Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Sriram on October 26, 2016, 08:55:32 AM
-
Hi everyone,
In the context of increasing resistance to immigration in Europe and other countries, I have never really understood what these developed countries hope to achieve by allowing literally millions of migrants into their country.
If it is about humanistic policies and a wish to alleviate their suffering, then...how many more of such millions are they going to allow in the future? There are literally billions of very poor people in developing/underdeveloped countries. Are all these people going to be allowed over the years? Does this actually help these migrants and the locals? Is it merely to find people to do the low level jobs that the locals don't want to do?
I can understand temporary refugees being allowed because of war or natural disasters and who would be sent back once the situation improves. But taking in migrants just on the basis of poverty is dysfunctional.
I would have thought that sending in expert teams and investing lots of money in these poor countries to help them change their economic conditions would have been more useful and more workable in the long run.
Any views?
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I would have thought that sending in expert teams and investing lots of money in these poor countries to help them change their economic conditions would have been more useful and more workable in the long run.
I don't disagree. Good luck with trying to persuade people/govt in the UK to invest lots of money in poor countries. The argument would be something like we must take care of our own first and that we already invest a lot in these poorer countries (provided they buy their ammunition and guns from us).
Not an argument I subscribe to as even though I am not a Christian I do think there is quite a lot of general good sense in the "we are all God's children" line of thought.
-
I can't think of anything useful to contribute, but I do think the situation could well get out of hand.
-
I think countries trying to develop economically deserve support and need their young people. It is no good when those who can help walk away.
A little tongue in cheek, but when people are interviewed they are all, or aspiring to be, engineers, doctors or teachers. While I know we are in desperate need of these people here as we are a talentless lot, perhaps the need for them elsewhere is greater.
-
There will be people who work over here for a few years, Jack, and then return to their native land. Not everyone wants to stay here permanently. Nothing wrong with that, plenty of UK people do the same and it is good experience.
We are not a talentless lot any more than any other country, all my life I've heard of shortages of suitable applicants for various professions; it's just a fact of life that not everyone is able to aspire to a profession, it doesn't mean they can't do a decent job of work or be trained to do something marketable.
-
I have many views on immigration, Sriram. Thanks for asking.
-
I have many views on immigration, Sriram. Thanks for asking.
Well......?!
-
the truth would scare you!
-
the truth would scare you!
Ok....but if the others here haven't scared me all these years...its unlikely that anything you say will scare me. :)
But try me anyway! ;)
Out here we all are used to speaking our minds very openly. So...don't hold your punches. Go ahead..say it as it is.
-
Id like to stay on the board for longer than a couple of hours ,thanks anyway .
-
OK then, this is what I think.
I am cityist, townist, villageist, streetist nextdoorist, and I don't like some of the people who live in my house
does that help?
-
OH, and I get these qualities from the wonderful people of the mining village I grew up in and a grammar school education.
-
I would have thought that sending in expert teams and investing lots of money in these poor countries to help them change their economic conditions would have been more useful and more workable in the long run.
Sriram, are we in a sixth form economics class debating session?
-
I can understand temporary refugees being allowed because of war or natural disasters and who would be sent back once the situation improves. But taking in migrants just on the basis of poverty is dysfunctional.
I would have thought that sending in expert teams and investing lots of money in these poor countries to help them change their economic conditions would have been more useful and more workable in the long run.
That sounds a good plan in principle but I'm not sure it's not just a little pie in the sky in practice. Many of the world's poor are poor because of corrupt power regimes that can siphon off western aid with ease and these countries need massive infrastructure investment to bring them up sufficiently to make them properly habitable so that people don't want to leave. Western governments limited by four year electoral cycles cannot countenance such unpopular massive overseas aid spending. And corruption is not the major problem by a long way; the underlying drivers of changing climate patterns and expanding populations mean that conditions in many poor countries are going to get worse at a faster rate than western powers could fix it for them.
The Brexit vote and the popularity of Trump are measures of western unwillingness to face up to such global challenges. It is short sighted thinking to imagine that building walls and reducing freedoms of movement are going fix anything in the long term.
-
I think 'bring back control' is an ironic slogan from the Brexit campaign, since it seems unlikely to me that we can control many aspects of the economy. If you think of neo-liberalism, how much control of that is there? Of course, you can make attempts to reject it, but then there is the danger of becoming isolated, johnny-no-mates. Or there is the alternative of war, of course.
Anyway, it's going to be interesting to see if the UK can accept the free movement of goods, services and capital, but not people. I had to laugh at the slogan, 'we're open for business', with the rider, 'as long as you don't want to work/live here'.
-
and this one
'we don't want you, just your money' hmm , sounds like my ex wife
-
Also, 'even though we've split up, can we still have sex?' Me with my ex-wife.
