By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
At the moment you can’t cherry pick the uk if you’re from certain countries- you have to come across the channel. There’s no control at all.
If it was hypothetically me, I’d want to do the very best for my family, I’d want to go to Australia. I have family there, I understand the culture, the school systems are similar, I understand the values. Feel free to apply this to Janice and Mick in the hypothetical.
I wouldn’t get to France and stop. This is what the channel crossers are doing.
No one is advocating open boarders but we must have systems. Then decisions on numbers and due processes can be made.
Exactly, that’s what I’m saying. You shouldn’t be able to cherry pick the U.K. - nobody makes them get in boats to go there, there are plenty of other safe, close countries to go to. To come to the U.K. instead of those counties is cherry picking.
It’s then convenience not desperation.
Wanting something for your family and being able to get it are very different things. I wanted to buy property in St Kitts earlier this year, I wasn’t allowed. That’s life, I can’t always get the very best of what I want.
Why you think people have the right to move where they like Im not quite sure. Whether they would prefer one country over another shouldn’t come into it. They are seeking asylum for the purpose of safety not picking a dinner outfit.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Exactly, that’s what I’m saying. You shouldn’t be able to cherry pick the U.K. - nobody makes them get in boats to go there, there are plenty of other safe, close countries to go to. To come to the U.K. instead of those counties is cherry picking.
It’s then convenience not desperation.
Wanting something for your family and being able to get it are very different things. I wanted to buy property in St Kitts earlier this year, I wasn’t allowed. That’s life, I can’t always get the very best of what I want.
Why you think people have the right to move where they like Im not quite sure. Whether they would prefer one country over another shouldn’t come into it. They are seeking asylum for the purpose of safety not picking a dinner outfit.
I’m answering the question of why some of these poor people want to come to the uk.
It is only natural to assume that fleeing Afghans (with accompanying family members) have worked for the U.K and NATO forces in interpreter/police/military/liaison etc capacity and have been prioritarised. Sadly alas many other hero's were left behind rather disgracefully!
Exactly, that’s what I’m saying. You shouldn’t be able to cherry pick the U.K. - nobody makes them get in boats to go there, there are plenty of other safe, close countries to go to. To come to the U.K. instead of those counties is cherry picking.
It’s then convenience not desperation.
Wanting something for your family and being able to get it are very different things. I wanted to buy property in St Kitts earlier this year, I wasn’t allowed. That’s life, I can’t always get the very best of what I want.
Why you think people have the right to move where they like Im not quite sure. Whether they would prefer one country over another shouldn’t come into it. They are seeking asylum for the purpose of safety not picking a dinner outfit.
How can you compare wanting to buy a holiday home to folk fleeing war torn countries and wanting to be with their family in a country where hey speak the language as compared to being in a country alone and not being able to speak the language ?
Can be easily solved by taking the French offer for a processing centre in France but they won’t. Are you honestly saying you’d not want to be with your family ?
How can you compare wanting to buy a holiday home to folk fleeing war torn countries and wanting to be with their family in a country where hey speak the language as compared to being in a country alone and not being able to speak the language ?
Can be easily solved by taking the French offer for a processing centre in France but they won’t. Are you honestly saying you’d not want to be with your family ?
Again, how would hey get here legally ?
Because once you reach safety, it is no longer about desperation and it's about convenience and lifestyle choices.
As I said, if their immediate family were already in the UK then I think that is fair enough grounds for it, otherwise I don't think you should be able to pick whatever country you choose.
It's not a matter of how do they move here legally, being able to live anywhere in the world isn't a right. If there is no legal route there is no legal route.
Try and move to America tomorrow, its not easy. Unless you have specific skills there may be no legal route for you either, so you adapt your plans. Nobody has the right for a Government to allow them to live in their country.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
How can you compare wanting to buy a holiday home to folk fleeing war torn countries and wanting to be with their family in a country where hey speak the language as compared to being in a country alone and not being able to speak the language ?
Can be easily solved by taking the French offer for a processing centre in France but they won’t. Are you honestly saying you’d not want to be with your family ?
Again, how would hey get here legally ?
The answer to the first paragraph is easy. You provide a very broad hypothetical analogy that has fewer parallels than necessary to provide an easy reposte.
If you do receive a detailed response you add a variable then suggest the responder is not being consistent.
If the responder argues back you go through the following phases:
1. Suggest as the responder hasn’t previously mentioned similar themes on another topic they can’t have an opinion and declare yourself the victor 2. Ask for additional information where the likelihood is the responder will give up and you can declare yourself the victor. 3. Keep providing analogies/similar situations until the responder gives up and you can declare yourself the victor 4. Say you don’t understand as the counterargument is so inane even a genius can’t make head nor tail of it and declare yourself the victor. 5. Say “I can’t help you” and declare yourself the victor.
