Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Hope on August 03, 2015, 01:40:06 PM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-33735177
Can we really state that someone is an 'illegal' immigrant? Can any human being be termed 'illegal'?
-
Metonymy
-
Metonymy
'Illegal' or 'immigrant', NS?
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-33735177
Can we really state that someone is an 'illegal' immigrant? Can any human being be termed 'illegal'?
Would it be more acceptable to refer to them as 'People who have illegally entered a country with the intention of remaining there'.
-
I recall the Guardian having an article considering this a while back: found here - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/24/open-door-should-we-use-term-illegal-immigrant .
In general, I think agree with their implicit conclusion: it's not a good option, but it's probably the least bad. Anything less judgmental ends up being so convoluted as to just invite mockery about political correctness that undermines any conversation you're trying to actually have about the issue.
O.
-
The term "illegal immigrant" should, perhaps, be replaced by "illegal entrant".
It does not matter, really, what they are called, the really important thing is that there are far too many of them, this being due to other EU countries failing to implement EU law because they know that these people are only "passing through" their countries on the way to the UK.
-
The Guardian article starts off by describing in great detail how we should "not define people by their circumstances" - giving the example: ‘a baby with Down’s syndrome’, not ‘a Down’s syndrome baby’
Then goes on to suggested using undocumented’ or ‘irregular’ migrants - which is still describing people by their circumstances.
-
The term "illegal immigrant" should, perhaps, be replaced by "illegal entrant".
It does not matter, really, what they are called, the really important thing is that there are far too many of them, this being due to other EU countries failing to implement EU law because they know that these people are only "passing through" their countries on the way to the UK.
Except that the numbers coming to say teh UK are a sixth of those in Germany and a quarter of those in Italy and half of those in Sweden - can I suggest you stop reading the Mail?
-
The term "illegal immigrant" should, perhaps, be replaced by "illegal entrant".
It does not matter, really, what they are called, the really important thing is that there are far too many of them, this being due to other EU countries failing to implement EU law because they know that these people are only "passing through" their countries on the way to the UK.
Far too many of them for what? The current 'influx' represents a splash in the ocean of humanity that currently resides in these Isles alone: assuming 750,000 of them (which is wildly over the top) that would represent an increase in population for Britain of 0.001%.
That would have a financial impact, yes, but there's enough to go round. We'd all have to tighten our belts a little, here and there, but why would we do that for 'others', right?
Those other European countries - many of which have as many applicants as us, if not more - in the main, have lower populations and less money than we do. However, the people attempting to travel through them are attracted by our culture, the fact that many of them speak the language of Britain whereas they don't speak French or Italian or Spanish.
They want somewhere they can settle, somewhere they can build a home, somewhere they can call home, and we treat them like a cross between a disreputable uncle, stray cattle and outright thieves.
O.
-
The term "illegal immigrant" should, perhaps, be replaced by "illegal entrant".
It does not matter, really, what they are called, the really important thing is that there are far too many of them, this being due to other EU countries failing to implement EU law because they know that these people are only "passing through" their countries on the way to the UK.
Far too many of them for what? The current 'influx' represents a splash in the ocean of humanity that currently resides in these Isles alone: assuming 750,000 of them (which is wildly over the top) that would represent an increase in population for Britain of 0.001%.
That would have a financial impact, yes, but there's enough to go round. We'd all have to tighten our belts a little, here and there, but why would we do that for 'others', right?
Those other European countries - many of which have as many applicants as us, if not more - in the main, have lower populations and less money than we do. However, the people attempting to travel through them are attracted by our culture, the fact that many of them speak the language of Britain whereas they don't speak French or Italian or Spanish.
They want somewhere they can settle, somewhere they can build a home, somewhere they can call home, and we treat them like a cross between a disreputable uncle, stray cattle and outright thieves.
O.
Factual point 750,000 would be approx 1.10%
-
The term "illegal immigrant" should, perhaps, be replaced by "illegal entrant".
It does not matter, really, what they are called, the really important thing is that there are far too many of them, this being due to other EU countries failing to implement EU law because they know that these people are only "passing through" their countries on the way to the UK.
