|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 17, 2023 14:59:44 GMT
There is a classic paper that I usually refer back to whenever this question arises. It poses and attempts to answer the question "Why is it that (only) western liberal democracies are plagued by unwanted immigration?" The author notes that “… some states, such as the immigrant-receiving states of the oil-producing Middle East, are very efficient at keeping out, or sending back, unwanted immigrants.” The Asian tiger economies are equally efficient in that regard. He further adds that "Western liberal states have implemented self-imposed limits on their own sovereignty, including their ability to properly control immigration... The capacity of states to control immigration has not diminished but increased—as every person landing at Schiphol or Sydney airports without a valid entry visa would painfully notice. But for domestic reasons, liberal states are kept from putting this capability to effective use.” Of course one noticeable difference between us and Australia is the ability to apply for asylum/refugee status before you arrive. This to my mind is a very big deal. I don't mind those who turn up on our shores being held in camps/prison ready for deportation if they have, a; Been refused entry already b; Not used the pre arrival application system. Why do we not have such a system is beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 17, 2023 15:06:14 GMT
So Imprisonment. Preferably Alcatraz style? They would be free to leave and I note the carefully positioned hysteric exaggeration. Physically preventing entry would be mowing them down - got it Removing the incentive to enter is putting them in Alcatraz - got it. Ergo - we have to allow them unfettered entry until we have a hard right revolution or our society collapses. To my mind you are just signalling the inability of your political position to deal with reality - rather than actually saying anything about what can , or can't, be done You only count is as impossible to solve because your political position doesn't allow it to be dealt with realistically Alcatraz as in on a remote island with no connection to the outside world. These were your own requirements. You know my proffered solution. Further in my reply to you in the same bloody post. I suggested you could achieve the same thing simply by refusing them any help from the state. Hardly left wing is it. Why do you find it impossible (along with a number of other rightwingers on here) to have a sensible conversation without stereotyping people, putting them in a 'box of lefties' and then addressing the box. Can you imagine if my reaction to you was to accuse you of being a typical Nazi who wants refugees put in camps and left to rot. |
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Sept 17, 2023 15:07:29 GMT
The left wing/commie imbecile Mrs Merkel is responsible for this catastrophic mess, the Germans make a complete destructive pigs ear of everything they do, (World War One, World War Two, forming the European Union and dictating the immigration policy of Europe), and now we have Sir Keir Starmer thinking that it is in the best interests of the UK to have a Germany dominated EU decide how many unknown terrorists/disease carrying economic migrants must enter the United Kingdom.
We must look to Mr Putin to see how securing our borders can be done, it is noticeable that those fleeing the results of their own mess do not wade across the Black Sea to improve their lot. Perhaps a large Gulag created in some terrible bleak wasteland ( Glasgow for example) could be formed to house our new British, then there might not be so many of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 17, 2023 15:09:15 GMT
The UK does have a similar system to Australia's. A prospective refugee must apply to the UNHCR in both cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 17, 2023 15:10:41 GMT
The left wing/commie imbecile Mrs Merkel is responsible for this catastrophic mess, the Germans make a complete destructive pigs ear of everything they do, (World War One, World War Two, forming the European Union and dictating the immigration policy of Europe), and now we have Sir Keir Starmer thinking that it is in the best interests of the UK to have a Germany dominated EU decide how many unknown terrorists/disease carrying economic migrants must enter the United Kingdom. We must look to Mr Putin to see how securing our borders can be done, it is noticeable that those fleeing the results of their own mess do not wade across the Black Sea to improve their lot. Perhaps a large Gulag created in some terrible bleak wasteland ( Glasgow for example) could be formed to house our new British, then there might not be so many of them. Its a thought. We are already taking steps in that direction. Make the place so bloody awful that no one wants to come. Could work. |
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Sept 17, 2023 15:14:26 GMT
That might be about the only benefit that a Starmer Government might bring to the UK.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 17, 2023 15:15:29 GMT
The UK does have a similar system to Australia's. A prospective refugee must apply to the UNHCR in both cases.
Well In didn't know that. Have you a link to the UK one. The above link is Australia and I'm familiar with that one. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 17, 2023 15:16:08 GMT
That might be about the only benefit that a Starmer Government might bring to the UK. No, I don't think they'll continue the Tory policies. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 17, 2023 15:28:54 GMT
The UK does have a similar system to Australia's. A prospective refugee must apply to the UNHCR in both cases.
Well In didn't know that. Have you a link to the UK one. The above link is Australia and I'm familiar with that one.
