Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
but are you calling for open borders, traynor?
Waterstones 4 Life
personally, i don't BELIEVE in borders. i'm asking whether or not, if you were PM, you'd scrap all immigration controls tomorrow and allow anyone to make a new life in the UK?
When socialist views are expressed it is diingenious to retort by suggesting that such proposals wouldn't work in the current capitalist structure. No, they wouldn't. Why would they? How society changes has to be changed.
MAKE other countries open their borders. and most countries are becoming LESS open, not MORE. So what do you suggest?
from bourgeois capitalist repression.
John Reid is a legitimate target.
and thinking how that can be modified and improved - such an outlook is pissing in a gale
taken the intellectually lazy option.
Have a utopian vision and wave away any impracticalities by blaming them on the 'capitalism system'
only idiots believe capitalism is a 'system' anyway...
but what would you propose instead? because capitalism is the default, it's easy for people to look competent without actually putting forward any ideas at all.
i would like traynor to acknowledge that the judgements involved with things like this are fucking hard and for every decision there is likely to be hundreds of unintended consequences and that any old moron could say 'ah, but if only there were no capitalism - then everything would work ...'
but thats from a libertarian perspective. if you're looking at it from a leftist angle, its a ridiculous viewpoint to take. in fact, from a leftist, statist view, id say this is somewhat of a good idea.
of open borders from a leftist perspective. that is that you shouldn't be consigned by accident of birth to material poverty.
but the idea that you could introduce open borders now AND maintain relatively generous welfare provision is ridiculous
the man's clearly an idiot. I despair at politics. I mean really, who is there to vote for at the end of the day?
symbol tattooed onto his wrist.
i wanted to punch him.
have liked that
what john reid has said is actually that controversial. there are plenty of reasons to regard him as dangerous but this isn't one of them...
so what do you suggest should happen to failed asylum seekers?
has tried to defraud the asylum system in this country then i don't have a great deal of sympathy with them, frankly.
your typical daily mail reader would deny the virtue of political asylum entirely, i imagine...
we have a benefits system funded by taxpayers. those who do not pay and have not paid taxes and national insurance contributions shouldnt be benefiting from it.
whats wrong with throwing out failed asylum seekers? if you have a system in which peoples cases are rejected, you have to deport those people, or the system is useless.
putting people off doing illegal things is generally regarded as a good idea.
as i said, i believe there should be more freedom for people to move here. but only if that is hand in hand with changes to the system of benefits. under the present system, i have little issue with the comments of reid.
there are plenty of white people in this country who claim benefits despite having never paid into the system.
i don't want them.
let's kick them out as well.
you see my point, i'm sure.
We are supposed to help onenaother to some degree, not be left to die in the gutter if we have no income.
that those people tend to have family who have paid into the system who would otherwise be the ones who would have to support them. obviously, it isnt perfect. but the line has to be drawn somewhere. what would you prefer, for only those who have worked to be eligible for benefits? within reason, i actually like that idea. but maybe im just really really evil. it doesnt sound like something youd support.
and where did white come from? are we defining nationality by skin tone now?
why don't we just pay benefits to everyone on the planet since it's patently racist to not do so...
we have limited resources with which to help people, and in order to protect these resources from people who are attempting to take them via criminal means, we deport illegal immigrants with no asylum claim. the legal ones we help. also, take it from someone who works closely with asylum services in manchester that we spend a LOT of money on people with no claim, even if it is proved that they weren't legally entitled to anything.
work with asylum seekers in manchester. where do you work, out of interest?
in the duty room for unaccompanied asylum seeking children. only as IT mind, but you learn a lot from office chatter. you?
i do a lot of casework for the MP for that area, like
your job sounds a lot more interesting than mine!
do what I do, pretend you never received it.
"You sent a message? When? No, it's been on all the time and I haven't had anything..."
text alerts for people whose visas are close to expiring....
Jean-Marie Le Pen...
illegal immigrants get benefits?
so apart from getting free medical treatment*, what other benefits to illegal immigrants get?
