'Are you thinking whilst we're being racist?'

[Mr Custard]

I'm perfectly prepared to argue  (see above!), and would rather do that than trade insults with a noxious tosser like you. Haven't you read this thread at all? I advise you do, because it looks like you've skim-read it and then decided to take offense at a tiny portion of it. There's plenty of well-reasoned, coherent arguments- you just haven't chosen to read them yet, and seem more concerned with trying to stir up trouble. Say something useful or clear off.

Let's see if I've missed anything then. Your argument so far seems to be:

1) Everyone in favour of controlled immigration is racist. And probably evil too.
2) Everyone who favours immigration control really favours preventing anyone from getting into the country at all.
3) waahh! waaaah! I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

there certainly have been several well-reasoned arguments made in this thread. None of them appear to be under your name however.

[Saturday Boy]

I have at no point in this topic accused people of being racist for wanting limits on immigration

It seems, judging by the poll, there are some unsavoury opinions on here too. I'm quite surprised as usually sensible people constitute the majority of people on this board, rather than selfish racists.

Ahem. The poll is asking if you want limits on immigration, and you're inferring that people are "selfish racists" based purely on their votes on said poll.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Let's see if I've missed anything then. Your argument so far seems to be:

1) Everyone in favour of controlled immigration is racist. And probably evil too.
2) Everyone who favours immigration control really favours preventing anyone from getting into the country at all.

That's not my argument at all! Please read what I have posted on this issue. I'd like to remind you that you have added nothing at all to the debate.

[Canny]

racism clearly plays a part in the policies of the Conservative party

Which planet are you from? Do you really imagine that you can say things like that and get away with it? How dare you?

[Borboski]

I think mr shoulders? stomach is a very sensible gentleman and the rest of you are probably racist AND silly for disagreeing with him!

If not racism... well I think it's a small minded fear - or blamism.  Shoulders is quite right in that he asked the question - which seems to have put peoples backs up - but no-one has (so far) pointed out what's so bad about current immigration levels, what the outcome is for the country - except canny's very narrow individualistic 14 year old attitude.

You do know, that over the last 200 years of trade, wherever economies have flourished immigration has grown.  As much as we set up sensible processes, if we actuallly want to stop it will have to stop being such a wealthy productive country.

Canny, by the way, 1 million unemployment is a low figure - the government's record on employment is excellent (cue the backlash from the short-term contract temping vw's...)

[thomasina]

Just because the Home Office does not grant full refugee status immediately to 90% of asylum applicants does not mean that 90% are lying.  To get refugee status, you have to prove a genuine and well-founded fear  of persecution because of your race, nationality, political beliefs, religion, or membership of a social group and be unable to access state protection because of one of the above reasons.  You could be in genuine danger from gangsters, a rival clan or even family members and know quite well that the state would not be able to protect you.  If you fled to the UK, however, you would not be granted refugee status for those reasons, even if you could prove your case, because the danger you were in would not be deemed to be for a convention reason.
Note the recent case of a woman in Pakistan (who did not escape and claim asylum).  She was raped  and did not marry her rapist.  By failing to do so, she was deemed by her family to have brought shame on them.  Her own family AND that of her rapist attempted to kill her.  She now lives under police protection still in Pakistan, but would you blame her if she lacked confidence in the ability of the police to protect her and fled to another country? Our home Office would, unfortunately and she would almost certainly be refused as many other women in similar situations have been.

If your fear of persecution is for a convention, you have the difficulty of proving your case.  The United Nations recently criticised asylum decision making in the UK as ill-informed, unfair and often based on ignorance of the country of origin. I have seen people refused on the grounds that, if they were genuine, they would have made sure that they had brought all possible evidence with them when they fled their country of origin.  Conversely, I've seen at least one refusal where someone went back to their house to collect their children and were told that they would not have risked doing so if they were genuinely in danger!
The main problem is that asylum caseworkers in the Home Office, do NOT look at all the facts of a persons circumstances and interview them with a view to establishing whether they have a genuine fear.  They see the purpose of an asylum interview as finding reasons to refuse them.  Consequently, many people are refused who should be allowed to stay, leading to far more appeals than should be necessary and greater public expense.  
A final point; As Chand said, most refugees do not get anywhere near Europe but are in camps around Iran, Pakistan, etc.  But there are more things to consider when seeking asylum than the nearest country.  If you were South African or Zimbabwean, it would surely make more sense to seek asylum in the UK, where English is spoken and where you will probably have some knowledge of the culture.  As for the unemployment question, i used to work in a jobcentre and would happily swop some of the people I signed on for the doctors, nurses, lawyers, engineers and journalists that come seeking asylum from Iran, Zimbabwe, Syria, Pakistan and God knows where else.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I can say it without any doubt whatsoever. Bear in mind that I am not only suggesting that the Conservative party harbour people with racist opinions, but their policies are aimed at people who are racist too. That to me, sums up just how low a mainstream policitical party can go in order to gain votes.

