugees move on to other countries, and some return to Ukraine – an Austrian official indicated that as many as 80% of arrivals had not stayed – the figures highlight the restrictiveness of the UK’s schemes, applicants to which are directed to wait for visas to be granted before they travel.
然而事實(shí)是,許多難民前往其他國(guó)家,有些人返回烏克蘭——一位奧地利官員表示,多達(dá)80%的難民沒(méi)有留下來(lái)——這些數(shù)字突顯了英國(guó)簽證計(jì)劃的限制性,即申請(qǐng)人必須等待簽證獲得批準(zhǔn)后才能啟程。
然而事實(shí)是,許多難民前往其他國(guó)家,有些人返回烏克蘭——一位奧地利官員表示,多達(dá)80%的難民沒(méi)有留下來(lái)——這些數(shù)字突顯了英國(guó)簽證計(jì)劃的限制性,即申請(qǐng)人必須等待簽證獲得批準(zhǔn)后才能啟程。
The UK’s visa schemes have been widely criticised for the lengthy delays experienced by many applicants. Hundreds of Ukrainian families have chosen to withdraw their applications to come to the UK because of these delays, according to a recent Observer report.
英國(guó)的簽證計(jì)劃因許多申請(qǐng)人遭遇的長(zhǎng)時(shí)間延誤而受到廣泛批評(píng)。據(jù)《觀察家報(bào)》最近報(bào)道,由于這些延誤,數(shù)百個(gè)烏克蘭家庭選擇撤回了前往英國(guó)的申請(qǐng)。
英國(guó)的簽證計(jì)劃因許多申請(qǐng)人遭遇的長(zhǎng)時(shí)間延誤而受到廣泛批評(píng)。據(jù)《觀察家報(bào)》最近報(bào)道,由于這些延誤,數(shù)百個(gè)烏克蘭家庭選擇撤回了前往英國(guó)的申請(qǐng)。
Refugee charities have said the sponsorship scheme, called Homes for Ukraine, could be exploited by predatory hosts, though the government insists that all hosts are subject to “security and criminal checks”.
難民慈善機(jī)構(gòu)表示,這項(xiàng)名為“烏克蘭之家”的贊助計(jì)劃可能會(huì)被貪心的房東利用,盡管英國(guó)政府堅(jiān)稱,所有的房東都要接受“安全和刑事檢查”。
難民慈善機(jī)構(gòu)表示,這項(xiàng)名為“烏克蘭之家”的贊助計(jì)劃可能會(huì)被貪心的房東利用,盡管英國(guó)政府堅(jiān)稱,所有的房東都要接受“安全和刑事檢查”。
While the Guardian research only considers figures for refugees arriving in each country, the UK also fares poorly in comparison with countries that publish only the number of applications for protection or asylum. Denmark and Finland, for example, have received roughly twice as many applications as the UK visa schemes per capita.
雖然《衛(wèi)報(bào)》的研究只考慮到了每個(gè)國(guó)家的難民人數(shù),但與那些只公布申請(qǐng)保護(hù)或庇護(hù)人數(shù)的國(guó)家相比,英國(guó)的情況也很糟糕。比如,丹麥和芬蘭收到的人均簽證申請(qǐng)數(shù)量大約是英國(guó)的兩倍。
雖然《衛(wèi)報(bào)》的研究只考慮到了每個(gè)國(guó)家的難民人數(shù),但與那些只公布申請(qǐng)保護(hù)或庇護(hù)人數(shù)的國(guó)家相比,英國(guó)的情況也很糟糕。比如,丹麥和芬蘭收到的人均簽證申請(qǐng)數(shù)量大約是英國(guó)的兩倍。
The UK government’s two Ukraine visa schemes – one for Ukrainians with family in the UK, the other a sponsorship-based scheme – were launched in March. The website for the schemes shows that 144,000 applications had been received as of 30 May, and 120,000 visas issued. However, just over half that figure – 65,700 refugees – had arrived in the UK as of 29 May.
