I hope Norris McWhirter was there to greet them.
Can we get another word for them other than “migrant”? It makes migrants look bad and fuels racist bigotry
I prefer to call a spade a spade.
Also, I’m not sure that people in small boats are making anyone look bad, I think it’s more the rhetoric and latent xenophobia.
First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me
Removed by mod
people like you should be shot in the streets
Because I don’t support an abolition of borders?
because racist shitbags deserve to die
Except there’s not one person crossing in a small boat who is a good person.
I mean this is such an outrageous statement that I will not engage with you further than to say this:
These are clearly desperate people. In my view there is nothing so inherently great about Britain that it is worth paying tens of thousands of pounds to get into it on a death dinghy.
There are no good and bad people, no good and bad immigrants. You’ve bought into a lie.
In my view there is nothing so inherently great about Britain
There is, we’ve got a great welfare system and healthcare system, lack of corruption, good opportunities and high levels of tolerance. We are a great country.
These are clearly desperate people… it is worth paying tens of thousands of pounds to get into it on a death dinghy.
This is just outright illogical and doesn’t make a lick of sense. There in some cases is less risk and definitely more reward to taking a dinghy than there is to speeding, drunk driving, driving without a seatbelt, cycling without a helmet, etc. People do that all of the time. Whenever someone causes an accident by speeding, do we apply the same logic? “Your honour, he was clearly desperate. Nobody would risk their life like that for no reason”. Of course not. I’m not singling out countries for any reason, but in India it’s normal for people to just sit on top of trains. I’ve seen videos in other countries where if the bus is full, people just hang off. People scale buildings. Even here in the UK people put their lives at great risk building bonfires every year by scaling them without any safety equipment. People definitely do risky things all of the time, often for fun or to save minutes of time.
The dinghies are coming from france. It’s a safe country. There’s no way this is done out of desperation at all. Any desperation that is there isn’t enough to warrant breaking the law.
There are no ‘good’ and ‘bad’ people, no ‘good’ and ‘bad’ immigrants. You’ve bought into a lie; the world is never that simple.
I think you’ve bought into a lie that people don’t do stupid or risky things for no good reason. Simply not true.
Lack of corruption! Have you been living under a rock?
Okay, how about this. You and your mates are on holiday in Australia. You see on the news that zomg! Britain has been taken over by the Shakiras! It’s now under Shakira law!!!
You try to get a flight home, but the flight terminates in France. The shakiras threaten to kill or imprison anyone who tries to get into Britain.
Your mate Barry pulls you aside and tells you a bunch of them are going to get on a dinghy tonight to Ireland. Ireland has already said no more refugees, but he knows a way to smuggle you in. You’ve got some cousins there, you can stay with them and maybe find a job.
You’ve got the choice. Stay in France where you don’t know anyone and can’t speak the language.
Or take a risk and get the dinghy to Ireland where you can speak the language and have family and have a greater chance at getting a job.
Would you stay in France because it’s “safe” and condemn any Brits trying to make it to their family in Ireland? Would you rat out your mate Barry because he must be a bad person for wanting to live somewhere he can adjust to more easily? For wanting to have family or friends to support him?
UK is the 20th least corrupt country in the world
I’m a British citizen, and British Citizens have right of abode in Ireland. So I’ll wait until there’s an opportunity to take a legitimate boat or aeroplane to Ireland.
I can’t tell if you lack the ability to infer things or you’re just being deliberately disingenuous. Obviously in this fictional scenario, with mainland GB taken over by a hostile regime, the CTA will be suspended. And given the population disparity between the island of Ireland and mainland GB, it won’t be long before the number of refugees exceeds what Ireland/NI can accept. So no, you’re not going to get a legitimate way in anytime soon.
So the question again is, would you rat out your mate Barry because he’s, according to your logic, a bad person?
Would you happily live in a refugee camp in France indefinitely, when you have the chance to sneak into Ireland to live in a house with family, and you can speak the language?
I’m curious what you consider the legal routes for entry are for asylum seekers and refugees?
Most asylum seekers have entered the UK legally, it’s just that a change of circumstances means they cannot return home. There are also some people who may stow away or use a forged passport to get on a plane to the UK from an unsafe country. Probably not as sound, but still legitimate.
Also, resettlement schemes, if any are held. But if they aren’t held, this doesn’t automatically entitle people to break in illegally. They happen on our terms.
The issue is whenever you come here from a safe country. That’s not fleeing war. That’s just acting entitled and showing disregard for our nation. The type of person who does this is likely to show disregard in other ways, too.
So the legal routes are:
- Be a regular migrant and then while you are in the UK become an asylum seeker and seek to change your visa
- Stow away or use a forged passport (how is this remotely a legal route?)
- Be lucky and hope a resettlement scheme exist, which there are two that I can find, one for Hong Kong and another for Ukraine
The issue is whenever you come here from a safe country. That is not fleeing war.
Apart from that there is no legal obligation on refugees to stop in the first safe country, this also would mean we should not have accepted any Ukrainian refugees, they must have travelled through Poland and other safe countries to get here so by your definition they are now a problem as they are no longer fleeing war.
Apart from that there is no legal obligation on refugees to stop in the first safe country,
Yeah, and that’s my point. That whole law is stupid and needs to be repealed.
this also would mean we should not have accepted any Ukrainian refugees,
We accepted them via a resettlement scheme. If there wasn’t a resettlement scheme, then they shouldn’t have come here.
Resettlement schemes exist generally to fulfill responsibilities (such as with Hong Kong) or to take a load off of our neighbours (such as Ukraine, or ones that happened with Syrians ages ago in the EU days)
tourists, customers?
they pay organised crime a bunch for the trip
Well, no, because most tourists and customers are good people.
ex pats ? whatever term you use is a subset of migrants … they’re still people moving and looking for a better life, so they are migrants.
No, I mean a new term to describe this specific method. It’ll be a subset, but it’ll take a load off of the rest of the superset. It also makes discussing the issue easier.
It’s funny, because I am rather open on immigration, but people crossing the channel from safe countries is not okay at all.
Like the word used for mentally disabled people moves to become a slur and we collectively need to find a new word. So will the word for those moving across borders. We need to shift away from the demonisation of migrants and let the integrate into the community without making there class something to be ashamed of.
I have no issue with migrants or even asylum seekers for that matter. My issue is specifically people who try and game the system to immigrate to the UK. I actually think our current legal immigration rules are too strict.
I actually think our current legal immigration rules are too strict.
which is why they do it “illegally”. It’s a little like drugs, making it more illegal wont stop it.
Yeah no, that’s not an excuse. You aren’t entitled to come to the UK. If someone is willing to disregard our laws to come here, then they shouldn’t come here or be allowed to come here.
The migrants who want to enter legally and contribute to our society don’t think “oh no, I’ll just get on a boat”. They either stay put or go to a country that’ll accept them.
There’s a good chance your ancestors came to the UK by boat.
Legally.
I fail to see how that point is relevant. Unless you’re one of those people who’s whole schtick is “border controls should not exist at all”
Legally.
Tell that to the monks at Lindisfarne.
https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/lindisfarne-priory/History/
In 635 the Northumbrian king, Oswald (reigned 634–42), summoned an Irish monk named Aidan from Iona – the island-monastery off the south-west coast of what is now Scotland – to be bishop of his kingdom. Oswald granted Aidan and his companions the small tidal island of Lindisfarne on which to found a monastery.
Sounds pretty legal to me
