FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > If there was another Holocaust, would we let refugees in?
If there was another Holocaust, would we let refugees in?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Of course we would. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would. "Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants? | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?"Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians."We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people."I gave you my answer. Closing other safe routes is another debate. Why didn't you just say in the OP that the thread was loaded from the start? I mean, I knew that, but others may not. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people.
I gave you my answer. Closing other safe routes is another debate.
Why didn't you just say in the OP that the thread was loaded from the start? I mean, I knew that, but others may not."Anyone can say anything they want. And I can challenge them if I want. That's how the forum works. | |||
 of course we wouldn't | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people.
I gave you my answer. Closing other safe routes is another debate.
Why didn't you just say in the OP that the thread was loaded from the start? I mean, I knew that, but others may not.
Anyone can say anything they want. And I can challenge them if I want. That's how the forum works."Of course, but this thread is loaded. You know it, I know it and others now know it. | |||
"Thoughts?" Probably not, unfortunately  | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people.
I gave you my answer. Closing other safe routes is another debate.
Why didn't you just say in the OP that the thread was loaded from the start? I mean, I knew that, but others may not.
Anyone can say anything they want. And I can challenge them if I want. That's how the forum works.
Of course, but this thread is loaded. You know it, I know it and others now know it."There are loaded threads throughout the forum all the time. It's not a big deal. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people.
I gave you my answer. Closing other safe routes is another debate.
Why didn't you just say in the OP that the thread was loaded from the start? I mean, I knew that, but others may not.
Anyone can say anything they want. And I can challenge them if I want. That's how the forum works.
Of course, but this thread is loaded. You know it, I know it and others now know it."Every thread is loaded, since we all have views. On with the thread, if anyone still cares. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people.
I gave you my answer. Closing other safe routes is another debate.
Why didn't you just say in the OP that the thread was loaded from the start? I mean, I knew that, but others may not.
Anyone can say anything they want. And I can challenge them if I want. That's how the forum works.
Of course, but this thread is loaded. You know it, I know it and others now know it.
There are loaded threads throughout the forum all the time. It's not a big deal."There is, in politics section unfortunately they're always from the same people. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people.
I gave you my answer. Closing other safe routes is another debate.
Why didn't you just say in the OP that the thread was loaded from the start? I mean, I knew that, but others may not.
Anyone can say anything they want. And I can challenge them if I want. That's how the forum works.
Of course, but this thread is loaded. You know it, I know it and others now know it.
Every thread is loaded, since we all have views.
On with the thread, if anyone still cares."Nonsense, you wanted to make this thread about the wider immigration debate. Just say that, it's no problem. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people.
I gave you my answer. Closing other safe routes is another debate.
Why didn't you just say in the OP that the thread was loaded from the start? I mean, I knew that, but others may not.
Anyone can say anything they want. And I can challenge them if I want. That's how the forum works.
Of course, but this thread is loaded. You know it, I know it and others now know it.
There are loaded threads throughout the forum all the time. It's not a big deal.
There is, in politics section unfortunately they're always from the same people.
"There are prolific posters in every section. If you believe it's breaking a forum rule, report it. If you just don't like it, then don't give it oxygen. | |||
"Thoughts? Probably not, unfortunately "Why would you think not? We opened a route for Ukrainianians. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?"Surely that depends on the government of the day. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people.
I gave you my answer. Closing other safe routes is another debate.
Why didn't you just say in the OP that the thread was loaded from the start? I mean, I knew that, but others may not.
Anyone can say anything they want. And I can challenge them if I want. That's how the forum works.
Of course, but this thread is loaded. You know it, I know it and others now know it.
There are loaded threads throughout the forum all the time. It's not a big deal.
There is, in politics section unfortunately they're always from the same people.
There are prolific posters in every section. If you believe it's breaking a forum rule, report it.
If you just don't like it, then don't give it oxygen."He isnt breaking any rules. I just like to call him out. I'm entitled to that, aren't I? | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Surely that depends on the government of the day. "I think we've got a long way to turn around from the dehumanisation of people trying to arrive here, and the attacks on those trying to help them. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people.
I gave you my answer. Closing other safe routes is another debate.
Why didn't you just say in the OP that the thread was loaded from the start? I mean, I knew that, but others may not.
Anyone can say anything they want. And I can challenge them if I want. That's how the forum works.
Of course, but this thread is loaded. You know it, I know it and others now know it.
Every thread is loaded, since we all have views.
On with the thread, if anyone still cares.
Nonsense, you wanted to make this thread about the wider immigration debate. Just say that, it's no problem."I think my thread title was ponted. But I left the question open to see what people posted. The thread will go where it will after that point. Again, on with the thread if possible. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people.
I gave you my answer. Closing other safe routes is another debate.
Why didn't you just say in the OP that the thread was loaded from the start? I mean, I knew that, but others may not.
Anyone can say anything they want. And I can challenge them if I want. That's how the forum works.
Of course, but this thread is loaded. You know it, I know it and others now know it.
There are loaded threads throughout the forum all the time. It's not a big deal.
There is, in politics section unfortunately they're always from the same people.
There are prolific posters in every section. If you believe it's breaking a forum rule, report it.
If you just don't like it, then don't give it oxygen.
He isnt breaking any rules.
I just like to call him out. I'm entitled to that, aren't I?"Sure. I think you're derailing the thread based on what sounds like a longer disagreement. | |||
"Thoughts?" What are your thoughts? | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people.
I gave you my answer. Closing other safe routes is another debate.
Why didn't you just say in the OP that the thread was loaded from the start? I mean, I knew that, but others may not.
Anyone can say anything they want. And I can challenge them if I want. That's how the forum works.
Of course, but this thread is loaded. You know it, I know it and others now know it.
There are loaded threads throughout the forum all the time. It's not a big deal.
There is, in politics section unfortunately they're always from the same people.
There are prolific posters in every section. If you believe it's breaking a forum rule, report it.
If you just don't like it, then don't give it oxygen.
He isnt breaking any rules.
I just like to call him out. I'm entitled to that, aren't I?
Sure. I think you're derailing the thread based on what sounds like a longer disagreement."I'd rather the thread stayed on topic actually. If it wasn't loaded it would have much more chance of that. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people.
I gave you my answer. Closing other safe routes is another debate.
Why didn't you just say in the OP that the thread was loaded from the start? I mean, I knew that, but others may not.
Anyone can say anything they want. And I can challenge them if I want. That's how the forum works.
Of course, but this thread is loaded. You know it, I know it and others now know it.
There are loaded threads throughout the forum all the time. It's not a big deal.
There is, in politics section unfortunately they're always from the same people.
There are prolific posters in every section. If you believe it's breaking a forum rule, report it.
If you just don't like it, then don't give it oxygen.
He isnt breaking any rules.
I just like to call him out. I'm entitled to that, aren't I?
Sure. I think you're derailing the thread based on what sounds like a longer disagreement.
I'd rather the thread stayed on topic actually. If it wasn't loaded it would have much more chance of that."Then maybe start a thread of your own, if you don't like this one? | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts?" I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people.
I gave you my answer. Closing other safe routes is another debate.
Why didn't you just say in the OP that the thread was loaded from the start? I mean, I knew that, but others may not.
Anyone can say anything they want. And I can challenge them if I want. That's how the forum works.
Of course, but this thread is loaded. You know it, I know it and others now know it.
There are loaded threads throughout the forum all the time. It's not a big deal.
There is, in politics section unfortunately they're always from the same people.
There are prolific posters in every section. If you believe it's breaking a forum rule, report it.
If you just don't like it, then don't give it oxygen.
He isnt breaking any rules.
I just like to call him out. I'm entitled to that, aren't I?
Sure. I think you're derailing the thread based on what sounds like a longer disagreement.
I'd rather the thread stayed on topic actually. If it wasn't loaded it would have much more chance of that.
Then maybe start a thread of your own, if you don't like this one?"You keep saying if I don't like this one. I haven't said I don't like it. If you don't like what I have to say, you can always ignore. Isn't that what you're telling me to do? | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would." I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would." There is a lot of evidence that the UK are quick to respond and support a countries humanitarian needs. Something as horrific as a Holocaust would create a public demand for our government to respond and support. So to answer your original post, yes the country would. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that." This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. There is a lot of evidence that the UK are quick to respond and support a countries humanitarian needs. Something as horrific as a Holocaust would create a public demand for our government to respond and support. So to answer your original post, yes the country would. " I really hope we would too. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? " You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? " Where would we house them ? The country is full ‘British ‘ people can’t get a doctors appointment Why can’t we spend the money on ‘British’ homeless people If we let one in we might end up letting in millions Why can’t they stay in France  | |||
| |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people.
I gave you my answer. Closing other safe routes is another debate.
Why didn't you just say in the OP that the thread was loaded from the start? I mean, I knew that, but others may not.
Anyone can say anything they want. And I can challenge them if I want. That's how the forum works.
Of course, but this thread is loaded. You know it, I know it and others now know it."• What I would like to enquire is how on Earth you've ended up with more shoes than me!? I mean, walk-in wardrobe in that photo. Outrageous.
