Announcement

uziq
Member
+469|2824

Dilbert_X wrote:

How many, in total, in a normal year.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,783|5478|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

the U.K. currently grants asylum or resettlement to ~10-15k people a year. this for one doesn’t strike me as a scary number that needs to be throttled. 25,000 refugees a year would hardly lead to the breakdown of society into chaos, would it?
Remember Brexit? What was the primary driver behind that?

but why stipulate arbitrary figures?
Because countries need to. There's a monetary cost for one thing.

if every medium-sized western nation took 10 or 15 thousand refugees a year, as they surely could afford to, wouldn’t that be a boon to the world and a huge help to the afflicted?
Thats exactly where we are now, still a drop in the ocean.

at a certain point your line of questioning on this is very much a diversionary tactic. the implication being ‘when is it too many?’, which you couch in economic language - ‘can we afford it?’ - when what really bothers you is the idea of a lot of non-whites and non-christians settling near to you. i am not interested in this rhetoric.
There is a limit beyond which the average population won't be pushed in assimilating 'others', its human nature.
Remember Brexit?

If people are fleeing the intolerance of their fellow non-white non-christians, what really is the point of turning their new country into an intolerant, non-white non-christian country? What has been achieved except to disadvantage the indigenous population?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+469|2824
ah, yes, brexit, that rational, clear-sighted decision which most people now regret or think has been a mistake.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 … gone-badly

More than six out of 10 voters believe Brexit has either gone badly or worse than they expected – a year after the UK left the EU, according to an anniversary poll for the Observer.

The Opinium survey – coming a week after the minister in charge of Brexit, Lord Frost, resigned from Boris Johnson’s government – also found that 42% of people who voted Leave in 2016 had a negative view of how Brexit had turned out so far.

26% of Leave supporters said it had gone worse than they expected, while 16% of those who voted for Brexit said they had expected it to go badly and had been proved right.
i mean what can you say, really. we should all listen to and learn something from the unthinking reactionary behaviour of xenophobes.

love the last part: people who knowingly voted for something they knew would be self-injurious, and yet did it anyway and were 'proved right'. love to be lead on policy and have our nation's future decided by sado-masochists!

Last edited by uziq (2022-01-04 02:56:12)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,783|5478|eXtreme to the maX
51% of Brits, and most europeans, are xenophobes, if they're provoked they'll react - and hence you have things like Brexit.

I'm guessing the 16% were prepared to pay that price to restrict the inward flow of migrants. Makes you think.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+469|2824
yes, makes you think that some people are irrational and shouldn't be paid much mind.

aren't you the resident scientist, man of reason, rational tribune? but we should arbitrarily listen to old racists and shame ourselves with acts of negligence and inhumanity because it might hurt some old codger's feelings.

i'm interested in good, prudent governance not in populism of the worst kind.

having to dig yourselves out of a generational economic blackhole because a bunch of brexiteers were drunk on images of past imperial glory and didn't like hearing polish in their local supermarket - great value for money, that. if only we as a society could come up with a form of government that didn't mean directing the country according to people's emotional whims ... hmmm.

and if they edged the original referendum by 2-3%, and now a good portion of the original voters have expressed regret about said choice ... surely that now suggests that 'the majority of the breetish peepul' aren't signed up for your strangely projected form of ethno-nationalism, no? wow, maths is hard!

Last edited by uziq (2022-01-04 03:12:24)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+575|3092
Speaking of the U.K., it is pretty crazy conservatives have been in charge since the 2010 election. Next election is '24? 14 years of Tory rule.

'24 elections will be a show on both sides of the Atlantic.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
uziq
Member
+469|2824
same thing happened during the thatcher era. '79-90, with two landslide victories punctuating the 1980s. and it didn't stop there, with her, either: her successor, john major, was PM for two terms, from '90-97. hence why new labour and tony blair were welcomed basically as prophets or deliverers of a new jerusalem.

as the campaign song echoed around the country during their rise:



how did that turn out? well, tony blair is now a war criminal and also a knight of the garter. and the keyboardist from d:ream presents astrophysics documentaries for the BBC. a mixed bag, overall.

