|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Cancellation of Dubs Amendment
|
DaleMaily
Apprentice
# 18725
|
Posted
In "good-day-to-bury-bad-news" news, the government has ditched the dubs amendment after letting in a paltry 350 refugees. Even Saudi Arabia, often accused of taking in zero refugees has taken in about half a million, their own human rights record notwithstanding of course.
But obviously, since I cannot offer my own home to a family of refugees, that means we shouldn't take any.
[ 09. February 2017, 09:46: Message edited by: DaleMaily ]
--------------------
The more I get to know the less I find that I understand.
Posts: 48 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
In "good-day-to-bury-bad-news" news, the government has ditched the dubs amendment after letting in a paltry 350 refugees. Even Saudi Arabia, often accused of taking in zero refugees has taken in about half a million, their own human rights record notwithstanding of course.
But obviously, since I cannot offer my own home to a family of refugees, that means we shouldn't take any.
That line always pisses me off. Like they'd suddenly get all pro-refugee if you did.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I agree that ditching the Dubs qualifying children is shameful - BUT, in defence of HMG I'd point out that there have been huge problems with verifying the age of some who have previously been admitted to the UK, and most of the NGOs involved with the residents of The Jungle and other camps have done themselves no favours by whipping-up bad press over tests that might be used to help ascertain age.
No, it is not made up that people way over the age for Dubs entry have been conning the system: a friend who was working with child refugees stopped doing so 2 years ago when they discovered that of 5 'children' who they were trying to get into the UK, only 1 was under 20, and he was 19.
All of that having been said, the government should occupy itself getting an agreed system for age-verifying in place, not slam the door on minors who have witnessed and endured unspeakable horrors.
Time for government to learn that sometimes you have to tackle difficulty, not turn your back on it.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The real issue here is that the whole flaming country is getting increasingly xenophobic. British and refugee-hatred is becoming like UKIP and idiocy.
Why the fuck would anyone want to come to this hell-hole? They leave their homes under threat of their lives. They pass through several countries with can offer them nothing other than a tent for the rest of their lives. They risk everything on a trip across the sea to try to reach safety.
They trek across a continent and then some poxy British minister decides that no, you can't come in. Because we're full. Go back and live in a French slum, go back and drown in the sea, go back and live in a tent - in fact go back to Syria and die. Go on, nobody wants you here you worthless scum.
And then those politicans in a gold-encrusted palace in the middle of one of the richest cities in the world have the gall to say that the "UK has done much for refugees". Bollocks have we.
Yes, the Tories are a walking disaster. Yes all this Dubs stuff turned out to be a lie.
But we allowed this to happen. We voted these arseholes into power, we allowed this inanity to continue.
I'm sick of being British.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's very disheartening. My wife said that courses in British values should now include racism, intolerance and violence. But that's not new.
Ah well, I shall try to understand it as well, along the lines of 'neither weep nor mourn, but seek to understand'. Or as Joe Hill said, don't mourn, organize.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
in defence of HMG
What???
On this issue the position of the government is quite simply indefencible. So, it's difficult to verify the age of people who have fled their homes with nothing, let alone all the documentation to prove their age and identity. Fine, but why not simply take people at their word? Better, surely, by far to resettle a few refugees who are slightly older than the specific requirement than to deny refuge to one child who needs our help? And, cheaper to boot if you don't employ a small army of beaurocrats to vet everyone and develop tests of dubious reliability to assess age.
But, our government has given up all pretence of human decency and let the racists run the show. So, I'm not surprised by this.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
in defence of HMG
What???
On this issue the position of the government is quite simply indefencible. So, it's difficult to verify the age of people who have fled their homes with nothing, let alone all the documentation to prove their age and identity. Fine, but why not simply take people at their word? Better, surely, by far to resettle a few refugees who are slightly older than the specific requirement than to deny refuge to one child who needs our help? And, cheaper to boot if you don't employ a small army of beaurocrats to vet everyone and develop tests of dubious reliability to assess age.
But, our government has given up all pretence of human decency and let the racists run the show. So, I'm not surprised by this.
Since 23rd June 2016 the government and the craven House of Commons (or most of those within) has been able to cite "The will of the people" when making such decisions. The Daily Mail has won.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But we allowed this to happen. We voted these arseholes into power, we allowed this inanity to continue.