Sorry, back to the thread now... | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian." I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? | |||
| |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? Where would we house them ? The country is full ‘British ‘ people can’t get a doctors appointment Why can’t we spend the money on ‘British’ homeless people If we let one in we might end up letting in millions Why can’t they stay in France "Trying to make rescuing refugees at sea a crime The weaponisation of terms like migrant Evidence that Braverman and Patel deliberately slowed refugee protesting down to make conditions worse The deplorable conditions they were left in even before that Trying to make out like immigration lawyers are part of the problem Etc | |||
"Also to add... back in the 1930s as many Jews tried to escape Germany and come to the UK. Guess which “newspaper” was up in arms about “immigrants” and not wanting them here? The Daily Mail." Figures... | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away?" Why can we do it for Ukrainians but not for Afghans or Syrians? We are hearing some horror stories coming out of Ukraine but I do not believe it is comparable to the Holocaust. I am currently not aware of the Russians ethnic cleansing? But execution, beheading, stoning to death, mass murder with poison gas, are all things that have happened and are happening in Afghanistan and Syria. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? Where would we house them ? The country is full ‘British ‘ people can’t get a doctors appointment Why can’t we spend the money on ‘British’ homeless people If we let one in we might end up letting in millions Why can’t they stay in France
Trying to make rescuing refugees at sea a crime
The weaponisation of terms like migrant
Evidence that Braverman and Patel deliberately slowed refugee protesting down to make conditions worse
The deplorable conditions they were left in even before that
Trying to make out like immigration lawyers are part of the problem
Etc"Sounds familiar | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away?" So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? Why can we do it for Ukrainians but not for Afghans or Syrians? We are hearing some horror stories coming out of Ukraine but I do not believe it is comparable to the Holocaust. I am currently not aware of the Russians ethnic cleansing? But execution, beheading, stoning to death, mass murder with poison gas, are all things that have happened and are happening in Afghanistan and Syria. " That's not a question I can answer. I'd like safe routes opened up for all refugees who can prove they need help. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? Where would we house them ? The country is full ‘British ‘ people can’t get a doctors appointment Why can’t we spend the money on ‘British’ homeless people If we let one in we might end up letting in millions Why can’t they stay in France
Trying to make rescuing refugees at sea a crime
The weaponisation of terms like migrant
Evidence that Braverman and Patel deliberately slowed refugee protesting down to make conditions worse
The deplorable conditions they were left in even before that
Trying to make out like immigration lawyers are part of the problem
Etc
Sounds familiar "Indeed. But we did this one thing so all of this doesn't count because reasons  | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? Why can we do it for Ukrainians but not for Afghans or Syrians? We are hearing some horror stories coming out of Ukraine but I do not believe it is comparable to the Holocaust. I am currently not aware of the Russians ethnic cleansing? But execution, beheading, stoning to death, mass murder with poison gas, are all things that have happened and are happening in Afghanistan and Syria. That's not a question I can answer. I'd like safe routes opened up for all refugees who can prove they need help. " The government are actively closing them | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit." I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? Why can we do it for Ukrainians but not for Afghans or Syrians? We are hearing some horror stories coming out of Ukraine but I do not believe it is comparable to the Holocaust. I am currently not aware of the Russians ethnic cleansing? But execution, beheading, stoning to death, mass murder with poison gas, are all things that have happened and are happening in Afghanistan and Syria. That's not a question I can answer. I'd like safe routes opened up for all refugees who can prove they need help. The government are actively closing them "I'm aware. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like for them to close any routes. | |||
| |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it." So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool." | |||
"Thoughts? Probably not, unfortunately
Why would you think not? We opened a route for Ukrainianians."We were the last country in Europe to allow Ukrainians to enter, and they were only allowed after public outcry. Other countries recognised that people whose houses have been bombed will not necessarily have their passports and other documents - the UK set up a byzantine system where refugees have to jump through hoops, making it as difficult as possible to be allowed to come here. The general public of the UK welcomed Ukrainians. However the likes of Patel and Braverman made it absolutely clear that they utterly hate anybody that is in need, and if it was left to them they would rather see all refugees die rather than come here. In response to the OP, while ever the current ultra right wing ruling party have the country in their grip, they will do their utmost to demonise anybody that is fleeing from tyranny. They would not, and do not, provide safe routes for anybody that is in even the direst need to come to this country, until absolutely forced by outcry. However, even the vilest oppressor is allowed to walk straight in as long as they have a spare few millions to openly "donate" to the tory party and/or individual cabinet ministers. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool. "I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but...... Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same? Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country? Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples? Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid? 
A | |||
"Thoughts? Probably not, unfortunately
Why would you think not? We opened a route for Ukrainianians.
We were the last country in Europe to allow Ukrainians to enter, and they were only allowed after public outcry. Other countries recognised that people whose houses have been bombed will not necessarily have their passports and other documents - the UK set up a byzantine system where refugees have to jump through hoops, making it as difficult as possible to be allowed to come here.
The general public of the UK welcomed Ukrainians. However the likes of Patel and Braverman made it absolutely clear that they utterly hate anybody that is in need, and if it was left to them they would rather see all refugees die rather than come here.
In response to the OP, while ever the current ultra right wing ruling party have the country in their grip, they will do their utmost to demonise anybody that is fleeing from tyranny. They would not, and do not, provide safe routes for anybody that is in even the direst need to come to this country, until absolutely forced by outcry. However, even the vilest oppressor is allowed to walk straight in as long as they have a spare few millions to openly "donate" to the tory party and/or individual cabinet ministers."The UK Family scheme opened on the same day the EU opened their temporary protection scheme. You may not like it, and I'll agree we didn't open entirely like the EU did but don't speak nonsense about the UK being the last country. Then you kinda lost it by calling the UK Govt 'ultra-right', the is of course further than 'far-right' isn't it? | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A"Good questions. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A"Why are you making it about race? | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A
Why are you making it about race?"What is it about, then? One of the worst conflicts in recent years has been in Yemen. What are we doing about that? Plus our unclean hands re Afghanistan, and the gigantic problems in Syria. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A
Why are you making it about race?
What is it about, then?
One of the worst conflicts in recent years has been in Yemen. What are we doing about that?
Plus our unclean hands re Afghanistan, and the gigantic problems in Syria."So, the UK Governement are racists. Got it. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A
Why are you making it about race?
What is it about, then?
One of the worst conflicts in recent years has been in Yemen. What are we doing about that?
Plus our unclean hands re Afghanistan, and the gigantic problems in Syria.
So, the UK Governement are racists. Got it."I didn't say that. I asked you what it was about | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A
Why are you making it about race?
What is it about, then?
One of the worst conflicts in recent years has been in Yemen. What are we doing about that?
Plus our unclean hands re Afghanistan, and the gigantic problems in Syria.
So, the UK Governement are racists. Got it.
I didn't say that. I asked you what it was about "In response to my question about race.... Obviously I don't have the answer but I certainly don't think the UK government are racist as alluded to by the previous poster. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A
Why are you making it about race?
What is it about, then?
One of the worst conflicts in recent years has been in Yemen. What are we doing about that?
Plus our unclean hands re Afghanistan, and the gigantic problems in Syria.
So, the UK Governement are racists. Got it.
I didn't say that. I asked you what it was about
In response to my question about race....
Obviously I don't have the answer but I certainly don't think the UK government are racist as alluded to by the previous poster."So, what do you think it's about? Why have the government behaved in the way that they have in the broader context, and how does it square with your interpretation of the British government? | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A
Why are you making it about race?
What is it about, then?
One of the worst conflicts in recent years has been in Yemen. What are we doing about that?
Plus our unclean hands re Afghanistan, and the gigantic problems in Syria.
So, the UK Governement are racists. Got it.
I didn't say that. I asked you what it was about
In response to my question about race....
Obviously I don't have the answer but I certainly don't think the UK government are racist as alluded to by the previous poster.
So, what do you think it's about?
Why have the government behaved in the way that they have in the broader context, and how does it square with your interpretation of the British government?"In the last 10 years, other than Ukrainians, Syrians and Afghans have the highest number of relocations to the UK. That doesn't tell me the UK governement are racist. | |||
| |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A
Why are you making it about race?
What is it about, then?
One of the worst conflicts in recent years has been in Yemen. What are we doing about that?
Plus our unclean hands re Afghanistan, and the gigantic problems in Syria.
So, the UK Governement are racists. Got it.
I didn't say that. I asked you what it was about
In response to my question about race....
Obviously I don't have the answer but I certainly don't think the UK government are racist as alluded to by the previous poster.
So, what do you think it's about?
Why have the government behaved in the way that they have in the broader context, and how does it square with your interpretation of the British government?
In the last 10 years, other than Ukrainians, Syrians and Afghans have the highest number of relocations to the UK.
That doesn't tell me the UK governement are racist.
"I asked you what you thought it was about. Are you saying just refugees, or people in general? How does our intake compare with that of other countries? How does the process of immigration (checks and balances, support, appeals) compare with that of other countries? What support and rights do people have once they've arrived here? Questions I'd need to examine before judging the motivations of the British government - in addition to the laws they're passing about methods of seeking asylum, support for people living in a way that is compatible with their culture (or at least not criminalising it), the way they speak about immigrants and those who support them, their rhetoric about laws in favour of immigrants, and more besides. It's not a simple issue. I'm asking why you think as you do. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A
Why are you making it about race?
What is it about, then?
One of the worst conflicts in recent years has been in Yemen. What are we doing about that?
Plus our unclean hands re Afghanistan, and the gigantic problems in Syria.
So, the UK Governement are racists. Got it.
I didn't say that. I asked you what it was about
In response to my question about race....
Obviously I don't have the answer but I certainly don't think the UK government are racist as alluded to by the previous poster.
So, what do you think it's about?
Why have the government behaved in the way that they have in the broader context, and how does it square with your interpretation of the British government?
In the last 10 years, other than Ukrainians, Syrians and Afghans have the highest number of relocations to the UK.
That doesn't tell me the UK governement are racist.
I asked you what you thought it was about.
Are you saying just refugees, or people in general?
How does our intake compare with that of other countries?
How does the process of immigration (checks and balances, support, appeals) compare with that of other countries?
What support and rights do people have once they've arrived here?
Questions I'd need to examine before judging the motivations of the British government - in addition to the laws they're passing about methods of seeking asylum, support for people living in a way that is compatible with their culture (or at least not criminalising it), the way they speak about immigrants and those who support them, their rhetoric about laws in favour of immigrants, and more besides.
It's not a simple issue.
I'm asking why you think as you do."As you've just said yourself, it's not a simple issue. From the information at hand, I do not think the UK government are racist. For me to make a fully informed decision if need a lot more time and information. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A
Why are you making it about race?"Because it is. Both in the minds of the government and also to much of the general public thanks to media spin attributing all of the countries problems to immigrants. A | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A
Why are you making it about race?
What is it about, then?
One of the worst conflicts in recent years has been in Yemen. What are we doing about that?
Plus our unclean hands re Afghanistan, and the gigantic problems in Syria.
So, the UK Governement are racists. Got it.
I didn't say that. I asked you what it was about
In response to my question about race....
Obviously I don't have the answer but I certainly don't think the UK government are racist as alluded to by the previous poster.
So, what do you think it's about?
Why have the government behaved in the way that they have in the broader context, and how does it square with your interpretation of the British government?
In the last 10 years, other than Ukrainians, Syrians and Afghans have the highest number of relocations to the UK.
That doesn't tell me the UK governement are racist.
I asked you what you thought it was about.
Are you saying just refugees, or people in general?
How does our intake compare with that of other countries?
How does the process of immigration (checks and balances, support, appeals) compare with that of other countries?
What support and rights do people have once they've arrived here?
Questions I'd need to examine before judging the motivations of the British government - in addition to the laws they're passing about methods of seeking asylum, support for people living in a way that is compatible with their culture (or at least not criminalising it), the way they speak about immigrants and those who support them, their rhetoric about laws in favour of immigrants, and more besides.
It's not a simple issue.
I'm asking why you think as you do.
As you've just said yourself, it's not a simple issue. From the information at hand, I do not think the UK government are racist.
For me to make a fully informed decision if need a lot more time and information."So why are you arguing so vociferously against people who are able to cite a lot more evidence than you? There's no shame in not knowing. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A
Why are you making it about race?
What is it about, then?
One of the worst conflicts in recent years has been in Yemen. What are we doing about that?
Plus our unclean hands re Afghanistan, and the gigantic problems in Syria.
So, the UK Governement are racists. Got it.
I didn't say that. I asked you what it was about
In response to my question about race....
Obviously I don't have the answer but I certainly don't think the UK government are racist as alluded to by the previous poster.
So, what do you think it's about?
Why have the government behaved in the way that they have in the broader context, and how does it square with your interpretation of the British government?