-
emigrant---- immigrant. the same person viewed from different ends
hmmm
-
That sounds a good plan in principle but I'm not sure it's not just a little pie in the sky in practice. Many of the world's poor are poor because of corrupt power regimes that can siphon off western aid with ease and these countries need massive infrastructure investment to bring them up sufficiently to make them properly habitable so that people don't want to leave. Western governments limited by four year electoral cycles cannot countenance such unpopular massive overseas aid spending. And corruption is not the major problem by a long way; the underlying drivers of changing climate patterns and expanding populations mean that conditions in many poor countries are going to get worse at a faster rate than western powers could fix it for them.
The Brexit vote and the popularity of Trump are measures of western unwillingness to face up to such global challenges. It is short sighted thinking to imagine that building walls and reducing freedoms of movement are going fix anything in the long term.
So the EU is as nice as pie and fair with its customs union? Talk about raising the drawbridge.
-
and don't forget to fill the moat!
-
I think 'bring back control' is an ironic slogan from the Brexit campaign, since it seems unlikely to me that we can control many aspects of the economy. If you think of neo-liberalism, how much control of that is there? Of course, you can make attempts to reject it, but then there is the danger of becoming isolated, johnny-no-mates. Or there is the alternative of war, of course.
Anyway, it's going to be interesting to see if the UK can accept the free movement of goods, services and capital, but not people. I had to laugh at the slogan, 'we're open for business', with the rider, 'as long as you don't want to work/live here'.
Many in Britain who want control because of the chaos of globalization are not alone as many across the global feel the same; many in Europe and in the US. If they work together they could dismantle this Neo-Liberalism of the rich elites.
-
and don't forget to fill the moat!
It's electrified fence these days, with police with pepper spray...
-
Hi everyone,
In the context of increasing resistance to immigration in Europe and other countries, I have never really understood what these developed countries hope to achieve by allowing literally millions of migrants into their country.
Sri, take Germany as an example. They have a population that is rapidly growing older and older - with very little prospect of the numbers required to fill the existing jobs with the up and coming generations - their birth rate has dropped below the replacement number. They need migrants who will take those jobs and help pay for the old age of the existing work-force. I accept that this is a fairly simplified explanation - with many other factors to be taken into account, but hopefully it will give you some idea of the issues Europe faces.
-
I would have thought that sending in expert teams and investing lots of money in these poor countries to help them change their economic conditions would have been more useful and more workable in the long run.
And where is that money going to come from, Walter? Most Western nations are struggling to pay for their own ageing populations. The best way to improve the lives of the developing nations is not to work with government but with grass roots organisations - local charities, etc. This is how many of our own charities - Oxfam, Save the Children, etc. are working.
-
And where is that money going to come from, Walter? Most Western nations are struggling to pay for their own ageing populations. The best way to improve the lives of the developing nations is not to work with government but with grass roots organisations - local charities, etc. This is how many of our own charities - Oxfam, Save the Children, etc. are working.
That's nice but its still peanuts. You are not going to turn around a failing state like Libya by small scale piecemeal investments at a local level, it requires massive international will for which nobody has the appetite. After disastrous naive interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya which western democracy is going to summon the will and the finance to embrace a nation building agenda. We aren't up to it.
-
I listened to the 'Moral Maze' yesterday evening. Michael Portillo asked a question several times which the guests and others on other programmes continuously avoid and that is why the migrants in Calais did not seek to be registered, or to stay in, the first safe country they reached. The emotionally overloaded contributions on many programmes recently I find very annoying. However, I really don't know what the answer is.
-
As I have said before our nation is founded on migrants and no worse for that, imo.
-
Hope your post #23 is not my quote
I was quoting someone else
-
Are you aware that not all opinions have equal value.
-
As I have said before our nation is founded on migrants and no worse for that, imo.
Can I ask on your thinking behind this?
-
Can I ask on your thinking behind this?
We all emigrants from Africa, ultimately.
-
We all emigrants from Africa, ultimately.
Indeed we are, in which case, other than from the place in which our ancestors first walked out of, indigenous cannot exist.
-
Indeed we are, in which case, other than from the place in which our ancestors first walked out of, indigenous cannot exist.
All such terms are relative of course.
Humans have colonised all parts of the globe apart from the Antarctic and we have developed distinctively in geographic isolation for tens of thousands of years. Now through globalisation we are all coming back together again and peoples in richer fertile lands put up barriers to reintegration to prevent people from poorer lands getting a slice of the their pie.
-
I listened to the 'Moral Maze' yesterday evening. Michael Portillo asked a question several times which the guests and others on other programmes continuously avoid and that is why the migrants in Calais did not seek to be registered, or to stay in, the first safe country they reached. The emotionally overloaded contributions on many programmes recently I find very annoying. However, I really don't know what the answer is.
I don't think anyone knows the answer to that question. Those migrants do not appear to be behaving rationally.
Since they are unwanted by and face discrimination in the countries they have passed through it is possible that they (probably incorrectly) think they will fare better in the UK. I suspect that even if they have some hankering for the UK, they would certainly be better off in the long run by making a life in a country where they already have some, de facto, rights.
But where does this leave the UK - contributing to chaos across the world but leaving others to cope with the consequences, protected by our position on the edge of the continent?
ETA: Should also recognise that the Calais migrants are a tiny fraction of people "on the move" worldwide.
-
All such terms are relative of course.
Humans have colonised all parts of the globe apart from the Antarctic and we have developed distinctively in geographic isolation for tens of thousands of years. Now through globalisation we are all coming back together again and peoples in richer fertile lands put up barriers to reintegration to prevent people from poorer lands getting a slice of the their pie.
That's not valid at all. Most nations developed in poverty and misery. They became rich much later.
'We all are migrants'... is not a meaningful argument at all. There are such things as nations, citizenship, geographical boundaries, governments etc. and they have a purpose and function.
The concept of global citizenship is a myth. We have seen how well the EU is faring, haven't we?!
-
Not bad actually, Sririam, why else do so many of us wish we could stay as part of it?
You said: Most nations developed in poverty and misery. They became rich much later.
True, which led to what Torridon said:
peoples in richer fertile lands put up barriers to reintegration to prevent people from poorer lands getting a slice of the their pie.
Forgetting their own less affluent beginnings! Unjust, imo.
-
That's not valid at all. Most nations developed in poverty and misery. They became rich much later.
'We all are migrants'... is not a meaningful argument at all. There are such things as nations, citizenship, geographical boundaries, governments etc. and they have a purpose and function.
The concept of global citizenship is a myth. We have seen how well the EU is faring, haven't we?!
" nations, citizenship, geographical boundaries, governments" of-course are all fictions. People can use those ideas when convenient and ignore them when not.
-
Not bad actually, Sririam, why else do so many of us wish we could stay as part of it?
You said: Most nations developed in poverty and misery. They became rich much later.
True, which led to what Torridon said:
peoples in richer fertile lands put up barriers to reintegration to prevent people from poorer lands getting a slice of the their pie.
Forgetting their own less affluent beginnings! Unjust, imo.
Ok...so what do you suggest? How many more millions from Africa/India/China/Indonesia/Brazil/ would Britain/France be able to accommodate?
Is migration the solution to the problem of poverty? That is my question in the OP.
The solution is to help the poorer nations in their own countries. Not bring them all to UK/France/US. That will only end up making everyone equally poor.
Good mushy intentions are not good enough. There should be sound, long term solutions.
-
" nations, citizenship, geographical boundaries, governments" of-course are all fictions. People can use those ideas when convenient and ignore them when not.
Fiction? Really?!!!
-
What would a world with no poverty look like?
-
I'm not against the movement of people from one place to another across the globe.
What I am against is groups of people with ridiculous belief systems and world views moving to places that don't share those views and trying to impose them on others . That only leads to conflict.
-
I'm not against the movement of people from one place to another across the globe.
What I am against is groups of people with ridiculous belief systems and world views moving to places that don't share those views and trying to impose them on others . That only leads to conflict.
There, I told you that Christians were going about things the wrong way. When will they ever learn?
-
I'm not against the movement of people from one place to another across the globe.
What I am against is groups of people with ridiculous belief systems and world views moving to places that don't share those views and trying to impose them on others . That only leads to conflict.
You are against, more or less, the whole of human history?
-
I'm not against the movement of people from one place to another across the globe.
What I am against is groups of people with ridiculous belief systems and world views moving to places that don't share those views and trying to impose them on others . That only leads to conflict.
The extremists of all faiths, like Christianity and Islam, can cause problems if they try to force their faith on others!
-
You are against, more or less, the whole of human history?
History is just a record of the past. What I am against is what I said in my post.
-
Floo, too right.
-
I'm not against the movement of people from one place to another across the globe.
What I am against is groups of people with ridiculous belief systems and world views moving to places that don't share those views and trying to impose them on others . That only leads to conflict.
You have a point Walter. People from all over the globe, with diverse cultures and religions, have settled here for a very long time, without even thinking of imposing their beliefs on anyone else (unlike others, eg the 'British', who frequently did - but that's another story). They've been content to live their lives, peacefully co-existing and assimilating. Would that it would stay that way.
Sririam, there must be guidelines about how many immigrants can be accommodated, every country has a saturation point. I don't think anyone would argue with that. However we have to find room for those in fear of being persecuted and killed. The plight of the Muslim Kurds in Syria and the Yazidis in Iraq, for example, is appalling.
-
If I were head of immigration I would ask two questions
Can you work?
