Channel deaths | Four confirmed dead after migrant boat tragically capsizes (p 41)

The perfect fumble said:
No, I've not read it, I know the gist of it, but in truth it's not really the issue.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that even this shower of shit are misinterpreting the convention, they're just irked they're chained to it and don't have the mechanisms in place to process the numbers.

Besides it's all swept up in the usual bullshit, economic migrants, and worse, criminals, masquerading as asylum seekers out to take our homes, our jobs, our women!

I'm sick to death of it.
Click to expand...

You cannot accept that though - things like this are the issue - its law - its international law - its about our respect and standing in the world - this lot want us to race to the bottom suddenly occupied by Belarus and Russia and you have to be against that or our nation and its people are lost
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
Apparently, as soon as you arrive, you get benefits, a house, a car, a 50 inch TV, a GP, kids go to school and then, if you can be arsed (as the benefits are so huge) you’ll be given a high paying job. Given this is the narrative in the media that reviles these people, it’s hardly surprising.
Not only that, with no EU to blame anymore, there is no incentive for the government to actually DO anything as there always needs to be a constant supply of people to blame.
At the minute, Union Barons and immigrants will do nicely thank you.
Click to expand...
The most recent was that they’ll give asylum seekers an ex-military house whilst ex-servicemen are homeless. Anything to keep the resentment on the boil.
 
Don't know what the fuss is about, this is simply government policy working as intended.


If we didn't want people dying in the channel, we'd make a legal pathway to apply for asylum overseas. There is none because making the journey fatal has been a cornerstone of government's "hostile environment" policy since Teresa May was home secretary in 2102.

As demonstrated by the home secretary -

 
The perfect fumble said:
The basis of the welfare state is if you pay in you can draw down in times of need, it's a social contract, first introduced by Lloyd George in the National Insurance Act of 1911 and expanded by Labour in 1945. Immigration can undermine that. So while the Windrush generation and others, who spent their working lives here, paid in and can draw down as part of that arrangement, people arriving illegally from across the Channel have made no such contribution and therefore break that social contract.
Click to expand...
It's sort of bollocks though, isn't it? Let's be honest, we all start off in a massive deficit with our 18 years of free schooling and education before we contribute anything. Whereas immigrants often come pre-educated. But the problem is that issues with immigration are only ever used as a way to whip up hatred or fury, so sensible stuff never gets talked about. For example, it was clearly ridiculous that someone working in the UK could get child benefits at UK levels for their kids still living in Eastern Europe. And there clearly could be a sensible solution to that, but no, we had to have it presented as scrounging foreigners sponging off the welfare state. Let's be honest, what it really highlighted is the ridiculousness that people working full time are still having to claim benefits to have a reasonable life in the UK.

The other issue with this idea of the deserving and undeserving poor is that there are people in need of help who haven't built up a bunch of social contributions and never will. What about someone with disabilities that prevent them from working who is never going to contribute enough in taxes to pay for the cost of their care? Or someone who grew up in and out of social care, never got a decent education and as a result, suffers serious mental health problems and can't hold down a permanent job? Or the person who had to quit their job to become a full time carer. So what starts as undeserving immigrants or asylum seekers quickly morphs into "She's not disabled. I saw her mowing the lawn the other day." Or the odd exception who does game the system used to suggest that the whole system isn't fit for purpose when it actually helps millions and the country as a whole.

We also get the likes of military veterans, poor pensioners, nurses, etc, used to attack other 'less deserving' people, by people who have no intention of helping those groups either. People who will happily fight to cut firefighters' pensions while arguing that they're more worthy than someone fleeing a war when it suits them.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
We could set up a system where refugees can seek asylum before setting foot in the U.K..

This would stop a lot of these crossings and horrific deaths.
Click to expand...
They could. Nothing prevents them from seeking asylum in France does it? They choose to take this very risky journey over their own safety.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
We, has a nation, no longer lead the world.

We, you, all of us are now seen as nation that is, well, lost.
Click to expand...
This has been the case since the two world wars in the 20th century though. This idea that we should in any way lead the world is a legacy of the colonial mindset. We are a reasonably large island off the coast of France that should probably be looking to model ourself upon the Benelux or Scandinavian countries over the next century. Just because we still have disproportionate national wealth based largely upon our past and a token nuclear arsenal pretty much under the control of the US we are not a great power and the globe has not been mostly pink for a very long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.