In the last 10 years, other than Ukrainians, Syrians and Afghans have the highest number of relocations to the UK.
That doesn't tell me the UK governement are racist.
I asked you what you thought it was about.
Are you saying just refugees, or people in general?
How does our intake compare with that of other countries?
How does the process of immigration (checks and balances, support, appeals) compare with that of other countries?
What support and rights do people have once they've arrived here?
Questions I'd need to examine before judging the motivations of the British government - in addition to the laws they're passing about methods of seeking asylum, support for people living in a way that is compatible with their culture (or at least not criminalising it), the way they speak about immigrants and those who support them, their rhetoric about laws in favour of immigrants, and more besides.
It's not a simple issue.
I'm asking why you think as you do.
As you've just said yourself, it's not a simple issue. From the information at hand, I do not think the UK government are racist.
For me to make a fully informed decision if need a lot more time and information.
So why are you arguing so vociferously against people who are able to cite a lot more evidence than you?
There's no shame in not knowing."I'm not vociferously against them. I asked why they made it about race. One question. Does that make me against them? | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A
Why are you making it about race?
Because it is.
Both in the minds of the government and also to much of the general public thanks to media spin attributing all of the countries problems to immigrants.
A"So you believe the UK Government are racist? | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A
Why are you making it about race?
What is it about, then?
One of the worst conflicts in recent years has been in Yemen. What are we doing about that?
Plus our unclean hands re Afghanistan, and the gigantic problems in Syria.
So, the UK Governement are racists. Got it.
I didn't say that. I asked you what it was about
In response to my question about race....
Obviously I don't have the answer but I certainly don't think the UK government are racist as alluded to by the previous poster.
So, what do you think it's about?
Why have the government behaved in the way that they have in the broader context, and how does it square with your interpretation of the British government?
In the last 10 years, other than Ukrainians, Syrians and Afghans have the highest number of relocations to the UK.
That doesn't tell me the UK governement are racist.
I asked you what you thought it was about.
Are you saying just refugees, or people in general?
How does our intake compare with that of other countries?
How does the process of immigration (checks and balances, support, appeals) compare with that of other countries?
What support and rights do people have once they've arrived here?
Questions I'd need to examine before judging the motivations of the British government - in addition to the laws they're passing about methods of seeking asylum, support for people living in a way that is compatible with their culture (or at least not criminalising it), the way they speak about immigrants and those who support them, their rhetoric about laws in favour of immigrants, and more besides.
It's not a simple issue.
I'm asking why you think as you do.
As you've just said yourself, it's not a simple issue. From the information at hand, I do not think the UK government are racist.
For me to make a fully informed decision if need a lot more time and information.
So why are you arguing so vociferously against people who are able to cite a lot more evidence than you?
There's no shame in not knowing.
I'm not vociferously against them. I asked why they made it about race. One question. Does that make me against them?"You've argued vociferously against the thread, the idea that Britain would not help Holocaust victims, etc, this whole time. Now you're saying you don't know enough about the subject. If you don't know, why are you arguing so vociferously? | |||
| |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A
Why are you making it about race?
What is it about, then?
One of the worst conflicts in recent years has been in Yemen. What are we doing about that?
Plus our unclean hands re Afghanistan, and the gigantic problems in Syria.
So, the UK Governement are racists. Got it.
I didn't say that. I asked you what it was about
In response to my question about race....
Obviously I don't have the answer but I certainly don't think the UK government are racist as alluded to by the previous poster.
So, what do you think it's about?
Why have the government behaved in the way that they have in the broader context, and how does it square with your interpretation of the British government?
In the last 10 years, other than Ukrainians, Syrians and Afghans have the highest number of relocations to the UK.
That doesn't tell me the UK governement are racist.
I asked you what you thought it was about.
Are you saying just refugees, or people in general?
How does our intake compare with that of other countries?
How does the process of immigration (checks and balances, support, appeals) compare with that of other countries?
What support and rights do people have once they've arrived here?
Questions I'd need to examine before judging the motivations of the British government - in addition to the laws they're passing about methods of seeking asylum, support for people living in a way that is compatible with their culture (or at least not criminalising it), the way they speak about immigrants and those who support them, their rhetoric about laws in favour of immigrants, and more besides.
It's not a simple issue.
I'm asking why you think as you do.
As you've just said yourself, it's not a simple issue. From the information at hand, I do not think the UK government are racist.
For me to make a fully informed decision if need a lot more time and information.
So why are you arguing so vociferously against people who are able to cite a lot more evidence than you?
There's no shame in not knowing.
I'm not vociferously against them. I asked why they made it about race. One question. Does that make me against them?
You've argued vociferously against the thread, the idea that Britain would not help Holocaust victims, etc, this whole time.
Now you're saying you don't know enough about the subject. If you don't know, why are you arguing so vociferously?"I argued that I believe the UK would help using the latest conflict as grounds for my beliefs. At no point have I argued against any further information presented. You can believe differently, as is your right but I don't have to agree with you. I'm entitled to believe that aren't I? You seem to be trying to argue the opposite and somehow corner me into 'I don't actually know why I believe that' We don't agree, that's cool. Am I trying to get you to change your mind? | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A
Why are you making it about race?
What is it about, then?
One of the worst conflicts in recent years has been in Yemen. What are we doing about that?
Plus our unclean hands re Afghanistan, and the gigantic problems in Syria.
So, the UK Governement are racists. Got it.
I didn't say that. I asked you what it was about
In response to my question about race....
Obviously I don't have the answer but I certainly don't think the UK government are racist as alluded to by the previous poster.
So, what do you think it's about?
Why have the government behaved in the way that they have in the broader context, and how does it square with your interpretation of the British government?
In the last 10 years, other than Ukrainians, Syrians and Afghans have the highest number of relocations to the UK.
That doesn't tell me the UK governement are racist.
I asked you what you thought it was about.
Are you saying just refugees, or people in general?
How does our intake compare with that of other countries?
How does the process of immigration (checks and balances, support, appeals) compare with that of other countries?
What support and rights do people have once they've arrived here?
Questions I'd need to examine before judging the motivations of the British government - in addition to the laws they're passing about methods of seeking asylum, support for people living in a way that is compatible with their culture (or at least not criminalising it), the way they speak about immigrants and those who support them, their rhetoric about laws in favour of immigrants, and more besides.
It's not a simple issue.
I'm asking why you think as you do.
As you've just said yourself, it's not a simple issue. From the information at hand, I do not think the UK government are racist.
For me to make a fully informed decision if need a lot more time and information.
So why are you arguing so vociferously against people who are able to cite a lot more evidence than you?
There's no shame in not knowing.
I'm not vociferously against them. I asked why they made it about race. One question. Does that make me against them?
You've argued vociferously against the thread, the idea that Britain would not help Holocaust victims, etc, this whole time.
Now you're saying you don't know enough about the subject. If you don't know, why are you arguing so vociferously?
I argued that I believe the UK would help using the latest conflict as grounds for my beliefs. At no point have I argued against any further information presented. You can believe differently, as is your right but I don't have to agree with you.
I'm entitled to believe that aren't I? You seem to be trying to argue the opposite and somehow corner me into 'I don't actually know why I believe that'
We don't agree, that's cool. Am I trying to get you to change your mind?"I haven't said you shouldn't believe as you do. I've pointed out why I think your argument is based on incomplete information, either willingly or otherwise. You can say what you want within forum rules. Me pointing out the considerable flaws in your argument is also within forum rules. | |||
"Thoughts? What are your thoughts? I hope we'd still let in refugees from such an awful situation. But based on language/rhetoric being pushed right now by our rulers, I'm not sure we would. I agree. I think a weak government are trying to piss on the most vulnerable and create a legal environment where they have no other options. Also denigrating anyone who tries to help them. Combine that with a subset of media that seems to make a fortune based on culture war based outrage (on nativism, vaccines, etc) and it's a toxic combination. I know everyone likes to think they're the heroes in the story, but the arc of history suggests that we're on the wrong side here. Not that Britain is alone in that. This is the same government who open up routes for Ukrainian refugees. Why would they not open up routes for Holocaust refugees? You point to this single example. Did you know that those who sponsored those refugees are struggling for lack of support, now? The reason why I feel that Britain would not help - and might even help those perpetrating the Holocaust - is because of its wider rhetoric and policies. You want to take one poorly executed policy, with little or no follow through (which amounts to little compared to the help given by our neighbours). I admire your optimism but I believe it's entirely misplaced. If Britain were to take a side, I do not believe it would be humanitarian. I point to the one example because its the latest one, performed by the same government. It may have been poorly executed but we still opened the route. How many Ukrainians were turned away? So an almost recent half hearted gesture - along a constant drum beat of deliberately cruel and weaponised attacks - paling in comparison to the contribution of other countries undoes all the other things - some more recent - that Britain has done regarding refugees? This is the thinnest of fucking gruel. You can't actually believe this horse shit. I'm not allowed to use what I see as the most recent event as a basis for my thinking because other things have happened? We disagree on whether routes would be opened but you don't need to get so pissy about it. So Britain would do the right thing because you exclude a bunch of evidence? Right. Cool.
I don't normally delve into the politics forum....but......
Why aren't the people saying that refugees should stop in the first safe country they get to arguing that Ukranians should do the same?
Why did the UK government open up a system for white European refugees to apply for the right to come to UK before entering the country but won't do the same for non white refugees from any other war torn country?
Why do you assume that if there was another holocaust that the UK government wouldn't base any decision on skin colour as they have in the above examples?
Because there's been plenty of examples of ethnic cleansing ans genocide in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan........and many other countries outside of Europe and they've not jumped to anyone's aid?
A
Why are you making it about race?
What is it about, then?
One of the worst conflicts in recent years has been in Yemen. What are we doing about that?
Plus our unclean hands re Afghanistan, and the gigantic problems in Syria.
So, the UK Governement are racists. Got it.
I didn't say that. I asked you what it was about
In response to my question about race....
Obviously I don't have the answer but I certainly don't think the UK government are racist as alluded to by the previous poster.
So, what do you think it's about?
Why have the government behaved in the way that they have in the broader context, and how does it square with your interpretation of the British government?
In the last 10 years, other than Ukrainians, Syrians and Afghans have the highest number of relocations to the UK.
That doesn't tell me the UK governement are racist.
I asked you what you thought it was about.
Are you saying just refugees, or people in general?
How does our intake compare with that of other countries?
How does the process of immigration (checks and balances, support, appeals) compare with that of other countries?
What support and rights do people have once they've arrived here?
Questions I'd need to examine before judging the motivations of the British government - in addition to the laws they're passing about methods of seeking asylum, support for people living in a way that is compatible with their culture (or at least not criminalising it), the way they speak about immigrants and those who support them, their rhetoric about laws in favour of immigrants, and more besides.
It's not a simple issue.
I'm asking why you think as you do.
As you've just said yourself, it's not a simple issue. From the information at hand, I do not think the UK government are racist.
For me to make a fully informed decision if need a lot more time and information.