This is beyond depressing. When people you thought were decent enabled this shite.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
On this issue the position of the government is quite simply indefencible. So, it's difficult to verify the age of people who have fled their homes with nothing, let alone all the documentation to prove their age and identity. Fine, but why not simply take people at their word? Better, surely, by far to resettle a few refugees who are slightly older than the specific requirement than to deny refuge to one child who needs our help?
This.
Can we stop pretending now that our enemies are people of good will and start calling them out for the Fash they are.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, our government has given up all pretence of human decency and let the racists run the show. So, I'm not surprised by this.
The very fact that we're talking about this bollocks in these terms shows that the argument has already been lost.
Refugees are refugees. There is no obligation to prove that you are a child. A person running from war is a refugee, no ifs no buts no wherefores.
This messed-up country has decided that it can avoid doing ANYTHING by making mealy mouthed comments about refugee children. The problem isn't just that they've EXCLUDED the children that they said publicly they were going to include. The problem is that they sought to exclude refugees period.
The meme that says we're full, that we've done more than our fair share, that we're a soft touch, that these are economic migrants etc has become normalised.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Why are you surprised? This is essentially what the country voted for under the Brexit banner.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'm sorry, do I sound surprised? It so, apologies. I was intending to sound utterly bereft of surprise and disgusted.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by alan cresswell quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
in defence of HMG quote:
What???
On this issue the position of the government is quite simply indefencible. So, it's difficult to verify the age of people who have fled their homes with nothing, let alone all the documentation to prove their age and identity. Fine, but why not simply take people at their word? Better, surely, by far to resettle a few refugees who are slightly older than the specific requirement than to deny refuge to one child who needs our help? And, cheaper to boot if you don't employ a small army of beaurocrats to vet everyone and develop tests of dubious reliability to assess age.
You took three words and initials from my original post and totally ignored what I said further down which was this: quote:
...the government should occupy itself getting an agreed system for age-verifying in place, not slam the door on minors who have witnessed and endured unspeakable horrors.
Time for government to learn that sometimes you have to tackle difficulty, not turn your back on it.
At no point did I mention documentation because I'm not a fool, I do realise that many refugees arrive without papers of any kind. What I did draw attention to was that attempts to gauge a rough age for 'child' refugees have been thwarted by some NGOs (and others).
Yes, I realise that tests such as bone development, position of wisdom teeth, etc, may not be pinpoint accurate, but they do give some rough idea of age.
The UK is not the only country to have problems with this. In 2013 Sweden finally decided to carry out tests to see how old child refugees were likely to be; of a sample group of 134 who claimed to be school-age children, 118 turned out to be over 18, and not just by test: when testers gave them the results they they admitted to being over 18 and gave real ages ranging from 19 to 31.
And the age does matter: as my friend who spent 5 years working to re-settle child migrants and refugees pointed out, while the lessons available at a secondary school may be useful to a 22 year old, is it appropriate to have a 22 year old man in a class of 13 and 14 year olds?
To be quite clear, I think it is disgraceful that the UK government has decided to stop taking any more children under the Dubs Amendment, but I can understand they feel at a loss to know how to give sanctuary to 'children' if they are not allowed to carry out relevant procedures to ensure that the most vulnerable by age are helped.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But we allowed this to happen. We voted these arseholes into power, we allowed this inanity to continue.
Are the arseholes on the other side any better? We seem to have a consensus here on what to do with refugees which is terrifying.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Are the arseholes on the other side any better? We seem to have a consensus here on what to do with refugees which is terrifying.
Sadly it appears that the consensus on how to deal with refugees is being informed by practice in Australia (and, it seems, Israel). Build walls, make them swim, put them into prison camps in remote places, sell them off to third countries who don't have resources. If that fails, send them back.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
To be quite clear, I think it is disgraceful that the UK government has decided to stop taking any more children under the Dubs Amendment, but I can understand they feel at a loss to know how to give sanctuary to 'children' if they are not allowed to carry out relevant procedures to ensure that the most vulnerable by age are helped.
Well, here's a suggestion for HMG.
Don't make it so fucking difficult for adult refugees to come to this country, then you won't find desperate people willing to lie about their age to qualify for the tiny sliver of hope we do show.