Gypsies, tramps, immigrants- There is no vulnerable member of society on earth that the conservatives will not attack if they think it will gain them votes. You could argue that it is the same for other parties, but it doesn't make it any better, surely?

[Borboski]

Sensible words.

I hope we all note that this was a very sensible post... reasoned, with some experience but without saying "ah I saw this therefore it must be true for everyone, illuminating.

It was brilliant.

Thankyou.

[Canny]

You could be in genuine danger from gangsters, a rival clan or even family members and know quite well that the state would not be able to protect you.

On that basis the entire population of the world would be allowed to come here

[Saturday Boy]

Boborski, I probably agree with many (but not all) of S?-S!'s ideas, no matter how poorly expressed and confusedly he's presented them here.

But.


He's stooping as low as our mainstream politicians in making broad polemical sweeping points about what is in fact a serious and complicated issue.

He's intentionally provoking certain reactions because of the clumsy, belligerant and ham-fisted way in which he's presenting his arguments, and certainly deserves censure for that alone.

[shatnersbassoon]

It is absolutely plain to me that there has to be some kind of limit to immigration. If you went out into the world with an infinite supply of plane tickets and asked every single one of the 6 or so billion other inhabitants of this planet if they wanted social security, free health care, guaranteed housing, basic human rights etc, I'm sure you would get more people than you could possibly hope to fit into this country. So whatever ethical standpoint you take on letting every Tom Dick and Harry into this country, practically it's not possible.

The argument for where this constraint lies is more up for grabs. The north/south divide is actually fairly irrelevant for this debate. The South has limitations due to pure space reasons - there is not enough housing at the moment. The North has limits because of the economy- there are not enough jobs.

The difference between immigrants and refugees is not distinct as a few would have it. At what point does an immigrant become a refugee? Presumably they're all coming to this country for a reason, and some of these reasons will be economic, some will be more violence-related. A lot will be a bit of both. You have to search for the most needy of all the cases in order to fast-track these people through, so you have to be selective.

It is absolute rot of the first order to claim that we owe our former empire all the aid they can gobble up because of some century (at least) old grievances. Perhaps you would have it that all Germans owe the Jews something. Maybe the Jews owe the Catholics for killing Jesus. The citizens of Rome slaughtered Christians in the Colliseum. Should all these people permanently prostrate themselves at the feet of their former tormentees, or maybe, just maybe, the current generation don't have anything to do with what their grandfathers and ancestors got up to.

I would not deny that we should do as much as is possible to help those who really need it. But there is a limit to our ability to help. In the end the solution to the developing world's problems can only be attained if they help themselves. Constant hand outs and limitless immigration will not go any way to helping the third world out of poverty and famine.

[JesusAndYourBush]

The Tories are proposing quota limits on immigration. So for example, we set a limit to the amount of immigrants we let in, and then whatever the circumstances, anyone else is told to go home. That is an absolutely atrocious policy, as it doesn't take into account the change of world events.

Wrong.  You're getting Immigration confused with Asylum.


(Immigration) It's not racist to want some control over how many people come into the country.  Other EU countries have their own limits, so why shouldn't we.

(Asylum) If someone comes from a country thats ruled by a brutal regime and their life is in danger (to name one possible scenario) then they're able to come here and claim asylum.  If they have a genuine case they should be allowed to stay, if they're taking the piss they should be sent right back on the next plane/boat/train out of here.  If someone doesn't come from a brutal regime/their life isn't in danger/etc. and they want to sneak into the country illegally they can fuck right off because theyre an illegal immigrant.  Illegal.  Get it?  There are proper procedures for immigration.

...although if they've gone out of their way to come here then surely that's not right...

Indeed.  Asylum seekers didn't parachute into the country, most of them had to travel through France (and they had to travel through another country to get to France, etc...) to get here.  Why didn't they claim asylum in France?  Because France have yearly limits (or they don't want them).  We're a member of the EU too so we should have the same rules and have a yearly limit like everyone else.