So why are you arguing so vociferously against people who are able to cite a lot more evidence than you?
There's no shame in not knowing.
I'm not vociferously against them. I asked why they made it about race. One question. Does that make me against them?
You've argued vociferously against the thread, the idea that Britain would not help Holocaust victims, etc, this whole time.
Now you're saying you don't know enough about the subject. If you don't know, why are you arguing so vociferously?
I argued that I believe the UK would help using the latest conflict as grounds for my beliefs. At no point have I argued against any further information presented. You can believe differently, as is your right but I don't have to agree with you.
I'm entitled to believe that aren't I? You seem to be trying to argue the opposite and somehow corner me into 'I don't actually know why I believe that'
We don't agree, that's cool. Am I trying to get you to change your mind?
I haven't said you shouldn't believe as you do. I've pointed out why I think your argument is based on incomplete information, either willingly or otherwise.
You can say what you want within forum rules. Me pointing out the considerable flaws in your argument is also within forum rules. "Based on the most recent conflict I think the government would help. I can't be any clearer. I'm basing this on the most recent evidence we have. It's also just an opinion, I could of course be wrong. | |||
" Based on the most recent conflict I think the government would help. I can't be any clearer. I'm basing this on the most recent evidence we have. It's also just an opinion, I could of course be wrong. " The most recent information we have on refugees is about a year old? Fascinating. What about this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64943444 Why would returning all "illegal" immigrants and barring them from returning in future be in line with those who need to flee from their lives from genocide? Would you agree that a news article from yesterday is more recent than the Ukraine scheme? | |||
" Based on the most recent conflict I think the government would help. I can't be any clearer. I'm basing this on the most recent evidence we have. It's also just an opinion, I could of course be wrong. The most recent information we have on refugees is about a year old? Fascinating. What about this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64943444 Why would returning all "illegal" immigrants and barring them from returning in future be in line with those who need to flee from their lives from genocide? Would you agree that a news article from yesterday is more recent than the Ukraine scheme?" I said most recent conflict. Not the most recent news on Illegal Immigration Bill. You'll also do well to note that I'm in favour of 'local hubs' for conflict areas. This bill has nothing to do with that though. This bill is about 'illegal immigrants' | |||
" Based on the most recent conflict I think the government would help. I can't be any clearer. I'm basing this on the most recent evidence we have. It's also just an opinion, I could of course be wrong. The most recent information we have on refugees is about a year old? Fascinating. What about this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64943444 Why would returning all "illegal" immigrants and barring them from returning in future be in line with those who need to flee from their lives from genocide? Would you agree that a news article from yesterday is more recent than the Ukraine scheme? I said most recent conflict. Not the most recent news on Illegal Immigration Bill. You'll also do well to note that I'm in favour of 'local hubs' for conflict areas. This bill has nothing to do with that though. This bill is about 'illegal immigrants'" What would you have happen to refugees who cannot fulfil the legal requirements set by the UK? Why would we limit ourselves, when judging what the UK government might do, to one specific event in one specific conflict? All the examples cited in this thread are very recent. Many conflicts are ongoing - are they less important because Ukraine started later? | |||
" Based on the most recent conflict I think the government would help. I can't be any clearer. I'm basing this on the most recent evidence we have. It's also just an opinion, I could of course be wrong. The most recent information we have on refugees is about a year old? Fascinating. What about this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64943444 Why would returning all "illegal" immigrants and barring them from returning in future be in line with those who need to flee from their lives from genocide? Would you agree that a news article from yesterday is more recent than the Ukraine scheme? I said most recent conflict. Not the most recent news on Illegal Immigration Bill. You'll also do well to note that I'm in favour of 'local hubs' for conflict areas. This bill has nothing to do with that though. This bill is about 'illegal immigrants' What would you have happen to refugees who cannot fulfil the legal requirements set by the UK? Why would we limit ourselves, when judging what the UK government might do, to one specific event in one specific conflict? All the examples cited in this thread are very recent. Many conflicts are ongoing - are they less important because Ukraine started later?" We're just going to keep going round in circles here clearly. I have stated why I believe we would help. That's not going to change. If and when I'm wrong, feel free to message me to tell me. | |||
" Based on the most recent conflict I think the government would help. I can't be any clearer. I'm basing this on the most recent evidence we have. It's also just an opinion, I could of course be wrong. The most recent information we have on refugees is about a year old? Fascinating. What about this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64943444 Why would returning all "illegal" immigrants and barring them from returning in future be in line with those who need to flee from their lives from genocide? Would you agree that a news article from yesterday is more recent than the Ukraine scheme? I said most recent conflict. Not the most recent news on Illegal Immigration Bill. You'll also do well to note that I'm in favour of 'local hubs' for conflict areas. This bill has nothing to do with that though. This bill is about 'illegal immigrants' What would you have happen to refugees who cannot fulfil the legal requirements set by the UK? Why would we limit ourselves, when judging what the UK government might do, to one specific event in one specific conflict? All the examples cited in this thread are very recent. Many conflicts are ongoing - are they less important because Ukraine started later? We're just going to keep going round in circles here clearly. I have stated why I believe we would help. That's not going to change. If and when I'm wrong, feel free to message me to tell me." You're entitled to your beliefs and I'm entitled to argue about why they're entirely incoherent. I believe that the UK, given its current rhetoric, would either ignore refugees or be pro-oven. Many instances of why I think that have been cited in this thread. They might, of course, set up a flawed plan to pretend they care about people, if public sentiment or international partners are anti-oven. But a single case of virtue signalling in an overwhelmingly one-sided international mood proves nothing. | |||
"... I believe that the UK, given its current rhetoric, would either ignore refugees or be pro-oven...." Based on their behaviour during the covid crisis, the tory government would be setting up a "VIP lane" system for their friends and donors to make money building the ovens... | |||
| |||
"... I believe that the UK, given its current rhetoric, would either ignore refugees or be pro-oven.... Based on their behaviour during the covid crisis, the tory government would be setting up a "VIP lane" system for their friends and donors to make money building the ovens..." delightful individual | |||
| |||
"... I believe that the UK, given its current rhetoric, would either ignore refugees or be pro-oven.... Based on their behaviour during the covid crisis, the tory government would be setting up a "VIP lane" system for their friends and donors to make money building the ovens...delightful individual" Just somebody that is observant and realistic. Who doesn't underestimate the depravity of some of the people currently in government. Under the nazi regime many german industrialists made fortunes through personal connections with the ruling elite. The "shower" fitments in the death chambers didn't supply themselves. We have government ministers who made fortunes three years ago by supplying PPE that was not fit for purpose, undoubtedly leading to extra deaths even if only a few. The step from there to making money by arranging delivery of goods actively involved in killing people is so small as to be virtually non-existent. Of course the people making the money never "know" what the tanks of chlorine gas are to be used for, and it's impossible to prove anything in a court of law (especially when these are the people that have control over the law), but that does not clean the blood from their hands. Do I want the world to be like this? Certainly not. Do I deplore the system, the individuals, the society that allow this to happen? Absolutely. Will I continue to speak out on the self-evident reality of this evil? Yes. If this makes me a "delightful individual" then I welcome the label and just wish there were more of us around. | |||
"Considering it's fairly likely that the next UK government will be Labour, it's very naive to think that another holocaust wouldn't start in the UK. In all human history, only two national political parties have been censured by internationally recognised bodies for anti-semitic racism. They were the Nazis at Nuremburg in 1946, and the UK Labour Party by the ECHR in 2020. Jewish people around the world will not consider Britain to be a safe country. Given the choice of safe refuges should the unthinkable happen again, Britain would be the last choice, Israel would be the first. Jewish people are not stupid. Oh, and those people using the terms involving "ovens" - this is horribly offensive. You should be bloody ashamed of yourselves for trivialising the suffering my people have been through. These posters will be reported. Bess." | |||
| |||
"No. And there are two reasons/evidences to back this up. One, the case of the Rohingyas, Uighurs, and even South Sudanese in Darfur already exist in the real world today. Whilst they're not as far as the Holocaust in sheer human brutality and genocide, there is zero clamour in the world today to take in any of these oppressed and persecuted peoples as refugees to escape from their homelands. Two, in a recent poll conducted by JL Partners and Channel 4, they found that Six in ten red wall voters support “stopping migrants in small boats from illegally crossing the Channel using any means necessary” - with support extending to multiple groups including remain voters, 18-45s, and 2019 Labour voters. There is similar support - by a margin of almost three to one - for the withdrawal of the right to appeal against deportation for those who cross the Chanel in small boats. Support is also present for leaving the ECHR, breaking international laws, and the Rwanda scheme, but these margins are narrower. This is despite the Tories being on course to lose all Red Wall seats. It should be very clear to all that if the Tories are on track to lose the next election, it won't be because they are seen as too cruel or inhumane towards refugees. https://www.jlpartners.co.uk/red-wall-wave-6 " Good point, and how will Stramer tackle this issue if he becomes PM, will be a interesting watch. | |||
"... I believe that the UK, given its current rhetoric, would either ignore refugees or be pro-oven.... Based on their behaviour during the covid crisis, the tory government would be setting up a "VIP lane" system for their friends and donors to make money building the ovens...delightful individual Just somebody that is observant and realistic. Who doesn't underestimate the depravity of some of the people currently in government. Under the nazi regime many german industrialists made fortunes through personal connections with the ruling elite. The "shower" fitments in the death chambers didn't supply themselves. We have government ministers who made fortunes three years ago by supplying PPE that was not fit for purpose, undoubtedly leading to extra deaths even if only a few. The step from there to making money by arranging delivery of goods actively involved in killing people is so small as to be virtually non-existent. Of course the people making the money never "know" what the tanks of chlorine gas are to be used for, and it's impossible to prove anything in a court of law (especially when these are the people that have control over the law), but that does not clean the blood from their hands. Do I want the world to be like this? Certainly not. Do I deplore the system, the individuals, the society that allow this to happen? Absolutely. Will I continue to speak out on the self-evident reality of this evil? Yes. If this makes me a "delightful individual" then I welcome the label and just wish there were more of us around." sorry polly but after seeing some of your predictions in the virus forum i take watever you say with a pinch of salt, | |||
"Considering it's fairly likely that the next UK government will be Labour, it's very naive to think that another holocaust wouldn't start in the UK. In all human history, only two national political parties have been censured by internationally recognised bodies for anti-semitic racism. They were the Nazis at Nuremburg in 1946, and the UK Labour Party by the ECHR in 2020. Jewish people around the world will not consider Britain to be a safe country. Given the choice of safe refuges should the unthinkable happen again, Britain would be the last choice, Israel would be the first. Jewish people are not stupid. Oh, and those people using the terms involving "ovens" - this is horribly offensive. You should be bloody ashamed of yourselves for trivialising the suffering my people have been through. These posters will be reported. Bess." We need to face the horrors of the past in order to prevent the future. Being naive about the harm of racist rhetoric in the current British political climate does not do this. It increases the risk that it will happen again. If you believe my rhetorical flourish trivialises the suffering during the Holocaust, you are not paying attention to the context of what I'm saying. Or perhaps the endless cry of "but Labour" is more important to some than trying to prevent the rise of pro-oven, pro gas chamber, pro yellow star, pro mass unmarked grave rhetoric. The Holocaust should never happen again, and yet there are considerable parallels with national rhetoric in this and other conflicts. | |||
"Considering it's fairly likely that the next UK government will be Labour, it's very naive to think that another holocaust wouldn't start in the UK. In all human history, only two national political parties have been censured by internationally recognised bodies for anti-semitic racism. They were the Nazis at Nuremburg in 1946, and the UK Labour Party by the ECHR in 2020. Jewish people around the world will not consider Britain to be a safe country. Given the choice of safe refuges should the unthinkable happen again, Britain would be the last choice, Israel would be the first. Jewish people are not stupid. Oh, and those people using the terms involving "ovens" - this is horribly offensive. You should be bloody ashamed of yourselves for trivialising the suffering my people have been through. These posters will be reported. Bess." Whoah Bess that really is quite a statement to make... "Considering it's fairly likely that the next UK government will be Labour, it's very naive to think that another holocaust wouldn't start in the UK. " I do not believe that for a moment. | |||
"Considering it's fairly likely that the next UK government will be Labour, it's very naive to think that another holocaust wouldn't start in the UK. In all human history, only two national political parties have been censured by internationally recognised bodies for anti-semitic racism. They were the Nazis at Nuremburg in 1946, and the UK Labour Party by the ECHR in 2020. Jewish people around the world will not consider Britain to be a safe country. Given the choice of safe refuges should the unthinkable happen again, Britain would be the last choice, Israel would be the first. Jewish people are not stupid. Oh, and those people using the terms involving "ovens" - this is horribly offensive. You should be bloody ashamed of yourselves for trivialising the suffering my people have been through. These posters will be reported. Bess." It's not funny to troll on such a serious subject. In my opinion. | |||
"... I believe that the UK, given its current rhetoric, would either ignore refugees or be pro-oven.... Based on their behaviour during the covid crisis, the tory government would be setting up a "VIP lane" system for their friends and donors to make money building the ovens...delightful individual Just somebody that is observant and realistic. Who doesn't underestimate the depravity of some of the people currently in government. Under the nazi regime many german industrialists made fortunes through personal connections with the ruling elite. The "shower" fitments in the death chambers didn't supply themselves. We have government ministers who made fortunes three years ago by supplying PPE that was not fit for purpose, undoubtedly leading to extra deaths even if only a few. The step from there to making money by arranging delivery of goods actively involved in killing people is so small as to be virtually non-existent. Of course the people making the money never "know" what the tanks of chlorine gas are to be used for, and it's impossible to prove anything in a court of law (especially when these are the people that have control over the law), but that does not clean the blood from their hands. Do I want the world to be like this? Certainly not. Do I deplore the system, the individuals, the society that allow this to happen? Absolutely. Will I continue to speak out on the self-evident reality of this evil? Yes. If this makes me a "delightful individual" then I welcome the label and just wish there were more of us around. sorry polly but after seeing some of your predictions in the virus forum i take watever you say with a pinch of salt, " Strange. As I recall most of my predictions in the virus forum, they were bang on the money. Perhaps you could dig out some examples where I was absolutely wrong? I suppose in the very early days I might have underestimated the eventual death toll. And I certainly never expected most people to be gaslit by the government to such an extent that they would voluntarily abandon all efforts to protect themselves even while the death rate was still rising. Anyway on the subject of refugees, I do hope that the majority of people in this country are pretty decent folk. But they are misinformed by both government and the majority of the news media to the extent that an awful lot would actually cheer on Braverman drowning babies as long as they were "foreign". So no, the United Kingdom as it is today would certainly not give refuge to genocide survivors. We know this, because there are many ongoing genocides right now in the world, and right now the government is creating laws to utterly deny any refuge to those very survivors. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Surely that depends on the government of the day.
I think we've got a long way to turn around from the dehumanisation of people trying to arrive here, and the attacks on those trying to help them."I live o the South East Coast and have cancelled my donations to the RNLI I'm not paying a charity to fill the UK up with immigrants. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would. "We didn't last time. In the 1930s Jews were trying to leave Germany and many European countries, including Britain, refused to accept them - citing many of the same arguments you see in Tory rags now. They couldn't leave Germany and obviously Hitler went on to commit his atrocities.....a stain on all of Europe really but not spoken about. Linekar was absolutely right to talk about 1930s Germany and current right wing rhetoric. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Surely that depends on the government of the day.
I think we've got a long way to turn around from the dehumanisation of people trying to arrive here, and the attacks on those trying to help them.
I live o the South East Coast and have cancelled my donations to the RNLI I'm not paying a charity to fill the UK up with immigrants."No judgement from me, a couple of questions I have. Can I ask if you are affected by illegal crossings where you live? If yes, what is the impact? If no, why pause your charity donation? | |||
"... I believe that the UK, given its current rhetoric, would either ignore refugees or be pro-oven.... Based on their behaviour during the covid crisis, the tory government would be setting up a "VIP lane" system for their friends and donors to make money building the ovens...delightful individual Just somebody that is observant and realistic. Who doesn't underestimate the depravity of some of the people currently in government. Under the nazi regime many german industrialists made fortunes through personal connections with the ruling elite. The "shower" fitments in the death chambers didn't supply themselves. We have government ministers who made fortunes three years ago by supplying PPE that was not fit for purpose, undoubtedly leading to extra deaths even if only a few. The step from there to making money by arranging delivery of goods actively involved in killing people is so small as to be virtually non-existent. Of course the people making the money never "know" what the tanks of chlorine gas are to be used for, and it's impossible to prove anything in a court of law (especially when these are the people that have control over the law), but that does not clean the blood from their hands. Do I want the world to be like this? Certainly not. Do I deplore the system, the individuals, the society that allow this to happen? Absolutely. Will I continue to speak out on the self-evident reality of this evil? Yes. If this makes me a "delightful individual" then I welcome the label and just wish there were more of us around. sorry polly but after seeing some of your predictions in the virus forum i take watever you say with a pinch of salt, Strange. As I recall most of my predictions in the virus forum, they were bang on the money. Perhaps you could dig out some examples where I was absolutely wrong? I suppose in the very early days I might have underestimated the eventual death toll. And I certainly never expected most people to be gaslit by the government to such an extent that they would voluntarily abandon all efforts to protect themselves even while the death rate was still rising. Anyway on the subject of refugees, I do hope that the majority of people in this country are pretty decent folk. But they are misinformed by both government and the majority of the news media to the extent that an awful lot would actually cheer on Braverman drowning babies as long as they were "foreign". So no, the United Kingdom as it is today would certainly not give refuge to genocide survivors. We know this, because there are many ongoing genocides right now in the world, and right now the government is creating laws to utterly deny any refuge to those very survivors." there u go again getting hysterical talking about drowning babys,and you talk about people using language that inflames people, and as for your predictions lol if yours had come true every one would be dead or have long covid, anyway how comes u in politics forum has the virus forum died a death now so you thought you would become an expert on politics | |||
| |||
| |||
"Trying to compare the holocaust to illegal immigration from a country where there is no war, no genocide, and was/is championed by a former Labour Prime Minister for EU membership is really sc*aping the barrel. Even by the standards of this forum. Shame on you OP." Trouble is by your rationale the only countries that should take people fleeing war and persecution are the ones that border those countries. International Law says that we can claim asylum in any country in the world not the first safe country which was an EU convention called the Dublin Regulation. The UK left the EU and are no longer part of the Dublin Regulation. Since then the small boat crossings have increased. The answer to all of that is the creation of legal safe routes initiated out of Embassies. The point of Holocaust by the OP and discussion in this thread is that terrible atrocities including ethnic cleansing have been happening for years around the world. Not on the same scale as THE holocaust, but just as horrific. Not seeing a great deal of empathy for people facing that from some sections of the British public. | |||
"Trying to compare the holocaust to illegal immigration from a country where there is no war, no genocide, and was/is championed by a former Labour Prime Minister for EU membership is really sc*aping the barrel. Even by the standards of this forum. Shame on you OP. Trouble is by your rationale the only countries that should take people fleeing war and persecution are the ones that border those countries. International Law says that we can claim asylum in any country in the world not the first safe country which was an EU convention called the Dublin Regulation. The UK left the EU and are no longer part of the Dublin Regulation. Since then the small boat crossings have increased. The answer to all of that is the creation of legal safe routes initiated out of Embassies. The point of Holocaust by the OP and discussion in this thread is that terrible atrocities including ethnic cleansing have been happening for years around the world. Not on the same scale as THE holocaust, but just as horrific. Not seeing a great deal of empathy for people facing that from some sections of the British public." That is not my rationale at all. I'm talking about Albania. The source of the largest single group of illegal immigrants. There is no war in Albania, there is no genocide in Albania, and no less than Tony Blair was/is championing Albania for EU membership. If Albanians are genuine refugees (which I think not) then why is Blair pushing for the country to be accepted into the EU? | |||
"Trying to compare the holocaust to illegal immigration from a country where there is no war, no genocide, and was/is championed by a former Labour Prime Minister for EU membership is really sc*aping the barrel. Even by the standards of this forum. Shame on you OP." The only person making that comparison is you | |||
| |||
"Trying to compare the holocaust to illegal immigration from a country where there is no war, no genocide, and was/is championed by a former Labour Prime Minister for EU membership is really sc*aping the barrel. Even by the standards of this forum. Shame on you OP. Trouble is by your rationale the only countries that should take people fleeing war and persecution are the ones that border those countries. International Law says that we can claim asylum in any country in the world not the first safe country which was an EU convention called the Dublin Regulation. The UK left the EU and are no longer part of the Dublin Regulation. Since then the small boat crossings have increased. The answer to all of that is the creation of legal safe routes initiated out of Embassies. The point of Holocaust by the OP and discussion in this thread is that terrible atrocities including ethnic cleansing have been happening for years around the world. Not on the same scale as THE holocaust, but just as horrific. Not seeing a great deal of empathy for people facing that from some sections of the British public. That is not my rationale at all. I'm talking about Albania. The source of the largest single group of illegal immigrants. There is no war in Albania, there is no genocide in Albania, and no less than Tony Blair was/is championing Albania for EU membership. If Albanians are genuine refugees (which I think not) then why is Blair pushing for the country to be accepted into the EU?" Your OP made no mention of Albania? Also, if Albania joins the EU then it is of no consequence to the UK. We left the EU. Not sure the EU would listen to Blair anyway? | |||
| |||
"Anyway... They keep us all focused on the dinghies to stop anyone focusing on the super yachts. Time to remind the Govt that people like Michelle Mone need to repay our money!" https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/michelle-mone-husband-jet-villa-29350048 Thats very unlikely though. Don't look here. Look over there at Mr Linekers salary. | |||
"International Law says that we can claim asylum in any country in the world not the first safe country ..." Let's get this right. The Convention says that any state receiving an application from a genuine refugee, *must* grant them asylum. There is no option to refuse. There is nothing in the convention about how claims should be received, not even suggestions. There is nothing in the Convention that gives refugees the right to choose where they claim asylum. There is also nothing in the convention that prevents a genuine refugee from travelling a long way to claim asylum, provided that they travel 'directly' to the country where they make their application. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Surely that depends on the government of the day.