Except that the numbers coming to say teh UK are a sixth of those in Germany and a quarter of those in Italy and half of those in Sweden - can I suggest you stop reading the Mail?
You can suggect anything that you like, it does not mean to say that you are correct in your assumptions. As it happens I steer clear of all newpapers, Murdoch owns far too many of them.
I agree with your comment about Germany, Italy and Sweden, BUT travellers to the UK from the Middle East do not have to travel through those countriers to reach the UK.
The main culprits are the French who have, for many years, blatantly ignored any EU law they don't like.
-
I see NS has already made the point, but I keep reading that the UK has taken fewer asylum seekers than other countries, and also pays them less. I think the stats are probably wobbly, but also, the right wing media are tending to use the rhetoric of swarms and floods and invasions, which is xenophobic.
When you think of countries bordering Syria, they seem to be absorbing massive numbers, esp. Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.
-
I withdraw from this thread on the ground that the matter is, far too often, commented upon based upon emotion rather than fact, especially when considering the impact upon employment and benefit levels.
-
You can suggect anything that you like, it does not mean to say that you are correct in your assumptions. As it happens I steer clear of all newpapers, Murdoch owns far too many of them.
I agree with your comment about Germany, Italy and Sweden, BUT travellers to the UK from the Middle East do not have to travel through those countriers to reach the UK.
The main culprits are the French who have, for many years, blatantly ignored any EU law they don't like.
Actually travelling through Italy would be one of the ways that either Middle East or those from Africa would travel through. The likely points for arrival are Greece, Spain and Italy. We, of course, have treated that in general as if that was solely the country of arrival#s problem - unlike both Sweden and Germany, who in taking more in, are dealing with more of the general problem. France isn't forcing what is happeniong in Calais.
-
I withdraw from this thread on the ground that the matter is, far too often, commented upon based upon emotion rather than fact, especially when considering the impact upon employment and benefit levels.
What impact 'factually' do think has been made?
-
Sure, as long as we have nations with borders and people who cross those borders to live and work. Those people not being honest people, they put themselves before those immigrating legally. Illegals, because of their dishonest behaviour, are risking the jobs for those immigrants who are honest, they put at risk a nations goodwill towards immigration and the immigrant. THEY ARE illegals and nothing but. No, the UK doesn't have the troubles you find in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California. But you are an Island with only so much room. And no, don't send your illegals here, we make immigrants start at the end of the line and wait their turn. No jumping in front off all the other patient people waiting to live and work in Canada.
from the being watched
-
I withdraw from this thread on the ground that the matter is, far too often, commented upon based upon emotion rather than fact, especially when considering the impact upon employment and benefit levels.
What impact 'factually' do think has been made?
See #12.
-
I see NS has already made the point, but I keep reading that the UK has taken fewer asylum seekers than other countries, and also pays them less. I think the stats are probably wobbly, but also, the right wing media are tending to use the rhetoric of swarms and floods and invasions, which is xenophobic.
When you think of countries bordering Syria, they seem to be absorbing massive numbers, esp. Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.
Not forgetting our annual, net, immigration figure is 300,000.
Immigrants are given a home, access to all NHS facilities, schooling for any children; women and children may get extra over the £36 allowance. There are various Faith groups and voluntary organisations who help considerably. It isn't too bad, is it?
-
... you are an Island with only so much room.
This, to me, is the crux of the matter.
-
... you are an Island with only so much room.
This, to me, is the crux of the matter.
We are an island with a falling birthrate and insufficient numbers of people of working age. If there were not immigrants working here, there wouldn't be enough people paying taxes to pay for the growing pension bill. the numbers of under 65s v over 65s just don't add up. We need immigrant labour to make the tax revenue fit the pension bill.
Anyone got a better plan for how to make sure pensioners don't starve?
-
... you are an Island with only so much room.
This, to me, is the crux of the matter.
