Mr Howard a racist?

[jon_hill987]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4200761.stm

 

I don't think so, It is sensable to stop to many people moving into an already overcrowded country. but as it says in the article

 

there was a danger others could use his words while campaigning to hint the policy was about keeping out people of a different colour or culture

 

I don't think that is true, sure I would expect it from the BNP (british national party, could be read nazi) but in this case I think it is sesible pollicy.

 

It costs this country millions each year to allow these "asylem seekers" into the country, I have nothing against those genuenly seeking asylem, but most of them just want to come over here because they think they will make more money. It's not racist stoping these people coming into the country, the colour of their skin has nothing to do with it, this country simply can't support them.

[Druid Bremen]

Its a good idea to stop before the UK spends everything on them.

I know first impressions are hardly accurate, but his plans seem to me to be without any touch of racism or discrimination. I think its just purely because they don't want to go bankrupt, not any other reason about racism. Just my two cents.

[toms]

For those outside the UK, the conservatives are a bit like the republicans, but over the past 10 years they have gone from being the dominant party to a joke (partly cos blair nicked half their ideas).

 

They recently had some REALLY bad polling results and the combination of the two has pushed them into fairly extreme right wing headline grabbing politics that they wouldn't have considered a while back.

 

Anyway...

 

I personally don't believe he is a racist, although i'm fairly sure that under his policies HIS parents wouldn't have been allowed to settle. What he is is desperate, and therefore willing to try and grab any area that he can get some publicity.

As for these specific proposals...

 

# Withdrawing from the 1951 United Nations Convention on refugees, which obliges countries to accept people being persecuted on the basis of need, not numbers

 

No chance would I ever support this. It sets a terrible example on a par with, if not worse than the situation with the US and kyoto. Dangerous and foolish imho. Don't like it... renegotiate it, but don't just pull out.

 

# Introduce laws to allow the immediate removal of asylum seekers whose claims were clearly unfounded because they came from safe countries or had destroyed documents

 

Sounds fair enough to me, although as far as i am aware this is pretty much what the law is now. He may be talking about removing a right of appeal. Of course, the problem becomes: where do you send them? You can't just push them out into the sea. So the organisational aspects area probably harder than he makes out. Which is what causes a lot of the delays now.

 

# Detain asylum seekers without documents so people whose identity was not known were not able to move freely around the UK - a worry for "national security"

 

Makes sense to keep track of them. Though efforts should be made to confirm identities as quickly as possible, as genuine refugees often have no papers.

 

# Stop considering asylum applications inside the UK and instead take people from United Nations refugee agency camps. Anyone applying for asylum would be taken to new centres close to their countries of origin.

 

Interesting idea, though how well it would work in practice is another matter. (as is the legality). It makes sense to take the illegal people trafficing bit out of the equation, and to share claimants around fairly.

Maybe if it was done as well as the current system, not instead of, then it would start to be the easiest way for people to apply and less people would try and make it all the way to the uk.

 

Quota systems (mentioned in all the press, but not in these specific proposals) is a terrible idea though. What happens if there is a war or other ort of disaster and asylum claims gpo up in one year, or if someone with a valid case turn up just after the quota is full? Would never support that.

 

I would think that with the uk, us, australia and many other western countries having issues with asylum seekers it would make sense to have another look at the UN asylum treaty. Make it so all asylum calims are put into a central pool, administered by the UN and claimants are asigned countris that are (a) most able to take them (b) most suitable © closest.

 

Would take out all the complaints from every country that they are unfairly burdened.

 

But, as a bottom line, i don't EVER want to be in a situation where someone in need turns up on our door asking for help and we turn them away without proper consideration.

 

PS/ You don't read the daily express do any of you?

[Mort-Hog]

It's all about the election. Labour has got the moderates' vote, as well as die-hard Labour voters. Conservatives don't really have a chance in appealing to moderates, so now they're trying to appeal to right-wing extremeists, that would otherwise vote for UK Indepdence Party or the BNP or some such. This may well work, but it won't win them the election.

 

The biggest problem is really that the numbers simply don't add up. Send asylum seekers elsewhere? Where exactly? To countries closer to their country of origin? They are often terribly poor countries and they take on many refugees already.

 

 

Spreading asylum seekers around does make sense, and it's exactly what the EU are going to do.

[toms]

Apparently over fifty percent of young people in the UK have negative views of asylum seekers.

 

And one in five people in the uk may vote far right in the elections.

 

Its tricky.

Is it a good thing that a major party is trying to represent the views of this large section of the population?

Or should the parties try to do what is right, even if the voters don't like it?

 

WHen does representing the views of the people become pandering to their fears and hatreds?

 

I don't remember seeing a cover of the daily express in over two years that didn't have a negative story about either asylum seekers or paedophiles on it. (more about asylum seekers in fact). And the daily mail, news of the world and Sun aren't far behind.

Every time an asylum seeker commits a crime the ASYLUM SEEKER bit gets big headlines... never seeming to realise that there are just as many bad people among asylum seekers as the rest of us. What with them being human and all...

