On 'illegal migrants', migration and Muslims
Ned Ma the scum get fed in the hotels
Harry Riley I don't consider them the scum. The scum ar those who have plundered the country of tens if not hundereds of billions, tax havens scum, mafia money through the City … the scum are those who wrecked the economy in 2008/09, who pay a woman at HSBC 42% less than a man, a nurse hundreds of times less than a tv presenter or a footballer… the scum (the criminals) are those who have contributed to mass migration in the world, the scum are those who are welcomed, dined and wined by other scums in Downing Street ….have you ever protested or rioted against that? Have ever read the figures about what how much immigrants contribute to the evonomy vs. what they take?
Kenneth: Farage is a millionaire. He will make sure the rich keep getting richer. If you're a council or private tenant expect to be hammered. He won't tax the rich and landed gentry will he. So who does that leave.
I thought Muslims weren't "allowed" to gamble?!
Nicola Parsons it sounds a typical comment about 'Muslims'. Millions drink, fornicate, gamble… 74% of the Iranian young people do not pray. In some countries alcohol can be bought in supermarkets. In others it can be bought under the counter. In 2001 in Tunisia the government distributed condoms at universities. In Amman alcohol is sold in shops like off-licence shops. The same in Damascus under Assad. There are casinos too, but those affluent men and women go there. The poor gamble playing cards…. A few years ago, young Lebanese policewomen were ordered to wear shorts… Something I have never seen in a Western or Eastern city. Myths about 'Muslims' and 'Islam' are many. The British scholar Fred Halliday tried to educate the Brits with a small book 100 Myths About the Middle East.
Nicola Parsons they [Muslims] are allowed to marry children though. Maybe they should break this rule instead.
Marcus Ward I hope you can read. Who they? where? Why? Is it a rule or your prejudice? Have you ever done a search? Nearly one in every 20 girls (4 per cent) between the ages of 15 and 17 and one in every 10 (11 per cent) adolescent girls between the ages of 15 and 19 are currently married or were married before, with large differentials between rural and urban areas.“ That exists in few countries and mainly for economic reasons, using an interpetation of the text. Why it does not exist as a norm? That is what your they implies. Pew looked at 198 countries and found that almost all (192) of them have laws that specify when people can legally marry. (Only six countries – Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen – do not specify a minimum age for marriage.) An 18-year-old in Australia, for instance, can marry a 16-year-old as long as they have judicial approval. in India, where 40 percent of the world’s known child brides reside, child marriage is prevalent among both Muslims and Hindus. In Burkina Faso and Ethiopia, child marriage is practiced by Christians and Muslims alike.
In Iraq, Jamaica and Uruguay, children can marry with parental permission.
According to Human Rights Watch, global data shows that girls from the poorest 20 percent of families are twice as likely to marry before the age of 18 as girls from the richest 20 percent of families. This stems from the traditional perception that girls are financial burdens rather than potential wage earners. Btw, I am not a Muslim
Sources: 1. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2016/09/these-are-the-countries-where-child-marriage-is-legal/ 2. https://www.cfr.org/blog/child-marriage-and-religion-0 3. https://econreview.studentorg.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-child-marriage/
Immigration and crime
https://www.dw.com/en/immigration-has-not-raised-german-crime-rate/a-71691228
Most people here do not see those rescued as humans. They are not like 'us'. They will never change their minds. And it is not about legal and illegal. Even if the migrants were given visas, people here would still object their entry. We are talking about people who have different values, un-British values, and prefer to see the Other even killed. Just browse previous comments on this space
Ned Ma If the UK was massive and if everyone in the UK had plenty of money, a nice home, good food, a good job or good pension, then people might have some sympathy for non British incomers. BUT, the UK has lots of poor people, homeless people, people that feel unsafe, young children, unemployed, lacking good food, poor pensioners, people with physical and mental health problems that are not getting help, hundred if not thousands of BRITISH people not receiving the things they desperately need. Why oh why should the UK be helping foreign people when it is not helping it's own countryfolk.
John Butler You have inverted reality. Britain is the 6th economy in the world, but you sounded it look like a third world country. Britain should be compared to Germany, for example – a country with even a bigger population. Poverty, poor pensions, etc. are due to the economic model, distribution of wealth, the British regime's policies over 4 or so decades... The UK, as well as most European countries have an aging population and needs migrants. Unemployment has often been one of the lowest in comparison to European countries. If people are not receiving what they need is mostly because of the austeriy measures that were implemented after 2008/09 and continued by successive governments. It is the rentier capitalism of Britain, making money without producing, that is a hindrance towards wealth-sharing. It is the plunder by the private sector: look for example at the £85 billion the shareholders got from Water privatisation. Money that could build 933 hospitals at the cost of £40 million for each hospital. I can say similar things about housing, infrastructure, high level of financial corruption, etc. The boss of Yorkshire Water, one of Britain’s biggest water suppliers, has received £1.3m in previously undisclosed extra pay since 2023 via an offshore parent company.