Last edited by uziq (2022-01-04 04:09:27)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,783|5478|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

yes, makes you think that some people are irrational and shouldn't be paid much mind.
Yes, anyone who disagrees with you is mentally ill, well done.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+469|2824
erm, last time i checked, being irrational is something which everyone is equally susceptible to at all times, not a 'mental illness'.

voting based on emotive reasons rather than rational, or even utilitarian, ones, goes against the entire idea of good governance. societies are supposed to be ordered entities, based on reason and sound principles. guiding major policy based on emotions like fear or suspicion is not good governance.

didn't say anything about mental illness. for politics to be a coherent discipline and human practice, it's a basic a priori presupposition that rational actors engage and cooperate. irrationality belongs to the level of human behaviour and psychology, and we should try to keep it out of political deliberations. or do you use 'intuition' similarly when engineering?
uziq
Member
+469|2824
timely blog post re: refugee question, as priti's bill makes it way through parliament.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2022/january … ly-nothing

In recent evidence before a House of Lords Committee, Patel tried to characterise the bill as a humanitarian reform. Traumatised victims of war and human trafficking were losing out, she said, because too many asylum applicants were arriving from countries that were already safe. The 33,000 who reached the UK last year supposedly outnumbered those in all but three EU states, while 70 per cent of the people who came in small boats were single men whose claims were bogus. ‘They are not genuine asylum seekers. They are able to pay the smugglers ... elbowing out women and children.’

When the Refugee Council challenged the 70 per cent figure, Patel failed to back it up, and a parliamentary research paper says the UK isn’t the fourth most popular asylum destination by comparison to EU states, but the fourteenth: a very middling position. The home secretary’s expressed concern for women and children was also unconvincing. The Nationality and Borders Bill potentially criminalises vulnerable migrants, and it doesn’t carefully target profiteers. To facilitate convictions, it will abolish an existing provision requiring prosecutors to prove that alleged people-smugglers acted ‘for gain’.

That isn’t all that’s dubious about the home secretary’s position. In her maiden speech to parliament in 2010, she said her parents had come to England ‘with literally nothing’ before saving enough to buy their first corner shop. The claim was an exaggeration, and it has been embroidered ever since. According to a profile in the Daily Mail at the start of the Brexit campaign, Patel’s family was expelled from Uganda in 1972, ‘penniless and homeless’. Another puff-piece in the Mail, celebrating her appointment as home secretary, claimed ‘they were expelled by the murderous dictator Idi Amin in the Seventies and had all their possessions seized.’

In fact, by the time Amin told Ugandan Asians to get out within ninety days or ‘find themselves sitting on fire’, Priti Patel’s parents were long gone. Her father had been in England since 1965, having emigrated as a teenager with his own father, and he married her mother (who was from a well-to-do Ugandan family) in 1970. Priti was born in north-east London in March 1972, five months before Amin issued his ultimatum. More than 28,000 refugees then fled to the UK (assisted by a sympathetic Home Office) but Priti Patel was already part of a well-settled immigrant household.

Patel isn’t the first politician to overstate her experiences of adversity, and her opinions, at least, are consistent. She’s been an ardent nationalist since working as a press officer for James Goldsmith’s Referendum Party in the mid 1990s, and politicised patriotism runs in the family: her father contested a council seat for Ukip in 2013. The dodgy backstory matters, however, because it illustrates how hard it is to differentiate between worthy and unworthy refugees. Just as Patel’s parents escaped Uganda to improve their lives, most migrants are compelled to leave their homelands for mixed reasons: hopes as well as fears, ambition as well as anxiety.

[...]

The isolationists in charge of this country think otherwise. Almost two years ago, when a radio interviewer asked Patel if post-Brexit Britain would have found space for her mother and father, she became tetchy. Taking back control of the UK’s borders was ‘not about refugees and asylum and people being persecuted around the world’, she said. ‘We must differentiate between the two.’ At the time, the answer was just another hint that her parents had suffered grave persecution. Today, it reflects what’s deceitful about the new law. The Nationality and Borders Bill doesn’t meaningfully differentiate at all. Its purpose is simply to exclude.
LOL amazing. one of the harshest home secretaries on immigration in recent memory who wouldn't even pass her own bill.

Last edited by uziq (2022-01-04 09:23:09)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+575|3092
She was allowed in because of identity politics. And now she is a girl boss.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
uziq
Member
+469|2824
there is something particularly odious about the figure she casts, precisely because her family have been economic migrants and a major success story of integration.  her dad, arriving in the U.K., quickly assumed the most bulldog-ish of reactionary poses and patriotism. which, fair enough, go nuts my guy, if that’s how you want to fit in (not as bad as those shifty jews who change their surnames eh!) but it’s incredible the levels of vitriol and scorn they pour on war refugees now.

a provision of the new bill is that any refugee who arrives via another country will basically be disqualified. but all of the war-torn areas in the middle east which are producing such refugees only have a viable land-crossing to europe. a fucking syrian or afghan isn’t going to get a direct flight to the U.K. to apply for asylum. the system is absurd, and knowingly impossible.

Last edited by uziq (2022-01-04 09:40:28)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+575|3092
Just one aside, he is Hindu, I assume, and the current migrants are Muslims. Probably would feel different if it was Hindus.