And that's how you give sanctuary to children. By giving sanctuary to everyone.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Lest it need saying: someone who has travelled on an unimaginably harsh journey for weeks, over mountains desert and sea, is prepared to stick it out in various slums in Europe and brickbats from xenophobic British politicians is EXACTLY the kind of person this country needs.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
To be quite clear, I think it is disgraceful that the UK government has decided to stop taking any more children under the Dubs Amendment, but I can understand they feel at a loss to know how to give sanctuary to 'children' if they are not allowed to carry out relevant procedures to ensure that the most vulnerable by age are helped.
Well, here's a suggestion for HMG.
Don't make it so fucking difficult for adult refugees to come to this country, then you won't find desperate people willing to lie about their age to qualify for the tiny sliver of hope we do show.
And that's how you give sanctuary to children. By giving sanctuary to everyone.
Absolutely. It's quite simple. And, if the UK leaving the EU results in a reduction in EU citizens working here there'll be plenty of work for adults to do - which is an incentive for adults to be truthful about their age.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by alan cresswell quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
in defence of HMG quote:
What???
On this issue the position of the government is quite simply indefencible. So, it's difficult to verify the age of people who have fled their homes with nothing, let alone all the documentation to prove their age and identity. Fine, but why not simply take people at their word? Better, surely, by far to resettle a few refugees who are slightly older than the specific requirement than to deny refuge to one child who needs our help? And, cheaper to boot if you don't employ a small army of beaurocrats to vet everyone and develop tests of dubious reliability to assess age.
You took three words and initials from my original post and totally ignored what I said further down
Well, what you proceeded to say was just bollocks based on the idea that it's good to restrict refugee numbers and therefore we need to in some way vet those who need a place of sanctuary. Just be thankful all that happened was that you were ignored.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
On this issue the position of the government is quite simply indefencible.
OK, before I imperil my soul, let me say Doc Tor's post above pretty much sums it up.
However ...
The Dubs Amendment is a commitment to resettle unaccompanied minors who have already registered a claim in France, Italy or Greece. In other words, children who are already 'in the system' somewhere, and over whom another European state has already accepted a duty of care.
So the effect of the scheme isn't primarily to protect children, but to share the burden of protecting children with other European countries.
It certainly seems the UK is not pulling its weight when it comes to refugee resettlement. So on the face of it, sharing the burden in this way is a Good Thing. Except that Amber Spiv says she is closing the scheme as a result of pressure from the French Government. So a government that benefits from the scheme doesn't want it to continue. If she is right, the cancellation of the scheme isn't as xenophobic or fascistic as it appears.
Likewise, people who say that cancelling the scheme means throwing children back to trafficking and exploitation need to acknowledge they are effectively saying the French government is incapable of protecting children.
Short version: I agree the UK should be doing more for refugees, but I suspect the Dubs Amendment may be a red herring.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Well, I don't think there would be much complaint if the government said "OK, we were expecting 3000 unaccompanied children, but there were only 350 needing resettling that satisfied the particular requirements of the Dubs scheme. So, we'll be accepting a further 3000 unaccompanied children from the refugee camps where no other nation has yet agreed to care for them". And, while they're at it they can stop denying refuge to disabled children. And, stop putting so many ludicrous restrictions on the total number of refugees.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Likewise, people who say that cancelling the scheme means throwing children back to trafficking and exploitation need to acknowledge they are effectively saying the French government is incapable of protecting children.
There are children living wild in the area around the former Jungle camp, undocumented and entirely without supervision. I think that probably falls under the "French government are incapable of protecting children" banner.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, I don't think there would be much complaint if the government said "OK, we were expecting 3000 unaccompanied children, but there were only 350 needing resettling that satisfied the particular requirements of the Dubs scheme. So, we'll be accepting a further 3000 unaccompanied children from the refugee camps where no other nation has yet agreed to care for them".
Do you mean camps in Europe or camps in the Middle East? The UK already has a programme to resettle refugees from Middle Eastern camps, which is separate from the Dubs Amendment. (Plus the UK has genuinely sent a lot of money to maintain the camps.)