I think we've got a long way to turn around from the dehumanisation of people trying to arrive here, and the attacks on those trying to help them.
I live o the South East Coast and have cancelled my donations to the RNLI I'm not paying a charity to fill the UK up with immigrants.
No judgement from me, a couple of questions I have.
Can I ask if you are affected by illegal crossings where you live?
If yes, what is the impact?
If no, why pause your charity donation?
"Is more an in direct impact as the number of non English speaking in the town is beyond belief, and working in social housing I see first hand the stress it is putting on the system. I have seen boats landing on the beach and adults running in to town living children alone in the boats. As it is with population growth and migration th UK needs to build a City the size of Liverpool. There is not enough land farmed now to feed the population. At some point it will BRAKE | |||
"International Law says that we can claim asylum in any country in the world not the first safe country ... Let's get this right. The Convention says that any state receiving an application from a genuine refugee, *must* grant them asylum. There is no option to refuse. There is nothing in the convention about how claims should be received, not even suggestions. There is nothing in the Convention that gives refugees the right to choose where they claim asylum. There is also nothing in the convention that prevents a genuine refugee from travelling a long way to claim asylum, provided that they travel 'directly' to the country where they make their application." Ok if we want absolute pedantry
Define “directly”? | |||
"Trying to compare the holocaust to illegal immigration from a country where there is no war, no genocide, and was/is championed by a former Labour Prime Minister for EU membership is really sc*aping the barrel. Even by the standards of this forum. Shame on you OP. Trouble is by your rationale the only countries that should take people fleeing war and persecution are the ones that border those countries. International Law says that we can claim asylum in any country in the world not the first safe country which was an EU convention called the Dublin Regulation. The UK left the EU and are no longer part of the Dublin Regulation. Since then the small boat crossings have increased. The answer to all of that is the creation of legal safe routes initiated out of Embassies. The point of Holocaust by the OP and discussion in this thread is that terrible atrocities including ethnic cleansing have been happening for years around the world. Not on the same scale as THE holocaust, but just as horrific. Not seeing a great deal of empathy for people facing that from some sections of the British public. That is not my rationale at all. I'm talking about Albania. The source of the largest single group of illegal immigrants. There is no war in Albania, there is no genocide in Albania, and no less than Tony Blair was/is championing Albania for EU membership. If Albanians are genuine refugees (which I think not) then why is Blair pushing for the country to be accepted into the EU? Your OP made no mention of Albania? Also, if Albania joins the EU then it is of no consequence to the UK. We left the EU. Not sure the EU would listen to Blair anyway?" Quite right. The OP didn't mention Albania, he didn't have to. The whole thread was loaded from the first post. All I was pointing out is that comparing the holocaust (even indirectly) to economic migrants travelling from one safe country through another safe country(s) just because they want to is shameful and offensive. The two don't even come close. | |||
| |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Surely that depends on the government of the day.
I think we've got a long way to turn around from the dehumanisation of people trying to arrive here, and the attacks on those trying to help them.
I live o the South East Coast and have cancelled my donations to the RNLI I'm not paying a charity to fill the UK up with immigrants.
No judgement from me, a couple of questions I have.
Can I ask if you are affected by illegal crossings where you live?
If yes, what is the impact?
If no, why pause your charity donation?
Is more an in direct impact as the number of non English speaking in the town is beyond belief, and working in social housing I see first hand the stress it is putting on the system.
I have seen boats landing on the beach and adults running in to town living children alone in the boats.
As it is with population growth and migration th UK needs to build a City the size of Liverpool.
There is not enough land farmed now to feed the population. At some point it will BRAKE"I hear what you are saying and can see that direct interaction with people arriving in small boats into your community could be upsetting to you. I believe there is a problem with the small boat crossings and I wont shy away from saying so. However, going to your point of cancelling your RNLI donations, that makes me feel uncomfortable. They are there to protect life, all lives are equal when in danger. I can imagine you have seen the images of them picking up people and bringing them to shore and thinking they were not in danger, but they are going to get here any way why not remove the risk? I think you might be demonising the people and not the issue. If they tackle the small boat crossings most of your issues above will also be removed. *I have no answer for tackling small boat crossings* | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Surely that depends on the government of the day.
I think we've got a long way to turn around from the dehumanisation of people trying to arrive here, and the attacks on those trying to help them.
I live o the South East Coast and have cancelled my donations to the RNLI I'm not paying a charity to fill the UK up with immigrants."How much did you donate? | |||
"Trying to compare the holocaust to illegal immigration from a country where there is no war, no genocide, and was/is championed by a former Labour Prime Minister for EU membership is really sc*aping the barrel. Even by the standards of this forum. Shame on you OP. Trouble is by your rationale the only countries that should take people fleeing war and persecution are the ones that border those countries. International Law says that we can claim asylum in any country in the world not the first safe country which was an EU convention called the Dublin Regulation. The UK left the EU and are no longer part of the Dublin Regulation. Since then the small boat crossings have increased. The answer to all of that is the creation of legal safe routes initiated out of Embassies. The point of Holocaust by the OP and discussion in this thread is that terrible atrocities including ethnic cleansing have been happening for years around the world. Not on the same scale as THE holocaust, but just as horrific. Not seeing a great deal of empathy for people facing that from some sections of the British public. That is not my rationale at all. I'm talking about Albania. The source of the largest single group of illegal immigrants. There is no war in Albania, there is no genocide in Albania, and no less than Tony Blair was/is championing Albania for EU membership. If Albanians are genuine refugees (which I think not) then why is Blair pushing for the country to be accepted into the EU? Your OP made no mention of Albania? Also, if Albania joins the EU then it is of no consequence to the UK. We left the EU. Not sure the EU would listen to Blair anyway? Quite right. The OP didn't mention Albania, he didn't have to. The whole thread was loaded from the first post. All I was pointing out is that comparing the holocaust (even indirectly) to economic migrants travelling from one safe country through another safe country(s) just because they want to is shameful and offensive. The two don't even come close." Your OP not the OP. You jumped in without any reference to Albania then in the next post started talking about Albania. | |||
| |||
"International Law says that we can claim asylum in any country in the world not the first safe country ..." "Let's get this right. The Convention says that any state receiving an application from a genuine refugee, *must* grant them asylum. There is no option to refuse. There is nothing in the convention about how claims should be received, not even suggestions. There is nothing in the Convention that gives refugees the right to choose where they claim asylum. There is also nothing in the convention that prevents a genuine refugee from travelling a long way to claim asylum, provided that they travel 'directly' to the country where they make their application." "Ok if we want absolute pedantry
Define “directly”?"That's the problem, it wasn't defined. There's case precedent that says that walking for several weeks across continents and through third-countries still counts as traveling 'directly'. There's also precedent that staying with a friend in a third-country and living there for 6 months means that you didn't travel directly. Most of the people in the Calais camp would be inadmissible because they've set up a little shack and lived in Calais for some time. Luckily for them it's impossible for the UK government to prove that. This is why asylum claims take so long to process. Both genuine claimants and fraudulent will have little or no proof of their route of arrival. Even when they do have proof, it takes ages to push each case through the courts to determine if their arrival was direct or not. It's a knotty problem. | |||
"Trying to compare the holocaust to illegal immigration from a country where there is no war, no genocide, and was/is championed by a former Labour Prime Minister for EU membership is really sc*aping the barrel. Even by the standards of this forum. Shame on you OP. Trouble is by your rationale the only countries that should take people fleeing war and persecution are the ones that border those countries. International Law says that we can claim asylum in any country in the world not the first safe country which was an EU convention called the Dublin Regulation. The UK left the EU and are no longer part of the Dublin Regulation. Since then the small boat crossings have increased. The answer to all of that is the creation of legal safe routes initiated out of Embassies. The point of Holocaust by the OP and discussion in this thread is that terrible atrocities including ethnic cleansing have been happening for years around the world. Not on the same scale as THE holocaust, but just as horrific. Not seeing a great deal of empathy for people facing that from some sections of the British public. That is not my rationale at all. I'm talking about Albania. The source of the largest single group of illegal immigrants. There is no war in Albania, there is no genocide in Albania, and no less than Tony Blair was/is championing Albania for EU membership. If Albanians are genuine refugees (which I think not) then why is Blair pushing for the country to be accepted into the EU? Your OP made no mention of Albania? Also, if Albania joins the EU then it is of no consequence to the UK. We left the EU. Not sure the EU would listen to Blair anyway? Quite right. The OP didn't mention Albania, he didn't have to. The whole thread was loaded from the first post. All I was pointing out is that comparing the holocaust (even indirectly) to economic migrants travelling from one safe country through another safe country(s) just because they want to is shameful and offensive. The two don't even come close. Your OP not the OP. You jumped in without any reference to Albania then in the next post started talking about Albania." He is obviously virtue signalling | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people."what is so bad in France that people are risking their lives to escape by boat? They are already in a safe country and many have travelled through safe countries to get there!! | |||
"Trying to compare the holocaust to illegal immigration from a country where there is no war, no genocide, and was/is championed by a former Labour Prime Minister for EU membership is really sc*aping the barrel. Even by the standards of this forum. Shame on you OP. Trouble is by your rationale the only countries that should take people fleeing war and persecution are the ones that border those countries. International Law says that we can claim asylum in any country in the world not the first safe country which was an EU convention called the Dublin Regulation. The UK left the EU and are no longer part of the Dublin Regulation. Since then the small boat crossings have increased. The answer to all of that is the creation of legal safe routes initiated out of Embassies. The point of Holocaust by the OP and discussion in this thread is that terrible atrocities including ethnic cleansing have been happening for years around the world. Not on the same scale as THE holocaust, but just as horrific. Not seeing a great deal of empathy for people facing that from some sections of the British public. That is not my rationale at all. I'm talking about Albania. The source of the largest single group of illegal immigrants. There is no war in Albania, there is no genocide in Albania, and no less than Tony Blair was/is championing Albania for EU membership. If Albanians are genuine refugees (which I think not) then why is Blair pushing for the country to be accepted into the EU? Your OP made no mention of Albania? Also, if Albania joins the EU then it is of no consequence to the UK. We left the EU. Not sure the EU would listen to Blair anyway? Quite right. The OP didn't mention Albania, he didn't have to. The whole thread was loaded from the first post. All I was pointing out is that comparing the holocaust (even indirectly) to economic migrants travelling from one safe country through another safe country(s) just because they want to is shameful and offensive. The two don't even come close. Your OP not the OP. You jumped in without any reference to Albania then in the next post started talking about Albania. He is obviously virtue signalling " I really hate the expression, but yeah, it's just jumping in with one side's talking points | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people. what is so bad in France that people are risking their lives to escape by boat? They are already in a safe country and many have travelled through safe countries to get there!!"It isn’t necessarily what is so bad about the countries passed through, it is usually the lies they’ve been fed by smugglers that keep them focused on coming here. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Surely that depends on the government of the day.
I think we've got a long way to turn around from the dehumanisation of people trying to arrive here, and the attacks on those trying to help them.
I live o the South East Coast and have cancelled my donations to the RNLI I'm not paying a charity to fill the UK up with immigrants.
How much did you donate? "Had a standing order for £50 a month Same as I do fo other charity's but don't see why the Volunteer service should help migrants. I still do 2 others and about to add a replacement to RNLI | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people. what is so bad in France that people are risking their lives to escape by boat? They are already in a safe country and many have travelled through safe countries to get there!!
It isn’t necessarily what is so bad about the countries passed through, it is usually the lies they’ve been fed by smugglers that keep them focused on coming here."AND the fact that for many, the UK is the destination of choice because (select from list): 1. English is their second language. 2. They are from a country with historical colonial ties to the UK. 3. They are from a country that fairly recently had UK military involvement. 4. They have friends and family already in UK. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Surely that depends on the government of the day.
I think we've got a long way to turn around from the dehumanisation of people trying to arrive here, and the attacks on those trying to help them.
I live o the South East Coast and have cancelled my donations to the RNLI I'm not paying a charity to fill the UK up with immigrants.
No judgement from me, a couple of questions I have.
Can I ask if you are affected by illegal crossings where you live?
If yes, what is the impact?
If no, why pause your charity donation?
Is more an in direct impact as the number of non English speaking in the town is beyond belief, and working in social housing I see first hand the stress it is putting on the system.
I have seen boats landing on the beach and adults running in to town living children alone in the boats.
As it is with population growth and migration th UK needs to build a City the size of Liverpool.
There is not enough land farmed now to feed the population. At some point it will BRAKE
I hear what you are saying and can see that direct interaction with people arriving in small boats into your community could be upsetting to you.
I believe there is a problem with the small boat crossings and I wont shy away from saying so.
However, going to your point of cancelling your RNLI donations, that makes me feel uncomfortable. They are there to protect life, all lives are equal when in danger. I can imagine you have seen the images of them picking up people and bringing them to shore and thinking they were not in danger, but they are going to get here any way why not remove the risk?
I think you might be demonising the people and not the issue. If they tackle the small boat crossings most of your issues above will also be removed.
*I have no answer for tackling small boat crossings*"As you now I do Dock a ship in France get them on bord process cases on the ship Scan same as passport photo etc. So do you donate to the RNLI | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Surely that depends on the government of the day.
I think we've got a long way to turn around from the dehumanisation of people trying to arrive here, and the attacks on those trying to help them.
I live o the South East Coast and have cancelled my donations to the RNLI I'm not paying a charity to fill the UK up with immigrants.
How much did you donate?
Had a standing order for £50 a month
Same as I do fo other charity's but don't see why the Volunteer service should help migrants.
I still do 2 others and about to add a replacement to RNLI"So you think that people should let other people drown? | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Surely that depends on the government of the day.
I think we've got a long way to turn around from the dehumanisation of people trying to arrive here, and the attacks on those trying to help them.
I live o the South East Coast and have cancelled my donations to the RNLI I'm not paying a charity to fill the UK up with immigrants.
No judgement from me, a couple of questions I have.
Can I ask if you are affected by illegal crossings where you live?
If yes, what is the impact?
If no, why pause your charity donation?
Is more an in direct impact as the number of non English speaking in the town is beyond belief, and working in social housing I see first hand the stress it is putting on the system.
I have seen boats landing on the beach and adults running in to town living children alone in the boats.
As it is with population growth and migration th UK needs to build a City the size of Liverpool.
There is not enough land farmed now to feed the population. At some point it will BRAKE
I hear what you are saying and can see that direct interaction with people arriving in small boats into your community could be upsetting to you.
I believe there is a problem with the small boat crossings and I wont shy away from saying so.
However, going to your point of cancelling your RNLI donations, that makes me feel uncomfortable. They are there to protect life, all lives are equal when in danger. I can imagine you have seen the images of them picking up people and bringing them to shore and thinking they were not in danger, but they are going to get here any way why not remove the risk?
I think you might be demonising the people and not the issue. If they tackle the small boat crossings most of your issues above will also be removed.
*I have no answer for tackling small boat crossings*
As you now I do Dock a ship in France get them on bord process cases on the ship Scan same as passport photo etc.
So do you donate to the RNLI "No I don't donate to the RNLI, I was interested in why you decided to stop your donation. I'm not judging you, you make your own decisions based on your values and your situation, which nobody else has experience of. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people. what is so bad in France that people are risking their lives to escape by boat? They are already in a safe country and many have travelled through safe countries to get there!!
It isn’t necessarily what is so bad about the countries passed through, it is usually the lies they’ve been fed by smugglers that keep them focused on coming here.
AND the fact that for many, the UK is the destination of choice because (select from list):
1. English is their second language.
2. They are from a country with historical colonial ties to the UK.
3. They are from a country that fairly recently had UK military involvement.
4. They have friends and family already in UK."I wouldn't dispute your list but I think the harsh realities are, the smugglers charge thousands to get them not only over the channel but from their country of origin. They keep the pressure on once they are on the EU mainland, if they haven't paid for the UK crossing. Once invested they are likely to continue to make the journey, which will account for many passing through safe countries. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Surely that depends on the government of the day.
I think we've got a long way to turn around from the dehumanisation of people trying to arrive here, and the attacks on those trying to help them.
I live o the South East Coast and have cancelled my donations to the RNLI I'm not paying a charity to fill the UK up with immigrants.
How much did you donate?
Had a standing order for £50 a month
Same as I do fo other charity's but don't see why the Volunteer service should help migrants.
I still do 2 others and about to add a replacement to RNLI
So you think that people should let other people drown?"No I think a country the UK that cannot sustain its self needs to be carefull how quick it grows its population. Also my donation was based on saving local lives at sea. In the same way I shop local as in butcher, backer, groser, we try and support local. The RNLI have be come in my opinion a transport organisation from UK waters to shore. Funny how most small boats are just inside UK water when the call for help? If you where at risk would you not call The French as soon as you know the boat was not fit to make the journey. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people. what is so bad in France that people are risking their lives to escape by boat? They are already in a safe country and many have travelled through safe countries to get there!!
It isn’t necessarily what is so bad about the countries passed through, it is usually the lies they’ve been fed by smugglers that keep them focused on coming here.
AND the fact that for many, the UK is the destination of choice because (select from list):
1. English is their second language.
2. They are from a country with historical colonial ties to the UK.
3. They are from a country that fairly recently had UK military involvement.
4. They have friends and family already in UK.
I wouldn't dispute your list but I think the harsh realities are, the smugglers charge thousands to get them not only over the channel but from their country of origin.
They keep the pressure on once they are on the EU mainland, if they haven't paid for the UK crossing.
Once invested they are likely to continue to make the journey, which will account for many passing through safe countries."It always amuses me that governments make laws that they can't enforce. Well at least not the criminal elements of it, but will happily punish the easier vulnerable victims. Like with drugs, get the users while the dealers and gangs make millions. Same with with the asylum seekers. Make a application system non existent and hey presto you have a lucrative criminal opportunity. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Surely that depends on the government of the day.
I think we've got a long way to turn around from the dehumanisation of people trying to arrive here, and the attacks on those trying to help them.
I live o the South East Coast and have cancelled my donations to the RNLI I'm not paying a charity to fill the UK up with immigrants.
How much did you donate?
Had a standing order for £50 a month
Same as I do fo other charity's but don't see why the Volunteer service should help migrants.
I still do 2 others and about to add a replacement to RNLI
So you think that people should let other people drown?
No I think a country the UK that cannot sustain its self needs to be carefull how quick it grows its population.
Also my donation was based on saving local lives at sea. In the same way I shop local as in butcher, backer, groser, we try and support local.
The RNLI have be come in my opinion a transport organisation from UK waters to shore. Funny how most small boats are just inside UK water when the call for help?
If you where at risk would you not call The French as soon as you know the boat was not fit to make the journey."If I was at risk I would hope for the nearest lifesaver. This is life and death, not political point scoring  | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people. what is so bad in France that people are risking their lives to escape by boat? They are already in a safe country and many have travelled through safe countries to get there!!
It isn’t necessarily what is so bad about the countries passed through, it is usually the lies they’ve been fed by smugglers that keep them focused on coming here.
AND the fact that for many, the UK is the destination of choice because (select from list):
1. English is their second language.
2. They are from a country with historical colonial ties to the UK.
3. They are from a country that fairly recently had UK military involvement.
4. They have friends and family already in UK."5. They are from a country that was bombed to buggery by UK and US military action, we are the ones that destroyed their homes, and we bloody well owe them recompense. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people. what is so bad in France that people are risking their lives to escape by boat? They are already in a safe country and many have travelled through safe countries to get there!!
It isn’t necessarily what is so bad about the countries passed through, it is usually the lies they’ve been fed by smugglers that keep them focused on coming here.
AND the fact that for many, the UK is the destination of choice because (select from list):
1. English is their second language.
2. They are from a country with historical colonial ties to the UK.
3. They are from a country that fairly recently had UK military involvement.
4. They have friends and family already in UK.
5. They are from a country that was bombed to buggery by UK and US military action, we are the ones that destroyed their homes, and we bloody well owe them recompense."Isn't number 5 the same as number 3 | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people. what is so bad in France that people are risking their lives to escape by boat? They are already in a safe country and many have travelled through safe countries to get there!!
It isn’t necessarily what is so bad about the countries passed through, it is usually the lies they’ve been fed by smugglers that keep them focused on coming here.
AND the fact that for many, the UK is the destination of choice because (select from list):
1. English is their second language.
2. They are from a country with historical colonial ties to the UK.
3. They are from a country that fairly recently had UK military involvement.
4. They have friends and family already in UK.
5. They are from a country that was bombed to buggery by UK and US military action, we are the ones that destroyed their homes, and we bloody well owe them recompense.
Isn't number 5 the same as number 3"Yeah but she likes to be overly dramatic | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Surely that depends on the government of the day.
I think we've got a long way to turn around from the dehumanisation of people trying to arrive here, and the attacks on those trying to help them.
I live o the South East Coast and have cancelled my donations to the RNLI I'm not paying a charity to fill the UK up with immigrants.
How much did you donate?
Had a standing order for £50 a month
Same as I do fo other charity's but don't see why the Volunteer service should help migrants.
I still do 2 others and about to add a replacement to RNLI
So you think that people should let other people drown?
No I think a country the UK that cannot sustain its self needs to be carefull how quick it grows its population.
Also my donation was based on saving local lives at sea. In the same way I shop local as in butcher, backer, groser, we try and support local.
The RNLI have be come in my opinion a transport organisation from UK waters to shore. Funny how most small boats are just inside UK water when the call for help?
If you where at risk would you not call The French as soon as you know the boat was not fit to make the journey.
If I was at risk I would hope for the nearest lifesaver.
This is life and death, not political point scoring "So would you wait until you where in UK water or make the call when still in French water and go back to France. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Surely that depends on the government of the day.
I think we've got a long way to turn around from the dehumanisation of people trying to arrive here, and the attacks on those trying to help them.
I live o the South East Coast and have cancelled my donations to the RNLI I'm not paying a charity to fill the UK up with immigrants.
How much did you donate?
Had a standing order for £50 a month
Same as I do fo other charity's but don't see why the Volunteer service should help migrants.
I still do 2 others and about to add a replacement to RNLI
So you think that people should let other people drown?
No I think a country the UK that cannot sustain its self needs to be carefull how quick it grows its population.
Also my donation was based on saving local lives at sea. In the same way I shop local as in butcher, backer, groser, we try and support local.
The RNLI have be come in my opinion a transport organisation from UK waters to shore. Funny how most small boats are just inside UK water when the call for help?
If you where at risk would you not call The French as soon as you know the boat was not fit to make the journey.
If I was at risk I would hope for the nearest lifesaver.
This is life and death, not political point scoring
So would you wait until you where in UK water or make the call when still in French water and go back to France.
"I'd go for whoever could get to me faster in those circumstances. And hope they don't take me near anyone who might try to make saving people from drowning into a political dick measuring contest. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people. what is so bad in France that people are risking their lives to escape by boat? They are already in a safe country and many have travelled through safe countries to get there!!
It isn’t necessarily what is so bad about the countries passed through, it is usually the lies they’ve been fed by smugglers that keep them focused on coming here.
AND the fact that for many, the UK is the destination of choice because (select from list):
1. English is their second language.
2. They are from a country with historical colonial ties to the UK.
3. They are from a country that fairly recently had UK military involvement.
4. They have friends and family already in UK.
5. They are from a country that was bombed to buggery by UK and US military action, we are the ones that destroyed their homes, and we bloody well owe them recompense.
Isn't number 5 the same as number 3
Yeah but she likes to be overly dramatic"Looking at number 5 again, I think I agree… I can’t seem to recall the UK and US bombing civilian houses in the way described, I’m sure there were some buildings bombed in error but no way to the extent the posters is portraying. Bad show really, it plays into the hands of those who want to call out bs and stop legit asylum | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people. what is so bad in France that people are risking their lives to escape by boat? They are already in a safe country and many have travelled through safe countries to get there!!
It isn’t necessarily what is so bad about the countries passed through, it is usually the lies they’ve been fed by smugglers that keep them focused on coming here.
AND the fact that for many, the UK is the destination of choice because (select from list):
1. English is their second language.
2. They are from a country with historical colonial ties to the UK.
3. They are from a country that fairly recently had UK military involvement.
4. They have friends and family already in UK.
5. They are from a country that was bombed to buggery by UK and US military action, we are the ones that destroyed their homes, and we bloody well owe them recompense.
Isn't number 5 the same as number 3
Yeah but she likes to be overly dramatic
Looking at number 5 again, I think I agree…
I can’t seem to recall the UK and US bombing civilian houses in the way described, I’m sure there were some buildings bombed in error but no way to the extent the posters is portraying. Bad show really, it plays into the hands of those who want to call out bs and stop legit asylum"Personally I think my point 3 was more appropriately and relevantly worded. Although the UK and USA are two of the worlds biggest arms exporters. One example is what is happening in Yemen where the Saudi backed Govt have indeed “bombed to buggery” whole communities using UK and US supplied munitions and weapon systems. So indirectly responsible at least. | |||
| |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people. what is so bad in France that people are risking their lives to escape by boat? They are already in a safe country and many have travelled through safe countries to get there!!
It isn’t necessarily what is so bad about the countries passed through, it is usually the lies they’ve been fed by smugglers that keep them focused on coming here.
AND the fact that for many, the UK is the destination of choice because (select from list):
1. English is their second language.
2. They are from a country with historical colonial ties to the UK.
3. They are from a country that fairly recently had UK military involvement.
4. They have friends and family already in UK.
5. They are from a country that was bombed to buggery by UK and US military action, we are the ones that destroyed their homes, and we bloody well owe them recompense.
Isn't number 5 the same as number 3
Yeah but she likes to be overly dramatic
Looking at number 5 again, I think I agree…
I can’t seem to recall the UK and US bombing civilian houses in the way described, I’m sure there were some buildings bombed in error but no way to the extent the posters is portraying. Bad show really, it plays into the hands of those who want to call out bs and stop legit asylum
Personally I think my point 3 was more appropriately and relevantly worded.
Although the UK and USA are two of the worlds biggest arms exporters. One example is what is happening in Yemen where the Saudi backed Govt have indeed “bombed to buggery” whole communities using UK and US supplied munitions and weapon systems. So indirectly responsible at least. "and if we didn't supply the weapons other countries would have. | |||
"You're full of them today aren't you
Of course we would.
Really? The government wouldn't paint them as illegal migrants?
Why would they? I'm absolutely positive a legal route would be opened just as happened for Ukrainians.
We haven't opened a legal route for others, have we? If anything, we've closed safe routes & tried to demonise desperate people. what is so bad in France that people are risking their lives to escape by boat? They are already in a safe country and many have travelled through safe countries to get there!!
It isn’t necessarily what is so bad about the countries passed through, it is usually the lies they’ve been fed by smugglers that keep them focused on coming here.
AND the fact that for many, the UK is the destination of choice because (select from list):
1. English is their second language.
2. They are from a country with historical colonial ties to the UK.
3. They are from a country that fairly recently had UK military involvement.
4. They have friends and family already in UK.
5. They are from a country that was bombed to buggery by UK and US military action, we are the ones that destroyed their homes, and we bloody well owe them recompense.
Isn't number 5 the same as number 3
Yeah but she likes to be overly dramatic
Looking at number 5 again, I think I agree…
I can’t seem to recall the UK and US bombing civilian houses in the way described, I’m sure there were some buildings bombed in error but no way to the extent the posters is portraying. Bad show really, it plays into the hands of those who want to call out bs and stop legit asylum
Personally I think my point 3 was more appropriately and relevantly worded.
Although the UK and USA are two of the worlds biggest arms exporters. One example is what is happening in Yemen where the Saudi backed Govt have indeed “bombed to buggery” whole communities using UK and US supplied munitions and weapon systems. So indirectly responsible at least. "Can't disagree with your post but that poster said 'UK and US military action' | |||
| |||
| |||
"Yes, we would." Why aren’t we already? Why don’t we want to help people from Syria or Iran or Afghanistan? They are all facing similar levels of atrocity, while villages in Syria wiped out by poisonous gas. Religious and ethnic persecution. Beheading. Stoning to death. | |||
| |||
"To point out the obvious to anybody with a brain: 1- if the UK says we won't take asylum seekers they came from France, then France could say the same about the just country. Every country in Europe could say that and they'd all end up in Italy and Greece. If we accept that there are genuine asylum seekers out there, then we all need to accept some. Currently we accept less than countries like Germany and France, and we are not anywhere close to top destination. The majority that come here have familial ties to the UK. 2- before 2016 there were 0 boat crossings. This year we're on course for 80,000. The government have lost control. And they've lost control because they haven't had sensible ways to manage asylum seekers. 3- people end up in hotels at great expense because the government defended the home office. If we made decisions quickly then asylum seekers could either be removed or allowed to stay quickly. 4- other countries allow asylum seekers to work while their claims are being (more quickly) considered. 5- the government are using this issue to distract from their terrible record in literally everything else. If they seriously wanted to solve the problem of boat crossings, they wouldn't keep coming up with clearly unlawful policies. They do this so they can shout about lefty lawyers and stupid people believe them. 6- a serious response involves having legal routes, enough money in the system to make fast decisions, have processing centres in France - they've offered then multiple times. 7- the Tories want to pretend it's a choice between their unlawful policy (which depends on removals to other countries we don't have agreements with and a host of other things they've tried and failed before) and open borders. It isn't. Sensible policies that actually deal with the issues are what will solve this. 8- if you previously called for reductions in overseas aid this is the result. If we stop helping people in their own countries develop then they'll sell a better life elsewhere. You've cut off your nose to spite your face. " I won't address each point but here is my thoughts... You seem to have forgotten about the lorry stow aways that were the equivalent to small boats. That has been better managed in terms of technology to identify people stowed away, prosecuting drivers was also introduced. This led to alternative methods, another workaround and small boats become popular because they're not being pulled out before making it out of France, making the odds stack up in favour of those in small boats. How can the process of identifying and approving those arriving when they have no documentation? The safe route option will still attract those with no documentation, and those knowing they are not going to get through a safe route, what happens to those, do they continue to cross and if so now what do you with them? You talk of expense, are you saying there are expense constraints that we should consider? What would they be and what is an acceptable or unacceptable expense in terms of cost? Sensible policies, what would they be? Finally, at what point is it right to say as a country we can't take any further people? | |||
"To point out the obvious to anybody with a brain: 1- if the UK says we won't take asylum seekers they came from France, then France could say the same about the just country. Every country in Europe could say that and they'd all end up in Italy and Greece. If we accept that there are genuine asylum seekers out there, then we all need to accept some. Currently we accept less than countries like Germany and France, and we are not anywhere close to top destination. The majority that come here have familial ties to the UK. 2- before 2016 there were 0 boat crossings. This year we're on course for 80,000. The government have lost control. And they've lost control because they haven't had sensible ways to manage asylum seekers. 3- people end up in hotels at great expense because the government defended the home office. If we made decisions quickly then asylum seekers could either be removed or allowed to stay quickly. 4- other countries allow asylum seekers to work while their claims are being (more quickly) considered. 5- the government are using this issue to distract from their terrible record in literally everything else. If they seriously wanted to solve the problem of boat crossings, they wouldn't keep coming up with clearly unlawful policies. They do this so they can shout about lefty lawyers and stupid people believe them. 6- a serious response involves having legal routes, enough money in the system to make fast decisions, have processing centres in France - they've offered then multiple times. 7- the Tories want to pretend it's a choice between their unlawful policy (which depends on removals to other countries we don't have agreements with and a host of other things they've tried and failed before) and open borders. It isn't. Sensible policies that actually deal with the issues are what will solve this. 8- if you previously called for reductions in overseas aid this is the result. If we stop helping people in their own countries develop then they'll sell a better life elsewhere. You've cut off your nose to spite your face. " Some very good logical points there. It is assuming those the media show us as making decisions are the actual ones setting policies mind you, and not other actors or lobby groups. It will be telling if anything changes with another political party in power. It's a while off yet, but we doubt it sadly. | |||
