Are you suggesting that asylum seekers be given temporary refuge in Britain until the regime that has oppressed them has moderated or been overthrown ? Or suggesting that having suffered gives them first place in the queue to migrate to Britain permanently ?
I'm suggesting it is in Australia's national interests to accept a larger number of migrants, irrespective of their reasons for migrating. It is probably in the UK's national interests as well, but I don't know for sure.
I think I heard people say the humanitarian reasons should be given prominence. I say that a great many people will not accept humanitarian reasons, and that in a democracy, you need more than one argument to get things up.
I agree that immigrants have contributed much to the UK, and that it is in the interests of a country (whether Ireland, UK, Australia or any other) to accept a certain level of immigration.
But asylum seekers are almost by definition migrants through force of circumstance rather than migrants by choice.
It seems to me that the humanitarian argument is an argument for offering temporary refuge to those in need of it.
And the self-interest argument is an argument for accepting permanently (making your own) those immigrants who have most to offer to the receiving country. (Whether that's in terms of skills and education, or personal qualities of intelligence and diligence and law-abidingness, or desire to assimilate into the receiving culture).
And whilst coincidentally it may happen that the person you help out when they're in need turns out to be just the person you wanted to know anyway, it doesn't follow logically that this will be so.
(Apologies to everyone. I think there are two pages of a thread to read if I am to see whether my response to Russ is superfluous.)
@Russ I see the general/particular argument, and I do think screening should be necessary, with the benefit of the doubt going to the refugee. I favor the wildly unpopular easy in - easy out formula. Everybody who passes the rigorous health and cursory character tests should get Permanent Residency, with say a 5 year good behavior period before you can apply for citizenship. If you commit certain heinous offences like criticising Australian cricketers (this is a joke), murder, or whatever, then out you go lad. You are put on a plane to your nearest country of citizenship. If not, you have to go to Nauru and be put to work replacing the phosphorous, or go into some sort of military organisation like Lee Marvin in the film the Dirty Dozen. Sure, they have paid their debt to society when they serve their sentence, but they haven't made up for the stab in the heart that is abusing Australia's faith in them. I'm serious about that. I don't know what the solution is, but actually pushing them from a chopper into the Coral Sea seems a bit OTT. I want the OUT part of the equation to hurt like a punch in the guts. Hmmmm.
The generalisation I like to make in this field is that migrants I know and have heard about work bloody hard to establish themselves. People granted refuge are often the hardest working, and look for opportunities to pay us back. That energy and commitment to their family's prosperity is worth the odd individual who might turn out to be a criminal, or go on workcover after working for 5 minutes with the so-called "greek back". That's a colloquial way of saying "The statistics show that migrants are a net good to the country whatever the source or reason for migration." I prefer my way.
If only there was a role model who showed us how to be nice.
True. But I don't think he would be liked round these parts.
I don't see why not. Didn't he say " Render unto Caesar etc "
Funny that. A very Jewish response in the context. There he is in the Temple, where the only proper coinage is temple shekels, and no-one should be handling Roman money with Caesar's face on it. Then there is the belief that "all things come from Thee", all things belong to God. Someone had tried to catch him out, and he used words to explain safely, in the shadow of the Antonia garrison, exactly what was due to Caesar. And since then, the sort of people who want Caesar to rule have preached the surface and not the deep meaning, glibly. Think like a 1st century Jew when you come out with that quote. And remember that the Caesars have long passed.
If only there was a role model who showed us how to be nice.
True. But I don't think he would be liked round these parts.
I don't see why not. Didn't he say " Render unto Caesar etc "
Funny that. A very Jewish response in the context. There he is in the Temple, where the only proper coinage is temple shekels, and no-one should be handling Roman money with Caesar's face on it. Then there is the belief that "all things come from Thee", all things belong to God. Someone had tried to catch him out, and he used words to explain safely, in the shadow of the Antonia garrison, exactly what was due to Caesar. And since then, the sort of people who want Caesar to rule have preached the surface and not the deep meaning, glibly. Think like a 1st century Jew when you come out with that quote. And remember that the Caesars have long passed.
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?
I'm trying to work out if that argument is specious or just silly...
You are saying
Let's not help 35,000* people who desperately need refuge** because if we keep doing it, in 2500 years, we'll be as densely populated as Taiwan***...
My point is simply this: The idea that we can't accept refugees because we have no room is nonsense.
AFZ
*UK Asylum applications 2019: (source: https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/ - some other very important data on that page too).
**As noted above, once granted residency, refugees are net contributors to the country
***UK population 67m, population density 725 per sq mile. Taiwan (Not the most densely populated country) population density; 1700 per sq mile.
- 1700/725 = 2.34 (i.e. Taiwan has a population density more than twice that of the UK)
- Thus to reach 1700 per sq mile the UK population would need to increase to 67m x 2.34 (with no change in the size of the UK's land mass) = 157m. Or to put it another way, would have to increase by 90m. 90,000,000 / 35,000 = 2571. (source for population density: wiki; source for calculations: mathematics)
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.
At present that ideal would need a change in the application of the system. The system allows refugees to travel through other nations before reaching a destination where they want to seek asylum. But, asylum is granted by individual nations, and once granted refugees are not then free to move and live in another country, and the time taken to apply is effectively a long enough break that they aren't then classed as moving directly to another country - ie: a failed asylum application in one country leaves them unable to move elsewhere and apply there.
What would be ideal (within the current system) is that refugees arriving in camps in the first safe country can indicate which country they'd like to seek asylum in, then be transported safely to that country to apply for asylum - that's the basic pattern followed for moving Syrian refugees from Turkey to EU nations (albeit in very small numbers, with the UK in particular taking very few refugees by that route). Or, the system is changed so that they can apply for asylum in another country while still in the camps, and then moved if their application is successful.
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.
At present that ideal would need a change in the application of the system. The system allows refugees to travel through other nations before reaching a destination where they want to seek asylum. But, asylum is granted by individual nations, and once granted refugees are not then free to move and live in another country, and the time taken to apply is effectively a long enough break that they aren't then classed as moving directly to another country - ie: a failed asylum application in one country leaves them unable to move elsewhere and apply there.
What would be ideal (within the current system) is that refugees arriving in camps in the first safe country can indicate which country they'd like to seek asylum in, then be transported safely to that country to apply for asylum - that's the basic pattern followed for moving Syrian refugees from Turkey to EU nations (albeit in very small numbers, with the UK in particular taking very few refugees by that route). Or, the system is changed so that they can apply for asylum in another country while still in the camps, and then moved if their application is successful.