Do you have religion?
what do you think the correct answers are?
-
1. Sometimes.
2. Sometimes.
-
What would a world with no poverty look like?
Now...that is fiction!
-
Ok...so what do you suggest? How many more millions from Africa/India/China/Indonesia/Brazil/ would Britain/France be able to accommodate?
Is migration the solution to the problem of poverty? That is my question in the OP.
The solution is to help the poorer nations in their own countries. Not bring them all to UK/France/US. That will only end up making everyone equally poor.
Good mushy intentions are not good enough. There should be sound, long term solutions.
I agree with you here, Sriram. But, of course there are huge problems associated with the practicalities of your solution. For your solution to work, as you say, such aid has to be delivered on an extremely long term basis and on a co-ordinated scale which no rich country yet envisions. Other formidable problems include the reduction of corruption, interference in the running of these nation states and how to effect such solutions to states which are in war situations.
-
If all the migrants into Europe were Christians instead of Muslims....would that change anything? If they were all english speaking would that help too?!
-
Dear Udayana,
What would a world with no poverty look like?
A very good question, I for one would like to see that and find out what it would look like.
Maybe that could be a topic of discussion, is there a downside to eradicating poverty, I can't think of one, is eradicating poverty a pipe dream, seems to me that most governments the world over want to eradicate poverty but it usually comes with the clause "Yeh!! but what's in it for us"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34176846
Some critics argue that altruism is "the least persuasive" reason for giving foreign aid, she adds. The budget can also be used as a tool to promote the UK's "soft power" and to further its commercial interests.
Promote the UK's soft power :o but then we have some in this country up in arms over foreign aid, why should we be spending all that money when we have our own home grown poverty, do you think they have a point?
I do think old Sriram has a point,
The solution is to help the poorer nations in their own countries. Not bring them all to UK/France/US. That will only end up making everyone equally poor.
But without asking "what's in it for us".
Gonnagle.
-
Yes it would, Sriram
-
I agree with you here, Sriram. But, of course there are huge problems associated with the practicalities of your solution. For your solution to work, as you say, such aid has to be delivered on an extremely long term basis and on a co-ordinated scale which no rich country yet envisions. Other formidable problems include the reduction of corruption, interference in the running of these nation states and how to effect such solutions to states which are in war situations.
Yeah...of course there are problems! But that is still the only long term solution. All nations need to get together to help out these poorer nations. They have the money, expertise and experience. That will also result in less problems for the developed nations themselves.
We should try to make poorer people more wealthy...not make everyone (including the currently wealthy) equally poor and miserable.
-
One of the interesting aspects of immigration is shortages of labour. As far as I remember, they have always occurred, and often in the same industries, e.g. catering, agriculture, health, skilled trades. The EU provided a quick solution - if there is a shortage of lorry drivers, bring in some Polish ones.
One reply to this is that we should train our own lorry drivers. Yes, that's fine, but then the shortages may crop up in another industry, so do we start training for that? Some people say, use the unemployed, but of course, they need to be trained as well.
This relates to the issue of 'control', since we don't control shortages of labour, and immigration is often a response to them. The risk is that denying immigration, clogs up the supply of work.
-
One of the interesting aspects of immigration is shortages of labour. As far as I remember, they have always occurred, and often in the same industries, e.g. catering, agriculture, health, skilled trades. The EU provided a quick solution - if there is a shortage of lorry drivers, bring in some Polish ones.
One reply to this is that we should train our own lorry drivers. Yes, that's fine, but then the shortages may crop up in another industry, so do we start training for that? Some people say, use the unemployed, but of course, they need to be trained as well.
This relates to the issue of 'control', since we don't control shortages of labour, and immigration is often a response to them. The risk is that denying immigration, clogs up the supply of work.
You mean migrants don't have to be trained? How can they all be innately highly skilled in the appropriate industries?
What is wrong with training local unemployed people anyway?
-
good post.
but if your petrol tank is empty you don't want to fill it with diesel!
-
You mean migrants don't have to be trained? How can they all be innately highly skilled in the appropriate industries?
What is wrong with training local unemployed people anyway?
Nothing wrong with that, but then what happens when shortages crop up elsewhere? Do we now retrain our ex-unemployed, who have been driving lorries, to be brick-layers? Meanwhile, there are 30, 000 Polish brick-layers, who are already trained.
-
Its not their skills that I question, its their world view.
-
and some world views are a danger to human life.
-
Our local Polish brick-layers are OK, they drink well 'ard, spend the cash, flirt like mad, and bend those massive biceps. Oh envy, where is thy sting?
-
I know what you mean. Where did it all go?
-
Dear Udayana,
A very good question, I for one would like to see that and find out what it would look like.
Maybe that could be a topic of discussion, is there a downside to eradicating poverty, I can't think of one, is eradicating poverty a pipe dream, seems to me that most governments the world over want to eradicate poverty but it usually comes with the clause "Yeh!! but what's in it for us"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34176846
Promote the UK's soft power :o but then we have some in this country up in arms over foreign aid, why should we be spending all that money when we have our own home grown poverty, do you think they have a point?
I do think old Sriram has a point,
But without asking "what's in it for us".
Gonnagle.
hmm.. Gonners ...
A world without poverty is not going to arrive by itself ... so my thought was that it might help to know details of how such a world could work, so that we could plan how best to bring it about.
Britain is a rich nation, we have a welfare system, social security, unemployment benefit, NHS, pensions etc... why do we still have poverty then? Because of immigrants, aid programs, EU, the rest of the world? Muslims? How do we end poverty in the UK?
-
That's not valid at all. Most nations developed in poverty and misery. They became rich much later.
'We all are migrants'... is not a meaningful argument at all. There are such things as nations, citizenship, geographical boundaries, governments etc. and they have a purpose and function.
The concept of global citizenship is a myth. We have seen how well the EU is faring, haven't we?!
I was talking to the bigger picture, of course, in which globalisation is a new phenomenon but we are still living with legacy power structures like nation states. Now we are so numerous, and now that human impact is so great that we are going to name a geological epoch after us, it seems to me we ought to be looking more to the bigger picture and thinking long term as a single human family having perhaps inevitable teething problems getting to know each other again after millennia apart. Projects like the EU show that is not a simple aspiration, but it is the direction of travel we need to be headed; retreating back into boundaried inward looking nation states will only make global problems worse.
-
Its not their skills that I question, its their world view.
Then the answer is to have an immigration system that vets world views. Would you be willing to pay more tax specifically towards a better immigration system - more vetting before entry and more enforcement? That could lead to delays and labour shortages and of course large, expensive camps where refugees or immigrants need to be kept until they are vetted and processed, where children could face abuse and people are left in frustrated limbo, with their skills getting wasted, a drain on resources rather than being productive members of society helping to support the local ageing population. Clearly there is no perfect solution and people have to balance the needs of different people.
Also, how do you counteract the effect of the long-winded legal process required for deportation of those who are citizens who suddenly develop the wrong world view? Our current legal system is innocent until proven guilty. The proving part is what usually results in people going free when they are probably guilty - because 'probably guilty' isn't enough to revoke citizenship.
Given that there are lots of law-breakers in the native or local population maybe businesses and people who support immigration figure the legal system wil have to deal with criminal behaviour as best it can. Few people expect it to be perfect or for there to be no violent crime when living in a society.
-
Gabriella
I have no problems with what you say. But it would be stupid to make the situation worse.
If you look on a map you'll see we live on an island.
-
Helping poor nations to develop is a great and worthy cause ... but we soon started complaining when newly rich China began dumping steel everywhere and building coal fired power stations at the rate of one a week!
-
Dear Walt,
If you look on a map you'll see we live on an island.
Are you referring to our island mentality?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alex-bowell/britains-island-mentality_b_1080008.html
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/oct/08/hebrides-shaped-british-culture-madeleine-bunting
http://www.irishtimes.com/student-hub/island-mentality-shapes-uk-view-of-europe-1.2676655
Is this mentality partly to blame for Brexit? Do we actually have an island mentality?
Gonnagle.
-
I couldn't be bothered to read all that lot Gonners, but I think I know where you're coming
from and yes I voted to LEAVE.
-
Dear Walt,
Welcome to the forum.
So among all your other worthy characteristics.
I'm of a certain age, un-PC, highly self motivated, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, misanthropic, with atheistic tendencies.
Do you also feel a certain superiority towards our European cousins.
Gonnagle.
-
er, no. How does that come to mind?
but there are certain posters on here I feel superior to judging by the posts I've been reading over the last year.
-
er, no. How does that come to mind?
but there are certain posters on here I feel superior to judging by the posts I've been reading over the last year.
Would you care to name them? I can't think of anyone who is inferior to you! ;D
-
Floo.
No.
Yes you can. ;)
-
Gabriella
I have no problems with what you say. But it would be stupid to make the situation worse.
If you look on a map you'll see we live on an island.
Walt
It's an island with a growing, retired, ageing population that requires a better-funded NHS and workers to meet their needs, given the advances in medicine that keep them alive, and workers to pay taxes and workers to help our economy compete globally and pay for government spending on schools and public services for the growing population. The situation is going to get worse regardless of immigrants. Got any ideas? Bearing in mind that politicians think short-term because if they want to be elected.
-
Survival of the fittest comes to mind. how's that for an idea
-
Survival of the fittest comes to mind. how's that for an idea
Does gravity make dying if you fall out. 12th story window make it 'right'?
-
Why do you think right (or wrong) comes into it.
eggs are egg shaped because round ones fall out of nests easier
-
Survival of the fittest comes to mind. how's that for an idea
Not exactly a vote winner. Maybe we should do away with governments...anarchy and survival of the fittest sounds like those countries the immigrants are running away from.
-
maybe we should get rid of party politics and replace government with individuals . Oh and I was responding to your bleeding heart emotional description of the NHS, old people, and schools. And those people would not be running away if their own countries were not controlled by religious medieval nutters who have repressed human endeavour in order to keep so called learned people in power. I despise them.
-
maybe we should get rid of party politics and replace government with individuals . Oh and I was responding to your bleeding heart emotional description of the NHS, old people, and schools. And those people would not be running away if their own countries were not controlled by religious medieval nutters who have repressed human endeavour in order to keep so called learned people in power. I despise them.
Bleeding heart? Which part specifically in my description was bleeding heart?
You don't seem to be in denial that we have an aging population. You don't seem to be in denial that there is pressure on public services. That makes you a bleeding heart as well for acknowledging those facts. Your solution is survival of the fittest, which the voters don't like because the rich benefit.
Also, last time I checked Assad and the Russians who are bombing their own people, resulting in the mass exodus, are not religious medieval nutters. Your simplistic slogans are a complete waste of time in the face of complex international problems.
-
So whats wrong with the rich benefitting, I'm one of them.
and regarding whats happening in the the middle east, I don't care
-
There are more poor people than rich people so a government with your proposed slogan would not get elected. Bit like Corbyn's problems.
While our economy is propped up by arms sales and Middle East money and oil, and you probably do care.
-
If I said what I really think I would be in prison before I'd finished typing
-
So whats wrong with the rich benefitting, I'm one of them.
In global terms, we are all amongst the rich - which is why most of us don't seem to care
... and regarding whats happening in the the middle east, I don't care
I suspect that you do care far more than you care to let on - after all, what is happening in the Middle East effects fuel prices, energy prices, food prices, ....
-
maybe we should get rid of party politics and replace government with individuals . Oh and I was responding to your bleeding heart emotional description of the NHS, old people, and schools. And those people would not be running away if their own countries were not controlled by religious medieval nutters who have repressed human endeavour in order to keep so called learned people in power. I despise them.
Many of said emigrants are escaping from poverty that, whilst excerbated by poor governments (by no means all of them "religious medieval nutters who have repressed human endeavour"), can be laid directly or indirectly at the feet of European and perhaps especially British imperialism. In a different post, you say that you are one of the wealthy - how much of that wealth has ultimately come from the historical subjugation of other nations?
-
Hope,
its across I have to bear.
-
Hope,
its across I have to bear.
What's a cross you have to bear?
-
Hope,
its across I have to bear.
Glad you are taking that attitude Walt - part of the cross the wealthy have to bear is that the wealthy people need workers to do all the work wealthy people either don't want to do, are too stupid to do, or where it will be more profitable if they paid someone else to do it, such as paying the salaries of politicians to form a government to run the country. If those politicians decide to let in lots of immigrants, then that too is a cross the wealthy have to bear, though I doubt having access to cheap labour is that much of a hardship for wealthy people.
Of course if they don't like it, the wealthy people are more than welcome to form a political party and try to convince the electorate that said wealthy people are not too stupid to run the country and are worth electing.
More importantly, as a wealthy person you have nothing to whinge about - private health care is affordable, helping you by-pass any immigration-fuelled NHS waiting lists and giving you access to private hospitals; private schools are affordable, so no problem about pressure on the State school system from too many immigrants; better chance of getting into a Russell Group university given the head start from attending a private school; well-paid job attainable given the good school and university qualifications; home ownership in a relatively safe affluent area is affordable, given the good job, as are private pensions; and at least 2 or 3 long-haul holidays a year in fairly exclusive destinations to get away from immigrants also possible for the wealthy.
Walt - you must consider yourself a fortunate person to be living in the U.K. today.
-
What Gabriella said.
-
Glad you are taking that attitude Walt - part of the cross the wealthy have to bear is that the wealthy people need electorate
More importantly, as a wealthy person you have nothing to whinge about - private health care is affordable, helping you by-pass any immigration-fuelled NHS waiting lists and giving you access to private hospitals; private schools are affordable, so no problem about pressure on the State school system from too many immigrants; better chance of getting into a Russell Group university given the head start from attending a private school; well-paid job attainable given the good school and university qualifications; home ownership in a relatively safe affluent area is affordable, given the good job, as are private pensions; and at least 2 or 3 long-haul holidays a year in fairly exclusive destinations to get away from immigrants also possible for the wealthy.
Walt - you must consider yourself a fortunate person to be living in the U.K. today.
I have every right to be here and yes all of the above applies thank you.