[ShadowTemplar]

I don't know the numbers for the UK, but in Denmark asylum seekers are not the principal problem. The problem is the various kinds of immigration, which is something different altogether. Going for the asylum seekers seems both callous and irrelevant, whereas such things as uniting families (as in: Guy A goes from country B to country C, marries girl D and then A and D go back to country B) could certainly be considered.

 

The treaties governing these things were written with the intent of facilitating the rapid reunion of families that fled to seperate countries not to allow immigration 'around' the usual immigration rules.

[Mort-Hog]

In Britain, the asylum seeker problem is made out to be so much worse than it is.

 

Britain has problems, but it's so much easier to just blame foreigners than actually address them.

[toms]

also, mainly thanks to the efforts of the media, the phrase asylum seeker has been corrupted into meaning something along the lines of:

 

"workshy benefit claiming untrustworthy foriegn sponger who has come here to live off the state while begging, stealling, murdering, taking our women and jobs and plotting terrorism against us".

 

Its a bit like the way the word liberal has been corrupted into an insult in the US. It no longer seems to mean victim, or person needing help, or refugee... or even "possible refugee".

 

Many of the (percieved?) problems are due to the fact that people just don't believe that these people are here legitimatly, thinking they are trying to get a better life here at our expense without having to go through the proceedures of legal, economic migration.

 

Personally though, i'm not sure that adds up. It isn't that hard to try and get in on legal means (though that sometimes limits the time of your stay, or the right to benefits) and many of the papers here made a huge fuss about "Millions of eastern european gypsies getting ready to swamp the UK" once their countries joined the EU last year. As far as i am aware that never happened, and many of the few that did come have since gone back.

 

If legal migration is fairly easy, and many have the right to it as EU citizens, why would so many people go through the highly complex and distressing asylum system? I'd think that the majority of claims have at least SOME basis.

 

Not that the true facts have much bearing on the debate here in the UK. (or many other places for that matter).

 

It was noticable when i went round the world that the US, australia and even new zealand all had press hype about "damn asylum seekers" trying to come there and take everything. I even saw articles in Oz and NZ about how "they were full". Which (if anyonne has been there) is patently nonsense... there are only about 7 people living in the whole south island of NZ!!!

 

Its a fear of the unknown, a worry about the benefit system, and press hype about being exploited... not that there aren't problems with policy and administration, but those are hardly the fault of the refugees.

[Spider AL]

Or should the parties try to do what is right, even if the voters don't like it?

 

WHen does representing the views of the people become pandering to their fears and hatreds?

Note: The ideal of democracy is that we elect a politician to do what the majority of the public says, not what the politicians personally believe is right, nor what actually IS right, if there is such a thing as absolute right vs. wrong.

 

We employ THEM, to represent US and our opinions. They are not kings nor rulers, they should have no autonomy. We have forgotten this, and we must rectify it if we are to actually live in a democracy, something we do not currently reside in.

 

---

 

As for Howard's policy, there is nothing racist in it nor in his associated rhetoric. Full stop. Nationality has nothing to do with race, just for starters.

 

While people may disagree over the number of illegal immigrants in our country, I don't think anyone of sound mind can disagree that illegal acts of ALL sorts, including illegally coming over our borders and illegally living in our state, should be STOPPED.

 

Thus, any policy that has the cessation of illegal immigration as its goal is a good policy, and one worth supporting.

 

i'm fairly sure that under his policies HIS parents wouldn't have been allowed to settle.

That wouldn't have been a bad thing.

[toms]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Note: The ideal of democracy is that we elect a politician to do what the majority of the public says, not what the politicians personally believe is right, nor what actually IS right, if there is such a thing as absolute right vs. wrong.

 

We employ THEM, to represent US and our opinions. They are not kings nor rulers, they should have no autonomy. We have forgotten this, and we must rectify it if we are to actually live in a democracy, something we do not currently reside in.

 

Can't believe i'm going to do this.. but...erm... here goes...

 

 

sigh.

 

But on a serious point, there are numerous examples of politicians doing bad things with the support of the people (hitler, for example who was both democratically elected and who's policies were popular among the general population. Or those far right guys getting elected in Austria, etc..)

 

There are also numerous examples of politicians doing things that were against the opinions of a lot of their voters. Many of which the voters LATER came to support. Some they didn't.

 

Eg: Ending slavery in the US. Or the death penalty which opinion polls in the UK consistently show people want, but not one party supports. Or even the war in iraq.

 

In many cases these were politicians standing up for what THEY felt was right, even if it didn't have public backing. Otherwise we might as well be governed by interactive TV, with everyone voting on every issue... but based on the results of a lot of polls recently I don't think that would be particularly sensible... as many people are very badly informed on a lot of issues.

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

As for Howard's policy, there is nothing racist in it nor in his associated rhetoric. Full stop. Nationality has nothing to do with race, just for starters.

 

Even if his message has nothing racist in it (which it doesn't), it is obviously designed to stop them losing voters to the far right parties like the BNP & UKIP by stealing their rhetoric. So it could be accused of pandering to racist attitudes, even if not openly.

