What is this thing called 'United Kingdom', of which you speak?
There's not much evidence of the existence of such an animal (politically speaking) at present...at least as far as boats in the Channel are concerned.
The United Kingdom is a Country in Europe. Surely you knew this.
The percentage should be based on how overcrowded the host country is.
Seriously? Have you looked at Norway, Sweden and Finland and seen how much of it is basically uninhabitable wilderness? There's a reason population density varies from country to country so simply saying that the percentage of refugees accepted should be based on overcrowding makes no sense. It would make far more sense for the percentage to be based on existing population levels.
The idea that the UK is 'overcrowded' is a myth.
The fact that we are overcrowed is easily proved. For starters we could not survive without importing food.
Did you learn economics in North Korea?
(Explaining the joke: economic self-sufficiency, in the sense of not needing to import anything, is generally less desirable than leveraging comparative advantage through trade, unless you subscribe to Juche as attempted (and utterly failed) in North Korea.)
Grammatically, 'we' is a group of people of which 'I/me' is one. To use it, a person needs to have the actual or implicit authority of the others in that group to speak for them. It's clear from the rest of the thread that 'shipmates' collectively don't share your view. Nor are they of one mind with each other. Even if they were, they don't have either the power or capacity to control immigration.
To summarise, it isn't obvious here for whom you're speaking. Do you really just mean 'me and everyone else ought to think like me'?
In this context, 'We' means the United Kingdom.
@Telford what then is your basis for your claim to be entitled to speak on behalf of the United Kingdom?
It's clear that several of your shipmates that have posted on this thread are both UK residents and don't agree with you.
By answering as you have, it seems to me that you've answered my question about your 'we',
Do you really just mean 'me and everyone else ought to think like me'?
What is this thing called 'United Kingdom', of which you speak?
There's not much evidence of the existence of such an animal (politically speaking) at present...at least as far as boats in the Channel are concerned.
The United Kingdom is a Country in Europe. Surely you knew this.
A book I read recently * argues that 'Borders are the single biggest cause of discrimination in all of world history' and according to Harvard economist Lant Pritchett: 'opening borders to labor would boost (global) wealth.. by 65 trillion dollars'.
'Billions of people are forced to sell their labor at a fraction of the price that they would get for it in the Land of Plenty'.
And apparantly before the 1st World War passports were hardly used or needed round the world.
Interesting?
* Utopia for Realists by Rutger Bregman
I'm not surprised by this. Since the 1980's, worldwide, capital controls have all but been abolished. So we essentially have free movement of capital. At the same time, movement of people (with the notable exception of the EU) has become more difficult. Thus we have the odd situation that money has more rights than people. I'm pretty sure I understand Jesus perspective on that.
The effect of this though is to massively advantage the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Off shore tax avoidance is made much easier but the biggest issue is that corporations can set up a factory/call-centre or whatever, wherever they want. Conversely, the very limited movement of labour means that workers have to take local wages. Thus the market is deeply distorted and wages are driven down globally.
The fact that we are overcrowed is easily proved. For starters we could not survive without importing food.
This is nonsense. For a start the UK is 97% green. Yes 97... Secondly, whether it is a good thing or not to produce all our own food is an important debate but it doesn't boil down to such a sweeping statement. For example: Apples. Yes Apples. I don't know the exact figures but roughly speaking we grow as many apples as we eat but around 80% of the apple consumed in the UK are imported. Why? Consumer choice. We mostly like apples that don't grow in the UK. At the same time British grown apples are extremely popular in the Middle East. It's called trade. A parallel situation exists with fuel. The UK is an exporter of unleaded petrol and an importer of diesel. Efficiency in refinery capacity you see... Thirdly, the majority of fruit picking is done by non-UK nations for whom the seasonal working pattern is attractive. (This is obviously a very complex topic in its own right but) the simple fact is that the increase in population of farm workers, results in more food for everyone.
The UK is a very wealthy country, we have plenty of space. If there is any overcrowding it is an effect of political choices. Britain does have a fairly dense population by European standards but not by worldwide ones.
We're overcrowded is such a lame excuse for not providing refuge to those who need it. It is forgivable, perhaps, if it comes from a place of ignorance but it takes very little research to realise that it's just tosh and thus it's moral cowardice to keep using it.
Anyone who thinks this country is overcrowded is quite free to move to another with a smaller population.
Except they're not, are they?
People of all political stripes often seem to field "if you don't like it, move" as an argument, but most people can't move. Most people neither have the funds to pay for an international relocation, nor the skills to qualify for a visa to work in their choice of target country.
Anyone who thinks this country is overcrowded is quite free to move to another with a smaller population.
Sweden is quite a pleasant place, I believe. Not so the Cold Waste in which lies Kadath, but even fewer people...
I did not intend to disparage Sweden at all. Besides, I rather like uninhabitable wilderness. I was attempting to point out that refusing to take any refugees until Sweden has the population density of the UK fails to take account of Sweden's infrastructure and environment.
Anyone who thinks this country is overcrowded is quite free to move to another with a smaller population.
Except they're not, are they?
People of all political stripes often seem to field "if you don't like it, move" as an argument, but most people can't move. Most people neither have the funds to pay for an international relocation, nor the skills to qualify for a visa to work in their choice of target country.
Alas, indeed they're not - I was being slightly ironic...
Housing refugees shouldn't really be a problem or issue. Nor should providing them with money, health care and education etc. A while back quite a few politicians and folk from the arts said they would provide a home, none actual did but I am sure they weren't stunt pulling for political or virtue signalling purposes.
Likewise folk on this thread could do same. Problem solved.
But I suspect that's not what really happens or what people really will do. In fact, what people "seem" to be saying is that the government, the electorate, tax payers should provide. This is a dilemma because there are a group of people saying others should provide (because they won't themselves) when those others have said they will not.
The other interesting thing is that several people on this thread have said (and i'll paraphrase) that the UK is a shit place but people come here because they have relatives here. Surely their relatives would be saying "Don't come here, it's a racist shit hole run by right wing tossers", settle in another EU country and we will join you soon.
Housing refugees shouldn't really be a problem or issue. Nor should providing them with money, health care and education etc. A while back quite a few politicians and folk from the arts said they would provide a home, none actual did but I am sure they weren't stunt pulling for political or virtue signalling purposes.
Likewise folk on this thread could do same. Problem solved.
But I suspect that's not what really happens or what people really will do. In fact, what people "seem" to be saying is that the government, the electorate, tax payers should provide. This is a dilemma because there are a group of people saying others should provide (because they won't themselves) when those others have said they will not.
The other interesting thing is that several people on this thread have said (and i'll paraphrase) that the UK is a shit place but people come here because they have relatives here. Surely their relatives would be saying "Don't come here, it's a racist shit hole run by right wing tossers", settle in another EU country and we will join you soon.
Housing refugees shouldn't really be a problem or issue. Nor should providing them with money, health care and education etc. A while back quite a few politicians and folk from the arts said they would provide a home, none actual did but I am sure they weren't stunt pulling for political or virtue signalling purposes.
Likewise folk on this thread could do same. Problem solved.
But I suspect that's not what really happens or what people really will do. In fact, what people "seem" to be saying is that the government, the electorate, tax payers should provide. This is a dilemma because there are a group of people saying others should provide (because they won't themselves) when those others have said they will not.
The other interesting thing is that several people on this thread have said (and i'll paraphrase) that the UK is a shit place but people come here because they have relatives here. Surely their relatives would be saying "Don't come here, it's a racist shit hole run by right wing tossers", settle in another EU country and we will join you soon.
Oh FFS, yet another specious argument.
The whole frigging point of governments is to do things collectively that we can't do individually.
For example, several members of my wife's family and mine are police officers. But, if you really care about the victims of crime, then you should be out there arresting criminals yourself!
Or, perhaps - education; I have friends and family who are teachers But, don't tell me you care about education unless you have 30 kids in your living room everyday!
Or, do you prefer my line of work? All UK taxpayers contribute to the healthcare I provide But you really care about your child, you'll take their appendix out yourself rather than expecting me to do it!
Do you get the point yet?
As to your second observation... you seem to be stuck with the notion that people fleeing for their lives have lots of freedom and prior knowledge of where they are heading to. Not to mention the issue of how bad some parts of the world are such that even though I genuinely despair for what my country is becoming, I have no illusions that it remains a massive improvement for some (If they get let in!) The thrust of the argument is that the UK is becoming a racist shit hole country run by right wing tossers, and we love our country too much to let it become such without a fight.
But Alien Frog, surely the role of government is do as they said they would at elections? They set out an idea or ideas and then are elected on them. So if a political party says they will get tough on (illegal or otherwise) entry into the country and are elected to government they should such. You seem annoyed that an elected government is doing what they said they would do.
But Alien Frog, surely the role of government is do as they said they would at elections? They set out an idea or ideas and then are elected on them. So if a political party says they will get tough on (illegal or otherwise) entry into the country and are elected to government they should such. You seem annoyed that an elected government is doing what they said they would do.
Governments should meet their obligations under international law and shouldn't promise things that are illegal, stupid, evil, or some combination of the three.
But Alien Frog, surely the role of government is do as they said they would at elections? They set out an idea or ideas and then are elected on them. So if a political party says they will get tough on (illegal or otherwise) entry into the country and are elected to government they should such. You seem annoyed that an elected government is doing what they said they would do.
Governments should meet their obligations under international law and shouldn't promise things that are illegal, stupid, evil, or some combination of the three.
I am no expert on such matters but doesn't international law state that asylum seekers / refugees should be processed in the first country they flee to? Why is that those crossing the English channel are not being processed and subsequently provided for in France?
But Alien Frog, surely the role of government is do as they said they would at elections? They set out an idea or ideas and then are elected on them. So if a political party says they will get tough on (illegal or otherwise) entry into the country and are elected to government they should such. You seem annoyed that an elected government is doing what they said they would do.
Governments should meet their obligations under international law and shouldn't promise things that are illegal, stupid, evil, or some combination of the three.
Indeed. Pity our own *government* does promise such things...
But Alien Frog, surely the role of government is do as they said they would at elections? They set out an idea or ideas and then are elected on them. So if a political party says they will get tough on (illegal or otherwise) entry into the country and are elected to government they should such. You seem annoyed that an elected government is doing what they said they would do.
Governments should meet their obligations under international law and shouldn't promise things that are illegal, stupid, evil, or some combination of the three.
I am no expert on such matters but doesn't international law state that asylum seekers / refugees should be processed in the first country they flee to?
But Alien Frog, surely the role of government is do as they said they would at elections? They set out an idea or ideas and then are elected on them. So if a political party says they will get tough on (illegal or otherwise) entry into the country and are elected to government they should such. You seem annoyed that an elected government is doing what they said they would do.
Governments should meet their obligations under international law and shouldn't promise things that are illegal, stupid, evil, or some combination of the three.
I am no expert on such matters but doesn't international law state that asylum seekers / refugees should be processed in the first country they flee to?
No, it doesn't.
Can you provide a link of some sort to show what the international laws are and how the UK is breaking them?
But Alien Frog, surely the role of government is do as they said they would at elections? They set out an idea or ideas and then are elected on them. So if a political party says they will get tough on (illegal or otherwise) entry into the country and are elected to government they should such. You seem annoyed that an elected government is doing what they said they would do.
Governments should meet their obligations under international law and shouldn't promise things that are illegal, stupid, evil, or some combination of the three.
I am no expert on such matters but doesn't international law state that asylum seekers / refugees should be processed in the first country they flee to? Why is that those crossing the English channel are not being processed and subsequently provided for in France?
You're right, you're not an expert.
International law states nothing of the sort (which you would already know if you'd been reading the thread as this point has already come up). Besides, it's a ridiculous notion.
Imagine for a moment that you are fleeing for your life, leaving everything you know behind, as well as most of your possessions. On the other hand, you are getting the kids out of danger in the middle of the night...
Now, are you going to research international law, the various jurisdictions you might come to etc... on how best to apply for asylum? No, me neither. I'm sure that the average refugee boat has WiFi and USB chargers though, so no doubt there's an opportunity to do so en-route...
THE WHOLE POINT OF THE VARIOUS REFUGEE TREATIES IS THAT PEOPLE FLEEING FOR THEIR LIVES NEED A SAFE HAVEN. Not a complex system they have no hope of navigating...
To a large extent, they were born out of the lessons learnt about rejecting Jews fleeing the Nazis... maybe 80 years is too long, maybe we have all forgotten again.
But Alien Frog, surely the role of government is do as they said they would at elections? They set out an idea or ideas and then are elected on them. So if a political party says they will get tough on (illegal or otherwise) entry into the country and are elected to government they should such. You seem annoyed that an elected government is doing what they said they would do.
Host hat on
Welcome aboard @vermillion. Please take time to familiarise yourself with the Ship’s rule aka the 10 Commandments and the guidelines for the fora you are posting in. The Purgatory guidelines are here. Misnaming Shipmates doesn’t contribute to serious discussion. Please don’t do it. Host hat off
BroJames, Purgatory Host
@vermillion - if you go to Google (or your preferred alternative search engine), and enter 'international law on asylum seekers first country', you will find a wealth of helpful information.
But Alien Frog, surely the role of government is do as they said they would at elections? They set out an idea or ideas and then are elected on them. So if a political party says they will get tough on (illegal or otherwise) entry into the country and are elected to government they should such. You seem annoyed that an elected government is doing what they said they would do.
Host hat on
Welcome aboard @vermillion. Please take time to familiarise yourself with the Ship’s rule aka the 10 Commandments and the guidelines for the fora you are posting in. The Purgatory guidelines are here. Misnaming Shipmates doesn’t contribute to serious discussion. Please don’t do it. Host hat off
BroJames, Purgatory Host
I sincerely apologise for calling Alienfromzog Alien Frog. I think it was his picture that did it. I hope I have not offended anyone with this.
But Alien Frog, surely the role of government is do as they said they would at elections? They set out an idea or ideas and then are elected on them. So if a political party says they will get tough on (illegal or otherwise) entry into the country and are elected to government they should such. You seem annoyed that an elected government is doing what they said they would do.
Governments should meet their obligations under international law and shouldn't promise things that are illegal, stupid, evil, or some combination of the three.
I am no expert on such matters but doesn't international law state that asylum seekers / refugees should be processed in the first country they flee to? Why is that those crossing the English channel are not being processed and subsequently provided for in France?
You're right, you're not an expert.
International law states nothing of the sort (which you would already know if you'd been reading the thread as this point has already come up). Besides, it's a ridiculous notion.
Imagine for a moment that you are fleeing for your life, leaving everything you know behind, as well as most of your possessions. On the other hand, you are getting the kids out of danger in the middle of the night...
Now, are you going to research international law, the various jurisdictions you might come to etc... on how best to apply for asylum? No, me neither. I'm sure that the average refugee boat has WiFi and USB chargers though, so no doubt there's an opportunity to do so en-route...
THE WHOLE POINT OF THE VARIOUS REFUGEE TREATIES IS THAT PEOPLE FLEEING FOR THEIR LIVES NEED A SAFE HAVEN. Not a complex system they have no hope of navigating...
To a large extent, they were born out of the lessons learnt about rejecting Jews fleeing the Nazis... maybe 80 years is too long, maybe we have all forgotten again.
AFZ
P.S. I am not a frog.
Your capitalised bit. Are you saying France is not a safe haven?
The corollary of my post up thread is that asylum seekers want the chance to work and pay tax and maybe build houses to live in, and not 'sponge off the taxpayer'.
The corollary of my post up thread is that asylum seekers want the chance to work and pay tax and maybe build houses to live in, and not 'sponge off the taxpayer'.
Absolutely. So the wonder is why this doesnt happen or is not possible in the countries that need to be passed through before hitting the English channel.
But Alien Frog, surely the role of government is do as they said they would at elections? They set out an idea or ideas and then are elected on them. So if a political party says they will get tough on (illegal or otherwise) entry into the country and are elected to government they should such. You seem annoyed that an elected government is doing what they said they would do.
Governments should meet their obligations under international law and shouldn't promise things that are illegal, stupid, evil, or some combination of the three.
I am no expert on such matters but doesn't international law state that asylum seekers / refugees should be processed in the first country they flee to? Why is that those crossing the English channel are not being processed and subsequently provided for in France?
You're right, you're not an expert.
International law states nothing of the sort (which you would already know if you'd been reading the thread as this point has already come up). Besides, it's a ridiculous notion.
Imagine for a moment that you are fleeing for your life, leaving everything you know behind, as well as most of your possessions. On the other hand, you are getting the kids out of danger in the middle of the night...
Now, are you going to research international law, the various jurisdictions you might come to etc... on how best to apply for asylum? No, me neither. I'm sure that the average refugee boat has WiFi and USB chargers though, so no doubt there's an opportunity to do so en-route...
THE WHOLE POINT OF THE VARIOUS REFUGEE TREATIES IS THAT PEOPLE FLEEING FOR THEIR LIVES NEED A SAFE HAVEN. Not a complex system they have no hope of navigating...
To a large extent, they were born out of the lessons learnt about rejecting Jews fleeing the Nazis... maybe 80 years is too long, maybe we have all forgotten again.
AFZ
P.S. I am not a frog.
Your capitalised bit. Are you saying France is not a safe haven?
Don't worry, not offended by the misnaming; you're not the first to make that particular reading error. Hosts will be hot on it though for obvious reasons.
In answer to your question: No, of course not. The point is that if you are a nation state and someone seeks asylum, the morally and legally acceptable answers are:
a) you have a credible fear, welcome.
b) you have a credible fear and we have agreements with various nations to share the responsibility so we'll not yet sure where we will offer to settle you.
Or
c) you do not have a credible fear, go home.
The point of the capitalisation is that you didn't follow the complex rules when running for your life and so we won't even look at the merits is not a morally or legally acceptable answer.
maybe a human being is a citizen of planet Earth and can travel to, and live and work in, any part of the planet they like (as long as they abide by the laws of the jurisdictions where they are residing)
The UK is a very wealthy country, we have plenty of space. If there is any overcrowding it is an effect of political choices. Britain does have a fairly dense population by European standards but not by worldwide ones.
So we should keep letting people in until we actually are an overcrowded hellhole? As long as there's a green field somewhere that hasn't been paved over and turned into a block of flats there's still room?
A book I read recently * argues that 'Borders are the single biggest cause of discrimination in all of world history' and according to Harvard economist Lant Pritchett: 'opening borders to labor would boost (global) wealth.. by 65 trillion dollars'.
'Billions of people are forced to sell their labor at a fraction of the price that they would get for it in the Land of Plenty'.
And apparantly before the 1st World War passports were hardly used or needed round the world.
Interesting?
* Utopia for Realists by Rutger Bregman
I'm not surprised by this. Since the 1980's, worldwide, capital controls have all but been abolished. So we essentially have free movement of capital. At the same time, movement of people (with the notable exception of the EU) has become more difficult. Thus we have the odd situation that money has more rights than people. I'm pretty sure I understand Jesus perspective on that.
The effect of this though is to massively advantage the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Off shore tax avoidance is made much easier but the biggest issue is that corporations can set up a factory/call-centre or whatever, wherever they want. Conversely, the very limited movement of labour means that workers have to take local wages. Thus the market is deeply distorted and wages are driven down globally.
The fact that we are overcrowed is easily proved. For starters we could not survive without importing food.
This is nonsense. For a start the UK is 97% green. Yes 97... Secondly, whether it is a good thing or not to produce all our own food is an important debate but it doesn't boil down to such a sweeping statement. For example: Apples. Yes Apples. I don't know the exact figures but roughly speaking we grow as many apples as we eat but around 80% of the apple consumed in the UK are imported. Why? Consumer choice. We mostly like apples that don't grow in the UK. At the same time British grown apples are extremely popular in the Middle East. It's called trade. A parallel situation exists with fuel. The UK is an exporter of unleaded petrol and an importer of diesel. Efficiency in refinery capacity you see... Thirdly, the majority of fruit picking is done by non-UK nations for whom the seasonal working pattern is attractive. (This is obviously a very complex topic in its own right but) the simple fact is that the increase in population of farm workers, results in more food for everyone.
The UK is a very wealthy country, we have plenty of space. If there is any overcrowding it is an effect of political choices. Britain does have a fairly dense population by European standards but not by worldwide ones.
We're overcrowded is such a lame excuse for not providing refuge to those who need it. It is forgivable, perhaps, if it comes from a place of ignorance but it takes very little research to realise that it's just tosh and thus it's moral cowardice to keep using it.
What is this thing called 'United Kingdom', of which you speak?
There's not much evidence of the existence of such an animal (politically speaking) at present...at least as far as boats in the Channel are concerned.
The United Kingdom is a Country in Europe. Surely you knew this.
But Alien Frog, surely the role of government is do as they said they would at elections? They set out an idea or ideas and then are elected on them. So if a political party says they will get tough on (illegal or otherwise) entry into the country and are elected to government they should such. You seem annoyed that an elected government is doing what they said they would do.
Governments should meet their obligations under international law and shouldn't promise things that are illegal, stupid, evil, or some combination of the three.
I am no expert on such matters but doesn't international law state that asylum seekers / refugees should be processed in the first country they flee to? Why is that those crossing the English channel are not being processed and subsequently provided for in France?
You're right, you're not an expert.
International law states nothing of the sort (which you would already know if you'd been reading the thread as this point has already come up). Besides, it's a ridiculous notion.
Imagine for a moment that you are fleeing for your life, leaving everything you know behind, as well as most of your possessions. On the other hand, you are getting the kids out of danger in the middle of the night...
Now, are you going to research international law, the various jurisdictions you might come to etc... on how best to apply for asylum? No, me neither. I'm sure that the average refugee boat has WiFi and USB chargers though, so no doubt there's an opportunity to do so en-route...
THE WHOLE POINT OF THE VARIOUS REFUGEE TREATIES IS THAT PEOPLE FLEEING FOR THEIR LIVES NEED A SAFE HAVEN. Not a complex system they have no hope of navigating...
To a large extent, they were born out of the lessons learnt about rejecting Jews fleeing the Nazis... maybe 80 years is too long, maybe we have all forgotten again.
AFZ
P.S. I am not a frog.
Your capitalised bit. Are you saying France is not a safe haven?
Don't worry, not offended by the misnaming; you're not the first to make that particular reading error. Hosts will be hot on it though for obvious reasons.
In answer to your question: No, of course not. The point is that if you are a nation state and someone seeks asylum, the morally and legally acceptable answers are:
a) you have a credible fear, welcome.
b) you have a credible fear and we have agreements with various nations to share the responsibility so we'll not yet sure where we will offer to settle you.
Or
c) you do not have a credible fear, go home.
The point of the capitalisation is that you didn't follow the complex rules when running for your life and so we won't even look at the merits is not a morally or legally acceptable answer.
AFZ
Thank you. It wasn't an attempt to slur your nickname in any way, shape or form. Just an error.
I still havent quite "got" how moving from the EU to the UK is fleeing tyranny though. Surely if someone has fled a country of oppression to a nation state that is "safe" why the UK govt shouldn't be doing all they can to combat people trafficking criminals? No?
The UK is a very wealthy country, we have plenty of space. If there is any overcrowding it is an effect of political choices. Britain does have a fairly dense population by European standards but not by worldwide ones.
So we should keep letting people in until we actually are an overcrowded hellhole? As long as there's a green field somewhere that hasn't been paved over and turned into a block of flats there's still room?
Quite. Most of these folk are coming from free nations, EU nations, with democracy and of course (so we are told) very good societies and ways of living. Why do they "need" to come to the UK, which apparently is a total shit hole.
maybe a human being is a citizen of planet Earth and can travel to, and live and work in, any part of the planet they like (as long as they abide by the laws of the jurisdictions where they are residing)
I don't think it quite works like that, whether you want it to or not. Try being a Jew and entering Saudi Arabia, for example.
maybe a human being is a citizen of planet Earth and can travel to, and live and work in, any part of the planet they like (as long as they abide by the laws of the jurisdictions where they are residing)
That's a great recipe for turning anywhere even slightly nice into an overpopulated shithole, until the whole damn world is just one big crapsack with nowhere good or pleasant or beautiful left that hasn't been crushed under the weight of hastily-assembled tower blocks.
Dodgy refugee past. Lack of respect for the established authorities. Known to mix with low-lifes and undesirables. Possible connection with so-called freedom fighters. Appears to be suggesting some other authority than that of the legally established government. Do we need to hear any more?
The UK is a very wealthy country, we have plenty of space. If there is any overcrowding it is an effect of political choices. Britain does have a fairly dense population by European standards but not by worldwide ones.
So we should keep letting people in until we actually are an overcrowded hellhole? As long as there's a green field somewhere that hasn't been paved over and turned into a block of flats there's still room?
Quite. Most of these folk are coming from free nations, EU nations, with democracy and of course (so we are told) very good societies and ways of living. Why do they "need" to come to the UK, which apparently is a total shit hole.
I don't think anyone is saying they 'need' to.
If the system worked ideally, people would indeed seek asylum in the first safe country they reach, and then be redistributed among safe nations by the UN (or other international body). Some reasons why this does not happen are explored in this post. In the absence of a properly functioning, international system for redistributing asylum seekers, I don't see how it's a major problem if asylum seekers choose to redistribute themselves.
Ah-ha! I recognise the chap you mean. Yes, a character to be avoided...rather dangerous to know, or be associated with, even at a distance...
True. I've seen several of your posts. You seem to have sorted out personal perfection and decided who is wrong about all things, and they are the "others". I'm not convinced yet, perhaps we can have a manifesto.
I'm not sure I understand you. I was referring to @BroJames post, and, if I understand him aright, we were talking (with some irony, I admit) about Jesus.
I don't think personal remarks about me (and you can hardly know me at all) are really necessary, or are you speaking about someone else? My first response to you on this thread was to point you to a source of information on international law.
I'm not sure I understand you. I was referring to @BroJames post, and, if I understand him aright, we were talking (with some irony, I admit) about Jesus.
I don't think personal remarks about me (and you can hardly know me at all) are really necessary, or are you speaking about someone else? My first response to you on this thread was to point you to a source of information on international law.
Have you found a link to show that the UK govt is breaking international law?
Comments
The United Kingdom is a Country in Europe. Surely you knew this.
I have never studied economics.
I do not claim to speak for everyhone.
It used to be...
I'm not surprised by this. Since the 1980's, worldwide, capital controls have all but been abolished. So we essentially have free movement of capital. At the same time, movement of people (with the notable exception of the EU) has become more difficult. Thus we have the odd situation that money has more rights than people. I'm pretty sure I understand Jesus perspective on that.
The effect of this though is to massively advantage the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Off shore tax avoidance is made much easier but the biggest issue is that corporations can set up a factory/call-centre or whatever, wherever they want. Conversely, the very limited movement of labour means that workers have to take local wages. Thus the market is deeply distorted and wages are driven down globally.
Anyway...
This is nonsense. For a start the UK is 97% green. Yes 97... Secondly, whether it is a good thing or not to produce all our own food is an important debate but it doesn't boil down to such a sweeping statement. For example: Apples. Yes Apples. I don't know the exact figures but roughly speaking we grow as many apples as we eat but around 80% of the apple consumed in the UK are imported. Why? Consumer choice. We mostly like apples that don't grow in the UK. At the same time British grown apples are extremely popular in the Middle East. It's called trade. A parallel situation exists with fuel. The UK is an exporter of unleaded petrol and an importer of diesel. Efficiency in refinery capacity you see... Thirdly, the majority of fruit picking is done by non-UK nations for whom the seasonal working pattern is attractive. (This is obviously a very complex topic in its own right but) the simple fact is that the increase in population of farm workers, results in more food for everyone.
The UK is a very wealthy country, we have plenty of space. If there is any overcrowding it is an effect of political choices. Britain does have a fairly dense population by European standards but not by worldwide ones.
We're overcrowded
is such a lame excuse for not providing refuge to those who need it. It is forgivable, perhaps, if it comes from a place of ignorance but it takes very little research to realise that it's just tosh and thus it's moral cowardice to keep using it.
AFZ
Sweden is quite a pleasant place, I believe. Not so the Cold Waste in which lies Kadath, but even fewer people...
Except they're not, are they?
People of all political stripes often seem to field "if you don't like it, move" as an argument, but most people can't move. Most people neither have the funds to pay for an international relocation, nor the skills to qualify for a visa to work in their choice of target country.
I did not intend to disparage Sweden at all. Besides, I rather like uninhabitable wilderness. I was attempting to point out that refusing to take any refugees until Sweden has the population density of the UK fails to take account of Sweden's infrastructure and environment.
Alas, indeed they're not - I was being slightly ironic...
Likewise folk on this thread could do same. Problem solved.
But I suspect that's not what really happens or what people really will do. In fact, what people "seem" to be saying is that the government, the electorate, tax payers should provide. This is a dilemma because there are a group of people saying others should provide (because they won't themselves) when those others have said they will not.
The other interesting thing is that several people on this thread have said (and i'll paraphrase) that the UK is a shit place but people come here because they have relatives here. Surely their relatives would be saying "Don't come here, it's a racist shit hole run by right wing tossers", settle in another EU country and we will join you soon.
Is this a wind-up post?
Oh FFS, yet another specious argument.
The whole frigging point of governments is to do things collectively that we can't do individually.
For example, several members of my wife's family and mine are police officers.
But, if you really care about the victims of crime, then you should be out there arresting criminals yourself!
Or, perhaps - education; I have friends and family who are teachers
But, don't tell me you care about education unless you have 30 kids in your living room everyday!
Or, do you prefer my line of work? All UK taxpayers contribute to the healthcare I provide But you really care about your child, you'll take their appendix out yourself rather than expecting me to do it!
Do you get the point yet?
As to your second observation... you seem to be stuck with the notion that people fleeing for their lives have lots of freedom and prior knowledge of where they are heading to. Not to mention the issue of how bad some parts of the world are such that even though I genuinely despair for what my country is becoming, I have no illusions that it remains a massive improvement for some (If they get let in!) The thrust of the argument is that the UK is becoming a racist shit hole country run by right wing tossers, and we love our country too much to let it become such without a fight.
AFZ
Governments should meet their obligations under international law and shouldn't promise things that are illegal, stupid, evil, or some combination of the three.
I am no expert on such matters but doesn't international law state that asylum seekers / refugees should be processed in the first country they flee to? Why is that those crossing the English channel are not being processed and subsequently provided for in France?
Indeed. Pity our own *government* does promise such things...
No, it doesn't.
Can you provide a link of some sort to show what the international laws are and how the UK is breaking them?
You're right, you're not an expert.
International law states nothing of the sort (which you would already know if you'd been reading the thread as this point has already come up). Besides, it's a ridiculous notion.
Imagine for a moment that you are fleeing for your life, leaving everything you know behind, as well as most of your possessions. On the other hand, you are getting the kids out of danger in the middle of the night...
Now, are you going to research international law, the various jurisdictions you might come to etc... on how best to apply for asylum? No, me neither. I'm sure that the average refugee boat has WiFi and USB chargers though, so no doubt there's an opportunity to do so en-route...
THE WHOLE POINT OF THE VARIOUS REFUGEE TREATIES IS THAT PEOPLE FLEEING FOR THEIR LIVES NEED A SAFE HAVEN. Not a complex system they have no hope of navigating...
To a large extent, they were born out of the lessons learnt about rejecting Jews fleeing the Nazis... maybe 80 years is too long, maybe we have all forgotten again.
AFZ
P.S. I am not a frog.
Host hat on
Welcome aboard @vermillion. Please take time to familiarise yourself with the Ship’s rule aka the 10 Commandments and the guidelines for the fora you are posting in. The Purgatory guidelines are here. Misnaming Shipmates doesn’t contribute to serious discussion. Please don’t do it.
Host hat off
BroJames, Purgatory Host
I sincerely apologise for calling Alienfromzog Alien Frog. I think it was his picture that did it. I hope I have not offended anyone with this.
Your capitalised bit. Are you saying France is not a safe haven?
Absolutely. So the wonder is why this doesnt happen or is not possible in the countries that need to be passed through before hitting the English channel.
Don't worry, not offended by the misnaming; you're not the first to make that particular reading error. Hosts will be hot on it though for obvious reasons.
In answer to your question: No, of course not. The point is that if you are a nation state and someone seeks asylum, the morally and legally acceptable answers are:
a) you have a credible fear, welcome.
b) you have a credible fear and we have agreements with various nations to share the responsibility so we'll not yet sure where we will offer to settle you.
Or
c) you do not have a credible fear, go home.
The point of the capitalisation is that you didn't follow the complex rules when running for your life and so we won't even look at the merits is not a morally or legally acceptable answer.
AFZ
So we should keep letting people in until we actually are an overcrowded hellhole? As long as there's a green field somewhere that hasn't been paved over and turned into a block of flats there's still room?
We left the EU so were could control our borders
So where is it now ?
Thank you. It wasn't an attempt to slur your nickname in any way, shape or form. Just an error.
I still havent quite "got" how moving from the EU to the UK is fleeing tyranny though. Surely if someone has fled a country of oppression to a nation state that is "safe" why the UK govt shouldn't be doing all they can to combat people trafficking criminals? No?
Quite. Most of these folk are coming from free nations, EU nations, with democracy and of course (so we are told) very good societies and ways of living. Why do they "need" to come to the UK, which apparently is a total shit hole.
I don't think it quite works like that, whether you want it to or not. Try being a Jew and entering Saudi Arabia, for example.
That's a great recipe for turning anywhere even slightly nice into an overpopulated shithole, until the whole damn world is just one big crapsack with nowhere good or pleasant or beautiful left that hasn't been crushed under the weight of hastily-assembled tower blocks.
True. But I don't think he would be liked round these parts.
The self righteousness maybe problematic.
I don't think anyone is saying they 'need' to.
If the system worked ideally, people would indeed seek asylum in the first safe country they reach, and then be redistributed among safe nations by the UN (or other international body). Some reasons why this does not happen are explored in this post. In the absence of a properly functioning, international system for redistributing asylum seekers, I don't see how it's a major problem if asylum seekers choose to redistribute themselves.
True. I've seen several of your posts. You seem to have sorted out personal perfection and decided who is wrong about all things, and they are the "others". I'm not convinced yet, perhaps we can have a manifesto.
I don't think personal remarks about me (and you can hardly know me at all) are really necessary, or are you speaking about someone else? My first response to you on this thread was to point you to a source of information on international law.
Have you found a link to show that the UK govt is breaking international law?
https://odihpn.org/magazine/the-human-rights-act-and-refugees-in-the-uk/
It may, or may not, be helpful to you, and the same applies to this link to the BBC news website:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53741180
I don't see why not. Didn't he say " Render unto Caesar etc "