What’s Missing from the Debate About the Refugees in Calais Who Are Eager to Go to Britain

First topic message reminder :

Although it may seem an irrelevance in almost wholly secularized Britain, the Church of England still manages to maintain a semblance of moral authority. This was on display last week after Prime Minister David Cameron spoke of a “swarm” of migrants seeking entry to Britain from refugee camps in the French port of Calais. The Right Rev. Trevor Wilmott, the Bishop of Dover, responded sternly: Cameron’s words reflected a “toxicity” in public discourse that leads us to “forget our humanity.”

While it was likely that the refugee crisis troubling Europe would wash up on British shores, the attitude of the government has proved more surprising. Historically, policy has followed public disquiet over immigration. By crafting a narrative for the public to follow, Cameron, who once worked in public relations, has presented another approach.

There have been three significant waves of immigration to Britain since the late 19th century. The first arose from a humanitarian crisis, the pogroms of Tsarist Russia. As Anthony Julius states in Trials of the Diaspora (2010), around 150,000 Jews sought sanctuary in Britain between 1880 and 1905. The second occurred after 1948, when the Labour government granted British citizenship to all living in the Commonwealth. Ministers hoped to relieve labor shortfalls caused by a declining population and the need for post-WWII rebuilding. Initially, only a few thousand males from the West Indies, India, and Pakistan immigrated each year, but numbers increased rapidly in the mid 1950s. David Kynaston writes in Modernity Britain (2014) that two factors pushed this process: the desire to reunify families and the growing affluence of 1950s Britain. Between 1956 and 1961, the number of people arriving each year rose from 46,000 to 135,000. The third wave occurred after 2004, when several former communist nations joined the European Union. Britain offered new EU citizens free movement of labor. Between 2005 and 2009, almost 700,000 workers arrived from Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and the Baltic States.

Each migratory pattern was met with virulent opposition. Julius notes the waves of anti-Semitism that accompanied Jewish refugees. Popular newspapers, music hall acts, political pamphlets, and public meetings proclaimed Jews to be a threat to the racial and public health of the nation and argued that cheap Jewish labor would lower standards of living. Kynaston shows that Commonwealth citizens faced similar discrimination; white Britons led race riots against West Indians in 1958, for example. Racist sentiment surged after the Conservative MP Enoch Powell, in a 1968 speech, claimed that immigration would lead to “rivers of blood” in British streets. Post-colonial writers like Hanif Kureshi, Zadie Smith, Monica Ali, and Andrea Levy depict the development of an institutionalized racism in regards to policing, the justice system, workplace inequality, housing, educational opportunities, popular culture, and sports. Finally, popular tabloid newspapers such as the Daily Mail, the Express and the Sun formed a popular perception that EU migrants were parasites leaching from Britain’s welfare system. This is despite the fact that EU migrants proportionally contribute more to the exchequer than native-born Britons and receive fewer benefits.

Immigration has been the lifeblood of modern Britain. At the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony, Britons rightly celebrated their multi-cultural nation. Historical memory remembers the nation’s status as a safe haven for refugees. Arriving at this juncture has proved difficult and incomplete, however.

When it comes to immigration, British governments have followed rather than led. Popular anti-Semitism led to the passing of the Aliens Act by a Liberal government in 1905. By refusing entry to the indigent, this act targeted penniless Russian Jews fleeing their homes in the face of persecution. Growing unease with migration led a Conservative government to pass the Commonwealth Immigration Act (1962). This act restricted the right of entry for unskilled workers, a category that many Commonwealth immigrants fell into. Labour governments have been no less averse to playing the race card. The Commonwealth Immigration Act (1968), limited the right to immigrate to those who had a parent or grandparent born in Britain. This was a pre-emptive strike against a potential exodus of Indians facing discrimination in Uganda and Kenya. This legislation did not affect another Kenyan minority, the descendants of British colonial settlers. Most recently, the anti-immigrant UK Independence Party has stoked popular discontent. This led in the 2015 general election to both the Conservatives and Labour promising to limit immigration. So committed were the latter to this pledge that it was emblazoned on a commemorative mug.