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

While people may disagree over the number of illegal immigrants in our country, I don't think anyone of sound mind can disagree that illegal acts of ALL sorts, including illegally coming over our borders and illegally living in our state, should be STOPPED.

 

Indeed. But the big question is how, and how many resources? Ideally NO illegal acts should ever occur (mostly).. but some always will. You can never stop them all. It is a case of trying to target the worst in the best way possible. I'm still not convinced immigration is worth taking effort away from other areas.

 

But anyway, most of these proposals have nothing to do with cracking down only on the criminals, they have to do with cracking down on everyone in the principle that it will both deter anyone else and please the media.

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

Thus, any policy that has the cessation of illegal immigration as its goal is a good policy, and one worth supporting.

 

Not really. Just because the goal is honorable doesn't mean that the policy must be right and fair. The BNP has a policy to stop illegal imigration that includes forced repatriation and other distasteful things... that isn't a good policy and usn't worth supporting.

 

As i've said, I actually agree with a number of his proposals, i just don't agree with the way he hyped up his "tough stance".

 

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

That wouldn't have been a bad thing.

Well, i don't like the man... but him and many like him who were the decendents of imigrants and refugees have made huge impacts on our culture. Some good, some bad... but without them we wouldn't be the country we are today... (for good or bad)

[Spider AL]

But on a serious point, there are numerous examples of politicians doing bad things with the support of the people (hitler, for example who was both democratically elected and who's policies were popular among the general population. Or those far right guys getting elected in Austria, etc..)

Naturally, as ever, the Hitler card is reactionary and non-applicable. Most of the policies and acts which have gone down in history as being the Nazis most evil, were policy decisions made by high-level Nazi officials. They were not voted on in a referendum by the German people, they were merely instituted. The duties were split up so that no one man or soldier would do the whole dirty deed by himself... bite-sized pieces in other words. Easier for the German army to swallow.

 

And while some Germans actively assisted the Nazi regime with good, fairly full knowledge of their intentions, most of them did so because of the massive Nazi propaganda machine. Spouting propaganda to make the public do what you want is a demonstration of a certain degree of autonomy too, of course.

 

So we see that the Nazi regime was to all intents and purposes not a government of the German people, but a tyranical regime which wove a very effective web of lies and deceit to convince the populace that they were acting for German interests... when in fact they were all merely fascist, occultist, SHORT wierdos who only managed to gain power because Germany was beaten to a bloody pulp in the last war and had lost all self-respect.

 

Thus, it is NOT an example that aids your argument.

 

In many cases these were politicians standing up for what THEY felt was right, even if it didn't have public backing.

These are examples of what is known as a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise. Politicians have no right to go against the genuine wishes of the people in a democracy. Full stop.

 

A tyrant who does the right thing on occasion is still a tyrant, and having a good king once in a while doesn't make a monarchy any more desirable as a system of governance.

 

Even if his message has nothing racist in it (which it doesn't), it is obviously designed to stop them losing voters to the far right parties like the BNP & UKIP by stealing their rhetoric. So it could be accused of pandering to racist attitudes, even if not openly.

Since the public (rightly or wrongly) is concerned with the issue of illegal immigration, it is up to politicans to address that concern in their policies. It is their DUTY. And it is insane, trendy lefty claptrap to accuse a politician of "pandering to racists" when he addresses an issue of NATIONALITY (not race) and legality.

 

You can never stop them all. It is a case of trying to target the worst in the best way possible. I'm still not convinced immigration is worth taking effort away from other areas.

FYI, illegal immigration encourages crime. (Among those who wish to profit from smuggling people, from those who wish to employ labour below the national minimum wage and more.) It is a serious problem.

 

And also FYI, the official crime-fighting force (at least in London and other major conurbations) currently consists of a meagre tax-collecting bureaux whose primary responsibility seems to be to take money from motorists and smokers, while simultaneously ignoring muggings, burglaries and other sundry violent crimes. Anything that redirects attention away from robbing us blind is a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.

 

Not really. Just because the goal is honorable doesn't mean that the policy must be right and fair.

Actually that's exactly what it means, technically. What it DOESN'T mean, is that Howard has honourable INTENTIONS. And since he's an evil old tory scumbag, I highly doubt if he's ever had an honourable thought in his life. We must vote on issues and policy in an ideal democracy though, we've seen what happens when a populace votes on their idea of an ideal personality... In America.

 

Well, i don't like the man... but him and many like him who were the decendents of imigrants and refugees have made huge impacts on our culture. Some good, some bad... but without them we wouldn't be the country we are today... (for good or bad)

The absence of Howard would be an incontrivertably good thing. I'm considering inventing a time-machine solely for the purpose of garrotting his grandfather.

 

As for any positive impact of illegal immigrants on British culture... Well I don't know if there was ever any positive effect of illegal immigration ANYWHERE. Remember, we are discussing ILLEGAL immigration and a policy dealing with it here, not "immigration".