To be honest, when I first drafted the post, I started off with 'in an ideal world', and then realised how stupid that sounded. What I was trying to get across is that Telford and vermillion are complaining that individuals aren't following a system that doesn't exist. It's the right-wing equivalent of condemning people for not using public transport when they live in an area where public transport is shit.
To be honest, when I first drafted the post, I started off with 'in an ideal world', and then realised how stupid that sounded. What I was trying to get across is that Telford and vermillion are complaining that individuals aren't following a system that doesn't exist. It's the right-wing equivalent of condemning people for not using public transport when they live in an area where public transport is shit.
Exactly. It's such a disingenuous argument: People should not be allowed to apply for asylum because they did not follow a system that a) doesn't actually exist and b) if it did, they would have no practical means of investigating it in advance...
I'm just going to add this here. The next person who uses the phrase 'Illegal immigrant' is very likely to get a Hell-call from me.* Let's be clear, there is no such legal term. It is unforgivable for the Prime Minister to use it. Both international and UK law recognise that anyone fleeing for their lives and unable to obtain appropriate redress/protection within their own nation state is very unlikely to have the ability to enter a safe country by normal, legal means. Thus it IS NOT A CRIME to cross the border in an irregular means in order to apply for asylum. The only law-breaking is if someone has their claim for asylum denied (and exhausted the appeals process) and then they do not leave the UK. (I am not speaking about people smugglers her, obviously; I am talking about refugees/asylum seekers).
The problem here is that Illegal Immigrant takes someone who is fleeing persecution and thus emotionally, morally and legally entitled to our support and turns them into a criminal - worse than that - a foreign criminal. I.e. 'They only came here to commit a crime.' This is the excuse for treated people appallingly.
Words matter - 'illegal immigrant' is dehumanising. Dehumanisation is the first step to allowing such appalling treatment for people who desperately need and deserve so much better. There is no excuse for this and the arguments put forward to defend it all seem to involve this kind of obfuscation because we don't want to admit the real reason; we don't want to help - too many people don't want to admit it to themselves it seems. It's fine, I understand how the public are gaslit and propagandised into this position but a) I have nothing but contempt for the politicians** who play this game and b) at the end of the line is massive suffering for real human beings and it is long past time to push back. The only way to do so it by countering these myths and misrepresentations. Hence me being minding to make use of the other place. We need to make that terminology socially unacceptable or at the very least to understand why such words are so dangerous. Words have power.
I wrote this ten years ago. Treating people fleeing for their lives as worse than criminals was not new then. It remains deeply wrong, however.
AFZ
*well, there's a first time for everything...
**It is true that Labour has not been blameless on this front and has tried pandering to the un-panderable, but that is the worse possible defence for the bastards who have been in charge since 2010.
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.
We have three families of refugees in the village I live in, and I think a dozen in the next town, with more in thje next town after that. So somebody, or somebodies, have made homes available at below-market rent for them. Our church provides lists of needs - furniture, towels, a lawnmower, bedding - and people provide.
The refugees themselves organised a coffee morning with lovely Syrian home baking. and jumble sale to sell the surplus items they had been given. The sales tables were piled high.
Education and health care - we have state schools and the NHS.
A church made their small hall available for English lessons, and prayer meetings. The Council organised cooking classes, in which the Syrians taught Scots to cook, whilst the Scots helped them practise their English.
There was a fund raiser to raise enough to take them on trips round Scotland - bus trips to Edinburgh Castle and Loch Ness were provided, because everyone wants the Syrians to love their new home.
The first Christmas they were here, His Majesties Theatre in Aberdeen provided free panto tickets - I have no idea how confusing it must have been to be in a refugee camp in Egypt in September and in a theatre in Scotland in Dec, watching Jack Whittington.
The idea that people won't provide has not been the experience here.
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?
I'm trying to work out if that argument is specious or just silly...
You are saying
Let's not help 35,000* people who desperately need refuge** because if we keep doing it, in 2500 years, we'll be as densely populated as Taiwan***...
My point is simply this: The idea that we can't accept refugees because we have no room is nonsense.
AFZ
*UK Asylum applications 2019: (source: https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/ - some other very important data on that page too).
**As noted above, once granted residency, refugees are net contributors to the country
***UK population 67m, population density 725 per sq mile. Taiwan (Not the most densely populated country) population density; 1700 per sq mile.
- 1700/725 = 2.34 (i.e. Taiwan has a population density more than twice that of the UK)
- Thus to reach 1700 per sq mile the UK population would need to increase to 67m x 2.34 (with no change in the size of the UK's land mass) = 157m. Or to put it another way, would have to increase by 90m. 90,000,000 / 35,000 = 2571. (source for population density: wiki; source for calculations: mathematics)
My argument concerns all net migration, not just asylum. If you're advocating that the only people we let in should be asylum seekers, which your calculations seem to imply, then I'm willing to listen.
For the record, net migration to the UK is about 270,000 per year right now, at which rate (and using your figures for the rest) we'll be Taiwan in about 330 years - a lot sooner than you're suggesting. And we'll be having to pave over Snowdonia and the Lake District way before then, unless most of the population has been forced into tiny flats in hideous, soulless, claustrophobic high-rise tower blocks.
Besides, I see no reason why population density should be some kind of race to the bottom whereby as long as there's somewhere else in the world that's more densely populated than you then you're not overpopulated. I place a much higher value on open space, forests, national parks, etc. than I do on having yet more people around. Frankly, I'd prefer there to be fewer people around.
And we'll be having to pave over Snowdonia and the Lake District way before then, unless most of the population has been forced into tiny flats in hideous, soulless, claustrophobic high-rise tower blocks.
This is ludicrous hyperbole. There is high density housing that isn't tower blocks. A lot of flats in old-fashioned tower blocks are actually more spacious than many (barely) detached homes. Well-designed modern versions of Scottish tenement housing would have a lot to recommend them. When the soulless boxes created by Taylor-Wimpy and Barratt fall apart, which probably won't take all that long, they can be replaced with denser housing that still falls a long way short of tower blocks.
My argument concerns all net migration, not just asylum. If you're advocating that the only people we let in should be asylum seekers, which your calculations seem to imply, then I'm willing to listen.
For the record, net migration to the UK is about 270,000 per year right now, at which rate (and using your figures for the rest) we'll be Taiwan in about 330 years - a lot sooner than you're suggesting. And we'll be having to pave over Snowdonia and the Lake District way before then, unless most of the population has been forced into tiny flats in hideous, soulless, claustrophobic high-rise tower blocks.
