Well considering the specific word is the one used in the headline and put in quotation marks it seemed relevant to mention . . .
Printable View
Well considering the specific word is the one used in the headline and put in quotation marks it seemed relevant to mention . . .
Sure I get that, I just thought that given contempt you seem to have for them, there might be some deeper philosophical objection there. Guess not.
What they said was bloody stupid. There's no further details than what's quoted as what they said. Since they're nobodies who don't matter they've not been quoted beyond that article that I have seen ... So yeah what else do you want me to say beyond what has already been said?
I thought you were going to say it was bad in general to be hostile to migrants and want to keep them out.
Of course it is. That goes without saying. I didn't see that it was good to be hostile to migrants and want to keep them out said in the quote though.
Wanting people not to make the deadly and treacherous crossing from France to the UK in dinghies is entirely humane and not hostile.
Well, they said it was bad that migrants could simply paddle in. Pretty strongly implied.
Paddling across the Channel is bad. Very bad.
They may have different reasons for saying so but I don't know them. Never even heard of the MP named before.
Does anyone know the "correct" way in which refugees are supposed to cross the channel? Assuming they have no cash/passport etc.
Genuine question. I've been interested but haven't been able to find the answer.
The interesting thing about the answer to the question is that any regular way of travel is near impossible to use for the people involved. Airlines and ferry services are heavily fined for transportation of people who lack proper documentation.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
A refugee has the right to get on a plane to travel to safety. However, a person merely claiming to be a refugee does not have that same right. By strictly rejecting to accept applications for recognition as a refugee at the place where the refugee is (as opposed to where he wants to go) and threatening airlines and ferry services the potential refugee winds up in a up stuck in the middle.
I know people who would be fast tracked to A-status refugees if they were able to get to the Netherlands. They are stuck in Turkey because they have no legal way of traveling to the Netherlands. I say stuck in Turkey because that country has limited its application of the treaties to refugees originating in Europe.
We have created our own legal mess in which we can only post factum establish if a person was entitled to get on a dinghy or not. Once we have established that, the inevitable conclusion is that this person should have been allowed to make the same journey by plane.
The UK processes tens of thousands of asylum applications a year. The overwhelming majority are via airports, or via embassies, or flown in from refugee camps eg in Turkey. People crossing the channel in boats by comparison make up a tiny almost insignificant fraction of cases which makes sense because it is a bloody stupid and potentially deadly thing to do and the people there are already in FRANCE not some hellhole they need to escape from.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
The UK numbers are a good example of why the system doesn't work; roughly 5,000 recognition + resettlement cases last year. The recognized refugees are probably mostly picked from the 7-8 million indisputable Syrian war refugees in Turkey, Lebanon and Greece. It's not even a drop on a boiling hot plate. In theory all these people should have the right guaranteed under international law to get on a plane and fly to a safe place. We hide behind the fiction that these people are possibly not refugees until we have vetted them. Until we have done the thorough vetting process we will punish the airline that gives them their rights. Multiply the British figure by ten and we're talking a couple of centuries on the waitinglist for the vast majority. And then we wonder why people would risk their lives on a rubber boat.
If you don't believe people can be refugees so long, just look at the situation of the children and grandchildren of the people who thought their Arab brothers would 'drive the Jewish entity into the sea'.
You do realize that this is only because Palestinians (for reasons I will leave up to the reader) get a special definition of refugee that doesn't apply to any other refugee in the world, right? The UNRWA (the Palestinian's super special refugee agency) uses a definition not shared by anyone else, including the UNHCR (everyone else's pedestrian refugee agency).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I know but it's not really relevant; the point is that once people are stuck in a situation where they re refugees but without the full rights of a refugee, that situation can be very very difficult to escape from. The 4 million Syrians in Turkey are at serious risk of never being able to return home nor let down their roots in Turkey for real. At the moment the best they can get is a type of residency that specificly excludes them from a path to citizenship. Leaving Turkey is done by the few lucky ones under the UN resettlement plan, for a similar number on underpowered rubber boats if they can afford it. So that leaves the rest of them in a centuries long waiting list.