Replaces the VPRS scheme which was responsible for resettling 20,000 Syrian refugees.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 17, 2023 15:49:17 GMT
They would be free to leave and I note the carefully positioned hysteric exaggeration. Physically preventing entry would be mowing them down - got it Removing the incentive to enter is putting them in Alcatraz - got it. Ergo - we have to allow them unfettered entry until we have a hard right revolution or our society collapses. To my mind you are just signalling the inability of your political position to deal with reality - rather than actually saying anything about what can , or can't, be done You only count is as impossible to solve because your political position doesn't allow it to be dealt with realistically Alcatraz as in on a remote island with no connection to the outside world. These were your own requirements. You know my proffered solution. Further in my reply to you in the same bloody post. I suggested you could achieve the same thing simply by refusing them any help from the state. Hardly left wing is it. Why do you find it impossible (along with a number of other rightwingers on here) to have a sensible conversation without stereotyping people, putting them in a 'box of lefties' and then addressing the box. Can you imagine if my reaction to you was to accuse you of being a typical Nazi who wants refugees put in camps and left to rot. Alcatraz is a prison - i was not describing a prison. I have nothing against withdrawing state help - but i can't help noticing your solution still gains them entry to the UK (ie the thing they are principally coming for). So, if this fails as a disincentive, can we up the ante until the situation changes? I thought your solution was to appoint some bureaucratic agency to oversea the orderly movement of the people into the UK. - ie to set up 'legitimate' routes? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2023 17:48:36 GMT
There is a classic paper that I usually refer back to whenever this question arises. It poses and attempts to answer the question "Why is it that (only) western liberal democracies are plagued by unwanted immigration?" The author notes that “… some states, such as the immigrant-receiving states of the oil-producing Middle East, are very efficient at keeping out, or sending back, unwanted immigrants.” The Asian tiger economies are equally efficient in that regard. He further adds that "Western liberal states have implemented self-imposed limits on their own sovereignty, including their ability to properly control immigration... The capacity of states to control immigration has not diminished but increased—as every person landing at Schiphol or Sydney airports without a valid entry visa would painfully notice. But for domestic reasons, liberal states are kept from putting this capability to effective use.” Of course one noticeable difference between us and Australia is the ability to apply for asylum/refugee status before you arrive. This to my mind is a very big deal. I don't mind those who turn up on our shores being held in camps/prison ready for deportation if they have, a; Been refused entry already b; Not used the pre arrival application system. Why do we not have such a system is beyond me. It could be very difficult for the applicants to remember names and details they gave online, to match them up when they arrive. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 17, 2023 17:58:20 GMT
Well In didn't know that. Have you a link to the UK one. The above link is Australia and I'm familiar with that one.
Replaces the VPRS scheme which was responsible for resettling 20,000 Syrian refugees.
Thanks. But I still don't see anything similar to the Australian scheme where you can apply online or by post? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 17, 2023 18:14:50 GMT
Alcatraz as in on a remote island with no connection to the outside world. These were your own requirements. You know my proffered solution. Further in my reply to you in the same bloody post. I suggested you could achieve the same thing simply by refusing them any help from the state. Hardly left wing is it. Why do you find it impossible (along with a number of other rightwingers on here) to have a sensible conversation without stereotyping people, putting them in a 'box of lefties' and then addressing the box. Can you imagine if my reaction to you was to accuse you of being a typical Nazi who wants refugees put in camps and left to rot. Alcatraz is a prison - i was not describing a prison. Sorry? You want them sent to an un-inviting - barracks, wireless free accommodation on a barren, windswept and remote promontory. So what's the difference between that and a prison. I assume yo wont let them leave other than to return to the hell they escaped from. No chance of applying for asylum then? They are already here when my solution kicks in, anyway it wasn't a solution is was just as bad as your solution only cheaper. Yes, and including the bureaucrats OOOOH. Of course the idea would be to stop the majority like the Australian system. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 17, 2023 18:40:12 GMT
Replaces the VPRS scheme which was responsible for resettling 20,000 Syrian refugees.
Thanks. But I still don't see anything similar to the Australian scheme where you can apply online or by post? I'm sorry I can't add any enlightenment. If it's an important point for you perhaps best to get in touch with the UNHCR and inquire whether they will accept postal or online applications for the UK scheme. To hazard a guess, I'd think not but could be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 17, 2023 19:08:05 GMT
Alcatraz is a prison - i was not describing a prison. Sorry? You want them sent to an un-inviting - barracks, wireless free accommodation on a barren, windswept and remote promontory. So what's the difference between that and a prison. I assume yo wont let them leave other than to return to the hell they escaped from. No chance of applying for asylum then? They are already here when my solution kicks in, anyway it wasn't a solution is was just as bad as your solution only cheaper. Yes, and including the bureaucrats OOOOH. Of course the idea would be to stop the majority like the Australian system. A prison is a punishment for a crime, while this is a condition of stay. If they no longer want to stay, they can leave. It's up to them - either accept the conditions or go somewhere else. Not a prison. Setting up legal routes will either replace the current function of illegal immigration or it will just be added to illegal immigration. I feel you would not find any compromise that leaves the UK public with any rights or say in the matter, acceptable As a for instance - in the context of the plight of supposedly desperate people looking for security, you start having an issue with wireless provision - or the fact they might have to stay in one place. This wouldn't bother someone actually worried about the plight of desperate people in danger, but would bother someone who was trying to get large numbers of people into the country. |
|