...and also would favour rebuilding other people's countries rather than offering one's own country up out of guilt.

Yes.  Instead of coming here and making our country shit they should stay where they are and help to make their country great.

[thomasina]

racism clearly plays a part in the policies of the Conservative party

Which planet are you from? Do you really imagine that you can say things like that and get away with it? How dare you?

Well I'm going to say it as well.  The whole poster campaign is on a level with the old Viz column written by the Man in the Pub.  It's appealing to the lowest common demoninator and playing on fears that are ill-founded and should be challenged, not pandered to.  The quota system is ridiculous.  Howard is saying that we should opt out of the Refugee convention.  Which means that no matter how much danger someone can prove they're in, they won't be admitted to the UK.

[Mr Custard]

Let's see if I've missed anything then. Your argument so far seems to be:

1) Everyone in favour of controlled immigration is racist. And probably evil too.
2) Everyone who favours immigration control really favours preventing anyone from getting into the country at all.

That's not my argument at all! Please read what I have posted on this issue. I'd like to remind you that you have added nothing at all to the debate.

Repeatedly saying you've done something doesn't magically make it happen (or if it normally does you're probably not trying hard enough this time). I'm not adding anything to this debate for the simple reason that you are doing more to destroy your own arguments than I could ever manage.

[sproggy]

Repeatedly saying you've done something doesn't magically make it happen.

Seemed to work o.k. for Dubya & Blair...

[Canny]

thomasina, there are already too many people in the UK in danger who are unprotected by the state. I don't know of anyone who  is in "fear" of immigration nor anyone who is being "pandered to".

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Excellent post thomasina.

Re- Jesusandyourbush-

The Conservatives are proposing quotas on the number of asylum-seekers we let in, which is wrong. Plus, as I've already said a thousand times- wanting a limit on immigration may not be racist, but I still think there is an unsettling racist undercurrent that acts as a motive for legislation the likes of Howard are proposing.

Indeed. Asylum seekers didn't parachute into the country, most of them had to travel through France (and they had to travel through another country to get to France, etc...) to get here. Why didn't they claim asylum in France

You're clearly unaware of the arguments that have already came up. An able chap called chand rightly pointed out:

"It's also well-documented that many refugees don't know where they're going to end up, many are refused by several countries before they get here, many are brought here by people traffickers. Of those who do specifically choose Britain, it's often because English is their second language, the same reason that those fleeing French-speaking African nations go to France."

How about that? That seems entirely reasonable justification for their actions.

Yes. Instead of coming here and making our country shit they should stay where they are and help to make their country great.

That's just ignorant. Not only does it group people together and ignore the minutae of individual cases and circumstances, it ignores the basic facts that the majority of people flee for sanctuary only in the most extreme circumstances. These people who are supposed to be making their country great are generally being tortured or ostracised for objecting to the regimes in countries such as D.R Congo. It's the equivalent of saying that the Jews should've stayed in Germany to improve their lot. And maybe they should've done that in Rwanda, and Sudan too.

[Canny]

Accusing the Conservatives of racism is like a scatter gun insult. You may as well say its racist to want a pay rise or lower taxes or cheaper false teeth.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Well I'm going to say it as well. The whole poster campaign is on a level with the old Viz column written by the Man in the Pub. It's appealing to the lowest common demoninator and playing on fears that are ill-founded and should be challenged, not pandered to. The quota system is ridiculous. Howard is saying that we should opt out of the Refugee convention. Which means that no matter how much danger someone can prove they're in, they won't be admitted to the UK.

Precisely, and it is why a party with such a gap in compassion for the most vulnerable members of society shouldn't be given the chance to put in place their policies. I think it is extremely ironic that Howard has a lead on all the issues he made such a terrible mess with when he was a member of the cabinet.

Without wanting to sound like a mouthpiece for the Lib Dems, there is something admirable in their campaign statement 'playing to peoples hopes instead of playing on their fears'. The fear-driven campaign Howard has run so far has shades of the Bush re-election campaign, and John Howard in Australia (unsurprising considering Howard's old election supremo is in charge of the Conservatives election campaign this year).

[Canny]

Here it comes; the "I'm more compassionate than you" assertion.

[Saturday Boy]

*Sigh*

I hate the Tory's ad-campaign. I think Howard's policy and it's presentation are decidly suspect, and certainly pandering to people's fears.


I'm just not overly impressed with S?-S!'s bellicose approach to the subject either.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Here it comes; the "I'm more compassionate than you" assertion.

