Current Affairs The benefits of Brexit Page

[Disgruntledgoat]

How? Enlighten me.

Non-white immigration to Australia was, ironically, illegal until 1971. They keep it a bit more under-wraps now, merely holding asylum seekers on prisons off shore in which suicide and self mutilation are, due to the appalling conditions, routine. Their points system is still slanted in favour of European immigration. Their government is now blaming a 30 year failure to invest in infrastructure in their big cities on migrants "crowding" the place.

 

[tremont]

Non-white immigration to Australia was, ironically, illegal until 1971. They keep it a bit more under-wraps now, merely holding asylum seekers on prisons off shore in which suicide and self mutilation are, due to the appalling conditions, routine. Their points system is still slanted in favour of European immigration. Their government is now blaming a 30 year failure to invest in infrastructure in their big cities on migrants "crowding" the place.

So the policy is not racist, but the execution of the policy is.

You seem to know a thing or two on this. I am not too bright on this. Can you please give me a few of the highlights with regards to our immigration policy with regards to Non-EU countries. Is it stricter? Is there a point system in place? Has there always been a points system in place? That is a genuine question.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Yeah. Erm. Diplomacy.

It's a bit like your own breaking bad moment now you're free from mod duties!

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

Or calling someone a racist because they voted to leave the EU.

Exactly, that's extremely plausible. Thanks.

 

[tremont]

Anyone that voted to leave the EU, have been labelled many things - racist, bigoted, xenophobic, uneducated, gammon etc. We have all witnessed this. Many of you on here are guilty of that.

Here’s a couple of questions:-

Why should the immigration policy be any different for white European migrants, compared to non-white migrants?
Why should non-whites have to go through a points system, but white Europeans don’t?

Here’s the thing:-

The people thinking the immigration policy should be more relaxed for white European migrants compared to non-white migrants might want to think again before calling anyone a racist.

 

[Jebus_lives]

But at the time of entry, those things would have been in the future. This person had only a PhD. That is all we know from that tweet. We don't know if there was employment, and we don't know if, at the time, she could speak the language. We can't use "seems like a nice person" in the decision making process. At the time, nobody would have known anything about what type of person we were dealing with. We can't use hindsight to make a judgement on this. Nobody is saying this person can't enter the country. We are saying you are welcome here, if you meet the criteria, and if your skills are needed.

With regards to the serial killer line - This was used as an example to underline my point on hindsight. I am not really sure why people are making such a big deal about that.

Here is a genuine question:-

Do you agree with the UK immigration policy with regards to non-EU countries?

A. A tiny bit of research would suggest her value to the UK, based on her education and position she took within the University when entering the country.

B. You keep mentioning hindsight, but it's not really accurate as we didn't have there proposed system in place at the time of entry, and all we have is a comparison of what the situation would be in the future. Objectively, we can look at her achievements and value and suggest that under the proposed system, the UK would be denying entry to a valuable contributor to society. As such, the suggestion would be that the proposed system is flawed.

C. The serial killer line was ridiculous, as any country would deny that individual entry and, there is no measure, in any immigration system that would identify future intention or criminal intent for those that have never exhibited this behavior before. Minority Report is not yet a reality.

D. The current system or the proposed system?

 

[Jebus_lives]

Anyone that voted to leave the EU, have been labelled many things - racist, bigoted, xenophobic, uneducated, gammon etc. We have all witnessed this. Many of you on here are guilty of that.

Here’s a couple of questions:-

Why should the immigration policy be any different for white European migrants, compared to non-white migrants?
Why should non-whites have to go through a points system, but white Europeans don’t?

Here’s the thing:-

The people thinking the immigration policy should be more relaxed for white European migrants compared to non-white migrants might want to think again before calling anyone a racist.

Do non white EU citizens not have the same rights as white EU citizens?

And the answer to the question 'why do EU citizens not have to undergo the same systems as non EU citizens?' is: one group is in a economic and political Union which holds free movement of people as a fundamental freedom and the other groups are not.

 

[Jebus_lives]

This is my point. I am basing what I know from that tweet. I have never stated otherwise. And from only that tweet, we only know she had a PhD when she gained entry to the UK. If that is the only thing she had, then she has no cause for complaint.

What she did after gaining access to the UK is not relevant in this.

It's fundamental to the discussion as it's concerning the benefits of the proposed system. Otherwise why are you debating the point?

 

[The binman chronicles]

Well one benefit is not going to be fuel for Joey's fire...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51581817

But but but it must be the fault of the EU!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It's a bit like your own breaking bad moment now you're free from mod duties!

I know, it's not great. Soz like.

 

[tremont]

A. A tiny bit of research would suggest her value to the UK, based on her education and position she took within the University when entering the country.

B. You keep mentioning hindsight, but it's not really accurate as we didn't have there proposed system in place at the time of entry, and all we have is a comparison of what the situation would be in the future. Objectively, we can look at her achievements and value and suggest that under the proposed system, the UK would be denying entry to a valuable contributor to society. As such, the suggestion would be that the proposed system is flawed.

C. The serial killer line was ridiculous, as any country would deny that individual entry and, there is no measure, in any immigration system that would identify future intention or criminal intent for those that have never exhibited this behavior before. Minority Report is not yet a reality.

D. The current system or the proposed system?

A. A tiny bit of research would suggest her value to the UK, based on her education and position she took within the University when entering the country.

I am addressing the tweet only. This has always been my point. I am suggesting that if all we have, with regards to the time she entered the UK, is the information on the tweet, then no - she should not gain entry (under the proposed criteria). Whatever happened after she entered the country is not relevant, because that information was not available at the time of entry.

B. You keep mentioning hindsight, but it's not really accurate as we didn't have there proposed system in place at the time of entry, and all we have is a comparison of what the situation would be in the future. Objectively, we can look at her achievements and value and suggest that under the proposed system, the UK would be denying entry to a valuable contributor to society. As such, the suggestion would be that the proposed system is flawed.

This person is claiming that she would not be granted access to the UK, under the proposed system. The proposed system may be flawed, but as it stands, the decision to deny her access - based on the points she would gain - is the correct one. Nobody is denying she hasn't made a great contribution to society. Allowances cannot be made for her because she has a PhD. The PhD is, at the time of entry, the only positive thing in the tweet.

C. The serial killer line was ridiculous, as any country would deny that individual entry and, there is no measure, in any immigration system that would identify future intention or criminal intent for those that have never exhibited this behavior before. Minority Report is not yet a reality.

You are correct - the serial killer line is ridiculous. It was used as an extreme example. It was used to highlight the fact that we didn't know who this woman was at the time of entry.

D. The current system or the proposed system?

The proposed system.

Here is a scenario:-

The proposed system is now up and running. Two people are looking to move to the UK. Both have background checks completed, and both are good to go. Neither speak English, and neither have employment arranged. Both seem like nice people. One is a female with a PhD from Poland. The other is male with a PhD from Nigeria. What do you do? Do you let both in? Because they both have PhDs. Do you let neither in? As neither gain the points the criteria demands?

The answer to that has to be "Neither".

 

[Jebus_lives]

I know, it's not great. Soz like.

I'm liking it. Shave your head, get a camper van and start taking names!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It's fundamental to the discussion as it's concerning the benefits of the proposed system. Otherwise why are you debating the point?

Indeed. "the criteria says she's a wrong un, and who cares if the subsequent evidence clearly shows that is wrong, I'm gonna stick with my irrational belief in the criteria"

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

It's a bit like your own breaking bad moment now you're free from mod duties!

Bruce is a maverick, he doesn't play by their rules but, god damn it, he gets results and if those pencil pushers in city hall think they can take him off the case, they can go screw themselves.

 

[Jebus_lives]

A. A tiny bit of research would suggest her value to the UK, based on her education and position she took within the University when entering the country.

I am addressing the tweet only. This has always been my point. I am suggesting that if all we have, with regards to the time she entered the UK, is the information on the tweet, then no - she should not gain entry (under the proposed criteria). Whatever happened after she entered the country is not relevant, because that information was not available at the time of entry.

B. You keep mentioning hindsight, but it's not really accurate as we didn't have there proposed system in place at the time of entry, and all we have is a comparison of what the situation would be in the future. Objectively, we can look at her achievements and value and suggest that under the proposed system, the UK would be denying entry to a valuable contributor to society. As such, the suggestion would be that the proposed system is flawed.

This person is claiming that she would not be granted access to the UK, under the proposed system. The proposed system may be flawed, but as it stands, the decision to deny her access - based on the points she would gain - is the correct one. Nobody is denying she hasn't made a great contribution to society. Allowances cannot be made for her because she has a PhD. The PhD is, at the time of entry, the only positive thing in the tweet.

C. The serial killer line was ridiculous, as any country would deny that individual entry and, there is no measure, in any immigration system that would identify future intention or criminal intent for those that have never exhibited this behavior before. Minority Report is not yet a reality.

You are correct - the serial killer line is ridiculous. It was used as an extreme example. It was used to highlight the fact that we didn't know who this woman was at the time of entry.

D. The current system or the proposed system?

The proposed system.

Here is a scenario:-

The proposed system is now up and running. Two people are looking to move to the UK. Both have background checks completed, and both are good to go. Neither speak English, and neither have employment arranged. Both seem like nice people. One is a female with a PhD from Poland. The other is male with a PhD from Nigeria. What do you do? Do you let both in? Because they both have PhDs. Do you let neither in? As neither gain the points the criteria demands?

The answer to that has to be "Neither".

Sorry I'm jumping between train* but surely the tweet is only there for illustration. The point is about the merits of a system that would not allow someone who clearly has the capability and means to contribute to effectively do so based on an arbitrary criteria.

*Not literally.