Politics, politics, politics

[Gilzeantoscore]

Its not a straw man argument at all. Its really quite simple.

The policy was intended to effect illegal immigrants. Is this racist?

I say not. Hence, I say, its a bit much to accuse of institutional racism. Now I know youre big on your anti Tory soapbox, and honestly I think thats informing your opinion here.

Stupidity, ignorance, poor implementation - all fair accusations. NONE infer racism. All fair complaints as well, the whole thing is a clusterfudge that has caused undue stress and worry to people whom it shouldnt have even effected.

I dont think anyone is going to tell you they did the right thing. BUT thats all about how it was handled, not the actual immigration act changes in the first place.

And lets be honest, what do you expect first from the government of a country built on immigration and mutli-cultural living? Incompetence? Silly buerocracy? Career politicians? People in jobs they arent qualified for? or Racism?

Im pretty cynical, I have very low expectations of our government and local services - but at no point have I ever thought racism was a motivation behind choices they have made.

Yeah, yeah yeah, I hear that all the time, by people who constantly make excuses for the Tories.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

And that's another strawman. You can't just say this and pretend that is what I am saying, when it isn't.

The point is not that they "want rid of legal, elderly black people." The point is that THEY KNEW that this group would be disproportionately hurt by the changes they made, but they went ahead anyway. Because to them, it was more important to try and hit net migration targets than ensure the innocent people were protected. That's why I say it is "institutionally" racist, rather than just racist.

It's not a particularly difficult or nuanced argument to comprehend really.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

No, no, no look over there, Labour is the 21st century equivalent of the SS, there is nothing to see here re Windrush.

 

[SteveAWOL]

I wonder which body language expert has advised the Tories that striking this legs akimbo stance looks good in photos

 

[scaramanga]

The policy meant that people who never used to require documentation to prove their immigration status suddenly found that they required it. These people would overwhelmingly be non-white.

Diane Abbott, in 2014, asked May in Parliament: "Has she given no thought to the effect that her measures, designed to crackdown on illegal immigrants, would have on people who are British nationals but appear as if they might be migrants?"

Theresa May responded that they "have put in a great deal of thought into how these particular measures will operate."

A government policy that disproportionately hurts a particular race can be said, imo, to be institutionally racist (The Home Office being the institution).

I don't think it's accurate to describe that policy as racist - and I certainly don't think that mistreatment of minority groups was the intent.

As an employer, I am required to ensure that everyone I employ is entitled to work in the UK. I check a larger proportion of the white applicants we get than any other race.

The implementation of just about anything can be racist - that doesn't make the law a racist one. Don't get me wrong, it's a stupid law, and one that takes us another step closer to national identity cards, but not a racist one.

 

[scaramanga]

Well Diane "The Dunce" Abbott spotted a problem with it and raised the issue with May, in Parliament at the time.

Diane Abbott shouting "Racist" and being right is the literal equivalent of a stopped clock being right twice a day.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Which Sparks album is that again?

 

[scaramanga]

By the very nature of them being immigrants, there is a fair chance they arent ethnically British/caucasian, so either its ok to deport people or its racist. Which is it?

That there was an issue with the implementation shows not necessarily "institutional racism", but could simply be incompetence. Not acceptable, of course, but not the same thing either.

The policy was defined as ILLEGAL immigrants, not "any and all" immigrants. By that definition I have no issue with its intent, at all.

That it was so poorly implemented? Of course I take issue, its quite frankly disgusting how some people are being treated. At no point though do I see racism.

This is the important point for me.

As a society, we have come to the (I believe vast) majority opinion that, regardless of our views on immigration in general, illegal immigration is something we wish to stop. Even for me, as someone who doesn't believe borders should exist at all, illegal immigration isn't just something that should be stopped - it's something that should be heavily discouraged.

 

[scaramanga]

I just want to clarify this point and then I'll leave it alone. It's not that they were "targetted." It is that it was known they they would be the ones potentially caught up and no regard was given to them. That goes beyond incompetence imo.

When this government chooses to redistribute my income to the great unwashed, it introduces tax policies that knowingly effect white, middle class people more than anyone else. It does so with no regard to us at all, because it's more important to hit some flimflam poverty target.

Is that institutionally racist?

 

[SteveAWOL]

Which Sparks album is that again?

Angst In My Pants?

 

[the dza]

When this government chooses to redistribute my income to the great unwashed, it introduces tax policies that knowingly effect white, middle class people more than anyone else. It does so with no regard to us at all, because it's more important to hit some flimflam poverty target.

Is that institutionally racist?

No. The money is being taken from mostly white people and distributed to mostly white people in a country made up of mostly white people. I don't think this equates very well with the effects of the Immigration Act 2014. You are welcome to think that earning more money and paying more tax as a result is in anyway similar to being depoted/detained/denied medical treatment, but I don't agree.