Besides, I see no reason why population density should be some kind of race to the bottom whereby as long as there's somewhere else in the world that's more densely populated than you then you're not overpopulated. I place a much higher value on open space, forests, national parks, etc. than I do on having yet more people around. Frankly, I'd prefer there to be fewer people around.
Have you taken into account that the birthrate in the UK is well below replacement level so without net immigration the population will shrink from the bottom up leaving fewer and fewer tax-payers to support an ageing population.
I did once ask a bunch of elderly Ukippers (remember them?) outside our local polling station, one General Election time, how they would manage without Horrid Foreign Brown People when they (the Ukippers) were languishing in their care homes?
Who (said I) did they think would be around to wipe poo off their bums, and bring them a Nice Cuppa Tea?
O (said they) we'll worry about that when the time comes...
Not the most sensible or considered chain of thought, but then, they believe in Nigel Farage...
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?
I'm trying to work out if that argument is specious or just silly...
You are saying
Let's not help 35,000* people who desperately need refuge** because if we keep doing it, in 2500 years, we'll be as densely populated as Taiwan***...
My point is simply this: The idea that we can't accept refugees because we have no room is nonsense.
AFZ
*UK Asylum applications 2019: (source: https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/ - some other very important data on that page too).
**As noted above, once granted residency, refugees are net contributors to the country
***UK population 67m, population density 725 per sq mile. Taiwan (Not the most densely populated country) population density; 1700 per sq mile.
- 1700/725 = 2.34 (i.e. Taiwan has a population density more than twice that of the UK)
- Thus to reach 1700 per sq mile the UK population would need to increase to 67m x 2.34 (with no change in the size of the UK's land mass) = 157m. Or to put it another way, would have to increase by 90m. 90,000,000 / 35,000 = 2571. (source for population density: wiki; source for calculations: mathematics)
My argument concerns all net migration, not just asylum. If you're advocating that the only people we let in should be asylum seekers, which your calculations seem to imply, then I'm willing to listen.
For the record, net migration to the UK is about 270,000 per year right now, at which rate (and using your figures for the rest) we'll be Taiwan in about 330 years - a lot sooner than you're suggesting. And we'll be having to pave over Snowdonia and the Lake District way before then, unless most of the population has been forced into tiny flats in hideous, soulless, claustrophobic high-rise tower blocks.
Besides, I see no reason why population density should be some kind of race to the bottom whereby as long as there's somewhere else in the world that's more densely populated than you then you're not overpopulated. I place a much higher value on open space, forests, national parks, etc. than I do on having yet more people around. Frankly, I'd prefer there to be fewer people around.
My point is simply this: The idea that we can't accept refugees because we have no room is nonsense.
You want a wider discussion around immigration, fine. However it remains the case that the space argument against helping refugees is ridiculous. I won't go into it further, except to say that @Colin Smith's observation about negative population growth is accurate and thus without some net migration, the UK population will shrink. That may or may not be desirable in itself but it does come with an economic cost. There is an important discussion to be had about that trade off.
However, it remains irrelevant to the refugee question. We have ample resources (including space) to take refugees. It is a spurious argument.
I did once ask a bunch of elderly Ukippers (remember them?) outside our local polling station, one General Election time, how they would manage without Horrid Foreign Brown People when they (the Ukippers) were languishing in their care homes?
Who (said I) did they think would be around to wipe poo off their bums, and bring them a Nice Cuppa Tea?
O (said they) we'll worry about that when the time comes...
Not the most sensible or considered chain of thought, but then, they believe in Nigel Farage...
Apropos, around twenty years ago when I lived in Bristol I knew a group of young (and it must be said very attractive) women who were working in a care home. For reasons it's best not to go into, every week they would vote for their "Queen of Shit" which gives you some idea of the reality of the job. To a woman, they were Spanish.
I did once ask a bunch of elderly Ukippers (remember them?) outside our local polling station, one General Election time, how they would manage without Horrid Foreign Brown People when they (the Ukippers) were languishing in their care homes?
Who (said I) did they think would be around to wipe poo off their bums, and bring them a Nice Cuppa Tea?
O (said they) we'll worry about that when the time comes...
Not the most sensible or considered chain of thought, but then, they believe in Nigel Farage...
Apropos, around twenty years ago when I lived in Bristol I knew a group of young (and it must be said very attractive) women who were working in a care home. For reasons it's best not to go into, every week they would vote for their "Queen of Shit" which gives you some idea of the reality of the job. To a woman, they were Spanish.
Not quite as black and graveyard-y as Ambulance Humour...
Interesting re the Spanish Ladies. A few years ago, several of our local care homes (by no means under the same ownership or management) were staffed largely by Bulgarians, Poles, and Lithuanians, who used Russian as a common language.
A certain geriatric ward in the local hospital was staffed by Spaniards and Filipinas, so the everyday language used amongst themselves by the nurses was Spanish. Enter myself and crewmate to collect a patient:
¡Hola, son los hombres de la ambulancia! ¿Dónde está la Sra. Jones?
Not quite as black and graveyard-y as Ambulance Humour...
Interesting re the Spanish Ladies. A few years ago, several of our local care homes (by no means under the same ownership or management) were staffed largely by Bulgarians, Poles, and Lithuanians, who used Russian as a common language.
A certain geriatric ward in the local hospital was staffed by Spaniards and Filipinas, so the everyday language used amongst themselves by the nurses was Spanish. Enter myself and crewmate to collect a patient:
¡Hola, son los hombres de la ambulancia! ¿Dónde está la Sra. Jones?
(Hi! It's the ambulance men! Where's Mrs Jones?)
Though that can have unpleasant side-effects. Occasionally one of the ladies would mention racist abuse from the residents, though I don't think there was a huge amount of it. Although 'wrong' I can understand why an elderly and perhaps confused and dependent person would find being surrounded by 'foreigners' distressing.
I am now wondering what a good English potato grown in good English soil feels when it's harvested by a Pole. I blame the insufferable heat.
Have you taken into account that the birthrate in the UK is well below replacement level so without net immigration the population will shrink from the bottom up leaving fewer and fewer tax-payers to support an ageing population.
I know. It's a fucking crapsack future whichever way you look. A three-way Sophie's Choice between insufficient elderly care, never being able to retire, or treating the population as some kind of messed up ponzi scheme where as long as we can keep cramming in more and more young people then the ever-growing elderly population can be provided for.
Not quite as black and graveyard-y as Ambulance Humour...
Interesting re the Spanish Ladies. A few years ago, several of our local care homes (by no means under the same ownership or management) were staffed largely by Bulgarians, Poles, and Lithuanians, who used Russian as a common language.
