There is nothing immoral about wanting to control the number of people entering a country. The EU has always done it, as UK nationals have discovered since Brexit. Is that immoral? Every major economy in the world controls immigration. Just try getting into Australia to live if you don't fit their criteria.
Until there is a truly effective way of differentiating between genuine refugees and economic migrants those with a genuine need are going to be caught up in the net designed to stop economic migrants.
There is nothing immoral about wanting to control the number of people entering a country. The EU has always done it, as UK nationals have discovered since Brexit. Is that immoral? Every major economy in the world controls immigration. Just try getting into Australia to live if you don't fit their criteria.
If only the First Nation People had done it a few hundred years ago eh?
I wonder how many people the native Americans wanted? What about India? What about the aborigines? Or is power then always right?
Didn't we ship our criminals around the world? Weren't Australia and America both used as penal colonies? Were they legit refugees from the UK? Added: Were they migrating by force - or did some also migrate for econonmic reasons? The vary thing you rail against when others do it now.
Who runs Australia again? Equality eh? How many indigenous peoples form the majority of any government in colonised countries?
Thats brilliant @debs64 The world is a complete mess with people full of greed, fear and the belief that they alone are always in the right. Unfortunately most of those that feel like this are the ones in power.
I am hating the aftermath of Brexit with OH (we aren't legally married) living in the UK and me in France. I have dual nationality so I can travel between the two but he is UK resident so we now have to plan out his Brexit allowance. I have many friends and acquaintances in France who are restricted by Brexit and starting to feel less welcome, though it isn't the fault of the French. Boris's agreement wasn't thought out properly.
Dordogne and Norfolk. Clay in Dordogne, sandy in Norfolk.
Nothing Boris does is properly thought thru because, even when he has a good idea, he gets bored with the details and either rushes or abandons the project. Fine when it's a stupid garden bridge but not good when it affects the lives of millions.
Given that both the current PM nor the Home Secretary are of immigrant stock and supposed to be clever and welleducated, you'd think they'd come up with a system that can differentiate between economic migrants and those in danger for political or ethnic reasons and implement it quickly and effectively and, most importantly, with kindness for those really in need. That last part also applies to domestic policy for helping teh disadvantaged at home.
Vendée - 20kms from Atlantic coast.
"The price good men (and women) pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men (and women)."
But we want economic migrants don't we? Isn't that the point? Even with 500,000 immigrants last year, we seemingly still have vacancies. Don't we want people to come here to pick fruit and to become nurses? Isn't that economic? What is the immigration policy that was applied to the 450,000?
Throughout our time in the EU , AFAIK, we still controlled our borders in as much as we had a say over who came in from non-EU countries. When Cameron made his 'tens of thousands' comment , in that year I think we had 200,000 immigrants, of which 40% were EU - so 120,000 controllable. They had 'control' even when we were in the EU, but just didn't exercise it. What changes has anyone seen since Brexit - or since Cameron's comment?
If you start giving out signals that people will be deported, why come even as an economic migrant? Look what a scandal Windrush turned out to be (https://www.jcwi.org.uk/windrush-scandal-explained) - people, years after the event being sent back to a home they never really lived in. And this gov wants more and more draconian legislation and at the same time want people to come here? Let me think about that......
There are legal routes of entry for economic migrants, although the Government needs to open its eyes to the fact that there actually is a requirement for them. That doesn't alter the fact that we need people who have the skillsets that we need, not just anybody who thinks they will have an easy time by coming here.
And you can't claim asylum unless you're in this country..
So of the 450,000 what roles did they fill? Presumably we don't need any more nurses now. And if we only even want people who fill skillsets, how does that fit with Ukraine (150k+), Afghanistan (?k), Hong Kong (150k+)? As I asked earlier, what then is the difference between legal and illegal immigration?
Why is the focus on 50,000 rather than 450,000? Maybe it's because a point is being proven - 'we are in control of our borders' (even if that point's focus is only 10% of immigration) and an election is coming where a quick result is required (and they hope to appeal to patriotic, 'true','make Britain Great Again Brits)?
The nationalistic b*ll*cks of 'you can't be a patriot' if you disagree with us is what all despotic leaderships use isn't it? They are the sole patriots.
Posts
The world is a complete mess with people full of greed, fear and the belief that they alone are always in the right. Unfortunately most of those that feel like this are the ones in power.
I am hating the aftermath of Brexit with OH (we aren't legally married) living in the UK and me in France. I have dual nationality so I can travel between the two but he is UK resident so we now have to plan out his Brexit allowance. I have many friends and acquaintances in France who are restricted by Brexit and starting to feel less welcome, though it isn't the fault of the French. Boris's agreement wasn't thought out properly.
Given that both the current PM nor the Home Secretary are of immigrant stock and supposed to be clever and welleducated, you'd think they'd come up with a system that can differentiate between economic migrants and those in danger for political or ethnic reasons and implement it quickly and effectively and, most importantly, with kindness for those really in need. That last part also applies to domestic policy for helping teh disadvantaged at home.