英國(guó)政府于今年3月推出了兩項(xiàng)烏克蘭簽證計(jì)劃——一項(xiàng)針對(duì)有家人在英國(guó)的烏克蘭人,另一項(xiàng)是基于贊助的計(jì)劃。該計(jì)劃的網(wǎng)站顯示,截至5月30日,已收到14.4萬(wàn)份申請(qǐng),并簽發(fā)了12萬(wàn)份簽證。然而,截至5月29日,這個(gè)數(shù)字的一半多一點(diǎn)——6.57萬(wàn)難民——已經(jīng)抵達(dá)英國(guó)。
英國(guó)政府于今年3月推出了兩項(xiàng)烏克蘭簽證計(jì)劃——一項(xiàng)針對(duì)有家人在英國(guó)的烏克蘭人,另一項(xiàng)是基于贊助的計(jì)劃。該計(jì)劃的網(wǎng)站顯示,截至5月30日,已收到14.4萬(wàn)份申請(qǐng),并簽發(fā)了12萬(wàn)份簽證。然而,截至5月29日,這個(gè)數(shù)字的一半多一點(diǎn)——6.57萬(wàn)難民——已經(jīng)抵達(dá)英國(guó)。
A Home Office spokesperson said: “65,700 Ukrainians have now arrived safely in the UK through our two new Ukraine visa schemes and others have arrived here on other types of visas which are not shown in these figures. Together, our uncapped Ukraine family scheme and Homes for Ukraine routes are amongst the fastest and biggest visa schemes in UK history. 120,200 visas have now been issued, showing the work we’ve done to speed up the process is working and improving daily.”
內(nèi)政部發(fā)言人說(shuō):“65700名烏克蘭人通過(guò)我們的兩個(gè)新的烏克蘭簽證計(jì)劃安全抵達(dá)英國(guó),其他人則是通過(guò)其他類型的簽證抵達(dá)英國(guó),這些簽證沒(méi)有顯示在這些數(shù)據(jù)中。我們的無(wú)上限烏克蘭家庭計(jì)劃和烏克蘭之家路線是英國(guó)歷史上最快和最大的簽證計(jì)劃?,F(xiàn)在已經(jīng)發(fā)放了120200個(gè)簽證,這表明我們?yōu)榧涌爝@一進(jìn)程所做的工作正在發(fā)揮作用,每天都在改進(jìn)?!?/b>
內(nèi)政部發(fā)言人說(shuō):“65700名烏克蘭人通過(guò)我們的兩個(gè)新的烏克蘭簽證計(jì)劃安全抵達(dá)英國(guó),其他人則是通過(guò)其他類型的簽證抵達(dá)英國(guó),這些簽證沒(méi)有顯示在這些數(shù)據(jù)中。我們的無(wú)上限烏克蘭家庭計(jì)劃和烏克蘭之家路線是英國(guó)歷史上最快和最大的簽證計(jì)劃?,F(xiàn)在已經(jīng)發(fā)放了120200個(gè)簽證,這表明我們?yōu)榧涌爝@一進(jìn)程所做的工作正在發(fā)揮作用,每天都在改進(jìn)?!?/b>
They added that European countries may record refugee arrivals differently and that the figures were therefore difficult to compare directly.
他們補(bǔ)充說(shuō),歐洲國(guó)家對(duì)難民人數(shù)的記錄可能不同,因此這些數(shù)字很難直接比較。
他們補(bǔ)充說(shuō),歐洲國(guó)家對(duì)難民人數(shù)的記錄可能不同,因此這些數(shù)字很難直接比較。
The extent to which Ukrainians have been uprooted by the conflict is catastrophic: the 6.8 million people who have fled the country, combined with the 8 million people displaced internally, constitutes more than a third – 36% – of Ukraine’s total population prior to the Russian invasion.
烏克蘭人因沖突而背井離鄉(xiāng)的程度是災(zāi)難性的:逃離該國(guó)的680萬(wàn)人,加上國(guó)內(nèi)流離失所的800萬(wàn)人,構(gòu)成了俄羅斯入侵前烏克蘭總?cè)丝诘娜种唬?6%)以上。
烏克蘭人因沖突而背井離鄉(xiāng)的程度是災(zāi)難性的:逃離該國(guó)的680萬(wàn)人,加上國(guó)內(nèi)流離失所的800萬(wàn)人,構(gòu)成了俄羅斯入侵前烏克蘭總?cè)丝诘娜种唬?6%)以上。
The Guardian figures represent the numbers of Ukrainian refugees arriving in the country or, where these were unavailable, the numbers who have registered as refugees or are otherwise recognised by the government as being in the country. It excludes countries that have only published figures for the number of applications by Ukrainian refugees for protection or asylum – as is the case for Denmark and Finland – and Spain, for which the only published figures date from April.
《衛(wèi)報(bào)》的數(shù)字代表了抵達(dá)烏克蘭的難民人數(shù),或者已經(jīng)登記為難民的人數(shù),或者政府認(rèn)可的烏克蘭難民人數(shù)。它不包括那些只公布烏克蘭難民申請(qǐng)保護(hù)或庇護(hù)人數(shù)的國(guó)家(比如丹麥和芬蘭)和西班牙(其唯一公布的數(shù)字是從4月份開(kāi)始的)。
《衛(wèi)報(bào)》的數(shù)字代表了抵達(dá)烏克蘭的難民人數(shù),或者已經(jīng)登記為難民的人數(shù),或者政府認(rèn)可的烏克蘭難民人數(shù)。它不包括那些只公布烏克蘭難民申請(qǐng)保護(hù)或庇護(hù)人數(shù)的國(guó)家(比如丹麥和芬蘭)和西班牙(其唯一公布的數(shù)字是從4月份開(kāi)始的)。
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 2 )
收藏
And?
We are an appreciably smaller country than many others - with problems of our own, in excess of some other countries - too!
然后呢?
我們是一個(gè)比其他許多國(guó)家都要小得多的國(guó)家——我們自己的問(wèn)題也比其他一些國(guó)家多?。ㄗg注:該評(píng)論粗體顯示)
Then the government shouldn't have promised to help so many out while making it almost impossible... FFS even the Ukrainian ambassador's wife was fucked about due to the impossible requirements
Note.... using bold / shouting doesn't make you any more correct when you're actually wrong
那么政府當(dāng)初就不應(yīng)該承諾幫助這么多人,然后讓它變得幾乎不可能…就連烏克蘭大使的妻子也因?yàn)檫@些不可能的要求而被愚弄了
注意……當(dāng)你實(shí)際上是錯(cuò)的時(shí)候,使用粗體/咆哮并不會(huì)讓你更正確
If is was ‘a(chǎn)lmost impossible’ there wouldn’t be over 60k Ukrainians already here.
What is totally lost on this sub and most people is that the UK made a choice to process every refugee prior to landing, which is normally standard procedure. Now you can argue that we should have suspended this processing to address the urgency of the situation, but the Home Office and intelligence services argued that scrapping processing creates too much risk.
Nearly every EU member state didn’t have any choice in this matter, their relative ‘per-capita’ success isn’t due to being more accompanying or welcoming or pro-immigrant, it’s because the border states of Ukraine had to open their borders and once they’d done so every state in Schengen was obligated to follow the same policy. To do otherwise would have meant suspending Schengen rules and all the political baggage that comes with.
The UK and Ireland aren’t in Schengen, and therefore were able to exercise discretion, either process or let in whoever comes. Ireland went with the latter and the UK the former.
Choosing processing leaves you vulnerable to the efficiency and effectiveness of your immigration system, in the case of the UK, the Home Office. Yeah, their performance has been a shambles, which isn’t really surprising given it’s structural biases and staffing issues, never mind the political oversight.
To be fair, they have acknowledged the inadequacy of the effort, and things have improved. Let’s hope that it picks up further still and many more Ukrainians are able to come here.
如果這是“幾乎不可能的”,那么就不會(huì)有超過(guò)6萬(wàn)烏克蘭人在這里了。
這個(gè)話題和大多數(shù)人完全無(wú)視的是,英國(guó)選擇在每個(gè)難民登陸前為他們辦理手續(xù),這是正常的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)程序?,F(xiàn)在你可能會(huì)說(shuō),我們應(yīng)該暫停這一過(guò)程,以解決局勢(shì)的緊迫性,但內(nèi)政部和情報(bào)部門認(rèn)為,取消這一過(guò)程會(huì)帶來(lái)太多風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
幾乎每一個(gè)歐盟成員國(guó)在這件事上沒(méi)有任何選擇,他們相對(duì)“人均”的成功并不是因?yàn)樗麄兏敢馀惆?、歡迎或支持移民,而是因?yàn)闉蹩颂m的邊境國(guó)家必須開(kāi)放邊境,一旦他們這樣做了,申根的每個(gè)國(guó)家都有義務(wù)遵循相同的政策。如果不這樣做,就意味著暫停申根規(guī)則以及承擔(dān)隨之而來(lái)的所有政治包袱。
英國(guó)和愛(ài)爾蘭不在申根區(qū),因此可以行使自由裁量權(quán),要么辦手續(xù),要么讓任何人入境。愛(ài)爾蘭選擇了后者,英國(guó)選擇了前者。
選擇辦手續(xù)會(huì)讓你的移民系統(tǒng)(比如英國(guó)內(nèi)政部)的效率和效力受到影響。是的,他們的表現(xiàn)一塌糊涂,考慮到結(jié)構(gòu)性偏見(jiàn)和人員配備問(wèn)題,這并不奇怪,更不用說(shuō)政治監(jiān)督了。
公平地說(shuō),他們已經(jīng)承認(rèn)了努力的不足,情況已經(jīng)有所改善了。讓我們希望它能進(jìn)一步改善,更多的烏克蘭人能夠來(lái)到這里。
The UK has taken in fewer Ukrainian refugees per capita than all but one of 28 European countries
I get that we're not right next door to Ukraine but this is still pretty poor, especially considering that we talked such a big game about welcoming Ukrainian refugees at the start of the invasion. As the article makes clear a big part of the problem is that the government intentionally made it very difficult for people to get in when they actually attempted to.
“在28個(gè)歐洲國(guó)家中,英國(guó)接收的烏克蘭難民人均數(shù)量排倒數(shù)第2”
我知道我們不是烏克蘭的鄰居,但這仍然很糟糕,尤其是考慮到我們?cè)谌肭珠_(kāi)始時(shí)談?wù)摿诉@么大的“歡迎烏克蘭難民”的游戲。正如這篇文章明確指出的,問(wèn)題的很大一部分是政府故意讓難民們?cè)谡嬲噲D進(jìn)入英國(guó)時(shí)辦理過(guò)程變得非常困難。
Talking a big game is all we do nowadays. Even now, there is so much bullshit around taking in refugees from Ukraine, making it look like we are doing loads.
In respect though, the people are generally trying to do loads, but are hqmstrung by xenophobic government red tape.
現(xiàn)在我們只會(huì)說(shuō)大話。即使是現(xiàn)在,也有很多關(guān)于接收烏克蘭難民的扯淡,讓我們看起來(lái)像是在做很多事情。
不過(guò),在尊重方面,人們通常試圖做大量的工作,但被排外的政府繁瑣手續(xù)所束縛。
Yeah normal people generally are very supportive of Ukrainian refugees but this government is so instinctively hostile towards all refugees that their schemes were naturally very complicated and difficult.
是的,一般人都非常支持烏克蘭難民,但這個(gè)政府對(duì)所有難民都有本能的敵意,他們的計(jì)劃自然非常復(fù)雜和困難。
It's not that we aren't welcoming them, people don't want to live here.
Since brexit the UK is slowly devolving into a horrible place to live. Terrible public transport infrastructure with astronomical cost (compared to EU nations), welfare programmes being slashed, insane energy prices, university fees one of the highest in the world, shit weather and climate, country run by racist, lying buffoons.
I could go on and on, the UK sucks right now.
這并不是說(shuō)我們不歡迎他們,是人們自己不想住在這里。
自英國(guó)脫歐以來(lái),英國(guó)正在慢慢淪為一個(gè)可怕的居住地。糟糕的公共交通基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施成本高達(dá)天文數(shù)字(與歐盟國(guó)家相比),福利計(jì)劃被大幅削減,瘋狂的能源價(jià)格,世界上最高的大學(xué)學(xué)費(fèi)之一,糟糕的天氣和氣候,由種族主義和撒謊的小丑管理的國(guó)家。
我可以繼續(xù)說(shuō)下去,英國(guó)現(xiàn)在糟透了。
Well, we are further from Ukr than most of Europe.
If Ireland got into trouble, we'd take in the lion's share of refugees.
好吧,我們比大多數(shù)歐洲國(guó)家都離烏克蘭更遠(yuǎn)。
如果愛(ài)爾蘭陷入困境,我們將接收大部分難民。
Funny you should mention Ireland. They took in 6 times more Ukrainian refugees per capita than The UK did. Even though they're further away.
有趣的是你提到了愛(ài)爾蘭。他們接收的烏克蘭難民人均數(shù)量是英國(guó)的6倍。即使烏克蘭離他們也很遠(yuǎn)。
Though in defence of the UK, we have 280 people/km squared, Ireland has 70 people/km squared.
為英國(guó)開(kāi)脫——然而我們每平方公里有280人,但愛(ài)爾蘭每平方公里只有70人。
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
That's a reasonable point, and got me curious about how much of that is undeveloped land, how many vacant properties each country has, and what the overall approach each country has taken has been.
We're not talking huge numbers of refugees. The population has increased by less than 0.1% so far with the 60,000 refugees we've taken in. There are also 48 other countries more densely populated than The UK, some of which have also taken in refugees. The UK has far more developed land, and more than triple the amount of vacant properties Ireland has at the moment. So that population density difference is largely because there are more fields in Ireland. Unless we're expecting refugees to live in tents in winter in our climates, we should probably rule that out as a major reason as to why we didn't take as many refugees.
Ireland are also building new properties solely for the sake of housing refugees, as well as giving local councils the authority to move refugees into properties which are currently sitting vacant. The UK briefly considered seizing oligarchs homes to house refugees, but that never went any further.
We have the means to house more refugees We currently have a government that recognizes they were elected by people who wanted to 'take back control' of our borders. Which is why the hostile environment policy is still in place. It's not that we can't take more refugees, it's that we mostly don't want to. Which is fine, but let's at least be honest about it.
這是一個(gè)合理的觀點(diǎn),這讓我好奇其中有多少是未開(kāi)發(fā)的土地,每個(gè)國(guó)家有多少空置的房產(chǎn),以及每個(gè)國(guó)家采取的總體措施是什么。
我們說(shuō)的不是大量的難民。到目前為止,我們接收了6萬(wàn)名難民,人口增長(zhǎng)不到0.1%。還有48個(gè)國(guó)家的人口密度超過(guò)英國(guó),其中一些國(guó)家也接收了難民。英國(guó)擁有發(fā)達(dá)得多的土地,空置房產(chǎn)數(shù)量是愛(ài)爾蘭目前的三倍多。所以人口密度的差異很大程度上是因?yàn)閻?ài)爾蘭有更多的農(nóng)田。除非我們希望難民在我們的氣候條件下冬天住在帳篷里,否則我們應(yīng)該排除這是我們沒(méi)有接收這么多難民的主要原因。
愛(ài)爾蘭還在建造新的房產(chǎn),完全是為了安置難民,并授權(quán)地方議會(huì)將難民安置到目前空置的房產(chǎn)中。英國(guó)曾一度考慮征用寡頭的住所來(lái)安置難民,但這一想法從未進(jìn)一步發(fā)展。
我們有辦法收容更多難民。我們目前的政府承認(rèn),他們是由那些想要“奪回”我們邊境控制權(quán)的人選舉出來(lái)的。這就是為什么敵意環(huán)境政策仍然有效。并不是我們不能接收更多的難民,而是我們基本上不想接收。這沒(méi)問(wèn)題,但至少讓我們實(shí)話實(shí)說(shuō)好不好。
All good points. I completely support the UK taking more refugees btw, but I think overall as a country we have provided significant support to Ukraine.
It one of the few things I support the gov on, and we’ve done much more than Germany for example.
你說(shuō)的都對(duì)。順便說(shuō)一句,我完全支持英國(guó)接收更多難民,但我認(rèn)為作為一個(gè)國(guó)家,我們已經(jīng)為烏克蘭提供了重要的支持。
這是我支持政府的少數(shù)事情之一,我們做得比德國(guó)多得多。
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
We've pledged more in terms of military aid than any other European country. Even if the motivation for doing so might be questionable, there's a strong argument that was the right move. But when we're talking about taking in refugees, there's very little doubt that we have the capacity to do more. Germany put us to shame in that department, as they have for a long time when it comes to refugees.
我們承諾的軍事援助比任何其他歐洲國(guó)家都要多。即使這樣做的動(dòng)機(jī)可能值得懷疑,但有一個(gè)強(qiáng)有力的論點(diǎn)認(rèn)為這是正確的舉動(dòng)。但當(dāng)我們談到接納難民時(shí),毫無(wú)疑問(wèn),我們有能力做得更多。德國(guó)在這方面讓我們蒙羞,就像他們長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)在難民問(wèn)題上所做的那樣。
This might sound controversial but I think everyone who is talking about Britain not taking in Ukrainian refugees is being hypocritical.
For the last 20 years there have been refugees coming from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Syria, and a number of other countries where Musli... are refugees. They have been marginalised, kept out, abused and told to go home when their countries are still dangerous. Where is the compassion for them?
這聽(tīng)起來(lái)可能有爭(zhēng)議,但我認(rèn)為每個(gè)談?wù)撚?guó)不接受烏克蘭難民的人都是虛偽的。
在過(guò)去的20年里,有來(lái)自阿富汗、緬甸、伊拉克、蘇丹、利比亞、敘利亞和其他一些穆斯林成為難民的國(guó)家的難民。他們(在其他“接收難民的國(guó)家”)被邊緣化,被拒之門外,被虐待,被告知在自己的國(guó)家仍然危險(xiǎn)的時(shí)候回家。對(duì)他們的同情在哪里?
Well all know the reason why there is this double standard!!!
大家都知道為什么會(huì)有這種雙重標(biāo)準(zhǔn)?。?!
Obviously. They're not white.
原因很明顯——他們不是白人。
BULLSHIT. Hong Kongers aren't white, how many people have you heard obxting to them getting the right to come here?
The difference is that there's no major organisation of terrorists in Ukraine or Hong Kong who want to kill us. We aren't enemies with Ukraine or Hong Kong, we have a positive relationship with them.
If loads of Russians wanted to come here, if they were walking across Europe and jumping in dinghies to cross the channel, do you really think people would say no problem, bring them over?
There was also a huge amount of anti-immigrant sentiment over the EU, which is exclusively made up of majority white countries.
扯淡。香港人也不是白人啊,你聽(tīng)說(shuō)過(guò)有多少人反對(duì)他們獲得來(lái)這里的權(quán)利的?
區(qū)別在于,在烏克蘭或香港沒(méi)有想要?dú)⑺牢覀兊闹饕植澜M織。我們與烏克蘭或香港不是敵人,我們與他們有積極的關(guān)系。
如果大量的俄羅斯人想來(lái)這里,如果他們步行穿過(guò)歐洲,跳上小艇橫渡海峽,你真的認(rèn)為人們會(huì)說(shuō)“沒(méi)問(wèn)題,把他們帶過(guò)來(lái)”嗎?
對(duì)白人國(guó)家占多數(shù)的歐盟的反移民情緒也非常高漲。
We're literally an island with multiple safe countries between us and them.
我們實(shí)際上是只一個(gè)島嶼,我們和他們之間有多個(gè)安全的國(guó)家。
Oh, the island issue isn’t a problem. These days we have boats and planes to mitigate that issue.
You people really go back a few millennia when justifying your bigotry.
島嶼問(wèn)題不是問(wèn)題。現(xiàn)在我們有船和飛機(jī)來(lái)緩解這個(gè)問(wèn)題。
你們這些人在為自己的偏執(zhí)辯護(hù)時(shí),真的回到了幾千年前。
They aren't leaving Ukraine, they are leaving an already safe country they have already entered that is more closely aligned with their culture
Give me one reason why any Ukrainian is leaving Poland, Slovenia, Hungary, Romania etc
他們離開(kāi)的不是烏克蘭,他們離開(kāi)的是一個(gè)已經(jīng)很安全的,與他們的文化更緊密相連的(中間)國(guó)家
給我一個(gè)烏克蘭人離開(kāi)波蘭、斯洛文尼亞、匈牙利、羅馬尼亞等國(guó)的原因
I can give you a few reasons, although I suspect that you’ll move those goalposts again, now we’ve established that being an island is irrelevant.
English is the most commonly learned second language, and I suspect many refugees would quite like to support themselves. No, Polish, Czech are not easy to pick up for a Ukrainian or Russian speaker, and Romanian is in a completely different language group altogether. That, I thought, would have been sublimely obvious but no, I actually have to explain this to you people.
Then there’s the fact that many refugees already have family in the UK. One would suspect that they would want to be together, especially in times of war and when loved ones at home are getting killed.
Ample job opportunities is another one, in addition to the language. Why you demand that they attempt the Romanian job market is beyond me.
And that’s not even addressing the fact that the UK is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, that can absorb them with ease. Perhaps, for the sake of international relations during a time when you’re pissing your neighbours off, we can take on some of the load.
But hey, I suppose we should prioritise your ethnic sensitivities over people fleeing destruction, murder and rape. I mean, good fucking God what a miserable little country the UK has become.