Then again there are Mexican-Americans who say vile things about Mexican migrants. Mexican Americans screaming "go back to Mexico" at migrants. The worst type of Uncle Tom.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
uziq
Member
+469|2824
british indians are not exactly hindu nationalists. that isn’t a big enmity within the fabric of british life.

uncle tom is about right. it’s over-identifying with the ruler mindset rather than religious discrimination.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+575|3092
https://preview.redd.it/xlwo02qjfp981.png?width=1024&auto=webp&s=4a0905b2dc485bcf17845d1c6e469a74a4baf8d7
Why is the Midwest like Hotel California? Why can't they ever leave?
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,783|5478|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

a provision of the new bill is that any refugee who arrives via another country will basically be disqualified. but all of the war-torn areas in the middle east which are producing such refugees only have a viable land-crossing to europe. a fucking syrian or afghan isn’t going to get a direct flight to the U.K. to apply for asylum. the system is absurd, and knowingly impossible.
As we know, people claim asylum in the first country then go into the pool for resettlement, if they're actually fleeing persecution - and not just trying to reunite with their family in a nicer country - that should be enough.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+469|2824

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

a provision of the new bill is that any refugee who arrives via another country will basically be disqualified. but all of the war-torn areas in the middle east which are producing such refugees only have a viable land-crossing to europe. a fucking syrian or afghan isn’t going to get a direct flight to the U.K. to apply for asylum. the system is absurd, and knowingly impossible.
As we know, people claim asylum in the first country then go into the pool for resettlement, if they're actually fleeing persecution - and not just trying to reunite with their family in a nicer country - that should be enough.
'as we know', the number of people who are resettled via that scheme is a tiny fraction of the number who turn up seeking asylum. twice as many people are granted/approved some form of legal asylum as are resettled. so clearly trying to criminalize people who come via 'the wrong way' is a measure that is going to directly affect a lot of desperate asylum seekers.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+575|3092
Considering how destitute and in need the citizens of many Western countries already are, should we really be adding more desperate and poverty stricken people? Of course there exist enough for everyone to live well in our nations but it is like the difference between having 3 or 5 kids. The 3 will lose out to time and resources in order to make up for the superfluous 2. Taking many migrants is taking resources off the table for domestic populations.

We could stop bombing them of course.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,986|6144|USA

There's probably about a million variants of the political comic where the rich guy with boundless hordes of resources is pitting the guy with a plate of food, against the guy with a pile of crumbs.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+575|3092
I have no love for the rich. Eat them. But also have realistic expectations. I genuinely want to feed and clothe the needy.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
uziq
Member
+469|2824

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Considering how destitute and in need the citizens of many Western countries already are, should we really be adding more desperate and poverty stricken people? Of course there exist enough for everyone to live well in our nations but it is like the difference between having 3 or 5 kids. The 3 will lose out to time and resources in order to make up for the superfluous 2. Taking many migrants is taking resources off the table for domestic populations.

We could stop bombing them of course.
the west has been importing immigrant labour for decades. it has little to do with the decline of the affluent, upwardly mobile middle class. these now downwardly mobile people don't want the bottom-tier sweatshop work or field labour. the jobs are hugely underpaid and offer no legal or worker protections, in any case: convenient arrangements for international markets, but not so great for 'getting the natives back to work'.

this sort of rhetoric is pernicious. the total settled refugee population of the UK is something like 0.5% of the total population. i think the labour market will be okay.

isn't america literally having an employment crisis? people are quitting in droves and there are more open positions for shitty, low-paid, no-rights work sitting waiting. if refugees were 'tukkin our jurbz', how would this be so?

Last edited by uziq (2022-01-05 05:30:54)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+575|3092

uziq wrote:

isn't america literally having an employment crisis? people are quitting in droves and there are more open positions for shitty, low-paid, no-rights work sitting waiting. if refugees were 'tukkin our jurbz', how would this be so?
The worker shortage is fake news. It is real but it being a problem is the fake news. Workers finally have leverage. First time in most of our lives. I am strongly against bringing in immigrant labor to make up for the fake shortage crisis.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
uziq
Member
+469|2824
well good job nobody is proposing that. the refugee crisis is not related to the movement of american labour. the numbers are paltry, in the low tens of thousands. that's not going to swing the labour market.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,275|6088
not to mention a lot has been an "awakening" and people realised they're not oging to deal with a shitty job no more, upward job mobility and all that etc.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+575|3092
Advocates for migrants have spoken about how migrants will be able to make up the labor shortage. Horrible argument to make.

Do you think migrants would be a net positive for the nations they are going to?
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard