[camgunz]

> The simple truth is we don't have anywhere for them to go.

The UK is 51st (277/km2) on the list of countries by population density, greatest to least. It trails EU countries Belgium at 35th (376/km2) and The Netherlands (457/km2). Belgium is removing visa requirements for Ukrainian refugees [0]. The Netherlands is preparing space for 50,000 [1].

> We have a near permanent homeless population, with people living on the streets for years before a social housing vacancy becomes available.

Homelessness is not a function of population density (e.g. compare rates between the UK and Japan).

[0]: https://www.thebulletin.be/belgium-provide-ukrainian-refugee...

[1]: https://nltimes.nl/2022/03/04/netherlands-readying-50000-pla...

[inglor_cz]

"The UK is 51st (277/km2) on the list of countries by population density, greatest to least."

This average masks huge variance across the islands.

You can't dump the refugees into some Scottish wilderness, where, theoretically, another 10 million nation could fit.

They will likely arrive in London etc., one of the biggest agglomerations in the rich world.

[camgunz]

If we're talking about cities, Wakefield, Bradford, Leeds, and Sheffield all have low population densities (< ~1,500/km2). This is lower than Antwerp, Charleroi, and Ghent in Belgium, as well as Eindhoven, Rotterdam, Utrecht, Amsterdam, and The Hague in The Netherlands.

Is your argument "we don't have space in high density areas, and obviously we can't put them in low density areas"? Why can't you put refugees in suburbs and rural areas? The US spreads them out all over [0].

[0]: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/slideshows/states-wi...