SpurMeUp
Gary Stevens
White is not a race though. Unless you're a Victorian.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
White is not a race though. Unless you're a Victorian.
SpurMeUp
Gary Stevens
I was thinking more of the 1mil or so UK pensioners that live in Spain
They are even worse! Let them clog up the Spanish health care system*.
* Trying to aspire to Scara talk
ricky2tricky4city
Les Medley
Post them up please.
@Gutter Boy 's last sentence is all that matters here ....
The point is in future we can make case-by-case judgements, treating everyone in the world the same, based on more human-centric criteria
Run immigration in that way and all discrimination, colour, racism debates/arguments are void.
SpurMeUp
Gary Stevens
Can't find the Professor at Uni of Cantabury who specialises in this stuff (and who I got this off). But found this off the bat:
British people make clear distinctions between immigrants based on their country of origin. Just 10% of a 2017 sample (surveyed online) said that no Australians should be allowed to come and live in Britain compared to 37% saying that no Nigerians should be allowed. In between are France (similar to Australia) Poland (more middling), and Romania and Pakistan (more similar to Nigeria). Such patterns have sometimes been described as an ‘ethnic hierarchy’ (Ford, 2011). At the preferred end of the scale are those who are white, English-speaking, Europeans and Christian countries while at the least preferred are non-whites, non-Europeans and Muslim countries. Romania is an interesting anomaly. Despite being a European and Christian country, opposition to immigration from Romania is at similar levels to opposition to immigration from Pakistan. This may reflect an association with Roma (Allen, 2014).
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....ation-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/
Robspur12
Frederic Kanoute
Any Asian, Any Chinese, Any African origin from Europe, as they can be European citizens too you know. That's why it's not racist.
European migration is no different to letting the Irish, Scots and Welsh into England with no controls. It seems perverse we are ok with one but rail against the other. Plus migration from Europe is much quicker to administrate than the lengthy process required by the non European system.
Robspur12
Frederic Kanoute
Sorry @Lost Mango just seen your post.
We own those countries - that's why it's different.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
I dont think GB was being that literal.
I think he was talking more about people coming from predominantly black/brown/yellow nations, IE Africa, India, China. Though admittedly a pretty poor way to phrase it.
I think our immigration system is fundamentally imbalanced and prejudicial, and I think it would be a good thing if it wasnt, and if we treated everyone the same, as GB managed to phrase very well:
The point is in future we can make case-by-case judgements, treating everyone in the world the same, based on more human-centric criteria
I also think, in extension to that, our immigration process needs to be streamlined and more efficient.
Robspur12
Frederic Kanoute
It is just one of the false promises of the brexiteers that stopping European migration will somehow make the immigration system fairer. I don't think it will, if based on quotas. Once the quota is reached that's it, no matter how good or important for the country the applicant might be.
Plus we have a system now, where if you are non European you can get a visa to work here if you meet the criteria anyway. All that will happen is that will extend to everyone. Meaning far more bureaucracy.
The disadvantage of what we will move to is that it does not give any special rights to our own citizens. In tthe current system, not only can we accept migrants from outside the EU but in addition any UK citizen can work in any member state of the European Union. That will be lost.
If we think that somehow there is burning desire among brexiteers to even out the immigrants between EU and non EU, how come some of the major campaigning themes around voting to leave were the fears that Turkey would join the EU or that Britain would be flooded with refugees? They have brought racism right to the heart of the debate. This idea that brexit will mean a fairer immigration system is disingenuous.
Plus we have a system now, where if you are non European you can get a visa to work here if you meet the criteria anyway. All that will happen is that will extend to everyone. Meaning far more bureaucracy.
The disadvantage of what we will move to is that it does not give any special rights to our own citizens. In tthe current system, not only can we accept migrants from outside the EU but in addition any UK citizen can work in any member state of the European Union. That will be lost.