 

[the dza]

This is the important point for me.

As a society, we have come to the (I believe vast) majority opinion that, regardless of our views on immigration in general, illegal immigration is something we wish to stop. Even for me, as someone who doesn't believe borders should exist at all, illegal immigration isn't just something that should be stopped - it's something that should be heavily discouraged.

Outcomes matter. The outcome of the policy was warned of at the time and it was ignored. The intent of the policy doesn't trump that. We could stop all illegal immigration by deporting everyone without a British passport immediately. That would be seen as heavy-handed and hurt too many innocent people, so it's a non-starter and a ridiculous idea. The Immigration Act 2014 was too heavy-handed and hurt to many innocent people too, and they happened to be overwhelmingly non-white. They knew it would happen, but went ahead anyway to chase net migration targets.

 

[the dza]

Diane Abbott shouting "Racist" and being right is the literal equivalent of a stopped clock being right twice a day.

She didn't shout "racist" -- she very specifically diagnosed the current problem in that the measures taken would mean that British people who might appear as migrants would be treated as illegal immigrants. But she is the stupid one unimaginable that she'd be Home Secretary, yet Theresa May was seen as fine in the job. Theresa May is by far the more incompetent politician.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Yeah, yeah yeah, I hear that all the time, by people who constantly make excuses for the Tories.

Maybe you do. Let me assure you right now though, I am no Tory. I have no party affiliation at all. I cant stand any of them truth be told.

Though, much like West Ham, Labour supporters are doing a very good job of putting me off their "team". They seem a particularly aggressive and rabid bunch.

 

[scaramanga]

No. The money is being taken from mostly white people and distributed to mostly white people in a country made up of mostly white people. I don't think this equates very well with the effects of the Immigration Act 2014. You are welcome to think that earning more money and paying more tax as a result is in anyway similar to being depoted/detained/denied medical treatment, but I don't agree.

As per your description of the Immigration Act, it adversely affects one ethnic group disproportionately more than any other. This was known before taxing us before all angles, warned about and ignored.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Maybe you do. Let me assure you right now though, I am no Tory. I have no party affiliation at all. I cant stand any of them truth be told.

Though, much like West Ham, Labour supporters are doing a very good job of putting me off their "team". They seem a particularly aggressive and rabid bunch.

Labour's big vice is its drive for social control. Them and the Tories are two sides of the same coin - they seek to accumulate power and suppress individual freedom. Tories do it through big business, Labour the state.

 

[scaramanga]

Outcomes matter. The outcome of the policy was warned of at the time and it was ignored. The intent of the policy doesn't trump that. We could stop all illegal immigration by deporting everyone without a British passport immediately. That would be seen as heavy-handed and hurt too many innocent people, so it's a non-starter and a ridiculous idea. The Immigration Act 2014 was too heavy-handed and hurt to many innocent people too, and they happened to be overwhelmingly non-white. They knew it would happen, but went ahead anyway to chase net migration targets.

That's not racist though, that's just bad policy and the nature of immigration.

Ignoring EU migrants, much of the world's immigration will be from non-whites. That doesn't make any policy dealing with immigration racist, no matter how bad that policy is. It's just the nature of immigration. Any policy that affects poor people more than rich will also disproportionately affect non-whites. Again, that wouldn't be a racist policy, just one that effects minority groups more.

 

[scaramanga]

She didn't shout "racist"

That would be a first for her.

-- she very specifically diagnosed the current problem in that the measures taken would mean that British people who might appear as migrants would be treated as illegal immigrants. But she is the stupid one unimaginable that she'd be Home Secretary, yet Theresa May was seen as fine in the job. Theresa May is by far the more incompetent politician.

Yes, she is incredibly stupid - surely even Labour supporters can see that. Comparing her to May doesn't really mean much - we all know how terrible she is, we also know that she will be replaced as soon as there is a viable person to replace her.

 

[the dza]

As per your description of the Immigration Act, it adversely affects one ethnic group disproportionately more than any other. This was known before taxing us before all angles, warned about and ignored.

It benefits the same ethnic group more than any other, so it's not the same. If you take money from a few people who are mostly white and dole it out to a larger group of people who are mostly white, that doesn't equal institutional racism.

 

[the dza]

That would be a first for her.


Yes, she is incredibly stupid - surely even Labour supporters can see that. Comparing her to May doesn't really mean much - we all know how terrible she is, we also know that she will be replaced as soon as there is a viable person to replace her.

Right -- yet even she could see the problem. That means the people enacting the policies could also see the problem. But they didn't care, just plough on and try and hit targets. So whilst not intentionally targetting citizens here legally who happen to be black, they knew what the outcome would be. Unless you honestly think Diane Abbott could see something that they could not.