There’s Dr P’s debating style.
I find it endlessly enjoyable but it’s a rhetorical style so there will never be an end.
The answer to the first paragraph is easy. You provide a very broad hypothetical analogy that has fewer parallels than necessary to provide an easy reposte.
If you do receive a detailed response you add a variable then suggest the responder is not being consistent.
If the responder argues back you go through the following phases:
1. Suggest as the responder hasn’t previously mentioned similar themes on another topic they can’t have an opinion and declare yourself the victor 2. Ask for additional information where the likelihood is the responder will give up and you can declare yourself the victor. 3. Keep providing analogies/similar situations until the responder gives up and you can declare yourself the victor 4. Say you don’t understand as the counterargument is so inane even a genius can’t make head nor tail of it and declare yourself the victor. 5. Say “I can’t help you” and declare yourself the victor.
There’s Dr P’s debating style.
I find it endlessly enjoyable but it’s a rhetorical style so there will never be an end.
Not at all.
Once I have explained my reasoning (once safety is reached then it becomes about convenience) - and it is still being questioned, I have no other choice than to use an analogy as the original answer doesn't seem to be resonating.
I have never declared myself the victor in any debate, its not about winning or losing it's about being able to maintain an exchange of views without resorting to personal tittle tattle and posts to deflect from having to address the points being made.
A bit like the post I am responding to here.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Once I have explained my reasoning (once safety is reached then it becomes about convenience) - and it is still being questioned, I have no other choice than to use an analogy as the original answer doesn't seem to be resonating.
I have never declared myself the victor in any debate, its not about winning or losing it's about being able to maintain an exchange of views without resorting to personal tittle tattle and posts to deflect from having to address the points being made.
You want open borders in these situations, others don't.
Your views are based on feelings and not common sense, so try to avoid the nitty gritty of the debate as when practicalities, costs, resources, affect on original inhabitants comes into the discussion the hazy eyed dream is no longer something that can be bulldozed through with feelings.
To continue the position without addressing these fundamental negatives of what you want to implement, you cast aspersions on other people/parties and suggest their motives are evil and underhand.
It is an avoidance of debate and a straight character assassination's, often with a refusal to be specific or give any examples as usually the aspersions are intentionally inaccurate.
This is left vs right debate these days. One side wishes to discuss with logic and facts, the other wishes to shut down the debate with feelings and judgements.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Because once you reach safety, it is no longer about desperation and it's about convenience and lifestyle choices.
As I said, if their immediate family were already in the UK then I think that is fair enough grounds for it, otherwise I don't think you should be able to pick whatever country you choose.
It's not a matter of how do they move here legally, being able to live anywhere in the world isn't a right. If there is no legal route there is no legal route.
Try and move to America tomorrow, its not easy. Unless you have specific skills there may be no legal route for you either, so you adapt your plans. Nobody has the right for a Government to allow them to live in their country.
I like running, i like walking in the hills and countryside with my wife and dog, I like watching the swans, I don’t particularly like all the chanting and stuff before the games on the concourse, I’m not particularly bothered about alcohol. I used to run marathons but now prefer shorter stuff and my weights, I hate smoking. These are lifestyle choices. Wanting to be with family or in a country where you can understand people, be more easily be able to work and contribute is not. It’s essential.
This government has deliberately shut down the legal routes then complain that folk aren’t taking them. They say they want to stop the smugglers but won’t do the only thing that will do that. Working with France.
I’d suggest you can’t simply say ‘there is no legal route‘ then complain about people trying to get here ‘illegally’
We have already broken international law ‘in a limited and specified way’ we want to repeal the human rights act now we want to leave the ECHR which will put in peril the Good Friday Agreement and the Brexit Deal. Both of which were reliant on the ECHR. Who will want to trade with us ? We’re not trustworthy
We are shutting ourselves off to the world. I hope open day, we don’t need their help.
I like running, i like walking in the hills and countryside with my wife and dog, I like watching the swans, I don’t particularly like all the chanting and stuff before the games on the concourse, I’m not particularly bothered about alcohol. I used to run marathons but now prefer shorter stuff and my weights, I hate smoking. These are lifestyle choices. Wanting to be with family or in a country where you can understand people, be more easily be able to work and contribute is not. It’s essential.
This government has deliberately shut down the legal routes then complain that folk aren’t taking them. They say they want to stop the smugglers but won’t do the only thing that will do that. Working with France.
I’d suggest you can’t simply say ‘there is no legal route‘ then complain about people trying to get here ‘illegally’
We have already broken international law ‘in a limited and specified way’ we want to repeal the human rights act now we want to leave the ECHR which will put in peril the Good Friday Agreement and the Brexit Deal. Both of which were reliant on the ECHR. Who will want to trade with us ? We’re not trustworthy
We are shutting ourselves off to the world. I hope open day, we don’t need their help.