If we think that somehow there is burning desire among brexiteers to even out the immigrants between EU and non EU, how come some of the major campaigning themes around voting to leave were the fears that Turkey would join the EU or that Britain would be flooded with refugees? They have brought racism right to the heart of the debate. This idea that brexit will mean a fairer immigration system is disingenuous.
Last edited:
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
I dont claim to speak for Brexiteers, only myself.
I do believe, firmly, that a single immigration system (ideally much simpler/streamlined) that we have full control of is the best and fairest outcome.
I do not believe the disparity between EU and Non-Eu migrants is fair at all.
And I do not believe the lack of control over the EU aspect helps the UK at all.
I mention no quotas. I think the obvious answer is more a points based system ala Australia. We can then attract the people the country needs, helping any given sector specifically and controlling numbers as is appropriate.
Just as any nation outside the EU currently does.
I do believe, firmly, that a single immigration system (ideally much simpler/streamlined) that we have full control of is the best and fairest outcome.
I do not believe the disparity between EU and Non-Eu migrants is fair at all.
And I do not believe the lack of control over the EU aspect helps the UK at all.
I mention no quotas. I think the obvious answer is more a points based system ala Australia. We can then attract the people the country needs, helping any given sector specifically and controlling numbers as is appropriate.
Just as any nation outside the EU currently does.
SpurMeUp
Gary Stevens
@Robspur12 re. evening out EU migration. At the moment by far the largest number of migrants to the UK are non-EU. Previously it was about 50-50. Of course we control non-EU migrants now. The most recent figures show EU migration per year is about the number of people in WHL for a match, with over 200,000 coming here from the rest of the world.
So you could argue the current system is more pro rest of the world than pro EU. To the fairness naysayers: what should we do about this? Should we prioritise EU migrants! The whole debate is silly. And you are right - not much will change, except Brits will lose their freedom accross the european continent. We might have more non-EU people in the UK as a reult - that we need for work. We might have less white migrants - which Brits don't like as much as white ones from Europe.
The claim that Brexit = a better migration policy for the UK is highly highly suspect.
So you could argue the current system is more pro rest of the world than pro EU. To the fairness naysayers: what should we do about this? Should we prioritise EU migrants! The whole debate is silly. And you are right - not much will change, except Brits will lose their freedom accross the european continent. We might have more non-EU people in the UK as a reult - that we need for work. We might have less white migrants - which Brits don't like as much as white ones from Europe.
The claim that Brexit = a better migration policy for the UK is highly highly suspect.
Last edited:
Grays_1890
Barry Daines
I saw a video the other day when the EU board room was moaning about how negotiations have gone since Raab has turned up, saying he is too much like hard work, basically whinging that they aint getting their own way. I EFFING LOVE IT
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
Along similar lines, I saw something a while back where EU officials openly admitted that they got far more than they ever expected to get from negotiations with May. Sheds some light perhaps on why they're clinging so tightly to the WA now...
Robspur12
Frederic Kanoute
Surely you can only "effing love it" if he gets what he wants at the end of the day?
Grays_1890
Barry Daines
No I love them squirming, that was fun to watch
Grays_1890
Barry Daines
Well that was exactly the tone of the video I saw, it was all "the negotiations were smooth, now that Mr Raab is sitting in they are not so".....yeh because he is screwing down on you unlike May.
Robspur12
Frederic Kanoute
.
I doubt very much that the EU are squirming. Just more irritated. I will see if this "new way" of negotiating illicits better results or just takes the country over the cliff edge. So far the signs are not good.
ricky2tricky4city
Les Medley
Logic dictates there are only 2 completely fair immigration systems. Brexit is proposing one of them. Why is that disingenuous?
If it is employed correctly it negates the discrimatory and racial undertones you're suggesting.
Rorschach
Ricky Villa
I presume you mean Northern Ireland or have you gone full David Davis? Never go full David Davis.
SpurMeUp
Gary Stevens
Sums up Brexit - not about achieving anything - its about making people squirm!?