-
Every right to be where? No one said you don't have a right - all I said was that you don't really have anything to whinge about if you are wealthy. But you have a right to whinge anyway - absolutely - if that's what you meant by "here". I am quite enjoying your whinging to be honest.
-
Aww that's nice, I love you too, mwah
-
Many of said emigrants are escaping from poverty that, whilst excerbated by poor governments (by no means all of them "religious medieval nutters who have repressed human endeavour"), can be laid directly or indirectly at the feet of European and perhaps especially British imperialism. In a different post, you say that you are one of the wealthy - how much of that wealth has ultimately come from the historical subjugation of other nations?
Good post.
-
Hi everyone,
In the context of increasing resistance to immigration in Europe and other countries, I have never really understood what these developed countries hope to achieve by allowing literally millions of migrants into their country.
If it is about humanistic policies and a wish to alleviate their suffering, then...how many more of such millions are they going to allow in the future? There are literally billions of very poor people in developing/underdeveloped countries. Are all these people going to be allowed over the years? Does this actually help these migrants and the locals? Is it merely to find people to do the low level jobs that the locals don't want to do?
I can understand temporary refugees being allowed because of war or natural disasters and who would be sent back once the situation improves. But taking in migrants just on the basis of poverty is dysfunctional.
I would have thought that sending in expert teams and investing lots of money in these poor countries to help them change their economic conditions would have been more useful and more workable in the long run.
Any views?
Cheers.
Sriram
The mass immigration we see today is the work of the neo-liberal globalist elite and even darker forces intent on eradicating any last vestige of a Christian and ethnic Europe, forces which I won't mention here.
-
"Christian and ethnic Europe"? Is that the same Christian Europe which has actually READ the Gospels, ad-o? Dunno about you, but my New Testament has some rather uncomfortable things to say about neighbours (and I don't mean the soap opera), strangers, the hungry, naked, sick, prisoners, enemies, etc. Every time I read it, I'm challenged to see just how open to the Gospel I am - and sometimes that's not as open as I should be.
-
"Christian and ethnic Europe"? Is that the same Christian Europe which has actually READ the Gospels, ad-o? Dunno about you, but my New Testament has some rather uncomfortable things to say about neighbours (and I don't mean the soap opera), strangers, the hungry, naked, sick, prisoners, enemies, etc. Every time I read it, I'm challenged to see just how open to the Gospel I am - and sometimes that's not as open as I should be.
What is happening has nothing to do with love thy neighbour. Importing people from poor countries is solely about obtaining a workforce who will work for peanuts.
-
"Christian and ethnic Europe"? Is that the same Christian Europe which has actually READ the Gospels, ad-o? Dunno about you, but my New Testament has some rather uncomfortable things to say about neighbours (and I don't mean the soap opera), strangers, the hungry, naked, sick, prisoners, enemies, etc. Every time I read it, I'm challenged to see just how open to the Gospel I am - and sometimes that's not as open as I should be.
be open . say what you think. give it a go
-
Be open? OK...... With apologies to Ad-O, it has everything to do with love, in its' most practical form. Many of these people need our help - whether that is in relocating, rehabilitating, education, whatever. We cannot in conscience simply ignore them if they come here. We might want to - and I've felt resentment and the occasional 'Why us' rising to the surface. Call it conscience, or call it the Holy Spirit you don't accept's prompting, but the answer "Why not us? Why shouldn't we be the ones to help" sometimes trumps it (And that's 'trump' with a small 't')
-
Dear Jim,
"Christian and ethnic Europe"? Is that the same Christian Europe which has actually READ the Gospels, ad-o? Dunno about you, but my New Testament has some rather uncomfortable things to say about neighbours (and I don't mean the soap opera), strangers, the hungry, naked, sick, prisoners, enemies, etc. Every time I read it, I'm challenged to see just how open to the Gospel I am - and sometimes that's not as open as I should be.
Amen.
Some read the Gospel others breathe the Gospel.
Gonnagle.
-
The mass immigration we see today is the work of the neo-liberal globalist elite and even darker forces intent on eradicating any last vestige of a Christian and ethnic Europe, forces which I won't mention here.
Conspiracy theory nonsense.
Back in the real world, we are going to have to get used to the notion of large scale migration for which there is no shortage of underlying drivers - global inequality, war, climate change, poverty and population explosion, to name just a handful. And on top of all that, thanks to better connectivity, there is a rising global awareness of the injustice of this inequality; as a result we are going to see a rising tide of people wanting to leave impoverished lands for a better life elsewhere.
-
Dear Jim, Amen. Some read the Gospel others breathe the Gospel. Gonnagle.
No-one said it was easy....at least too often I don't find it as easy as I'd like!