If you mean camps in Europe, then the fact remains that under Dublin rules they should have claimed asylum a long time before they got anywhere near the UK. I understand there may be reasons why they may be reluctant to do that, but I think Amber Spiv is (unusually) correct in that the British government shouldn't be providing any extra reasons.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There are children living wild in the area around the former Jungle camp, undocumented and entirely without supervision. I think that probably falls under the "French government are incapable of protecting children" banner.
By 'undocumented' do you mean that they have not claimed asylum and the French authorities have no record of them? If so, they would not be eligible for resettlement under the Dubs Amendment anyway.
(To be clear: by 'incapable of protecting children' I meant 'incapable of protecting children who are registered with the authority that is supposed to protect them'. I think the capacity of any state to protect children of whom they aren't aware is limited.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, I don't think there would be much complaint if the government said "OK, we were expecting 3000 unaccompanied children, but there were only 350 needing resettling that satisfied the particular requirements of the Dubs scheme. So, we'll be accepting a further 3000 unaccompanied children from the refugee camps where no other nation has yet agreed to care for them".
Do you mean camps in Europe or camps in the Middle East? The UK already has a programme to resettle refugees from Middle Eastern camps, which is separate from the Dubs Amendment.
What I mean is quite simple, so simple I'm sure even our government can grasp it. The UK has agreed to take a pitifully few refugees direct from the camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan. The Dubs scheme was in addition to that, and was expected to cover some 3000 children. If it's genuinely the case that there were only 350 children who qualified under the scheme then there is no reason not to take an additional 3000 children from the camps. And, if there aren't 3000 unaccompanied children in the camps, then bring in accompanied children with parents.
Though I don't trust our government, so I expect there are more children who should have come into the UK under the Dubs amendment. The reason is undoubtedly that our government is run by racist bastards who will come up with whatever alternative facts they can dream up to keep non-Brits out of the country.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(Plus the UK has genuinely sent a lot of money to maintain the camps.)
This is the first mention of it in this thread, but isn't the UK the second-largest aid donor in the effort to help Syrian refugees? I appreciate that this might not quite fit the 'OMG Brexit Britain how racist' narrative which is popular in these parts, but kinda important when discussing the UK's response to the Syrian crisis, no?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
For 2016, in aid to Syria and the refugee camps the UK was the fourth largest donor - behind Germany, the EU and the USA. The UK is third for money pledged for 2017-20 - because the US had not pledged money (presumably the Obama administration was unable to make such pledges, and it's upto the Trump administration to decide how much to donate).
But, keeping refugees in camps (no matter how well funded) is a short term measure. They will need to be permanently settled into communities elsewhere, and the sooner the better. Giving money to make the camps better is necessary (for as long as the camps are needed), but it isn't a substitute for granting refugees sanctuary in permanent communities.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
While it's lovely that the UK government is doing so much to keep Syrian refugees in camps in the Lebanon and Turkey, my cynical head is telling me - because of our woeful response in actually offering these people a temporary home - that they'd much rather that refugees would stay over there than come here. Very much rather.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
If we want to talk about overcrowding go to Jordan, where they have camps for refugees from all the local conflicts. In fact in that beautiful country it sometimes seems that the only growth area is in managing refugees.
That's not a life. The camps are unsafe, unsanitary and temporary. Who wants to live like that? If they were so wonderful, why would anyone risk their lives crossing the med?
I mean, really. Take a poor neighbouring country then force all the refugees to live on minimum food in camps that never look like they're going to be removed paid for by the crumbs from the rich countries' table so that rich people never have to look into the scared face of someone whose house has been flattened and family killed.
It doesn't matter how much we are giving to refugee camps to salve our consciences, by any measure it clearly isn't enough.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
While it's lovely that the UK government is doing so much to keep Syrian refugees in camps in the Lebanon and Turkey, my cynical head is telling me - because of our woeful response in actually offering these people a temporary home - that they'd much rather that refugees would stay over there than come here. Very much rather.
That's not cynicism, that's their stated objective.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What I mean is quite simple, so simple I'm sure even our government can grasp it. The UK has agreed to take a pitifully few refugees direct from the camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan. The Dubs scheme was in addition to that, and was expected to cover some 3000 children. If it's genuinely the case that there were only 350 children who qualified under the scheme then there is no reason not to take an additional 3000 children from the camps.
On the fundamental point that we should take in more refugees, I agree. But AFAIK the resettlement programme is based on 'everyone who fulfils criteria a, b, c' rather than a quota, so they can't say 'well we were going to take x, now we can take (x + 3000)'. (Very probably of course they could apply less stringent criteria or devote more resources to identifying people who fulfil the criteria.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
On the fundamental point that we should take in more refugees, I agree. But AFAIK the resettlement programme is based on 'everyone who fulfils criteria a, b, c' rather than a quota, so they can't say 'well we were going to take x, now we can take (x + 3000)'. (Very probably of course they could apply less stringent criteria or devote more resources to identifying people who fulfil the criteria.)
And you seriously believe that the UK has taken every single person that has met that criteria?
I suggest to you that's obviously bullshit. There exist a far larger number of people who meet "criteria a, b, c" than would be acceptable to be admitted into the country. And that criteria is bogus anyway.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The criteria for refugee status is fleeing conflict or persecution. Beyond that I suppose the only valid additional criteria for accepting refugees in the UK is that the refugees would want to come to the UK (as opposed to other safe nations or remain in the camps with the hope of an early return home after the end of the conflict).
That is a significantly larger number of people than the paltry few thousand the UK government plans to accept.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And you seriously believe that the UK has taken every single person that has met that criteria?
I suggest to you that's obviously bullshit. There exist a far larger number of people who meet "criteria a, b, c" than would be acceptable to be admitted into the country. And that criteria is bogus anyway.
The answer to your question may in fact be in the part of my post that you quoted ... Though if you want to flame me, you might have a good case for nitpicking. My point is that there is no quota for Syrian refugees that can be increased by 3,000. The resettlement programmes do not have a fixed number of recipients.
When these programmes were first announced, Mr Cameron indicated that they might help 20,000 Syrians. The UK is currently nowhere near on target to achieve that. Which suggests to me that the problem is not that the targets are too low, but that either the UK is too picky about who we accept (which is what I mean by criteria abc), or that the logistics are not in place to allow the programmes to work. And this is what needs fixing. Otherwise all that happens is the UK fails to achieve a target of 23,000 instead of 20,000.
(Incidentally, this also suggests to me that the government is incompetent rather than xenophobic. If they were playing to the Ukip vote, why would they overstate the number of greasy foreigners they were planning to take?)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The criteria for refugee status is fleeing conflict or persecution. Beyond that I suppose the only valid additional criteria for accepting refugees in the UK is that the refugees would want to come to the UK (as opposed to other safe nations or remain in the camps with the hope of an early return home after the end of the conflict).
It's not just about refugee status, though, but about third-country rules.
The norm is that you seek refugee status in the first safe country you encounter. The first safe countries are now so overwhelmed that the UN has called for other countries to step in and take some of their refugees. So far as I know, though, there is no actual obligation under international law for any particular third country to step in, nor is there any restriction on what criteria those third countries can apply. Therefore, unjust and onerous conditions can still be valid legally if not morally.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, well I'm calling our government morally reprehensible even if they're acting within the letter of the law.
The logistics isn't that much of a hurdle, especially for a mere 20,000 people. There are empty houses in the UK to take them, though most will need some work to make habitable. Which just takes a bit of money to invest in the UK public housing stock - which is something well worth while anyway. And, it's only a hundred aircraft or 400 buses to transport them.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, I looked a few days ago for a petition to sign. I couldn't find one, well there is one now.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
But obviously, since I cannot offer my own home to a family of refugees, that means we shouldn't take any.
Funny how if you say on social media that you think that society should bear the cost of caring for the elderly, no-one asks you how many pensioners you've taken in. But say that you think society should look after children from war zones...
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are empty houses in the UK to take them, though most will need some work to make habitable.
You seem to be ignoring the owners of said houses. Do they get a say?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It doesn't matter how much we are giving to refugee camps to salve our consciences, by any measure it clearly isn't enough.
How much would be enough for you?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are empty houses in the UK to take them, though most will need some work to make habitable.
You seem to be ignoring the owners of said houses. Do they get a say?
There are about 700,000 empty homes in England alone, over 200,000 of which have been empty for 6 months or more. That doesn't include holiday homes. Many of these "long-term empty" homes are owned by local authorities, housing associations, the Ministry of Defence and landlords who, for one reason or another, would rather leave them empty. The legislation to enable local authorities to buy such properties already exists but they don't seem keen, probably because of the squeeze on finances by central government which is happy to spend many times more on "Help to buy" schemes which do little more than inflating house prices.
I expect many of the refugees and asylum seekers would be willing to repair these homes, which could house something like a million people.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I wouldn't want to house refugees in properties that do not meet the minimal requirements to be habitable, even if the intention is to let the refugees fix them up. Though, employing refugees to work on renovating housing stock for further refugees (and, to alleviate the lack of affordable social housing in the UK generally) would be a reasonable course of action - providing training so that they have the necessary skills along the way. But, that's not going to be a cheap alternative, skilled trades people to do electrics, plumbing, plastering etc will need to be paid fairly whoever they are. Donating time and skills in lieu of rent may save a small amount of money.
But, ultimately, councils need to be given the resources needed to renovate and build the affordable social housing that the UK needs. Which is an entirely unrelated subject - the pressure on housing is unrelated to immigration (including housing refugees) and entirely down to successive governments, starting with Maggie forcing councils to flog off their housing stock at rock bottom prices (great for those who could buy their council house, a disaster for social housing - but, that was probably the plan anyway).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, employing refugees to work on renovating housing stock for further refugees (and, to alleviate the lack of affordable social housing in the UK generally) would be a reasonable course of action - providing training so that they have the necessary skills along the way.
Presumably some fraction of refugees have reasonable skills already. They are unlikely to know the details of national building codes, but I'd think you'd find more people who knew their way around the basic use of tools in a group of refugees than in a random sampling of the local population.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, a lot of refugees have useful skills. There's a scheme in Scotland to certify doctors to work, there wouldn't need to be much effort to extend that to other trades and professions. All it takes is some political will, to accept that refugees (and all immigrants) have skills that are needed and will benefit their host nation. Except the UK government shows no indication of having that political will, deciding to follow the agenda of racists even at the expense of British values of common decency and respect for all.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There are about 700,000 empty homes in England alone, over 200,000 of which have been empty for 6 months or more. That doesn't include holiday homes. Many of these "long-term empty" homes are owned by local authorities, housing associations, the Ministry of Defence and landlords who, for one reason or another, would rather leave them empty. The legislation to enable local authorities to buy such properties already exists but they don't seem keen, probably because of the squeeze on finances by central government which is happy to spend many times more on "Help to buy" schemes which do little more than inflating house prices.
If some of them are already owned by local authorities or housing associations then surely that's the place to start - no need to buy them if you already own them!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, ultimately, councils need to be given the resources needed to renovate and build the affordable social housing that the UK needs. Which is an entirely unrelated subject - the pressure on housing is unrelated to immigration (including housing refugees)
The housing pressure may be unrelated to immigration, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist! If there aren't enough available houses then there aren't enough available houses, and no amount of bitching about the reasons for there not being enough available houses is going to change that.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Of course, the only thing that changes the housing issues is reversing the policy of Westminster government since the Thatcher years and providing councils with the resources to build more affordable homes - which will also mean that they're not going to be forced to sell them at bargain basement prices a few years down the line. That the Tories have a thing against public housing, and for private rental and owner-occupier, isn't surprising. It was a point of deep disappointment that the Tory-lite Blair/Brown governments didn't realise the need to invest in public housing in a far bigger way. But, after 30+ years of inadequate investment in public housing (both new build and maintenance of existing housing stock) it's little wonder the housing market is in the mess it's in. At least the government has now announced plans for building new low-rent housing - too little and very late though the plan is.
Also, even though immigrants and refugees are not the cause of the housing crisis it's become fashionable to blame them for it. And, refugees in particular suffer because of inadequate stocks of suitable housing - along with the working poor in our own country.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
When it comes to housing, especially in London, it's not the immigrants with no money that are causing the problem.
It's the ones with too much money that are. Maybe we should think about stopping them from buying up the available housing stock, then leaving it empty?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, well I'm calling our government morally reprehensible even if they're acting within the letter of the law.
I don't disagree with you. I think our beloved government have long since crossed the point at which incompetence becomes culpable.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
