UK Politics - You Must Be Furious

[Zorral]

So many comments in this thread and some others demonstrate why so many places like England and the USA are anything but what so smugly is claimed, "somewhere nice."

Notice there aren't even cites that provide confidence that 'half the Syrians coming through my country don't speak Arabic."  Not to mention that there are significant populations whose first language are Kurdish, Armenian, Aramaic, Circassian, English and French  -- not Arabic.

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

So many comments in this thread and some others demonstrate why so many places like England and the USA are anything but what so smugly is claimed, "somewhere nice."

Notice there aren't even cites that provide confidence that 'half the Syrians coming through my country don't speak Arabic."  Not to mention that there are significant populations whose first language are Kurdish, Armenian, Aramaic, Circassian, English and French  -- not Arabic.

What percentage of Syrians do you think cannot speak Arabic. 

[polishgenius]

18 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Half the people who passed through my country claiming to be refugees from Syria couldn't even speak Arabic.

 

*citation needed

[DMC]

I don't know why people in this thread are questioning the legitimacy of this individual's asylum claim when the whole point of the policy being enacted is sending certain refugees to Rwanda before even considering their asylum claim.  Indeed, from The Guardian piece in the original tweet:

Quote

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The world-leading migration partnership with Rwanda means those making dangerous, unnecessary and illegal journeys to the UK may be relocated to Rwanda to have their claims for asylum considered and to rebuild their lives there. The first group of illegal migrants have received notices of intent. Depending on their circumstances, they will have up to 14 days to submit reasons on why they should not be relocated to Rwanda.”

 Emphasis mine.

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

The reason these questions get asked is because of the suspicion that a lot of supposed refugees are really just economic migrants. Them not settling in the first country they arrive at suggests that escaping danger has ceased to be their main priority. The fact that an overwhelming majority of them are also young working age males also raises a few eyebrows.

Countries do have a duty to provide safety to those who are fleeing persecution and danger, they have no dury to provide access to people just because they would quite like to live somwhere nice. 

But wait, I thought people trying to find better jobs was one of those prerequisites for the Tories' fabled good economy?

 

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

Imagine widespread abuse of the system while millions of actual refugees spend their lives in crappy conditions in camps in Turkey and Lebanon.

Half the people who passed through my country claiming to be refugees from Syria couldn't even speak Arabic.

Ah, modern conservatism in a nutshell. "We must deny benefits to people in need because someone, somewhere, might get something out of it that I don't think they deserve."

[Spockydog]

 

[Gorn]

3 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Ah, modern conservatism in a nutshell. "We must deny benefits to people in need because someone, somewhere, might get something out of it that I don't think they deserve."

In a world where unlimited resources existed to support refugees and asylum seekers, asylum fraud would be a victimless crime. I'm sure "Mohammad" from the article genuinely comes from poverty, and if he figured out a loophole to improve his life, more power to him, right?

Only, in this world, these resources are not infinite. There are very good reasons why asylum and refugee rules exist, and they are to help people who are genuinely fleeing in fear for their life, and who really have nowhere to return to. And I'm not talking hypothetically here - my wife and mother-in-law spent over a year in Turkey in 1993-94 in a room of 10 m2, eating bland rice for every meal.

And I take offence at being called a conservative.

[Spockydog]

21 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Only, in this world, these resources are not infinite.

Aye. Food doesn't grow on trees. And just imagine how many refugees we could take if we could get back some of the £15bn that was stolen from the public purse by the Tories during the pandemic.

 

[Spockydog]

...

(stupid edit function)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

35 minutes ago, Gorn said:

And I take offence at being called a conservative.

Well, you got one thing right. But that said, I'd hope their experiences would fill you with empathy, not suspicion. People will always take advantage of social programs. That's not a good justification for them not to exist or to be narrow in scope.

23 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Aye. Food doesn't grow on trees. And just imagine how many refugees we could take if we could get back some of the £15bn that was stolen from the public purse by the Tories during the pandemic.

 

Like I said before, so many problems can be solved if you just implement a billionaire's tax at 50%, hard stop, with no loopholes. And the crazy shit is how shortsighted these fucks are, because at the end of the day the money will largely flow back to them anyways, just over a longer period of time.

[Gorn]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well, you got one thing right. But that said, I'd hope their experiences would fill you with empathy, not suspicion. People will always take advantage of social programs. That's not a good justification for them not to exist or to be narrow in scope.

It's a zero-sum game. One person gaining access through fraud means another goes without.

Do I think Priti Patel is right? Fuck no, she's vile. But that's no reason to encourage growth of an ecosystem of people-smugglers and to reward jumping the queue.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Gorn said:

It's a zero-sum game. One person gaining access through fraud means another goes without.

It only has to be that way if one wants it to be so. A country as wealthy as the UK doesn't need to have a hard cap, let alone a harsh one. And it's not like they're already pulling their weight compared to their neighbors after all. They can do better and have a moral and ethical duty to do so, as does our own slimeball country.

[Denvek]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

I don't know why people in this thread are questioning the legitimacy of this individual's asylum claim when the whole point of the policy being enacted is sending certain refugees to Rwanda before even considering their asylum claim.  Indeed, from The Guardian piece in the original tweet:

 Emphasis mine.

Don't forget that the asylum claim that gets considered in Rwanda is an asylum claim for Rwanda, not the UK, so even if it's successful the UK government expects them to stay in Rwanda.

[mormont]

4 hours ago, Gorn said:

It's a zero-sum game. One person gaining access through fraud means another goes without.

Why the introduction of 'fraud' here? The problem you previously claimed to have is that this person should have claimed asylum in the first 'safe' country they came to. Even if you were right, and for many reasons you are not, that doesn't provide any reason to think that the underlying claim for asylum is a 'fraud'.

4 hours ago, Gorn said:

Do I think Priti Patel is right? Fuck no, she's vile.

I'm struggling to see where you actually disagree with her. Can you elaborate?

[Heartofice]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

 A country as wealthy as the UK doesn't need to have a hard cap, let alone a harsh one. 

A country has to have some sort of cap on the number of people it can let in surely? 
 

39 minutes ago, mormont said:

 Even if you were right, and for many reasons you are not, that doesn't provide any reason to think that the underlying claim for asylum is a 'fraud'.

Well it does actually, it raises the suspicion that the person claiming asylum is not fleeing from danger but is in fact simply an economic migrant, but is looking to get in through fraudulent measures. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well it does actually, it raises the suspicion that the person claiming asylum is not fleeing from danger but is in fact simply an economic migran

You act like there’s the hard of a distinction between the two.

A person can honestly both be a refugee and be pressed to get somewhere that offers them the best economic prospects—especially if they have family back in their home country.

[Varysblackfyre321]

10 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

But wait, I thought people trying to find better jobs was one of those prerequisites for the Tories' fabled good economy?

 

The economy is less important than fighting the ever important culture war you silly goose/s.

 

[Derfel Cadarn]

So the British minister who dismissed, to an American audience, a No Deal Brexit’s impact on Irish businesses as being limited to “a few farmers with turnips in the back of their trucks” has been named as…

Liz Truss.

 

[Spockydog]

Right. Now that's out of the way, where is the Sue Gray report? I hear it contains some very interesting photographs.

 

 

[Spockydog]