-
Be open? OK...... With apologies to Ad-O, it has everything to do with love, in its' most practical form. Many of these people need our help - whether that is in relocating, rehabilitating, education, whatever. We cannot in conscience simply ignore them if they come here. We might want to - and I've felt resentment and the occasional 'Why us' rising to the surface. Call it conscience, or call it the Holy Spirit you don't accept's prompting, but the answer "Why not us? Why shouldn't we be the ones to help" sometimes trumps it (And that's 'trump' with a small 't')
But most do not fall into that category. Most are young men of fighting age, opportunists at best, some are terrorists and rapists. The truly vunerable people have been left behind. Send them to America. They caused it.
-
Sadly, Ad-O, so did we.
-
Be open? OK...... With apologies to Ad-O, it has everything to do with love, in its' most practical form. Many of these people need our help - whether that is in relocating, rehabilitating, education, whatever. We cannot in conscience simply ignore them if they come here. We might want to - and I've felt resentment and the occasional 'Why us' rising to the surface. Call it conscience, or call it the Holy Spirit you don't accept's prompting, but the answer "Why not us? Why shouldn't we be the ones to help" sometimes trumps it (And that's 'trump' with a small 't')
have you seen what they do to each other, look on youtbube they are deluded brain dead cunts and I hope a pig cums on their breakfast
have a nice day
-
Be open? OK...... With apologies to Ad-O, it has everything to do with love, in its' most practical form. Many of these people need our help - whether that is in relocating, rehabilitating, education, whatever. We cannot in conscience simply ignore them if they come here. We might want to - and I've felt resentment and the occasional 'Why us' rising to the surface. Call it conscience, or call it the Holy Spirit you don't accept's prompting, but the answer "Why not us? Why shouldn't we be the ones to help" sometimes trumps it (And that's 'trump' with a small 't')
So you think the elites and big corporations etc. are doing this because they care and love these people they import to richer countries to work for them on the cheap? A_O is right, what they are doing is criminal.
-
Dear Jim,
No-one said it was easy....at least too often I don't find it as easy as I'd like!
No it is not easy, Our Lord asks heavy questions, here is a post from a brother who knows those heavy questions.
Back in the real world, we are going to have to get used to the notion of large scale migration for which there is no shortage of underlying drivers - global inequality, war, climate change, poverty and population explosion, to name just a handful. And on top of all that, thanks to better connectivity, there is a rising global awareness of the injustice of this inequality; as a result we are going to see a rising tide of people wanting to leave impoverished lands for a better life elsewhere.
Amen Brother, Amen.
Gonnagle.
-
Sadly, Ad-O, so did we.
Depends who you mean by "we", doesn't it. My country didn't.
-
We firgit you are from one of the midnight sun lands, ad. Your English is too good.
-
I am British. I did nothing to deserve to be British. It didn't cost me anything. I didn't work for it or earn it. I have done nothing to deserve it, it is simply a privilege in the literal sense of the word.
I know immigrants to Britain who have earned it. Who have paid for it. I have a friend who has lived and worked in the UK for 10 years, she is South African (it's ok, she's white ::)) and decided to apply for British citizenship mostly so that she could avoid having to get a visa when going to visit the continent. Yeah, I know, great timing.
It took her years, much beaurocracy, hundreds of pounds and an extreme effort.
She does deserve it. She deserves it more than me, because she worked for it.
Yet to listen to the media, our MPs, our establishment, she is to be frowned upon as a burden. This strikes me as the wrong way round. Surely if you are British on merit rather than privilege that gives you more of a right to claim patriotism?
If you aspire to be British and manage to realise that aspiration, regardless of the many ridiculous obstacles thrown up in your path, then you deserve it. You deserve it more than I do. You are here on merit.
Privilege should always be recognised as a piece of fortune. Not the basis for entitlement. Not something that is deserved.
-
Many people in Britain and the west generally, seem to be suffering from a guilt complex of some sort. Wanting to alleviate the suffering of others is one thing and cutting off ones own legs for that is quite another.
If a neighbor has a temporary problem in his home (flooding, roof leak) then one can be expected to accommodate them temporarily in ones home. Once things are right again they go back. A normal neighborly thing to do.
If however the neighbor has a permanent problem in his house, the sensible thing to do would be for all others to go over to his home, help in whatever way possible, give money if necessary...whatever.
You cannot invite them over to live in your home! That would be foolish. Pretty soon they will be sitting at the breakfast table suggesting a suitable menu for the future, while your wife is scurrying around with the dishes!
Take care of yourselves and also help others in whatever way possible. Charity begins at home.
Just some thoughts.
-
One problem is that different things get listed under 'immigration', e.g. EU people moving here, non-EU people, and refugees. And within the first two categories there are students, and people doing training, as well as skilled workers and unskilled workers. All very different.
-
I find myself agreeing with T8 and with Sririam, without feeling conflicted! Great posts.