We are an island with a falling birthrate and insufficient numbers of people of working age. If there were not immigrants working here, there wouldn't be enough people paying taxes to pay for the growing pension bill. the numbers of under 65s v over 65s just don't add up. We need immigrant labour to make the tax revenue fit the pension bill.
Anyone got a better plan for how to make sure pensioners don't starve?
Robots.
The thing about old people is that they die so eventually the problem will go away. What we don't need is to cram even more people on this island. We do need to destroy the banking system as it is now i.e. Neo-liberalisms.
-
Robots.
The thing about old people is that they die so eventually the problem will go away.
Robots don't pay taxes.
Yes, old people will die, and then (I can't believe I am having to point this out to you!!) younger people will grow older and replace them. as the birth rate is falling, the financial gap between taxpayers and pensioners is growing, not decreasing.
So, unless you have a way of getting robots to pay income tax or a way of stopping people growing older - how do we pay the pension bill?
-
Robots.
The thing about old people is that they die so eventually the problem will go away.
Robots don't pay taxes.
Yes, old people will die, and then (I can't believe I am having to point this out to you!!) younger people will grow older and replace them. as the birth rate is falling, the financial gap between taxpayers and pensioners is growing, not decreasing.
So, unless you have a way of getting robots to pay income tax or a way of stopping people growing older - how do we pay the pension bill?
You're thinking by the old system. What should have been done as we became more high tech is that the wealth from the robots should have been more evenly distributed between the people and not allowed to stagnate with the rich elite as it has done. In essence the taxes would be taken from the robots at source.
-
What should have been done as we became more high tech is that the wealth from the robots should have been more evenly distributed between the people and not allowed to stagnate with the rich elite as it has done. In essence the taxes would be taken from the robots at source.
Shoulda woulda coulda
ok until the cybermen turn up to save us all, shall we make do with immigrant labour?
If not, what's your plan for dealing with the pensions gap in the absence of [chortle] robots [/chortle]?
-
... you are an Island with only so much room.
This, to me, is the crux of the matter.
We are an island with a falling birthrate and insufficient numbers of people of working age. If there were not immigrants working here, there wouldn't be enough people paying taxes to pay for the growing pension bill. the numbers of under 65s v over 65s just don't add up. We need immigrant labour to make the tax revenue fit the pension bill.
Anyone got a better plan for how to make sure pensioners don't starve?
Yeah! Make MP's try to live on £ 154 a week!
-
The term "illegal immigrant" should, perhaps, be replaced by "illegal entrant".
It does not matter, really, what they are called, the really important thing is that there are far too many of them, this being due to other EU countries failing to implement EU law because they know that these people are only "passing through" their countries on the way to the UK.
Except that the numbers coming to say teh UK are a sixth of those in Germany and a quarter of those in Italy and half of those in Sweden - can I suggest you stop reading the Mail?
Can I suggest you request your nationalist friends to lay on coaches for these illegal migrants to be ferried to Scotland? Bleeding heart nationalist liberals love these illegals as long as they stay saaf of the border. Sheesh...
-
Anyone got a better plan for how to make sure pensioners don't starve?
Yeah! Make MP's try to live on £ 154 a week!
It might help a bit, for sure. That would save the coffers about £43.5 million a year by my reckoning. Would that sort the pensions gap do you think?
-
Anyone got a better plan for how to make sure pensioners don't starve?
Yeah! Make MP's try to live on £ 154 a week!
It might help a bit, for sure. That would save the coffers about £43.5 million a year by my reckoning. Would that sort the pensions gap do you think?
No 'cos those duplicitpous bastards would find some way to fiddle round it!
-
No 'cos those duplicitpous bastards would find some way to fiddle round it!
"those duplicitpous bastards" haven't given themselves a pay rise for about 5 years now. What pay rises they have been awarded have been awarded by an independent body, and have involved quite dramatic changes in conditions - for instance an MP pays for his or her researcher and office staff out of that allowance. In some cases, this has actually resulted in the MP's own take-home pay dropping quite considerably, and even more so when those who choose to do so give the award away to charity.
-
No 'cos those duplicitpous bastards would find some way to fiddle round it!