John Butler
Ned Ma a laughing emoji
It’s become a common occurrence that, when people cannot form a reasoned argument, or they are too stupid to have one, they use the laughing emoji. However, I’d like to thank them for identifying themselves
John Butler
Ned Ma a laughing emoji
Ned Ma Well when you put up silly / funny comments then i compliment you with that emoji. In the two above comment from you, you make excuses for not having good common sense to reason things out. Excuse 1 from you "The UK, as well as most European countries have an aging population and needs migrants." Whereas the truth is, The British people need to be able to afford to have more children in safety and comfort. Excuse 2 from you, "It’s become a common occurrence that, when people cannot form a reasoned argument, or they are too stupid to have one, they use the laughing emoji... " Truth is, This is just a cop out from you, a change of subject as you have no real answers.
John Butler “the truth is, The British people need to be able to afford to have more children in safety and comfort.” That's it? Is that what you are able to 'refute' from my arguments? You picked up item you are obssessed with, but without any explanation how that would work since the type of the economy, and the life style, change in gender roles, delaying having children or not having them, rising costs of childcare, etc. have been determined by the structure of the economic model – one different from say the 1960s Western Europe. At that time the decline in the family size began. Honestly, I have been on this page commenting for a month. People do not wat facts or answers. They have already made their 'facts' and answers.
Ned Ma It was my answer to your deciding that the UK needs immigrants. One answer to one point of yours. But at least I'm not slyly using insults. I never suggested that you were stupid. Immigrants take jobs, quite often illegally. Jobs that should be given to legal British people. Immigrants are be given housing that should be given to British people. It seems that immigrants are even given phones and money, but British pensioners had money taken from them. So, it is obvious that those immigrants are costing the British tax payers huge amounts of money, whilst British people are suffering in many ways and even being arrested if they complain or make comments online. And we haven't even touched on the child sexual abuse by non British people.
John Butler I used an insult [stupid] because you mocked my comment. And that was not the first time on this page because generally people do not engage, but use an emoji and disappear. You behaved like them. Again, you are blaming immigrants, i.e. rather than the system and the political economic regime that created the conditions at home and helped create the conditions abroad of such a situation. Immigrants (10.7 million of them are not British, 5.3 million are EU citizens) have been putting more money in the economy more than what they have taken. That is official. The state of pensioners and housing is due to the policies of the governments from Thatcher to Blair to Cameron, May et al. Your problem is not with the Bitish regime and the economic system, corruption, plunder of public assets, obscene inequality, distribution of wealth, not building houses, austerity after what the bankers caused to the economy … but with non-British, i.e. a nationalist approach. Facts about immigrants' contribution to the economy, number of empty houses, oligarchs and Gulf people buying houses in the country, mafia money goes to tax havens, the number of those on benefits, the role of Britain in creating refugees, in supporting dictators who compel people to migrate, imposing economic policies on other countries along the international financial institutions, etc, etc. are not in your consideration. You think only from your own narrow perspective, scapegoating the Other in the name of being British (whatever that means). The usual easy way. I have read worse comments such as those who want to shoot the boats, applaud to the killing of a migrant, xenophobic insults, prejudices about people of colour and religion balming a whole people or a whole religion because some individuals committed this or that crime. I do not have a nation or a country thus I approach the issues from a class, human and international perspective. It looks that we will never agree.
Yes we know that all politicians are dishonest selfish people and that the system is completely messed up, but, immigrants legal or illegal, put more pressure on the infrastructure. The causes of the problems do not help those British people suffering from the results. I don't count myself as British the way you seem to imply. I was born here. A child doesn't chose where they are born. And I've lived here all my life because, a, I only speak English (very basic education), b, I know the basic 'English' law and how to keep out of trouble, c, I've never had money as a back up if things went wrong. BUT, my feelings do extend to thinking of others that have lived their lives and those trying to live their lives after being born here in the UK..... I find it funny that people hate Trump for doing what a country's leader is paid to do. Trump is trying to remove illegal immigrants from the USA. Now surely that is part of his job ? Surely the PM of the UK should be doing the same ? As for your idea that you do not have a nation or country, that cannot be, as you were born somewhere and unfortunately we get 'tagged' with a nationality, the same as you called me British. And you probably pay tax into some country. Yahshua aka Jesus said his followers were 'no part of this world' but even they had a nationality and paid the tax. I don't vote, I don't protest, I don't get involved in politics, but i stand back and watch. I neither agree or disagree with what would leaders are doing, because I can see that an elected leader of a country is being paid to do the job they were elected to do. Now unfortunately some of those leaders of countries do not do what they were elected to do. Your idea of an 'international perspective' doesn't work either because there isn't international money to back it up. The people arriving in boats don't bring money to pay their own way, and their country of origin certainly doesn't pay the UK to look after them..... My belief is, there is a very big change coming to this Earth, but until that happens humans have to do the best they can with what they've got. Peace Shalom.
End of discussion.