The family part I have always agreed with, no point in sneaking that one in there. If there is immediate family already in the UK then I agree, they should be allowed to be together.
Language barrier is not a valid excuse. I have known many people live quite happily in countries and don't speak their language. If they speak English then they will be perfectly fine in most European countries, in fact most global countries, it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
Of course you can shut down legal routes then complain people try to do it illegally. Isn't that the nature of laws? Not sure of your view there.
It is illegal for someone to steal my things. If someone trued to do that illegally I would be perfectly within my rights to be upset about it. For the thief to say ''you can't make stealing illegal then complain when people try to steal thinks illegally''. That's just a view I don't understand at all.
Not taking refugees and illegal immigrants doesn't mean anyone is shutting themselves off to the world. If you fit the legal criteria, then you can move there, if you don't then you can't - this is the same for most countries on the planet.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
The family part I have always agreed with, no point in sneaking that one in there. If there is immediate family already in the UK then I agree, they should be allowed to be together.
Language barrier is not a valid excuse. I have known many people live quite happily in countries and don't speak their language. If they speak English then they will be perfectly fine in most European countries, in fact most global countries, it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
Of course you can shut down legal routes then complain people try to do it illegally. Isn't that the nature of laws? Not sure of your view there.
It is illegal for someone to steal my things. If someone trued to do that illegally I would be perfectly within my rights to be upset about it. For the thief to say ''you can't make stealing illegal then complain when people try to steal thinks illegally''. That's just a view I don't understand at all.
Not taking refugees and illegal immigrants doesn't mean anyone is shutting themselves off to the world. If you fit the legal criteria, then you can move there, if you don't then you can't - this is the same for most countries on the planet.
Ok. Not sure I can usefully add any more. Take care
In debate, winning and losing are comparable to being right and wrong over a subject.
In your eyes maybe, probably best not to push your interpretation onto others though.
Being right or wrong is a part of every discussion, doesn't mean you have won or lost.
If we were having a debate on the best football forums and I say ''I post on this forum because I enjoy it and I think 'Swansea City Independent' is the best website''... I wouldn't have ''lost'' because I got the name wrong.
Not sure what has happened with you in the last 24 hours but your contributions are certainly beneath your usual offerings.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
In your eyes maybe, probably best not to push your interpretation onto others though.
Being right or wrong is a part of every discussion, doesn't mean you have won or lost.
If we were having a debate on the best football forums and I say ''I post on this forum because I enjoy it and I think 'Swansea City Independent' is the best website''... I wouldn't have ''lost'' because I got the name wrong.
Not sure what has happened with you in the last 24 hours but your contributions are certainly beneath your usual offerings.
It's truly a great forum to have a debate and to listen to various opinions.
It is, it is a shame when debate is intentionally shut down with nonsense. It has started to creep back into the forum regularly.
No need for it.
I hope it never regress to even worse of a time around 20+ months back when everything made a person 'far right' even when giving reasonable and benign analysis/opinion.
Those were the days when posting the undeniable truth and fact(s) from the wrong newspaper made a poster the unofficial 5th member of racist rock group Skrewdriver.
I hope it never regress to even worse of a time around 20+ months back when everything made a person 'far right' even when giving reasonable and benign analysis/opinion.
Those were the days when posting the undeniable truth and fact(s) from the wrong newspaper made a poster the unofficial 5th member of racist rock group Skrewdriver.
It is less overt these days.
It’s all suggestion, supposition and fear-mongering, while subtly but not directly attaching your views to that.
Lots of talk of the Holocaust, hate, racism and Nazis recently which is terrible, especially when it’s being done intentionally to link it to people who have a perfectly logical and acceptable view regarding taking thousands of illegal immigrants into an already resource stretched economy.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
It’s all suggestion, supposition and fear-mongering, while subtly but not directly attaching your views to that.
Lots of talk of the Holocaust, hate, racism and Nazis recently which is terrible, especially when it’s being done intentionally to link it to people who have a perfectly logical and acceptable view regarding taking thousands of illegal immigrants into an already resource stretched economy.
It is indeed common sense and moral to have vetting of everyone whom enters a country. It's been going on since time immemorial! Keeps on-the-run murderers, criminals, terrorists, justice escapees, extremist politicians and hate preachers out!
All of sudden it is, according to some it's? Racist FFS!
Now someone from Afghanistan for example who has served the U.K/NATO so admirably is extremely welcome if space is available. But there should be a barrier to potential Afghanistan 'Islamic State — Khorasan Province' types.
And on the subject of strict border control even the famous are not exempt e.g. Sham 69 were refused entry to the U.S.A 1978 because of its singers previous arrest and even today it has been announced that Tyson Fury has been refused U.S.A entry because of his links to the wrong kind of person. I consider those two cases to be relatively benign btw.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.