* i find it quite calous that people would want to deny sick people free treatment, but i guess that's certain sections of The Great British Public for you.
this is bollocks. if we offer free treatment to anyone who comes here, should we treat everyone on the planet with AIDS?
if you think it's worth spending the entire national budget on nothing else, then fair enough...
obviously there are limits.
i'm talking about people who are within the country and have an accident.
charged if you're not entitled...
is the only thing mentioned in his proposals.
it isnt suggesting that sick people are denied treatment, merely that they are charged for that treatment. presumably itd end up in a USesque system where people get the treatment then get the bill. if you cant afford it, i guess you file for bankruptcy. imperfect system. life is full of imperfections.
something of a paper tiger to me. anyway, that aside.
what other benefits do illegal immigrants get?
any locall administered ones if they can con people into believing their claims. most likely housing benefit....
which quite a few do, they get foster care, pocket money, schooling, money for religious holidays (around 300 quid i think), even if they don't have a claim, as most are granted statutory leave to remain until they're 18.
they're the responsibility of social services until 18 and then NASS thereafter ...
What other benefits do they get?
i got DENIED
also: exactly. surely they can't claim housing benefits without being caught and eventually chucked out?
I GOT DENIED.
i sheltered one of you people once, and she got dole money despite going to precisely one interview in the two months she stunk up my front room.
what the fuck. i had no job, no money... 'no sorry, you can't have anything' WHAT? WHAT? THIS IS WHY YOU HAVE A HOMELESS PERSON PROBLEM YOU WANKERS!*
*i may be exaggerating
1 in 2 months isn't too unusual, especially if she was unemployed as well. apparently it's about 6 weeks from job search to employment according to a lady at the recruitment centre, I'd say this was bordering on the optomistic side.
unless of course you accept the hell that is temping, then you can get a job much easier/slowly kill yourself.
interview. she wasn't going for permanent positions.
or just dole-denied-scum?
illegal immigrants and asylum seekers have a really tough time here as it is. In notts asylum seekers have to make a journey to loughborough to register each month. The only problem is that they cant afford to make that journey because transport costs too much and they cant get jobs because of government restrictions. It wont stop immigration. What will is improving life in the immigrants home countries by having an ethically minded foreign policy and controlling uk business intrests abuses of human rights in those areas. Ive had enough of these openly nationalist policies in the UK.
"What will is improving life in the immigrants home countries by having an ethically minded foreign policy and controlling uk business intrests abuses of human rights in those areas" is very naive.
rather than making somalian asylum seekers make a quick phonecall to an immigration centre, which is obviously awful, why don't we use our foreign policy to IMPROVE their country. eh?
bribe Tanzanian government officials and contribute to the somalian arms trade. The somalian civil war has been incredibly profitable for british companies that manufacture weaponry, these companies have a strong interest in preventing democratic instability in many of the worlds poorer countries and contributing to government corruption. I'm not suggesting that we go on some communistic mission to spread our wealth, just keep an eye on our foreign investment to make sure that it doesnt contribute to violent conflicts, governmental instability and abuses that encourage people to move to Britain. And as far as a 'quick phonecall' is concerned this isnt so much a 'quick ring' as having to walk to loughborough in person to sign a form, becuase you cant afford the transport cost to there.
oh come on, the conflict would still be ocurring irrespective of our actions.
and not all asylum seekers have to travel to the immigration centre. most of the ones i've dealt with make a regular phonecall because they can be trusted to not go on the run...
Really? i just dont buy that.
arming other people is always wrong.
but if France were the principal supplier of weapons the war would still occur and we would still be obliged to take refugees from it...
and try to persuade france. but you can't say there's no point just because someone else would do it. that's like saying that you won't give up buying a harmful and exploitative product because 'it will still get produced anyway'. reform begins at home.
the asylum system, not the arms trade.
the issue that is raised by this thread will still exist NO MATTER WHAT we do.
I completely disagree.
I don't believe that the Somali civil war is due to the culpability of the UK
To a certain extent.
Because doing that will only help a small percentage of asylum seekers.
it's monstrously naive to say that we wouldn't need to take any asylum seekers into this country if only our foreign policy were "ethical" ....
"It wont stop immigration. What will is improving life in the immigrants home countries by having an ethically minded foreign policy and controlling uk business intrests abuses of human rights in those areas"
Currently Somalians are the largest national group amongst asylum seekers to the UK. Please tell me how this is attributable to our foreign policy or the abuses of human rights by UK businesses.
You won't reply to this.
arms companies selling guns via dodgy brokers to both sides in the somalian civil war anyone?
isnt because of the arms companies selling guns. the arms companies are selling guns because of the civil war.
realistically the civil war would occur irrespective of who sold them weapons, surely?
they will use them. FACT. Why is the civil war continuing after several UN interventions anyone? Famine as a result of corruption encouraged by various company excutives showing them big bags of cash perhaps.
they clearly want to fight for various reasons.
You are being very naive if you think business has started and continues to stoke the Somali Civil War.
I had other points, as clearly Arms companies around the world are contributing in small part by selling arms in the first place.
stop imposing illusions of linear causality on it and look at it properly for a second. if everyone refuses to sell them weapons, they can't fight. so let's refuse to sell them weapons. apologists for capitalism always make the issue so much more complicated than it needs to be. it's just right and wrong.
"if everyone refuses to sell them weapons, they can't fight"
most countries in the world have agreed to not sell them weapons. so much for your plan...
then try to tell me I'm wrong again.
and come up with some positive ideas as well.
so its pointless to discuss it as if we do.
and can achieve reforms, then attempt to persuade others to do the same from the resultant strong standpoint. this is why i believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament. if you've got any ideas other than letting things toddle on as they are because you personally have enough to eat, then i'd like to hear them.
also, it's not irrelevant because jacob needs to know i can be as pedantic as he can :-P
all members of the UN. That's everyone except Taiwan, the Vatican and a few other relatively irrelvant places as regards the arms trade.
They have the will to fight.
if people want to fight that much, they will find ways to fight. theres a pretty big market in illegal arms smuggling.
That's never gonna happen. You take all legal arms companies out of the equation, illegal ones will spring up. You break them up, corrupt governments/armies will supply the arms instead. You actually succeed in taking all the guns out of a conflict? More primitive weapons will be used.
even if it isn't the cause. alex makes a good point, i.e. it's a bit fucking rich of us to send people home to somalia, illegal immigrants or not, if we're selling them arms.
we've only just recently started sending people back to somalia though ... we refused to for absolutely AGES
is far too long. I have a full report in front of me based on UN figures by CAAT showing how this works. I can agree that other world powers would sell them guns, but it helps nonehteless if we dont have this ridiculous foreign policy.
Anyway, I do think that there should be controls on immigration, but there should also be the foreign policy initiative. Legitimate Asylum seekers 'fail' because they are forced to do ridiculous things like going to loughborough from nottingham to register when they have all the resources here. I dont think that reids proposals are the right way to go on their own, and i certainly beleive that we have a responsibility to help other countries out, though you may not. A time is not far off, however, when things will come back round and bite us in the ass.
"Legitimate Asylum seekers 'fail' because they are forced to do ridiculous things like going to loughborough from nottingham to register when they have all the resources here"
the government has all the resources for legitimate asylum seekers to register in nottingham, instead of loughborough? clearer?
"i certainly beleive that we have a responsibility to help other countries out, though you may not"
nobody has said that we shouldn't help other countries. some people have just denied that this will rid the world of the need for political asylum...
particular incendiary about British weapons? am i missing something here?
we're not being any more naive then usual. I thought you were nice :-(
that there will be an awful lot of people leaving somalia to claim asylum in any event.
would alex_b support the govt. if they said they would punish those arms dealers who have broken the UN embargo and do everything possible to resolve the conflict in Somalia and AT THE SAME TIME refuse to take a single asylum seeker from that country?
that would be an inconsistent stance to take. by doing that, the govt would be admitting that there's a problem there - and therefore giving themselves a moral obligation to help people fleeing from said problem. the solution to benefit fraud is to let them work legally! if you can find a foolproof method of distinguishing those who will not from those who cannot, then deport away.
claimed that we wouldn't NEED to take asylum seekers if we changed our foreign policy and punished british businesses that flouted international law.
glad to see you agree that that is bollocks.
no, we wouldn't need to. every country has not done that. let's start with ours. simple enough?
alex_b was desperate to find a way to blame Britain for the numbers of people who illegally enter.
There is a moral case for international development, peacekeeping and conflict resolution. But it's not so intimately tied into the debate on asylum.
but yeh, good post.
it was a reasoned conclusion to that strand of debate.
and i'm sorry if it came across that way. I just think that the government is in denail about the fact that it is partly responsible for these problems. Ex_cynic is right. I dont think that any immigrants come here simply to mooch. i think that they see opportunity here for those that work hard and a chance to live and work without fear of being shot, bombed or having no food. The government should invest in training schemes for these people to counterbalance our lack of skilled labour that we are currently experiencing. You do run the risk of creating an underclass then.
Personally i'm a lot more left than this, i am opposed to capitalism and the false democracy it creates, but then i also beleive in working with what you have.
"I dont think that any immigrants come here simply to mooch"
none of them? do you think nobody in the UK does either? Don't get me wrong - most people are reasonable, moderate, industrious, want the best for their kids etc.
I rememer attending a briefing about the value of remittances sent by immigrants back to their families and how much larger they were in value than the amount spent by DfID in foreign aid and assistance. This is why I would principally support a very liberal approach to allowing people to work in this country - that it would be leftist and would raise the standard of living in other countries and all that guff.
an Uzbekistani works in pizza hut on minimum wage, he will make enough money to feed a family of four who all work on state enforced cotton farms being paid the equivaent of 2 dollars a week by the uzbek government. The british governemtn has financially supported the uzbek government and given it open endorsement. Heres where it works both ways you see?
"The british governemtn has financially supported the uzbek government"
no it hasn't. and it would be extremely difficult to send remittances to uzbekistan. you're right on the principle but you have chosen a dreadful example.
we gave them money to station troops there along with the americans. We also openly call them partners in the war on terror. if youd have wanted to pick a hole in that youd have said that leaving uzbekistan is nigh on impossible. Which is right, because you need exit visas and internal visas. But yeah, i'm glad we can agree on stuff. I was being a little naive earlier but i do think that our reform should lead the way for other countries. The message we send out to the international community at the moment is 'be corrupt and youll be rewarded, and trust us, we know the way to wealth- just look at our houses and cars.' It shouldnt be like this.
british military bases in uzbekistan and the UK abandoned bilateral financial assistance to Uzbekistan in something like 2004.
I don't really see that we openly call them 'partners in the war on terror' although they are allies behind closed doors.
on someone not being nice
his relentless negativity is an insult to both his intelligence and his suave northern charm
in real life, positive solutions to problems have to be posited and acted on. try it out.
how about people stop fighting? will that do?
at least now we know you'd actually like that to happen, and can start talking...
how are you?
we need some friendly posts in here.
ruins of castles and grilled tomatoes.
Grilling Tomatoes in the ruins of Castles?
and split political differences into ridiculous left/right camps.
I like how John Reid makes people call him Doctor, even though his doctorate was about how Communism was awesome.
Trut So Pure. The title was actually "Communism Is Awesome! Discuss With Examples"
that alistair darling once threw eggs at george galloway at edinburgh waverley because galloway wasn't far enough to the left.
thats fucking hilarious. Waverly is the sort of place where a good egging is very easy....
the examples bit was probably quite difficult.
I assume he just started with Lada and Paul MacCartney in Red Square and the rest just wrote itself.
about failed asylum seekers.
and that is being generous....
used to fancy John Reid
She doesn't like him much anymore for very good reasons
his top lip has disappeared?
or because the man has become a raving reactionary lunatic
I'm not sure
probably the best post in an otherwise sad thread
we want FAXTZ!
"yo_soy is rly kwl" Anonymous, 2006
we want FAZ1!