Agreed that there are many stateless people in the world and that we should make every effort to get them citizenship and resettled somewhere irrespective of their refugee status. And I think that the West (not least the US and UK) have done a very poor job in leading the world on this issue, especially in recent years.
I wouldn't, however, call all stateless people refugees.
Neither would I, but it would be something I'd be very worried about if I were in the place of some of my Syrian friends. As things stand they can still renew their passports if they are willing to fork out $1200, that's three months of minimum wage in Turkey. But I wouldn't be too certain the regime is willing to continue that practise once the war ends and they are quite happy with a huge number of Sunni's on the other side of the border.
I am not so naive to think that the US and EU can save all the refugees in the world. But we could have coughed up the funds to make it attractive to the countries in the region to be a bit more welcoming.
The UK processes roughly 30k asylum applications per year. In 2016, almost 90% of these applications were lodged by people who were already in the UK—not at port of arrival. You're garbling factoids about the refugee resettlement scheme. The UK resettles a paltry 5-6k refugees a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Previously, roughly 4%. This year, 4,000 people have already crossed the channel in this manner. The final tally is likely to be over 10%.Quote:
People crossing the channel in boats by comparison make up a tiny almost insignificant fraction of cases
They're not trying to escape FROM France; they're trying to escape TO the UK, from a hellish existence characterized by uncertainty and a lack of security. Their hope is that, in the UK, they'll finally be able to settle, and find stability for themselves and their families. It's much easier to learn functional English than functional French, at least to the point where you can function well enough in society to work and to get an education. If you don't want them to risk their lives, make it easier for many, many more of them to get to the UK. Of course, xenophobes and racists have ensured that that will never happen—the UK doesn't want refugees and asylum seekers any more than it wants ordinary brown people from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.Quote:
which makes sense because it is a bloody stupid and potentially deadly thing to do and the people there are already in FRANCE not some hellhole they need to escape from.
Thirty thousand per annum is in the tens of thousands. You're refuting my point by proving it. Yes people already in the UK, normally via air travel not via dinghy travel. You say "paltry" but for the thousands of people getting safe harbour and repatriation to the UK it is anything but paltry. Out of curiosity what is your benchmark for non-paltry resettlements direct from Syria or Turkey etc? How are you comparing to call it paltry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
4% is a small number again like I said. In 2018 the figure was under 1%. In comparison resettlement numbers have consistently been in the past between at least 10x or more than 20x cross-Channel boat crossings. Yes its going up this year which is why its in the news and needs to be stopped like it has been in the past because its dangerous and stupid.Quote:
Previously, roughly 4%. This year, 4,000 people have already crossed the channel in this manner. The final tally is likely to be over 10%.
I'm content with more coming through safer channels. Crossing the Channel in a dinghy is not one of them.Quote:
They're not trying to escape FROM France; they're trying to escape TO the UK, from a hellish existence characterized by uncertainty and a lack of security. Their hope is that, in the UK, they'll finally be able to settle, and find stability for themselves and their families. It's much easier to learn functional English than functional French, at least to the point where you can function well enough in society to work and to get an education. If you don't want them to risk their lives, make it easier for many, many more of them to get to the UK. Of course, xenophobes and racists have ensured that that will never happen—the UK doesn't want refugees and asylum seekers any more than it wants ordinary brown people from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
There are zero direct resettlements from Syria and very few direct resettlements from Turkey or any other place. People who apply for asylum in the UK are typically people who in one way or another managed to get there in ways that are illegal and/or designated human trafficking.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I don't know where you get your ideas from but they have excessively little to do with reality. As long as the chances of getting recognized as a refugee are near certain for huge numbers of people who make it into the UK (or any other Western country) but near zero for people who wait their turn in a place close to home you're gonna have people getting into rubber boats and people dying when those rubber boats sink.
Taking the extremist position is not going to help in this matter. While people may have a right to seek asylum in the UK it's ludicrous to say they need to do so because of France not being sufficiently a place to their taste. Unless of course you want to encourage people who want to do away with the idea of asylum alltogether, then you are doing exactly the right thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Your remark was in response to Gogo's post:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Your response is not relevant to his question; the 90% who lodged their applications from within the UK after travelling their by air did so with the help of passports or equivalent documentation, which the channel crossers lack.Quote:
Does anyone know the "correct" way in which refugees are supposed to cross the channel? Assuming they have no cash/passport etc.
It is paltry in comparison to the number of refugees, in comparison to the size of your population, and in comparison to the generosity of other countries. Sweden has resettled close to 200,000 refugees from Syria. Germany has at least admitted many more. How many refugees from Syria has the UK resettled since 2011?Quote:
You say "paltry" but for the thousands of people getting safe harbour and repatriation to the UK it is anything but paltry. Out of curiosity what is your benchmark for non-paltry resettlements direct from Syria or Turkey etc? How are you comparing to call it paltry?
Would 4% of your household income be "tiny almost insignificant"?Quote:
4% is a small number again like I said.
Sure, and, in 2019, it was 1,800. Did you resettle 18,000-36,000 refugees in 2019? Will you resettle 40,000-80,000 refugees this year? Averaged out over the past several years, channel crossings have been substantial in comparison to refugee resettlement under other schemes. Which isn't unsurprising.Quote:
In 2018 the figure was under 1%. In comparison resettlement numbers have consistently been in the past between at least 10x or more than 20x cross-Channel boat crossings.
It doesn't matter what you're "content with"; you've chosen to support a party that has pledged to keep people out.Quote:
I'm content with more coming through safer channels. Crossing the Channel in a dinghy is not one of them.
It is relevant. He asked how refugees do it and the answer was given. That is how tens of thousands do it. As for how these refugees should do it - they should apply for refugee status in France since that is what they are. Refugee status is about seeking to get away from your oppressors, not getting to cherrypick where in the world you would most want to go to instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Bait and switch. Use the same terms and don't turn into a mini Lewk switching words around. The question was not how many Germany has admitted but how many they have resettled. How many have they flown in from Syria or Turkey etc - people getting there on their own back is not generosity.Quote:
It is paltry in comparison to the number of refugees, in comparison to the size of your population, and in comparison to the generosity of other countries. Sweden has resettled close to 200,000 refugees from Syria. Germany has at least admitted many more. How many refugees from Syria has the UK resettled since 2011?
It depends.Quote:
Would 4% of your household income be "tiny almost insignificant"?
They have been a tiny proportion every year. They've never once been a majority.Quote:
Sure, and, in 2019, it was 1,800. Did you resettle 18,000-36,000 refugees in 2019? Will you resettle 40,000-80,000 refugees this year? Averaged out over the past several years, channel crossings have been substantial in comparison to refugee resettlement under other schemes. Which isn't unsurprising.
Bullshit. That is a lie.Quote:
It doesn't matter what you're "content with"; you've chosen to support a party that has pledged to keep people out.
There is nothing extremist about my position. My observation is not about what people "need" but about what they choose to do for understandable reasons. People mostly make more or less rational choices for themselves, weighing their preferences and their expectations of risk and reward. The issue is not that France isn't sufficiently to someone's taste, but, rather, that they may have decided it might be considerably easier for them to settle in the UK—eg. due to greater facility with English. What I say on this forum has zero impact on the broader political discourse in any of our countries, and will have zero impact on the balance of power between different policy/political positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
People may choose they want to migrate to the UK in which case they can apply to do so.
I literally quoted what he said. You should've read it:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Quote:
Assuming they have no cash/passport etc.
Tens of thousands of people with passports, yes.Quote:
That is how tens of thousands do it.
They have every right to seek asylum in the UK, provided they can get there. I understand your desire to opine on what being a refugee is or should be about, but the reality is that people fleeing violence and persecution have a desire to not only flee but also to settle and make good lives for themselves and their loved ones. To the extent that they are able to make choices that will—in their estimation—best serve that end, they will do so.Quote:
As for how these refugees should do it - they should apply for refugee status in France since that is what they are.
Refugee status is about seeking to get away from your oppressors, not getting to cherrypick where in the world you would most want to go to instead.
You've made this asinine argument before, and it remains as unconvincing now as ever. Hilariously, you've even done me the favour of refuting your own position—for the hundreds of thousands of refugees saved by Germany and Sweden, these policies have been an expression of generosity. If you wish to compare your ~15k Syrian refugees with hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees in Germany and Sweden, even at a steep discount, the latter earn much, much more credit than your Randian symbolic gesture.Quote:
Bait and switch. Use the same terms and don't turn into a mini Lewk switching words around. The question was not how many Germany has admitted but how many they have resettled. How many have they flown in from Syria or Turkey etc - people getting there on their own back is not generosity.
On what does it depend? In your case, would you regard it as "tiny, almost insignificant"?Quote:
It depends.
I know you have difficulties with this sort of thing but even you must understand what a vast gulf there is between "tiny" and "majority". If you regard 4% as "tiny", that's a range of almost 47%. The reality is that, last year, the ratio of channel crossers to officially resettled refugees was roughly 1:3—not tiny or insignificant. This year, it's likely to be 2:3—even less tiny and insignificant.Quote:
They have been a tiny proportion every year. They've never once been a majority.
Did or did the Conservative Party not pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands?Quote:
Bullshit. That is a lie.
Sure, and they can apply once they're in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I did read it. Those who can use cash and a passport can do so that way. Those who can't can go where they can safely get to and either apply directly to eg the French government or can apply to the UK through eg resettlement schemes. An order of magnitude more get asylum via resettlement schemes than via crossing the Channel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Provided they can yes. If they have the cash and passport to do so.Quote:
They have every right to seek asylum in the UK, provided they can get there. I understand your desire to opine on what being a refugee is or should be about, but the reality is that people fleeing violence and persecution have a desire to not only flee but also to settle and make good lives for themselves and their loved ones. To the extent that they are able to make choices that will—in their estimation—best serve that end, they will do so.
Its not 15k refugees, its over 30k per annum. Either compare total with total, or compare resettled with resettled - do not compare resettled with total that is utterly dishonest. For these hundreds of thousands if they didn't have the cash or passports required to get to Germany how did the German government arrange safe transit to Germany from Syria? I'd like to see how that differs to what the UK is doing please.Quote:
You've made this asinine argument before, and it remains as unconvincing now as ever. Hilariously, you've even done me the favour of refuting your own position—for the hundreds of thousands of refugees saved by Germany and Sweden, these policies have been an expression of generosity. If you wish to compare your ~15k Syrian refugees with hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees in Germany and Sweden, even at a steep discount, the latter earn much, much more credit than your Randian symbolic gesture.
It depends as I said. When I bought my home and then years later when I sold it the negotiations in the price of the house was done at a much more than 4% of my annual income.Quote:
On what does it depend? In your case, would you regard it as "tiny, almost insignificant"?
This year is exceptional which is why its in the news. Last year the ratio of channel crossers to total asylum claims was about 1:20 both tiny, the year before the ratio was less than 1 in 100.Quote:
I know you have difficulties with this sort of thing but even you must understand what a vast gulf there is between "tiny" and "majority". If you regard 4% as "tiny", that's a range of almost 47%. The reality is that, last year, the ratio of channel crossers to officially resettled refugees was roughly 1:3—not tiny or insignificant. This year, it's likely to be 2:3—even less tiny and insignificant.
In the last General Election and since Boris became leader? It did not.Quote:
Did or did the Conservative Party not pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands?