In reality, the “swarm” of migrants does not exist. As its EU partners regularly point out, Britain fails to take in its fair share of asylum-seekers. Just a few thousand refugees reside in the camps at Calais. By contrast, over 200,000 people applied for asylum in Germany last year. Greece and Italy remain the first port of call for the refugee ships launched daily from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean. By creating the perception of crisis, Cameron avoids a politically unpopular decision and asserts his authority over the EU in anticipation of the 2016 referendum on British membership.

But another issue lurks in the background. Many refugees are fleeing political violence, whether in North Africa or by the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan and ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Given that British participation in the 2001 war against the Taliban, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the 2010 bombing of Libya contributed greatly to this instability should Britain – and the US for that matter – take greater responsibility for its actions?

Put simply: for reasons of history, fairness, and responsibility, Britain should do more.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/160209

If Didge is trying to tell us that nowhere in The whole of Africa is safe then is he suggesting that the African people themselves are a generally dangerous and violent race etc, so much so as to make every part of the African continent so unsafe...!?


And if so, isn't he making a strong argument against allowing Africans entry to our country because of their dangerous and violent behaviour etc and high risk to UK public safety and national security etc...!?





You can't have it both ways dodge!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Come off it dodge... there are many places they could go and the African union should be responsible for them!


Are you seriously saying that in The vast continent of Africa, there are no safe places for them...!!!???


If Africans are that dangerous then why do you advocate so many of them coming here and being a danger to us!?

Africa already has 3 million refugees, which has been answered and no your attempts to weasel out of answering simple s questions posed to you near enoughht ten times shows what a pathetic muggy little runt you are


So again

What countries are classified as safe Tommy?

What countries take far more than the UK?

Some answers  please to the questions?

Do you understand why countries world over taker in refugees?

Now stop being a pathetic weasel and answer the questions you pathetic racist twat.

Nothing is going to move on until you do

victorismyhero wrote:ref the post about holoccaust survivors

that was then this is now.....

different circumstances, different peoples, with different agendas and a wholey different view of life.

Nothing different, people are fleeing for their lives from persecution.

Are you saying that if he came now you would not accept him then based on now that some British have become selfish idiots?

Dodge... the Africans in calais should be handed over to the African union to deal with.


And the African union could easily deal with this relatively small group of a couple of thousand Africans there...

Tommy Monk wrote:Dodge... the Africans in calais should be handed over to the African union to deal with.


And the African union could easily deal with this relatively small group of a couple of thousand Africans there...

So again

What countries are classified as safe Tommy?

What countries take far more than the UK?

Some answers please to the questions?

Do you understand why countries world over taker in refugees?

Now stop being a pathetic weasel and answer the questions you pathetic racist twat.

Nothing is going to move on until you do

There's a billion people in Africa dodge... are you saying that none of them Are safe...!?


Surely the African union can deal with a few thousand of their own nations people...!?


It is A huge continent of land mass and resources.


There are either safe countries there or are you trying to say that a billion people will all be leaving there and claiming asylum elsewhere in The next few days???


Don't be a twat!!!


The Africans at calais could and should be sent to African union reception centres for them to deal with.

Tommy Monk wrote:There's a billion people in Africa dodge... are you saying that none of them Are safe...!?


Surely the African union can deal with a few thousand of their own nations people...!?


It is A huge continent of land mass and resources.


There are either safe countries there or are you trying to say that a billion people will all be leaving there and claiming asylum elsewhere in The next few days???


Don't be a twat!!!


The Africans at calais could and should be sent to African union reception centres for them to deal with.

So again

What countries are classified as safe Tommy?

What countries take far more than the UK?

Some answers please to the questions?

Do you understand why countries world over taker in refugees?

Now stop being a pathetic weasel and answer the questions you pathetic racist twat.

Nothing is going to move on until you do

Are you saying that there are no safe countries for anyone in Africa!!!???


