UK Politics: Cost of Living Crisis

[Week]

53 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

FTFY

Ignorance is strength.

[mormont]

45 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I know I saw that post, it's just a sly dig. But you haven't really addressed anything I've said here at all.. you're only answer is that 'oh well you don't have a great attitude to towards other human beings'. Which honestly is just a way to make a personal attack. 
Most people have lots of empathy for refugees and asylum seekers, where that gets a little thin is where people are trying to get around the system and take places away from genuine asylum seekers with real needs for refuge and safety, when their only need is to live in a nicer country.

There's nothing sly about it, and it's really not a personal attack. It's criticising your political views as lacking in empathy and your understanding of the refugee issue as rather shallow. 

I would disagree that seeking asylum in a suitable country is in any way trying to 'get around the system': that rather begs the question of what the system actually is. The system allows refugees to claim asylum in a country of their choice. The alternative is not only cruel but unworkable - dumping all refugees in camps in the first 'safe' country (safe as defined by who?) for an indefinite period of time with no work, no infrastructure, and in many cases no network of family and friends. 

I'm puzzled about the last sentence - it doesn't seem to make sense. If you recognise that there are 'genuine' asylum seekers who can claim asylum in the UK, who is it you think are the people 'trying to get around the system'? Are the 'genuine' ones refugees from Belgium or something? For which country is the UK the first safe refuge that people will arrive at? 

The refugee issue is going to become a major international political challenge (even more so than it is now) in the very near future and I would suggest that the approach you seem to be advocating is just going to lead to enormous problems. 

[polishgenius]

lol

[Heartofice]

16 minutes ago, mormont said:

There's nothing sly about it, and it's really not a personal attack. It's criticising your political views as lacking in empathy and your understanding of the refugee issue as rather shallow. 

I would disagree that seeking asylum in a suitable country is in any way trying to 'get around the system': that rather begs the question of what the system actually is. The system allows refugees to claim asylum in a country of their choice. The alternative is not only cruel but unworkable - dumping all refugees in camps in the first 'safe' country (safe as defined by who?) for an indefinite period of time with no work, no infrastructure, and in many cases no network of family and friends. 

I'm puzzled about the last sentence - it doesn't seem to make sense. If you recognise that there are 'genuine' asylum seekers who can claim asylum in the UK, who is it you think are the people 'trying to get around the system'? Are the 'genuine' ones refugees from Belgium or something? For which country is the UK the first safe refuge that people will arrive at? 

The refugee issue is going to become a major international political challenge (even more so than it is now) in the very near future and I would suggest that the approach you seem to be advocating is just going to lead to enormous problems. 

I think this conversation has gotten rather confused as I have been talking about illegal immigration.. that being the topic of discussion.

[polishgenius]

13 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think this conversation has gotten rather confused as I have been talking about illegal immigration.. that being the topic of discussion.

I think this conversation has gotten rather confused as you keep trying to conflate asylum seekers and refugees- that being the topic of discussion- with illegal immigrants. 
 

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, polishgenius said:

I think this conversation has gotten rather confused as you keep trying to conflate asylum seekers and refugees- that being the topic of discussion- with illegal immigrants. 
 

Illegal immigrants are the ones crossing the channel.

[Werthead]

Interesting analysis here on Sunak's fall from grace.

Regardless of what happens to Boris, the combination of Sunak's family business dealings, the fine and his lacklustre budget seem to have made him unelectable to the role of PM even in the eyes of other Tories. Something they don't mention though is that Boris can't really sack Sunak as Chancellor without pivoting to make it about something else: you can't sack someone for doing the exact same thing you have. So it's possible that sheer inertia may enable Sunak to ride out the storm (Boris's current strategy), unless Boris gets rid of him in a "routine reshuffle" or something later on.

[mormont]

20 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Illegal immigrants are the ones crossing the channel.

That's impossible to determine until their claims are assessed.

7 minutes ago, Werthead said:

unless Boris gets rid of him in a "routine reshuffle" or something later on.

If you sack the Chancellor, by definition that's not a routine reshuffle.

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, mormont said:

That's impossible to determine until their claims are assessed.

If they are coming over on rubber boats then they are attempting to get ahead of the system (or disappear into the system), they are illegal immigrants. 

[Werthead]

Imran Khan has resigned as Wakefield MP, triggering another by-election.

[DMC]

32 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I think this conversation has gotten rather confused as you keep trying to conflate asylum seekers and refugees- that being the topic of discussion- with illegal immigrants. 
 

Thanks, wondering when this obvious point was gonna be raised.  Just because a government tries to criminalize asylum seekers - in this case for using "illicit routes" - does not make asylum seekers "illegal immigrants."  People claiming otherwise are the ones that are confused.  Indeed, can't believe I have to say this, but there's no such thing as an "illegal" asylum seeker:

Quote

What is a bogus asylum-seeker?  

There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker or an illegal asylum-seeker. As an asylum-seeker, a person has entered into a legal process of refugee status determination. Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country. People who don't qualify for protection as refugees will not receive refugee status and may be deported, but just because someone doesn't receive refugee status doesn't mean they are a bogus asylum-seeker. 

Let us remember that a bogus asylum-seeker is not equivalent to a criminal; and that an unsuccessful asylum application is not equivalent to a bogus one - Kofi Annan

 

[polishgenius]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

People claiming otherwise are the ones that are confused. 

 

I don't think most of them are confused to be honest. 

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Thanks, wondering when this obvious point was gonna be raised.  Just because a government tries to criminalize asylum seekers - in this case for using "illicit routes" - does not make asylum seekers "illegal immigrants."  People claiming otherwise are the ones that are confused.  Indeed, can't believe I have to say this, but there's no such thing as an "illegal" asylum seeker:

 

People who enter the country illegally are illegal immigrants are they not? 

[polishgenius]

Build The Wall! Make Britain Great Again!

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I don't think most of them are confused to be honest. 

A safe assumption.

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

People who enter the country illegally are illegal immigrants are they not? 

No.  Your government illegitimately criminalizing asylum seekers - albeit not nearly as much as mine! - does not change the fact asylum seekers are not "illegal immigrants" just because they're crossing the English channel (and risking their lives in the process).

[Denvek]

32 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

People who enter the country illegally are illegal immigrants are they not? 

By definition, an asylum seeker is not entering the country illegally, regardless of what method they used to enter the country.

[Heartofice]

10 minutes ago, Denvek said:

By definition, an asylum seeker is not entering the country illegally, regardless of what method they used to enter the country.

That isn’t true. Anyone entering the country illegally is entering the country illegally.

Asylum seekers cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally ( though I’d suggest a lot of people think they should)

https://fullfact.org/immigration/can-refugees-enter-uk-illegally/

Quote

Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

That last sentence would suggest a lot of people entering illegally would maybe not pass that test.

[Raja]

 

[maarsen]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Illegal immigrants are the ones crossing the channel.

The UK being an island doesn't that mean anyone can be considered illegal? 

[Spockydog]