Though even if it had, it would not be keeping people out it would be slowing the rate of more coming in than going out. But no, the Party did not pledge that.
There is no right as you described. There is a right to asylum and access to the facilities provided by the host to people who have a right to reside. There is no right in any way to facility of life on any of the criteria you mentioned. You are short sighted if you think that any part of this discussion has no effects in real life. This forum may be small but it's not operating in a vacuum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The idea that having a passport and the money to buy a ticket is sufficient to flee to a safe place is a lie so big that any position based on it has no validity. The vast majority of refugees, well over 90%, are denied their rights under international treaties. Not even the situation in 2015 made a significant change in that.
Sure, or they can get to the UK some other way and apply there.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No passport necessary if you take a non-conventional route.Quote:
Provided they can yes. If they have the cash and passport to do so.
First of all, the 30k figure refers to applications—not to grants, the figure for which is considerably lower. Secondly, you specified refugees from "Syria or Turkey etc". The subsequent exchange on this tangent has concerned refugees from Syria. The UK isn't resettling or granting asylum to 30k refugees from Syria every year. It receives roughly 30k applications for asylum (recently; most years this past decade, it's been between 20k—25k), and Syria isn't even in the top ten of countries for applicants—let alone for grants. The UK has probably resettled somewhere between 15-20k Syrian refugees over the past 10 years. All I'm concerned with is how many refugees get the chance to build a safe, stable and happy new life in a new country. Whether they get there through their own initiative or are launched there by Boromir the Brit's giant catapult is of little interest. It would've been interesting if the UK had shipped over and resettled as many refugees as other countries grant asylum to after their arrival, but the discrepancy between the UK's resettlement tally—and, indeed, their asylum tally—and other countries' asylum grants is so great that there's just no contest. You don't get extra credit for rigidly adhering to rules that save far, far fewer people than others do.Quote:
Its not 15k refugees, its over 30k per annum. Either compare total with total, or compare resettled with resettled - do not compare resettled with total that is utterly dishonest.
In the context of this discussion, that is kind of a stupid question. The people who made it to Germany obviously had the material, physical and psychological resources to get to Germany—that much is self-evident, because they made it to Germany, even though it must have been at great cost. Passport requirements were not—at the peak of the refugee influx—as great an issue for people who'd managed to enter the Schengen Area. The UK is, of course, not in the Schengen Area. On top of its nearly unparalleled generosity wrt granting asylum to Syrian refugees who made it to Germany, the country has also resettled thousands of refugees annually through cooperation with UNHCR, in addition to admitting 27k refugees and asylum seekers relocated from Greece.Quote:
For these hundreds of thousands if they didn't have the cash or passports required to get to Germany how did the German government arrange safe transit to Germany from Syria? I'd like to see how that differs to what the UK is doing please.
If an unexpected expense popped up today that amounted to 4% of your household income, would it be a "tiny almost insignificant" expense or would it not? Conversely, if you had to pay an additional 4% of the price of your home upfront—out of pocket—would that be a "tiny almost insignificant" sum, or would it not?Quote:
It depends as I said. When I bought my home and then years later when I sold it the negotiations in the price of the house was done at a much more than 4% of my annual income.
Just to be clear, you're now referring to roughly 5% as "tiny", even though you have not yet established that 4% is tiny.Quote:
This year is exceptional which is why its in the news. Last year the ratio of channel crossers to total asylum claims was about 1:20 both tiny
Clandestine entries—eg. on boats and lorries—have been around 2,000 per year for at least half a decade. Though channel crossings in small boats plummeted in 2018, people still made it across by other means.Quote:
the year before the ratio was less than 1 in 100.
Have you voted Tory in only that election since 2010? That's certainly surprising. Although the Tories under Johnson had the good sense to scrap the concrete target, they ran on assuring voters that immigration would be reduced—both in the manifesto as well as in interviews. The Conservative party panders to people who have a strong preference for reducing immigration. These people are opponents of immigration—typically when it comes to migrants from a number of nonwhite countries.Quote:
In the last General Election and since Boris became leader? It did not.