***
Ned Ma reducing migration is a reasonable and a sensible course of action. Deporting illegals and stripping newly granted citizens of citizenship and then deporting where they have committed crimes again a sensible action. Remigration or the deportation of existing law abiding established British Citizens is not sensible, logical, palatable or even required. Over time over generations an acceptable degree of integration can be achieved. But we see where you are getting confused, safeguarding our culture our way of life our social cultural and financial future our services by managing mass migration is a positive step, because the numbers are the issue not the individual..... wheras just wanting people out in general because you have decided they are of a different ethnic origin regardless of actual citizenship is wrong.
There is no confusion. It depends on the approach. Here is mine in regards to your comment: 1. Reducing migration? Who decides that? Businesses, the economical model or ordinary people? Throught history the former have decided. Do wars, and involvement in wars decide on the flow of migration and the type of migrants? They do. Have Britain been involved and a major participant? Yes. Does the global economic model decides on migration outflows and inflows? Yes. At university we studied them as push and pull factors. Does global capitalism creates uneven development of economies and therefore jobs, etc.? It does. Does Britain, along with the US, France… the IMF, and other international financial institutions impose their terms and conditions on the 'third world'? They do. Migration is a global phenomenon. Actions of Britain and others effect the pattern of migration. And it is going to get worse with climate change effects.2. The 'illegals'? Do you have or seen statistics of the percentage of the illegals who commit offences/crimes in the country? I would like to see them. I agree that a citizen, regardless of their colour, origin, ethnic group, etc. cannot and should not be deported. They should be tried if they commit an offence. Why do Brits can travel to more than 180+ countries, but others cannot come in on the same principle? Because of power relations. Does not that encourage more 'illegals'? 3. I don't know about you, but for many it is not really a question of 'illegality'. It is about the colour, religion, background of the migrant. It is an era where xenophobia and crude nationalism are on the rise. And it something practiced by the state too. The latest was the way the Ukrainians were treated compared to the non-White, non-Christian. 4. Safeguarding culture? Any culture contains myths. It depends on what you mean by 'culture'. Any culture changes. You cannot safeguard it. I would like to see what the British 'culture' today is.
Katie Siân but are you saying that 340+ people liking the question-comment are stupid? I don't think so. I think the issue is much deeper than that. Manufacturing ignorance has taken toll over a section of society. It has been working for many years: a machine of lies, instilling fear, distraction, denial, xenophobia, etc. all bundled together to divert attention from the big thieves. What we have now is the reproduction of one of the myths of Englishness: St George and the slaying of the dragon. A belief system not different from the religious fundamentalist one is around. The germs of pre-fascism are there in the UK. Do those who hold such a belief ashamed of it? Not at all: 'there is no genocide', the Palestinians deserve it, 'the boat people' are 'not of our kind', 'an invasion is at work', Another perspective: it is called the whipping up of nationalism or patriotism or both. The end result is the spawning of Disaster Nationalism á la American, German, Hungarian, Italian, Hindu…A few are even yearning to a disaster like the one in Independence Day (the movie) and don't care what the consequences would be. They deny ethnic cleansing because they want an ethnic cleansing.
Ned Ma reducing migration is a reasonable and a sensible course of action. Deporting illegals and stripping newly granted citizens of citizenship and then deporting where they have committed crimes again a sensible action. Remigration or the deportation of existing law abiding established British Citizens is not sensible, logical, palatable or even required. Over time over generations an acceptable degree of integration can be achieved. But we see where you are getting confused, safeguarding our culture our way of life our social cultural and financial future our services by managing mass migration is a positive step, because the numbers are the issue not the individual..... wheras just wanting people out in general because you have decided they are of a different ethnic origin regardless of actual citizenship is wrong.
There is no confusion. It depends on the approach. Here is mine in regards to your comment: 1. Reducing migration? Who decides that? Businesses, the economical model or ordinary people? Throught history the former have decided. Do wars, and involvement in wars decide on the flow of migration and the type of migrants? They do. Have Britain been involved and a major participant? Yes. Does the global economic model decides on migration outflows and inflows? Yes. At university we studied them as push and pull factors. Does global capitalism creates uneven development of economies and therefore jobs, etc.? It does. Does Britain, along with the US, France… the IMF, and other international financial institutions impose their terms and conditions on the 'third world'? They do. Migration is a global phenomenon. Actions of Britain and others effect the pattern of migration. And it is going to get worse with climate change effects.2. The 'illegals'? Do you have or seen statistics of the percentage of the illegals who commit offences/crimes in the country? I would like to see them. I agree that a citizen, regardless of their colour, origin, ethnic group, etc. cannot and should not be deported. They should be tried if they commit an offence. Why do Brits can travel to more than 180+ countries, but others cannot come in on the same principle? Because of power relations. Does not that encourage more 'illegals'? 3. I don't know about you, but for many it is not really a question of 'illegality'. It is about the colour, religion, background of the migrant. It is an era where xenophobia and crude nationalism are on the rise. And it something practiced by the state too. The latest was the way the Ukrainians were treated compared to the non-White, non-Christian. 4. Safeguarding culture? Any culture contains myths. It depends on what you mean by 'culture'. Any culture changes. You cannot safeguard it. I would like to see what the British 'culture' today is.
Comments