Well I'm sorry, but when the sort of self-serving individualism of a large number of very-comfortably-off people in this country wants to deny people fleeing from persecution the right to come to our country*, and have the state protect them, it does make your skin crawl, and it highlights just how little some people know about the immigration system other than things they read about in the paper and then recycle in public.

*I'm not accusing anyone on here of being like that, but there are many, many people like that in this country.

I'm just not overly impressed with S?-S!'s bellicose approach to the subject either.

I've said one thing I regret in the heat of the moment, but otherwise I think my approach to the actual topic in hand, whilst perhaps pugnacious is well-reasoned.

[Purple Tentacle]

Not that I agree with Canny, but... what IS persecution?

Is economic persecution the same as physical persecution? Is living in a crappy country with a plummetting currency run by far-right government curbing individual freedoms in the name of security persecution? (Did you see what I did there aaaaaah? I am Rory Bremner).

Unfortunately it's not a black and white issue, and surely it's nonsense to suggest that everybody who immigrates because their country is crappy couldn't make a life for themselves in their own country.

[Canny]

When compassion is nationalised it removes the Christian/humane duty from the individual. Why should anyone help the poor or the refugees when the government is doing that for them? The individual, left ot his/her own devices is not self-serving but caring and self-sacrificing.

The state, in case you hadn't noticed, has abandoned protecting the people and now seeks to imprison us without trial, suspend habeus corpus and can't be bothered to protect teachers, amongst many others, from violent assualt or crime.

And who are these selfish "very comfortably-off people". Could they, by any chance, be the families of Jewish or Indian or Muslim refugees who now vote Conservative?

You say there are "many, many people like that". How many? Have you counted them?

[chand]

When compassion is nationalised it removes the Christian/humane duty from the individual. Why should anyone help the poor or the refugees when the government is doing that for them? The individual, left ot his/her own devices is not self-serving but caring and self-sacrificing.

It's not about nationalising compassion, is it? I don't have the means to process asylum claims by myself and find successful applicants housing, therefore the state does it.

The state, in case you hadn't noticed, has abandoned protecting the people and now seeks to imprison us without trial, suspend habeus corpus and can't be bothered to protect teachers, amongst many others, from violent assualt or crime.

Disagreeing with the Tories on immigration doesn't mean you endorse those things though, why are they relevant?

[Canny]

Disagreeing with the Tories on immigration doesn't mean you endorse those things though, why are they relevant?

If people are coming here for protectin they are unlikely to get it

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Just like its nonsense to suggest that if immigrants stayed in their own country they'd do 'just fine'. Plenty of immigrants, far from 'making a life' in their own country as you put it have had their lives destroyed, and if these plans Howard wans to introduce ever did get passed, we would be denying these people. It doesn't even matter whether these people are in the minority or the majority, they cannot be left in the middle of these political games. There is a good argument to suggest that if we had uncontrolled immigration, there wouldn't be that much of a significant rise, as most people come, regardless of their chances to successfully claim asylum, or to attain a work permit, just for that small chance to escape their life back at home. Bear in mind the number of Iraqis that returned to their country for the elections. It is up to countries like us to pressureise despotic regimes, and it is up to countries like us to provide asylum for the desperate populations caught in the middle. That is the responsibility we must bear, and the astonishingly selfish nature of some Britons, and the disinterest and lack of compassion for these people absolutely kills me.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

You say there are "many, many people like that". How many? Have you counted them?

Who is to put a number on them? They exist: that is undeniable.

[Mr Custard]

Here it comes; the "I'm more compassionate than you" assertion.

Well I'm sorry, but when the sort of self-serving individualism of a large number of very-comfortably-off people in this country wants to deny people fleeing from persecution the right to come to our country*, and have the state protect them, it does make your skin crawl, and it highlights just how little some people know about the immigration system other than things they read about in the paper and then recycle in public.

*I'm not accusing anyone on here of being like that, but there are many, many people like that in this country.

Yes there are certainly people like that. The problem is that you appear to be attributing that belief to every single person who thinks that letting every single person who turns up on our shores into the country is a bad idea. And until you stop doing that it's going to be a bit tricky differentiating between you and a complete half-wit.

I've said one thing I regret in the heat of the moment, but otherwise I think my approach to the actual topic in hand, whilst perhaps pugnacious is well-reasoned.

Although it's possible you just give the impression of being incredibly deluded.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

The problem is that you appear to be attributing that belief to every single person who thinks that letting every single person who turns up on our shores into the country is a bad idea

No. I. Don't.