And We should expect a billion Africans to turn up on our shores and claim asylum!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:Are you saying that there are no safe countries for anyone in Africa!!!???


And We should expect a billion Africans to turn up on our shores and claim asylum!!!???

How pathetic, as I already answered this before and you are proving what a weasel you are by avoiding answering:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Are you saying that all of Africa is unsafe for anyone...!?


Are you saying that Africans are that dangerous...!?


But we should let them all come here!!!???

Not saying anything Tommy other than asking you questions as their important for you to understand when you do.
You are as usual not very bright, so lets help you.
Ukraine is not a safe country at the moment, does that mean Ukranians are dangereous?
No
You need to understand why a country might not be classified as safe.
Also African nations already take in refugees, which its clear you were not aware that they do.

In Africa, the right to seek and enjoy asylum is largely respected - with some 3 million refugees having found in exile the safety and protection they have lost at home. The generosity of hosting countries in Africa is outstanding; but in recent years, some core values of the protection system have been challenged, with instances of refoulement, as well as difficult access for UNHCR to people who may be in need of international protection. In Southern Africa, an increase in mixed migratory movements has also led to growing hostility towards refugees, putting pressure on asylum and protection space.

So again

What countries are classified as safe Tommy?

What countries take far more than the UK?

Some answers  please to the questions?

Do you understand why countries world over taker in refugees?

So they can't deal with a few more thousand dispersed among a billion people...!?


Of course they could and they should be made to do so.

Tommy Monk wrote:So they can't deal with a few more thousand dispersed among a billion people...!?


Of course they could and they should be made to do so.

So again

What countries are classified as safe Tommy?

What countries take far more than the UK?

Some answers  please to the questions?

Do you understand why countries world over taker in refugees?

Most of those in calais are just using a legal loophole and a sob story...


They are chancers, illegal immigrants and criminals by their own behaviour.


If so many others are looked after by the African union then there is no reason why these couple of thousand in calais shouldn't also be handed over to African union to deal with too.

Tommy Monk wrote:Most of those in calais are just using a legal loophole and a sob story...


They are chancers, illegal immigrants and criminals by their own behaviour.


If so many others are looked after by the African union then there is no reason why these couple of thousand in calais shouldn't also be handed over to African union to deal with too.

So again

What countries are classified as safe Tommy?

What countries take far more than the UK?

Some answers  please to the questions?

Do you understand why countries world over taker in refugees?

I see you are in twat mode and stuck on bullshit repeat.


You have already answered your own question by telling us that 3million African refugees have been sorted out within Africa by the African union... so another couple of thousand from calais would be easy for them to also deal with.


There is no reason why those Africans in calais should not be returned to African union to sort out.

Tommy Monk wrote:I see you are in twat mode and stuck on bullshit repeat.


You have already answered your own question by telling us that 3million African refugees have been sorted out within Africa by the African union... so another couple of thousand from calais would be easy for them to also deal with.


There is no reason why those Africans in calais should not be returned to African union to sort out.

I see you are a pathetic weasel who avoids answering simeple questions, where people answer yours, you instead are a pathetic idiot.

Again this will not progress until you answer, its that simple, and I have asked you near 20 times

So again

What countries are classified as safe Tommy?

What countries take far more than the UK?

Some answers  please to the questions?

Do you understand why countries world over taker in refugees?

You answered your own question you twat!!!


You already said that 3million African refugees have been sorted out within Africa so another couple of thousand from calais could be dealt with easily by African union too!!!


And There is no reason why they shouldn't be rounded up and handed over to them to do so.

Tommy Monk wrote:You answered your own question you twat!!!


You already said that 3million African refugees have been sorted out within Africa so another couple of thousand from calais could be dealt with easily by African union too!!!


And There is no reason why they shouldn't be rounded up and handed over to them to do so.

Wrong no question has been answered you fucking pathetic excuse for a human

Also Africans do not even make up the most migrants we receive and you are fixated on this nonsense and shows how utterly thick you really are.. They have every right to seek asylum here just as many countries take in refugees. Its not down to some unethical idiot like you to decide

Now stop being the pathetic racist loser you are and answer the questions

So again

What countries are classified as safe Tommy?

What countries take far more than the UK?

Some answers  please to the questions?

Do you understand why countries world over taker in refugees?

Bullshit!!!


Those in calais are already in a safe country and EU rules dictate that any asylum seeker must declare themselves in the first EU country they enter!!!


The African union should have them returned to Africa to deal with within the vast continent and dispersed among the rest of the billion African people.


You have not given any legitimate argument as to why this should not happen to those Africans in calais.

Tommy Monk wrote:Bullshit!!!


Those in calais are already in a safe country and EU rules dictate that any asylum seeker must declare themselves in the first EU country they enter!!!


The African union should have them returned to Africa to deal with within the vast continent and dispersed among the rest of the billion African people.


You have not given any legitimate argument as to why this should not happen to those Africans in calais.

More utter ignorance yet again which is why you need to understand by answering the questions you ignorant racist idiot.

What countries are classified as safe Tommy?

What countries take far more than the UK?

Some answers  please to the questions?

Do you understand why countries world over taker in refugees?

So Tommy wants Syrians to be returned to a continent they do not even come from called Africa, when they are trying to seek asylum in the UK?

What a fucking idiot.

Let me repeat that refugees come from many places and not just Africa

So again

What countries are classified as safe Tommy?

What countries take far more than the UK?

Some answers  please to the questions?

Do you understand why countries world over taker in refugees?

Show me where I have said Syrian refugees should be sent to Africa...!!!???


Any Syrians in calais are already in a safe country and have travelled through numerous other safe countries, and are required by EU rules to declare themselves in The first safe EU country they arrive in.

Tommy Monk wrote:Show me where I have said Syrian refugees should be sent to Africa...!!!???


Any Syrians in calais are already in a safe country and have travelled through numerous other safe countries, and are required by EU rules to declare themselves in The first safe EU country they arrive in.

So you are saying its okay for some refugees if they are white then and you only have issue with Africans?

There was a massive fuck up from Tommy proving his racism further still

Syrians go to many safe countries to declare asylum, they do not have to declare in your country of choosing but theirs, where its is up to them where they feel safe you idiot

So again

What countries are classified as safe Tommy?

What countries take far more than the UK?

Some answers  please to the questions?

Do you understand why countries world over taker in refugees?

Twisting again from the dodger!!!



It is EU rules that anyone planning to claim asylum must declare themselves in first EU country they arrive in.


Those in calais are in a safe country.


Those in calais from Africa should be returned to African union to sort out.


The few Syrians should have declared themselves already.

Tommy Monk wrote:Twisting again from the dodger!!!



It is EU rules that anyone planning to claim asylum must declare themselves in first EU country they arrive in.


Those in calais are in a safe country.


Those in calais from Africa should be returned to African union to sort out.


The few Syrians should have declared themselves already.

You do not decide which country they feel safe in and there is no law stating they have to you pathetic ignorant fuckwit. That is why there is way over 100,000 refugees in Germany as we speak this year alone which would not be possible with your claim it is an EU rule. So your view it is an EU law clearly is as seen total bollocks

Now how many more times are you going to prove to the forum you are pathetic weasel by not answering 3 simple questions?

So again

What countries are classified as safe Tommy?

What countries take far more than the UK?

Some answers  please to the questions?

Do you understand why countries world over taker in refugees?

Anyway lets hope when I am next on you finall;y stop being pathetic an answer the questions


Laters

EU rules are there... Dublin agreement... plus the large numbers arriving in Germany are clearly showing how the economic migrants think they will be best off financially going to Germany's strong economy...

Tommy Monk wrote:EU rules are there... Dublin agreement... plus the large numbers arriving in Germany are clearly showing how the economic migrants think they will be best off financially going to Germany's strong economy...

Wrong again on the Dublin agreement

So again

What countries are classified as safe Tommy?

What countries take far more than the UK?

Some answers  please to the questions?

Do you understand why countries world over taker in refugees?