我可以給你一些理由,雖然我懷疑你會(huì)再次跟我抬杠,現(xiàn)在我們已經(jīng)確定作為一個(gè)島嶼是無(wú)關(guān)緊要的。
英語(yǔ)是人們最常學(xué)習(xí)的第二語(yǔ)言,我想很多難民都很想養(yǎng)活自己。不,波蘭語(yǔ)、捷克語(yǔ)對(duì)說(shuō)烏克蘭語(yǔ)或俄語(yǔ)的人來(lái)說(shuō)不容易學(xué)會(huì),而羅馬尼亞語(yǔ)則屬于完全不同的語(yǔ)系。我想,這應(yīng)該是非常明顯的,但不,我必須給你們解釋一下。
還有一個(gè)事實(shí)是,許多難民在英國(guó)已經(jīng)有了家人。人們會(huì)懷疑他們想要在一起,尤其是在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)時(shí)期,當(dāng)親人在家里被殺害的時(shí)候。
除了語(yǔ)言,充足的工作機(jī)會(huì)是另一個(gè)原因。我不明白你為什么要求他們?nèi)チ_馬尼亞的就業(yè)市場(chǎng)。
這甚至還沒(méi)有解決英國(guó)是世界上最富有的國(guó)家之一,可以輕松吸收他們的事實(shí)。也許,為了國(guó)際關(guān)系考慮在你惹毛你的鄰居的時(shí)候,我們可以承擔(dān)一些責(zé)任。
但我想我們應(yīng)該優(yōu)先考慮你的種族敏感性而不是那些逃離毀滅、謀殺和強(qiáng)奸的人。我的意思是,天啊,英國(guó)已經(jīng)變成了一個(gè)多么可憐的小國(guó)。
Okay I get where this could be coming from and we should 100% be trying to do as much as we can to help but I don't think this stat is the right (at least surely not a complete) way to measure our response.
I'm not exactly sure what "refugees per capita" is trying to show? Does having a larger population mean you should take more refugees? Has it not more to do with your capability to house and take care of people? I know that a number of refugees have been housed through our social care system where remembers of the public have agreed to allow refugees to live with them and are offering up spare rooms etc. I am unsure what percentage of refugees to the UK have been housed this way but I am also unaware of what other methods are being utilised.
Obviously anywhere is better than a literal warzone but it's still not acceptable to put people straight onto the streets so there have to be minimum acceptable conditions to provide.
Maybe I'm missing the point here or have misunderstood somewhere...
好吧,我知道這是怎么回事了,我們應(yīng)該100%地盡我們所能提供幫助,但我不認(rèn)為這個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)是正確的(至少肯定不是一個(gè)完整的)方式來(lái)衡量我們的反應(yīng)表現(xiàn)。
我不太確定“人均難民”到底想表達(dá)什么?擁有更多的人口是否意味著你就應(yīng)該接收更多的難民?這不是應(yīng)該與你的住房和照顧他人的能力有關(guān)嗎?我知道一些難民已經(jīng)通過(guò)我們的社會(huì)關(guān)懷系統(tǒng)得到了安置,記得公眾已經(jīng)同意讓難民和他們住在一起,并提供空余的房間等等。我不確定英國(guó)有多少難民是用這種方式安置的,但我也不知道他們還使用了什么其他方法。
顯然,任何地方都比真正的戰(zhàn)區(qū)要好,但把人們直接帶到街上仍然是不可接受的,所以必須提供最起碼的可接受的條件。
也許我漏掉了重點(diǎn),或者誤解了什么地方……
Unless Ukrainian refugees aren’t being able to find refuge in any other country I fail to see why this is an issue.
除非烏克蘭難民不能在任何其他國(guó)家找到庇護(hù),否則我不明白為什么這會(huì)是一個(gè)問(wèn)題。
I remember when everyone was wanking off about how UK was the best because we donated loads of Weapons and Germany offered helmets, that it was a bit simplistic to frx it that way as Germany was receiving more refugees in a day than the UK received in a year.
I still stand by that position though. Yeah the UK isn't doing much on the refugee front, but it is helping with the overall war.
Different characters play different roles in a team.
我記得當(dāng)每個(gè)人都在說(shuō)“英國(guó)是最好的,因?yàn)槲覀兙栀?zèng)了大量武器,而德國(guó)提供了頭盔”時(shí),這種說(shuō)法有點(diǎn)過(guò)度簡(jiǎn)化,因?yàn)榈聡?guó)一天接收的難民比英國(guó)一年接收的難民還多。
但我仍然堅(jiān)持這個(gè)立場(chǎng)。是的,英國(guó)在難民方面做得不多,但它在整體戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中起到了幫助作用。
因?yàn)椴煌慕巧趫F(tuán)隊(duì)中扮演不同的角色。