"those duplicitpous bastards" haven't given themselves a pay rise for about 5 years now. What pay rises they have been awarded have been awarded by an independent body, and have involved quite dramatic changes in conditions - for instance an MP pays for his or her researcher and office staff out of that allowance. In some cases, this has actually resulted in the MP's own take-home pay dropping quite considerably, and even more so when those who choose to do so give the award away to charity.
It's pretty slim thinking to try and make a case for MP's being under-paid. Firstly, they do the job from choice, so they know what is involved. Secondly, they are not badly paid, and they are in receipt of many "perks." The Government has put a pay freeze on public sector workers, for the next x years. and the majority are not in the same pay bracket of MP's to begin with. As to some MP's giving the award to charity, then they clearly can manage without a rise. In the last Government, out of 31 Cabinet members, 29 wre millionaires, or multi-millionaires. The present lot are not likely to be any less well-off. My heart bleeds for them!!
-
No 'cos those duplicitpous bastards would find some way to fiddle round it!
"those duplicitpous bastards" haven't given themselves a pay rise for about 5 years now. What pay rises they have been awarded have been awarded by an independent body, and have involved quite dramatic changes in conditions - for instance an MP pays for his or her researcher and office staff out of that allowance. In some cases, this has actually resulted in the MP's own take-home pay dropping quite considerably, and even more so when those who choose to do so give the award away to charity.
As someone who has defended the recent pay rise awarded to MPs, I feel I have to point out that the changes to other conditions were mainly around pension arrangements and while overall not far off fiscally neutral did not affect the allowances for staff and MPs take home salary has not been affected in the manner you have declared.
-
No 'cos those duplicitpous bastards would find some way to fiddle round it!
"those duplicitpous bastards" haven't given themselves a pay rise for about 5 years now. What pay rises they have been awarded have been awarded by an independent body, and have involved quite dramatic changes in conditions - for instance an MP pays for his or her researcher and office staff out of that allowance. In some cases, this has actually resulted in the MP's own take-home pay dropping quite considerably, and even more so when those who choose to do so give the award away to charity.
As someone who has defended the recent pay rise awarded to MPs, I feel I have to point out that the changes to other conditions were mainly around pension arrangements and while overall not far off fiscally neutral did not affect the allowances for staff and MPs take home salary has not been affected in the manner you have declared.
They already have extremely generous pension provisions, so they still benefit more than the rest of us.
-
No 'cos those duplicitpous bastards would find some way to fiddle round it!
"those duplicitpous bastards" haven't given themselves a pay rise for about 5 years now. What pay rises they have been awarded have been awarded by an independent body, and have involved quite dramatic changes in conditions - for instance an MP pays for his or her researcher and office staff out of that allowance. In some cases, this has actually resulted in the MP's own take-home pay dropping quite considerably, and even more so when those who choose to do so give the award away to charity.
As someone who has defended the recent pay rise awarded to MPs, I feel I have to point out that the changes to other conditions were mainly around pension arrangements and while overall not far off fiscally neutral did not affect the allowances for staff and MPs take home salary has not been affected in the manner you have declared.
They already have extremely generous pension provisions, so they still benefit more that the rest of us.
be that as it may, I would suggest it is better to talk about such issues while being correct on facts. The overall package that MPs get is what is being discussed so to concentrate on the increase in one part and not acknowledge the other changes would be either ignorance or bias.
I would suggest also that your usual jealousy over money is showing again.
-
I would suggest also that your usual jealousy over money is showing again.
The old ''Virtue in the monied''/''Christianity as class envy'' fallacies?
-
I would suggest also that your usual jealousy over money is showing again.
The old ''Virtue in the monied''/''Christianity as class envy'' fallacies?
No, nothing of the kind. I didn't say anything about either. I am not making a generalisation or referring to Bash as a Christian, just an individual. You are a lazy poster that indulges in misrepresentation. Thus does not mean I think Christians are exemplified by you. Just that that applies to you.
-
No 'cos those duplicitpous bastards would find some way to fiddle round it!