No, the only reasonable interpretation of the manifesto and of Johnson's public statements is that they sought to reassure voters that their goal is to reduce the number of people coming in—ie. keeping people out.Quote:
Though even if it had, it would not be keeping people out it would be slowing the rate of more coming in than going out.
Firstly, this remark has next to no bearing on what I said; my observation concerns some of the reasons why some people might choose to risk their lives by crossing the channel under dangerous circumstances—not whether or not they had any particular positive state-obligating "right" to any of the things they desire (other than asylum). Secondly, every human being has a prima facie right to seek many or most of the things refugees and asylum seekers are hoping to gain on the other side of their journey across the channel—rights that are both self-evident as well as enshrined in both domestic and international law. For those with legitimate claims, the enjoyment of these rights, once recognized, must also be facilitated. Not even the UK takes the view that people with legitimate claims are welcome to just get fucked, after arriving in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I am realistic. What I say on this forum has zero impact on the broader political discourse in any of our countries, and will have zero impact on the balance of power between different policy/political positions. This forum doesn't operate in a vacuum, and what we say can to an extent impact one other's lives. The impact dissipates extremely swiftly from there. What I say here will have no measurable impact on migration politics & policy in the UK. Even to the extent that my remarks might have an impact on a member, that impact will not be translated to any measurable impact on broader politics and policy in that member's country. My statements on this matter are morally permissible and pragmatically unproblematic. You may feel differently for your own personal reasons, but we shall have to be content with disagreeing on these matters, as always.Quote:
You are short sighted if you think that any part of this discussion has no effects in real life. This forum may be small but it's not operating in a vacuum.
EHRC report is out and the answer is: Yes.
The was antisemitic and Labour Party broke the law in dealing with it, with meddling from the leader's office.
Corbyn rejected part of the findings and Starmer has taken the whip from Corbyn (suspended him from the party). Good riddance - still not good that Starmer chose to serve in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet but good riddance to Corbyn.
The Labour Party under new leadership is now moving from antisemitism to anti-Hindu racist xenophobia, while appealing for Muslim votes.
Twitter Link
Wait, are you claiming opposing Modi is anti-Hindu xenophobia?
Modi and his fanatic adherents would certainly make that argument :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I think saying that voters in the UK should vote on racial lines because the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at the pre-pandemic G7 shook hands with the Indian Prime Minister is anti-Hindu xenophobia, yes.
Biden and Trump have both shook hands with Putin, Boris has shaken hands with Corbyn. Leaders shake hands, pre-pandemic its a civil nicety they did even with those they disagree with. To take a picture of a leader from a different race shaking hands with someone and say those of your own race should vote accordingly is disgusting xenophobic race baiting racism that should have no role in our politics.
Criticising Modi is fair enough, saying that Muslims in the UK should vote Labour because the Tory Prime Minister at the G7 shook hands with Modi is race baiting xenophobia.
Though I'm sure there'll be some racist bigots who fail to see the issue here.
That's quite a lot that you're taking from an ad saying shaking hands with xenophobic wannabe dictators is a bad thing.
So Biden shaking hand with Putin was bad?
This leaflet is asking people to vote on racial lines because of that. What word would you use to describe that other than racism?
Its not like Boris awarded the UK's highest available civilian honour onto Modi like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Palestine, the UAE, the Maldives and Bahrain all did. Without considering Russia and the USA.
Racism worked for Johnson. Maybe the Labour party is just appealing the the British voter.
Our standards are in the gutter. Expect shit.
Labour are the party that have engaged in racism, that were found guilty of being institutionally antisemitic by the independent regulator and are now engaging again in racism, not Johnson.
Political ads are political? The horror.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Criticizing the government for doing something potentially ethically dubious but politically necessary? I call that standard politics. :bored: