Grays_1890
Erik Thorstvedt
Any of the current parties could take the laws as written but only apply them to UK citizens. Even the Greens could cope with something that simple.
So only apply human rights in the UK to UK citizens and not anyone else?
Any of the current parties could take the laws as written but only apply them to UK citizens. Even the Greens could cope with something that simple.
That's a good startSo only apply human rights in the UK to UK citizens and not anyone else?
I suspect you are saying that for shock impact, I can't believe that for a minuteThat's a good start
Why not? Obvious caveats needed for people with (valid) visas.I suspect you are saying that for shock impact, I can't believe that for a minute
JeeezWhy not? Obvious caveats needed for people with (valid) visas.
Anyone who shouldn't be here isn't our responsibility.
The attitudes of some in this country are hugely disappointing.
So little empathy now.
I’m also kind of disgusted by Mamoud’s statements on immigration today, buying into the false right wing narrative that “it’s tearing the country apart”.
We don’t have an immigration problem in this country, we have a humanity problem.
The bolded bit is a big part of the problem - as in the perception such statements give. In reality asylum seekers are not being put up in “hotels”. Rather hotels are being commandeered as accommodation for asylum seekers, such that they are no longer “hotels” but more like accommodation blocks.We need immigration, I don’t think anyone would argue that we don’t. The question is how many do we allow to stay. We can’t take every single immigrant that tries to come over here. The fact that some of them are put up in hotels is just farcical and shows we haven’t got a handle on the problem at all, and that goes for both parties (Labour and Tories).
We need immigration, I don’t think anyone would argue that we don’t. The question is how many do we allow to stay. We can’t take every single immigrant that tries to come over here. The fact that some of them are put up in hotels is just farcical and shows we haven’t got a handle on the problem at all, and that goes for both parties (Labour and Tories).
That's not really relevant. Housing them at all is a cost, a cost that taxpayers are needlessly paying for.We should take some.
And the number we take should be strongly correlated to our involvement in the reason they have become refugees in the first place.
We should also have an actual legal route for asylum.
Lastly, the hotels used to house these people are brickholes, it’s not a Ritz Carlton. They are not being put up in booking.com availability, they are buildings which have been taken over by for profit companies for this specific purpose.
Now, some are better than others, but mostly they offer the same comfort and amenities as an open prison, but with worse food and no entertainment or opportunity for education.
What was is that Mandela, Dostoevsky, Gandhi, and even Churchill, said about the true measure of society?
And here lies the issue, they put them in Army Barracks and people moan and protest that also.The bolded bit is a big part of the problem - as in the perception such statements give. In reality asylum seekers are not being put up in “hotels”. Rather hotels are being commandeered as accommodation for asylum seekers, such that they are no longer “hotels” but more like accommodation blocks.
I think everyone agrees that’s not an optimal solution but until the whole system of assessing claims is speeded up it’s what we are left with.
It's most vulnerable members. Not Calais's.What was is that Mandela, Dostoevsky, Gandhi, and even Churchill, said about the true measure of society?
That's not really relevant. Housing them at all is a cost, a cost that taxpayers are needlessly paying for.
The sum total spent on housing people who have arrived here illegally should be £0.
If they are in a hotel they are already in the system. Legal.That's not really relevant. Housing them at all is a cost, a cost that taxpayers are needlessly paying for.
The sum total spent on housing people who have arrived here illegally should be £0.
There are many disadvantages to being an island. Having a protectable border is one of the few advantages.A. I disagree. This is a global issue, we need to accept the shared burden, the idea that our responsibility ends at our borders is ridiculous, and morally reprehensible.
B. People have to arrive illegally, because we are too fudging backwards and cruel to make a legal route.
The world has changed, we are all in this together now, history will judge us.
There are many disadvantages to being an island. Having a protectable border is one of the few advantages.
It is a global problem, just as economics is a global contest. Let them be someone else's cost. Our public services are fudged, our tax burden is the highest since WWII, altruism is not a luxury we can afford. Once we can afford to fund our public services and keep tax at a sensible minimum, we can do our bit.
If they are in a hotel they are already in the system. Legal.
You may have missed the wording there.arrived here illegally
If we keep giving all of our money away it definitely will be.It’s not a luxury, it’s an investment.
One day it might be us seeking refuge.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.