"those duplicitpous bastards" haven't given themselves a pay rise for about 5 years now. What pay rises they have been awarded have been awarded by an independent body, and have involved quite dramatic changes in conditions - for instance an MP pays for his or her researcher and office staff out of that allowance. In some cases, this has actually resulted in the MP's own take-home pay dropping quite considerably, and even more so when those who choose to do so give the award away to charity.
As usual - defending the indefensible!
-
What should have been done as we became more high tech is that the wealth from the robots should have been more evenly distributed between the people and not allowed to stagnate with the rich elite as it has done. In essence the taxes would be taken from the robots at source.
Shoulda woulda coulda
ok until the cybermen turn up to save us all, shall we make do with immigrant labour?
If not, what's your plan for dealing with the pensions gap in the absence of [chortle] robots [/chortle]?
There's loads of money available. If there is £375 billion for the bankers in QE we can print the money for the pensioners. What's the problem?
We could default on our £1.5 trillion debt, that would ease things up no end!!!
And generally, fuck the Neo-Liberal project.
-
No 'cos those duplicitpous bastards would find some way to fiddle round it!
"those duplicitpous bastards" haven't given themselves a pay rise for about 5 years now. What pay rises they have been awarded have been awarded by an independent body, and have involved quite dramatic changes in conditions - for instance an MP pays for his or her researcher and office staff out of that allowance. In some cases, this has actually resulted in the MP's own take-home pay dropping quite considerably, and even more so when those who choose to do so give the award away to charity.
You lot are having a go at the wrong people, the politicians are generally just small fry. It's the bankers, and corporates etc. that need a good kicking.
-
No 'cos those duplicitpous bastards would find some way to fiddle round it!
"those duplicitpous bastards" haven't given themselves a pay rise for about 5 years now. What pay rises they have been awarded have been awarded by an independent body, and have involved quite dramatic changes in conditions - for instance an MP pays for his or her researcher and office staff out of that allowance. In some cases, this has actually resulted in the MP's own take-home pay dropping quite considerably, and even more so when those who choose to do so give the award away to charity.
As someone who has defended the recent pay rise awarded to MPs, I feel I have to point out that the changes to other conditions were mainly around pension arrangements and while overall not far off fiscally neutral did not affect the allowances for staff and MPs take home salary has not been affected in the manner you have declared.
They already have extremely generous pension provisions, so they still benefit more that the rest of us.
Then there is the House of Lords that needs dealing with.
-
No 'cos those duplicitpous bastards would find some way to fiddle round it!
"those duplicitpous bastards" haven't given themselves a pay rise for about 5 years now. What pay rises they have been awarded have been awarded by an independent body, and have involved quite dramatic changes in conditions - for instance an MP pays for his or her researcher and office staff out of that allowance. In some cases, this has actually resulted in the MP's own take-home pay dropping quite considerably, and even more so when those who choose to do so give the award away to charity.
You lot are having a go at the wrong people, the politicians are generally just small fry. It's the bankers, and corporates etc. that need a good kicking.
But, unfortunately, it's the "small fry" politicians who are the only ones who can give them a good kicking.
-
No 'cos those duplicitpous bastards would find some way to fiddle round it!
"those duplicitpous bastards" haven't given themselves a pay rise for about 5 years now. What pay rises they have been awarded have been awarded by an independent body, and have involved quite dramatic changes in conditions - for instance an MP pays for his or her researcher and office staff out of that allowance. In some cases, this has actually resulted in the MP's own take-home pay dropping quite considerably, and even more so when those who choose to do so give the award away to charity.
You lot are having a go at the wrong people, the politicians are generally just small fry. It's the bankers, and corporates etc. that need a good kicking.
But, unfortunately, it's the "small fry" politicians who are the only ones who can give them a good kicking.
Well, they are part of it. There are more drastic approaches like some form of revolution.
-
No 'cos those duplicitpous bastards would find some way to fiddle round it!
"those duplicitpous bastards" haven't given themselves a pay rise for about 5 years now. What pay rises they have been awarded have been awarded by an independent body, and have involved quite dramatic changes in conditions - for instance an MP pays for his or her researcher and office staff out of that allowance. In some cases, this has actually resulted in the MP's own take-home pay dropping quite considerably, and even more so when those who choose to do so give the award away to charity.
As usual - defending the indefensible!
Just as a matter of interest, how much would you do the job for?
-
No 'cos those duplicitpous bastards would find some way to fiddle round it!
"those duplicitpous bastards" haven't given themselves a pay rise for about 5 years now. What pay rises they have been awarded have been awarded by an independent body, and have involved quite dramatic changes in conditions - for instance an MP pays for his or her researcher and office staff out of that allowance. In some cases, this has actually resulted in the MP's own take-home pay dropping quite considerably, and even more so when those who choose to do so give the award away to charity.
As usual - defending the indefensible!
Just as a matter of interest, how much would you do the job for?
Me? I wouldn't be a politician for any money!
As Billy Connolly has it (possibly paraphrased) "Anyone expressing a desire to be an MP should automatically be disbarred from ever being one!"
As my father had it " you can be two, and only two, out of these three things - a politician, and honest man/woman, living!"
-
As someone who has defended the recent pay rise awarded to MPs, I feel I have to point out that the changes to other conditions were mainly around pension arrangements and while overall not far off fiscally neutral did not affect the allowances for staff and MPs take home salary has not been affected in the manner you have declared.
I appreciate that, NS, and I was primarily trying to get over the fact that the MPs haven't voted themselves an increase since, iirc, 2008.
I then thought it would be worth reminding some of the obviously less knowledgable that MPs pay include an element of other costs that they are responsible for, that therefore makes their actual take-home pay somewhat less than the headline figures.
-
As someone who has defended the recent pay rise awarded to MPs, I feel I have to point out that the changes to other conditions were mainly around pension arrangements and while overall not far off fiscally neutral did not affect the allowances for staff and MPs take home salary has not been affected in the manner you have declared.
I appreciate that, NS, and I was primarily trying to get over the fact that the MPs haven't voted themselves an increase since, iirc, 2008.
I then thought it would be worth reminding some of the obviously less knowledgable that MPs pay include an element of other costs that they are responsible for, that therefore makes their actual take-home pay somewhat less than the headline figures.
Except you are incorrect about that and were incorrect in your post earlier. The rise is in their basic salary. There has been no adjustment that means that their allowance for office has been taken away if placed into that. They have not had substantial reductions on their take home pay as you made out.
-
Except you are incorrect about that and were incorrect in your post earlier. The rise is in their basic salary. There has been no adjustment that means that their allowance for office has been taken away if placed into that. They have not had substantial reductions on their take home pay as you made out.
OK, I'll accept that you are right. I was only going by what the reporter on the BBC said about the allowances. I suppose that I may have misheard him, or even misinterpreted what I heard.
I think my main point is that - contrary to the views of a number of people I've read/listened to over the months - MPs no longer vote themselves increases.
-
Except you are incorrect about that and were incorrect in your post earlier. The rise is in their basic salary. There has been no adjustment that means that their allowance for office has been taken away if placed into that. They have not had substantial reductions on their take home pay as you made out.
OK, I'll accept that you are right. I was only going by what the reporter on the BBC said about the allowances. I suppose that I may have misheard him, or even misinterpreted what I heard.
I think my main point is that - contrary to the views of a number of people I've read/listened to over the months - MPs no longer vote themselves increases.
True - they cannot.
I don't know which beknghted idiot came up with the rules when the committee that decides MP's was set up. precisely to stop MP's voting themselves stupid amounts each year, but iunder the rules MP's connot vote NOT to take the recommended rise.
MP's can only, as some have done, take the money and give it to charity!
-
It would appear that 'illegal' and 'legal' immigrants have more rights in our Country than the people who are native of our Country or GB/UK.
-
It would appear that 'illegal' and 'legal' immigrants have more rights in our Country than the people who are native of our Country or GB/UK.
A rubbish statement! ::)