A certain geriatric ward in the local hospital was staffed by Spaniards and Filipinas, so the everyday language used amongst themselves by the nurses was Spanish. Enter myself and crewmate to collect a patient:
¡Hola, son los hombres de la ambulancia! ¿Dónde está la Sra. Jones?
(Hi! It's the ambulance men! Where's Mrs Jones?)
Though that can have unpleasant side-effects. Occasionally one of the ladies would mention racist abuse from the residents, though I don't think there was a huge amount of it. Although 'wrong' I can understand why an elderly and perhaps confused and dependent person would find being surrounded by 'foreigners' distressing.
I am now wondering what a good English potato grown in good English soil feels when it's harvested by a Pole. I blame the insufferable heat.
Yes, though I did stress that they only used Spanish amongst themselves, and not to the patients. I take your point about racist abuse - not uncommon, alas, amongst elderly white people - and I have witnessed this at first-hand. It is Not Edifying, however understandable.
As to the Good English Potato being harvested by a Pole, well, the Pole would feel duly honoured in the presence of such a superior Vegetable, and the Potato would behave in a suitably condescending way towards the Pole...
Have you taken into account that the birthrate in the UK is well below replacement level so without net immigration the population will shrink from the bottom up leaving fewer and fewer tax-payers to support an ageing population.
I know. It's a fucking crapsack future whichever way you look. A three-way Sophie's Choice between insufficient elderly care, never being able to retire, or treating the population as some kind of messed up ponzi scheme where as long as we can keep cramming in more and more young people then the ever-growing elderly population can be provided for.
I hope to die doing something age-inappropriate. The alternative is not fun.
The problem here is that Illegal Immigrant takes someone who is fleeing persecution and thus emotionally, morally and legally entitled to our support and turns them into a criminal - worse than that - a foreign criminal. I.e. 'They only came here to commit a crime.' This is the excuse for treated people appallingly.
The people usually referred to as "illegal immigrants" are not asylum seekers. They're economic migrants, intending to cross the border, and work illegally, because the economic conditions are much better than wherever they came from. For example, most Mexicans living and working illegally in the US aren't fleeing persecution.
It's also worth mentioning that, in the US, more people currently enter then ranks of those present in the US without legal status by overstaying their visas rather than by sneaking across the border.
Also worth mentioning, the line between "asylum seeker" and "economic migrant" isn't a bright one. Almost all of those seeking asylum are also economic migrants (the very rare political prisoner type excepted), 'cause pretty much by construction, it's hard to have much economic success in the middle of the war, when one or other of the warring factions is likely to steal whatever stuff you have. But what about people fleeing civil unrest in Venezuela, say? Perhaps the level of danger they left doesn't rise to the level of "persecution", but Venezuela hasn't exactly been a safe place to be for the last several years. Something like 5 million people have left Venezuela in the last several years.
The problem here is that Illegal Immigrant takes someone who is fleeing persecution and thus emotionally, morally and legally entitled to our support and turns them into a criminal - worse than that - a foreign criminal. I.e. 'They only came here to commit a crime.' This is the excuse for treated people appallingly.
The people usually referred to as "illegal immigrants" are not asylum seekers. They're economic migrants, intending to cross the border, and work illegally, because the economic conditions are much better than wherever they came from.
Which is still a damn good reason to make the effort. The idea that "economic" immigrants are somehow lesser is mind-boggling. And Mexico might not be at war, but parts of it are essentially war-torn.
The next time you* bite into your avo toast, guacamole or what have you made from Mexican avocados, know that the drug cartels strong arm the ranchers and the workers. The point being that conditions in one's home country are a bloody good reason to become an economic migrant.
*as in everybody who reads this, but mostly Americans because the UK gets avos from further south
Although 'wrong' I can understand why an elderly and perhaps confused and dependent person would find being surrounded by 'foreigners' distressing.
If the nurses were discussing the patients in their hearing in Spanish, and I was a patient, I'd be a bit concerned. If the medical staff is discussing me, I want to know what they're saying. Having someone discuss me, in my presence, in a language I don't speak, feels rather rude at best.
On the other hand, if nurse A comes in and says "Good Morning, Mr. Cniht, it's time to change these dressings", and then instructs nurse B to assist in Spanish, that would feel fine, because even though I speak very few words of Spanish, it's obvious from context what is going on.
Although 'wrong' I can understand why an elderly and perhaps confused and dependent person would find being surrounded by 'foreigners' distressing.
If the nurses were discussing the patients in their hearing in Spanish, and I was a patient, I'd be a bit concerned. If the medical staff is discussing me, I want to know what they're saying. Having someone discuss me, in my presence, in a language I don't speak, feels rather rude at best.
On the other hand, if nurse A comes in and says "Good Morning, Mr. Cniht, it's time to change these dressings", and then instructs nurse B to assist in Spanish, that would feel fine, because even though I speak very few words of Spanish, it's obvious from context what is going on.
In King's College Hospital back in 2016, I was fascinated by the sheer variety of ethnic backgrounds etc. of the staff - doctors, nurses, the lot. At no time was I aware of anyone discussing me, in my presence, in a foreign language.
OTOH, I was greatly shocked when the rather posh-voiced gent in the next bed to me (and he probably only a few years older than myself) called out in peremptory tones 'Hey you! Black fellow!' to a male nurse of Afro-Caribbean origins (Jamaican, IIRC).
We may be wandering away from the point of the thread, but it all goes to show how valuable EVERYONE can be, regardless of colour, religion, or race.
Those desperate souls risking their lives in small boats may have untold gifts to offer to the country that takes them in.
Although 'wrong' I can understand why an elderly and perhaps confused and dependent person would find being surrounded by 'foreigners' distressing.
If the nurses were discussing the patients in their hearing in Spanish, and I was a patient, I'd be a bit concerned. If the medical staff is discussing me, I want to know what they're saying. Having someone discuss me, in my presence, in a language I don't speak, feels rather rude at best.
On the other hand, if nurse A comes in and says "Good Morning, Mr. Cniht, it's time to change these dressings", and then instructs nurse B to assist in Spanish, that would feel fine, because even though I speak very few words of Spanish, it's obvious from context what is going on.
Completely agreed.
I speak a little Spanish, but most native Spanish speakers assume I don't. You are far less likely to be the subject of conversation than you think. And I've been in hospital where the English speaking workers are happy to have conversations in front of me that have nothing to do with me.
Although 'wrong' I can understand why an elderly and perhaps confused and dependent person would find being surrounded by 'foreigners' distressing.
If the nurses were discussing the patients in their hearing in Spanish, and I was a patient, I'd be a bit concerned. If the medical staff is discussing me, I want to know what they're saying. Having someone discuss me, in my presence, in a language I don't speak, feels rather rude at best.
On the other hand, if nurse A comes in and says "Good Morning, Mr. Cniht, it's time to change these dressings", and then instructs nurse B to assist in Spanish, that would feel fine, because even though I speak very few words of Spanish, it's obvious from context what is going on.
Completely agreed.
I speak a little Spanish, but most native Spanish speakers assume I don't. You are far less likely to be the subject of conversation than you think. And I've been in hospital where the English speaking workers are happy to have conversations in front of me that have nothing to do with me.
Rationally, I know. It's that nasty combination of ego and paranoia that says otherwise.
My son is an English nurse working in Germany, he had to have C1 qualifications in German Language before he could apply for his job. Of course he only speaks German at work.
His patients know he’s not German, but they never guess where he’s from and say his accent is excellent.
Also worth mentioning, the line between "asylum seeker" and "economic migrant" isn't a bright one. Almost all of those seeking asylum are also economic migrants (the very rare political prisoner type excepted), 'cause pretty much by construction, it's hard to have much economic success in the middle of the war, when one or other of the warring factions is likely to steal whatever stuff you have. But what about people fleeing civil unrest in Venezuela, say? Perhaps the level of danger they left doesn't rise to the level of "persecution", but Venezuela hasn't exactly been a safe place to be for the last several years. Something like 5 million people have left Venezuela in the last several years.
In both cases, people are leaving their home country because it's practically impossible to live there - deciding that persecution because of your religion or a formal state of war is an acceptable reason but extreme poverty or constant gang violence isn't is into the hair splitting game.
The problem (well, one of the problems) is that the system, such as it is, regarding refugees and asylum is the product of a different time and situation and as such the examples of refugee enshrined in our various laws and treaties no longer correspond to the real world. If someone is desperate enough to put their children in a flimsy boat to cross the Mediterranean or English Channel (or, any other equally perilous journey) then the conditions they're fleeing are going to be bad, bad enough that the risks being taken in the journey are less than those of staying behind. I don't much care whether they're making that journey because General Nasty McNasty is running the country and rounding up and torturing any who dare to suggest he shouldn't be or that the only jobs available are 16h shifts in sweatshops getting paid a fraction of the amount needed to buy food for the family. Both are intolerable situations, and any who get out are refugees. And, if the laws say otherwise then the laws need to be changed.
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'?
with a 'yes'.
I do not claim to speak for everyone.
My apologies @Telford that I've taken so long to get back. I've been out most of today.
I'm taking from your response that you're claiming to speak on behalf of 'the United Kingdom' but not 'for everyone' in it. What is you basis for claiming that authority, and which bits of the United Kingdom are your 'everyone' and 'not everyone'?
For example, I'm a UK citizen. Are you claiming that I am part of your 'we'? Or do I fall into your 'excluded from we' category? If so, what, apart from the simple fact that I don't agree with you, puts me there?
Is it anyone other than ''me and everyone else ought to think like me'? Or are you also claiming there are some actual people who agree with you and have expressly authorised you to speak for them? If so, and if you want anyone to take your use of the plural first person singular seriously, then you need to tell the rest of your shipmates who these people are, + how and when they authorised you to speak on their behalf. Otherwise, your 'we' is just a rhetorical device, and rather an unpleasant one.
Are you seriously arguing about someone using the word “we” when talking about what they think the country should or shouldn’t do? People do that all the sodding time. I bet I could find a dozen examples just on this thread of other people doing it. What’s the big deal?
Also worth mentioning, the line between "asylum seeker" and "economic migrant" isn't a bright one. Almost all of those seeking asylum are also economic migrants (the very rare political prisoner type excepted), 'cause pretty much by construction, it's hard to have much economic success in the middle of the war, when one or other of the warring factions is likely to steal whatever stuff you have. But what about people fleeing civil unrest in Venezuela, say? Perhaps the level of danger they left doesn't rise to the level of "persecution", but Venezuela hasn't exactly been a safe place to be for the last several years. Something like 5 million people have left Venezuela in the last several years.
In both cases, people are leaving their home country because it's practically impossible to live there - deciding that persecution because of your religion or a formal state of war is an acceptable reason but extreme poverty or constant gang violence isn't is into the hair splitting game.
The problem (well, one of the problems) is that the system, such as it is, regarding refugees and asylum is the product of a different time and situation and as such the examples of refugee enshrined in our various laws and treaties no longer correspond to the real world. If someone is desperate enough to put their children in a flimsy boat to cross the Mediterranean or English Channel (or, any other equally perilous journey) then the conditions they're fleeing are going to be bad, bad enough that the risks being taken in the journey are less than those of staying behind. I don't much care whether they're making that journey because General Nasty McNasty is running the country and rounding up and torturing any who dare to suggest he shouldn't be or that the only jobs available are 16h shifts in sweatshops getting paid a fraction of the amount needed to buy food for the family. Both are intolerable situations, and any who get out are refugees. And, if the laws say otherwise then the laws need to be changed.
This. And adding, that getting all Outraged about economic migrants only displays a complete lack of imagination. If we were in their shoes, wouldn't we do exactly the same thing?
This. And adding, that getting all Outraged about economic migrants only displays a complete lack of imagination. If we were in their shoes, wouldn't we do exactly the same thing?
I think even the most rabid anti-immigrant sort would agree that economic migrants were making rational choices. Indeed, isn't their entire policy playbook based on the idea of making it more difficult / less profitable to be an illegal immigrant, so that rational economic migrants will choose to stay home?
I suppose we need to mention here that a lot of the people who purport to be opposed to illegal immigration actually aren't, at all. What they are opposed to is the ability of illegal immigrants to improve their lives - they're really quite keen on keeping a supply of cheap exploitable labour that is too scared to complain about little things like workplace safety and the like.
At least the people who complain that they don't want to hear Polish / Spanish / Urdu / whatever on their High Street are honest.
This. And adding, that getting all Outraged about economic migrants only displays a complete lack of imagination. If we were in their shoes, wouldn't we do exactly the same thing?
Tsk. How dare you make that accusation! The British have never ventured overseas for financial gain....
Are you seriously arguing about someone using the word “we” when talking about what they think the country should or shouldn’t do? People do that all the sodding time. I bet I could find a dozen examples just on this thread of other people doing it. What’s the big deal?
Yes, I am. And I'm deeply serious about it.
I won't say invariably, but what it's so often doing is seeking to persuade others to agree with you, but not by persuading them. In stead, the speaker uses the 'we' pronoun to create the impression by implication in the listeners' hearts that 'of course', you, me and all reasonable people already think the same way as I do, except that the rest of 'us' perhaps haven't quite noticed yet. Anyone who doesn't is defying the group.
Hence my description of its use as meaning 'me, and everyone else ought to think like me'.
It's very, very prevalent. Listen to politicians being interviewed on the longer news programmes on R4. World @ One saves time as it enables you to listen and eat at the same time.
Are you seriously arguing about someone using the word “we” when talking about what they think the country should or shouldn’t do? People do that all the sodding time. I bet I could find a dozen examples just on this thread of other people doing it. What’s the big deal?
Yes, I am. And I'm deeply serious about it.
I won't say invariably, but what it's so often doing is seeking to persuade others to agree with you, but not by persuading them. In stead, the speaker uses the 'we' pronoun to create the impression by implication in the listeners' hearts that 'of course', you, me and all reasonable people already think the same way as I do, except that the rest of 'us' perhaps haven't quite noticed yet. Anyone who doesn't is defying the group.
Hence my description of its use as meaning 'me, and everyone else ought to think like me'.
It's very, very prevalent. Listen to politicians being interviewed on the longer news programmes on R4. World @ One saves time as it enables you to listen and eat at the same time.
Are you seriously arguing about someone using the word “we” when talking about what they think the country should or shouldn’t do? People do that all the sodding time. I bet I could find a dozen examples just on this thread of other people doing it. What’s the big deal?
Yes, I am. And I'm deeply serious about it.
Apparently that seriousness was taking a break when you read the OP, because it uses “we” and “our” in exactly the same way nine times.
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'?
with a 'yes'.
I do not claim to speak for everyone.
My apologies @Telford that I've taken so long to get back. I've been out most of today.
I'm taking from your response that you're claiming to speak on behalf of 'the United Kingdom' but not 'for everyone' in it. What is you basis for claiming that authority, and which bits of the United Kingdom are your 'everyone' and 'not everyone'?
For example, I'm a UK citizen. Are you claiming that I am part of your 'we'? Or do I fall into your 'excluded from we' category? If so, what, apart from the simple fact that I don't agree with you, puts me there?
Is it anyone other than ''me and everyone else ought to think like me'? Or are you also claiming there are some actual people who agree with you and have expressly authorised you to speak for them? If so, and if you want anyone to take your use of the plural first person singular seriously, then you need to tell the rest of your shipmates who these people are, + how and when they authorised you to speak on their behalf. Otherwise, your 'we' is just a rhetorical device, and rather an unpleasant one.
You summed up your attitude to me in your last 5 words.
Extraordinary. I am listening to Today at the moment about a black journalist, Barbara Blake Hannah (who could not find a hotel to put her up in Birmingham, and had to go back to London every day), and at the moment I read the name Enoch Powell, I heard her quote "rivers of blood."
Comments
(Apologies to everyone. I think there are two pages of a thread to read if I am to see whether my response to Russ is superfluous.)
@Russ I see the general/particular argument, and I do think screening should be necessary, with the benefit of the doubt going to the refugee. I favor the wildly unpopular easy in - easy out formula. Everybody who passes the rigorous health and cursory character tests should get Permanent Residency, with say a 5 year good behavior period before you can apply for citizenship. If you commit certain heinous offences like criticising Australian cricketers (this is a joke), murder, or whatever, then out you go lad. You are put on a plane to your nearest country of citizenship. If not, you have to go to Nauru and be put to work replacing the phosphorous, or go into some sort of military organisation like Lee Marvin in the film the Dirty Dozen. Sure, they have paid their debt to society when they serve their sentence, but they haven't made up for the stab in the heart that is abusing Australia's faith in them. I'm serious about that. I don't know what the solution is, but actually pushing them from a chopper into the Coral Sea seems a bit OTT. I want the OUT part of the equation to hurt like a punch in the guts. Hmmmm.
The generalisation I like to make in this field is that migrants I know and have heard about work bloody hard to establish themselves. People granted refuge are often the hardest working, and look for opportunities to pay us back. That energy and commitment to their family's prosperity is worth the odd individual who might turn out to be a criminal, or go on workcover after working for 5 minutes with the so-called "greek back". That's a colloquial way of saying "The statistics show that migrants are a net good to the country whatever the source or reason for migration." I prefer my way.
Funny that. A very Jewish response in the context. There he is in the Temple, where the only proper coinage is temple shekels, and no-one should be handling Roman money with Caesar's face on it. Then there is the belief that "all things come from Thee", all things belong to God. Someone had tried to catch him out, and he used words to explain safely, in the shadow of the Antonia garrison, exactly what was due to Caesar. And since then, the sort of people who want Caesar to rule have preached the surface and not the deep meaning, glibly. Think like a 1st century Jew when you come out with that quote. And remember that the Caesars have long passed.
======
I'm trying to work out if that argument is specious or just silly...
You are saying
My point is simply this: The idea that we can't accept refugees because we have no room is nonsense.
AFZ
*UK Asylum applications 2019: (source: https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/ - some other very important data on that page too).
**As noted above, once granted residency, refugees are net contributors to the country
***UK population 67m, population density 725 per sq mile. Taiwan (Not the most densely populated country) population density; 1700 per sq mile.
- 1700/725 = 2.34 (i.e. Taiwan has a population density more than twice that of the UK)
- Thus to reach 1700 per sq mile the UK population would need to increase to 67m x 2.34 (with no change in the size of the UK's land mass) = 157m. Or to put it another way, would have to increase by 90m. 90,000,000 / 35,000 = 2571. (source for population density: wiki; source for calculations: mathematics)
What would be ideal (within the current system) is that refugees arriving in camps in the first safe country can indicate which country they'd like to seek asylum in, then be transported safely to that country to apply for asylum - that's the basic pattern followed for moving Syrian refugees from Turkey to EU nations (albeit in very small numbers, with the UK in particular taking very few refugees by that route). Or, the system is changed so that they can apply for asylum in another country while still in the camps, and then moved if their application is successful.
To be honest, when I first drafted the post, I started off with 'in an ideal world', and then realised how stupid that sounded. What I was trying to get across is that Telford and vermillion are complaining that individuals aren't following a system that doesn't exist. It's the right-wing equivalent of condemning people for not using public transport when they live in an area where public transport is shit.
https://bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-53721146
Exactly. It's such a disingenuous argument:
People should not be allowed to apply for asylum because they did not follow a system that a) doesn't actually exist and b) if it did, they would have no practical means of investigating it in advance...
I'm just going to add this here. The next person who uses the phrase 'Illegal immigrant' is very likely to get a Hell-call from me.* Let's be clear, there is no such legal term. It is unforgivable for the Prime Minister to use it. Both international and UK law recognise that anyone fleeing for their lives and unable to obtain appropriate redress/protection within their own nation state is very unlikely to have the ability to enter a safe country by normal, legal means. Thus it IS NOT A CRIME to cross the border in an irregular means in order to apply for asylum. The only law-breaking is if someone has their claim for asylum denied (and exhausted the appeals process) and then they do not leave the UK. (I am not speaking about people smugglers her, obviously; I am talking about refugees/asylum seekers).
The problem here is that Illegal Immigrant takes someone who is fleeing persecution and thus emotionally, morally and legally entitled to our support and turns them into a criminal - worse than that - a foreign criminal. I.e. 'They only came here to commit a crime.' This is the excuse for treated people appallingly.
Words matter - 'illegal immigrant' is dehumanising. Dehumanisation is the first step to allowing such appalling treatment for people who desperately need and deserve so much better. There is no excuse for this and the arguments put forward to defend it all seem to involve this kind of obfuscation because we don't want to admit the real reason; we don't want to help - too many people don't want to admit it to themselves it seems. It's fine, I understand how the public are gaslit and propagandised into this position but a) I have nothing but contempt for the politicians** who play this game and b) at the end of the line is massive suffering for real human beings and it is long past time to push back. The only way to do so it by countering these myths and misrepresentations. Hence me being minding to make use of the other place. We need to make that terminology socially unacceptable or at the very least to understand why such words are so dangerous. Words have power.
I wrote this ten years ago. Treating people fleeing for their lives as worse than criminals was not new then. It remains deeply wrong, however.
AFZ
*well, there's a first time for everything...
**It is true that Labour has not been blameless on this front and has tried pandering to the un-panderable, but that is the worse possible defence for the bastards who have been in charge since 2010.
Highest COVID death rate in Europe.
Worst recession in Europe.
"Look! Dinghies!"
We have three families of refugees in the village I live in, and I think a dozen in the next town, with more in thje next town after that. So somebody, or somebodies, have made homes available at below-market rent for them. Our church provides lists of needs - furniture, towels, a lawnmower, bedding - and people provide.
The refugees themselves organised a coffee morning with lovely Syrian home baking. and jumble sale to sell the surplus items they had been given. The sales tables were piled high.
Education and health care - we have state schools and the NHS.
A church made their small hall available for English lessons, and prayer meetings. The Council organised cooking classes, in which the Syrians taught Scots to cook, whilst the Scots helped them practise their English.
There was a fund raiser to raise enough to take them on trips round Scotland - bus trips to Edinburgh Castle and Loch Ness were provided, because everyone wants the Syrians to love their new home.
The first Christmas they were here, His Majesties Theatre in Aberdeen provided free panto tickets - I have no idea how confusing it must have been to be in a refugee camp in Egypt in September and in a theatre in Scotland in Dec, watching Jack Whittington.
The idea that people won't provide has not been the experience here.
It can be done, and doubtless is being done elsewhere in Europe.
Yet even England is seen as a better place in which to be than such ghastly places as Yemen, Eritrea etc.
My argument concerns all net migration, not just asylum. If you're advocating that the only people we let in should be asylum seekers, which your calculations seem to imply, then I'm willing to listen.
For the record, net migration to the UK is about 270,000 per year right now, at which rate (and using your figures for the rest) we'll be Taiwan in about 330 years - a lot sooner than you're suggesting. And we'll be having to pave over Snowdonia and the Lake District way before then, unless most of the population has been forced into tiny flats in hideous, soulless, claustrophobic high-rise tower blocks.
Besides, I see no reason why population density should be some kind of race to the bottom whereby as long as there's somewhere else in the world that's more densely populated than you then you're not overpopulated. I place a much higher value on open space, forests, national parks, etc. than I do on having yet more people around. Frankly, I'd prefer there to be fewer people around.
This is ludicrous hyperbole. There is high density housing that isn't tower blocks. A lot of flats in old-fashioned tower blocks are actually more spacious than many (barely) detached homes. Well-designed modern versions of Scottish tenement housing would have a lot to recommend them. When the soulless boxes created by Taylor-Wimpy and Barratt fall apart, which probably won't take all that long, they can be replaced with denser housing that still falls a long way short of tower blocks.
I love mankind - it's people I can't stand!
(With due acknowledgements to Charles Schulz)
Marvin, you are Linus Van Pelt, and I claim my £5...
Have you taken into account that the birthrate in the UK is well below replacement level so without net immigration the population will shrink from the bottom up leaving fewer and fewer tax-payers to support an ageing population.
I did once ask a bunch of elderly Ukippers (remember them?) outside our local polling station, one General Election time, how they would manage without Horrid Foreign Brown People when they (the Ukippers) were languishing in their care homes?
Who (said I) did they think would be around to wipe poo off their bums, and bring them a Nice Cuppa Tea?
O (said they) we'll worry about that when the time comes...
Not the most sensible or considered chain of thought, but then, they believe in Nigel Farage...
My point is simply this: The idea that we can't accept refugees because we have no room is nonsense.
You want a wider discussion around immigration, fine. However it remains the case that the space argument against helping refugees is ridiculous. I won't go into it further, except to say that @Colin Smith's observation about negative population growth is accurate and thus without some net migration, the UK population will shrink. That may or may not be desirable in itself but it does come with an economic cost. There is an important discussion to be had about that trade off.
However, it remains irrelevant to the refugee question. We have ample resources (including space) to take refugees. It is a spurious argument.
AFZ
Apropos, around twenty years ago when I lived in Bristol I knew a group of young (and it must be said very attractive) women who were working in a care home. For reasons it's best not to go into, every week they would vote for their "Queen of Shit" which gives you some idea of the reality of the job. To a woman, they were Spanish.
Ahhh, yes... nursing humour....
Interesting re the Spanish Ladies. A few years ago, several of our local care homes (by no means under the same ownership or management) were staffed largely by Bulgarians, Poles, and Lithuanians, who used Russian as a common language.
A certain geriatric ward in the local hospital was staffed by Spaniards and Filipinas, so the everyday language used amongst themselves by the nurses was Spanish. Enter myself and crewmate to collect a patient:
¡Hola, son los hombres de la ambulancia! ¿Dónde está la Sra. Jones?
(Hi! It's the ambulance men! Where's Mrs Jones?)
Not at all. I pretty much can't stand mankind either.
I am now wondering what a good English potato grown in good English soil feels when it's harvested by a Pole.
I know. It's a fucking crapsack future whichever way you look. A three-way Sophie's Choice between insufficient elderly care, never being able to retire, or treating the population as some kind of messed up ponzi scheme where as long as we can keep cramming in more and more young people then the ever-growing elderly population can be provided for.
Yes, though I did stress that they only used Spanish amongst themselves, and not to the patients. I take your point about racist abuse - not uncommon, alas, amongst elderly white people - and I have witnessed this at first-hand. It is Not Edifying, however understandable.
As to the Good English Potato being harvested by a Pole, well, the Pole would feel duly honoured in the presence of such a superior Vegetable, and the Potato would behave in a suitably condescending way towards the Pole...
I hope to die doing something age-inappropriate. The alternative is not fun.
The people usually referred to as "illegal immigrants" are not asylum seekers. They're economic migrants, intending to cross the border, and work illegally, because the economic conditions are much better than wherever they came from. For example, most Mexicans living and working illegally in the US aren't fleeing persecution.
It's also worth mentioning that, in the US, more people currently enter then ranks of those present in the US without legal status by overstaying their visas rather than by sneaking across the border.
Also worth mentioning, the line between "asylum seeker" and "economic migrant" isn't a bright one. Almost all of those seeking asylum are also economic migrants (the very rare political prisoner type excepted), 'cause pretty much by construction, it's hard to have much economic success in the middle of the war, when one or other of the warring factions is likely to steal whatever stuff you have. But what about people fleeing civil unrest in Venezuela, say? Perhaps the level of danger they left doesn't rise to the level of "persecution", but Venezuela hasn't exactly been a safe place to be for the last several years. Something like 5 million people have left Venezuela in the last several years.
The next time you* bite into your avo toast, guacamole or what have you made from Mexican avocados, know that the drug cartels strong arm the ranchers and the workers. The point being that conditions in one's home country are a bloody good reason to become an economic migrant.
*as in everybody who reads this, but mostly Americans because the UK gets avos from further south
If the nurses were discussing the patients in their hearing in Spanish, and I was a patient, I'd be a bit concerned. If the medical staff is discussing me, I want to know what they're saying. Having someone discuss me, in my presence, in a language I don't speak, feels rather rude at best.
On the other hand, if nurse A comes in and says "Good Morning, Mr. Cniht, it's time to change these dressings", and then instructs nurse B to assist in Spanish, that would feel fine, because even though I speak very few words of Spanish, it's obvious from context what is going on.
Completely agreed.
OTOH, I was greatly shocked when the rather posh-voiced gent in the next bed to me (and he probably only a few years older than myself) called out in peremptory tones 'Hey you! Black fellow!' to a male nurse of Afro-Caribbean origins (Jamaican, IIRC).
We may be wandering away from the point of the thread, but it all goes to show how valuable EVERYONE can be, regardless of colour, religion, or race.
Those desperate souls risking their lives in small boats may have untold gifts to offer to the country that takes them in.
Rationally, I know. It's that nasty combination of ego and paranoia that says otherwise.
His patients know he’s not German, but they never guess where he’s from and say his accent is excellent.
The problem (well, one of the problems) is that the system, such as it is, regarding refugees and asylum is the product of a different time and situation and as such the examples of refugee enshrined in our various laws and treaties no longer correspond to the real world. If someone is desperate enough to put their children in a flimsy boat to cross the Mediterranean or English Channel (or, any other equally perilous journey) then the conditions they're fleeing are going to be bad, bad enough that the risks being taken in the journey are less than those of staying behind. I don't much care whether they're making that journey because General Nasty McNasty is running the country and rounding up and torturing any who dare to suggest he shouldn't be or that the only jobs available are 16h shifts in sweatshops getting paid a fraction of the amount needed to buy food for the family. Both are intolerable situations, and any who get out are refugees. And, if the laws say otherwise then the laws need to be changed.
Even if they do have a slightly foreign accent, what the dickens does that matter? Bu**er all, except to the Faragists of this world...
I'm taking from your response that you're claiming to speak on behalf of 'the United Kingdom' but not 'for everyone' in it. What is you basis for claiming that authority, and which bits of the United Kingdom are your 'everyone' and 'not everyone'?
For example, I'm a UK citizen. Are you claiming that I am part of your 'we'? Or do I fall into your 'excluded from we' category? If so, what, apart from the simple fact that I don't agree with you, puts me there?
Is it anyone other than ''me and everyone else ought to think like me'? Or are you also claiming there are some actual people who agree with you and have expressly authorised you to speak for them? If so, and if you want anyone to take your use of the plural first person singular seriously, then you need to tell the rest of your shipmates who these people are, + how and when they authorised you to speak on their behalf. Otherwise, your 'we' is just a rhetorical device, and rather an unpleasant one.
This. And adding, that getting all Outraged about economic migrants only displays a complete lack of imagination. If we were in their shoes, wouldn't we do exactly the same thing?
I think even the most rabid anti-immigrant sort would agree that economic migrants were making rational choices. Indeed, isn't their entire policy playbook based on the idea of making it more difficult / less profitable to be an illegal immigrant, so that rational economic migrants will choose to stay home?
I suppose we need to mention here that a lot of the people who purport to be opposed to illegal immigration actually aren't, at all. What they are opposed to is the ability of illegal immigrants to improve their lives - they're really quite keen on keeping a supply of cheap exploitable labour that is too scared to complain about little things like workplace safety and the like.
At least the people who complain that they don't want to hear Polish / Spanish / Urdu / whatever on their High Street are honest.
Tsk. How dare you make that accusation! The British have never ventured overseas for financial gain....
I won't say invariably, but what it's so often doing is seeking to persuade others to agree with you, but not by persuading them. In stead, the speaker uses the 'we' pronoun to create the impression by implication in the listeners' hearts that 'of course', you, me and all reasonable people already think the same way as I do, except that the rest of 'us' perhaps haven't quite noticed yet. Anyone who doesn't is defying the group.
Hence my description of its use as meaning 'me, and everyone else ought to think like me'.
It's very, very prevalent. Listen to politicians being interviewed on the longer news programmes on R4. World @ One saves time as it enables you to listen and eat at the same time.
I've referred to it as 'the portentous we'.
Probably. And if they were in our shoes they’d probably try to stop us.
Agreed 100% and it's bloody annoying.
Apparently that seriousness was taking a break when you read the OP, because it uses “we” and “our” in exactly the same way nine times.
You summed up your attitude to me in your last 5 words.
Ah, the old "if they had the power they'd treat us atrociously so we have to do the same when we have power". Paging Enoch Powell...
Enoch Powell...A very popular Wolverhampton MP standing in a multi racial area.
And your point is what exactly?