| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
Strewth, Wiley, all solicitors in this area work pro bono or for charities or whatever. The bits and legal bobs that does come out of state coffers is nought nought point whatever per cent of the billions spent on illegal migrants. It is the fact of due process that is what stretches the process out and the bills into the stratosphere looking after everyone while it grinds on.
That's why the Rwanda scheme was so good. You landed on Dover beach, you got taken to Stanstead, you were taken to Rwanda and the due process started from there. That's what Australia does. That's what any country without a migrancy problem does.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| I can't see why Asylum seekers should not be required to be available for work in areas where we have shortages of labour, eg fruit pickers. |
Under armed guard I suppose.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Strewth, Wiley, all solicitors in this area work pro bono or for charities or whatever. |
It's all done on contracts paid for by the tax payer, charities can only give immigration advice if they meet certain standards, you need to be certified by the Immigration Advice Authority (IAA) and need to be properly trained. Wiley sees it as an industry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
It's true the main cost is the time taken on decisions, but then again that's because it's become a highly complicated legal process, with multiple levels of appeals and folks switching the original basis of application.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| I can't see why Asylum seekers should not be required to be available for work in areas where we have shortages of labour, eg fruit pickers. |
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Under armed guard I suppose. |
No need, asylum seekers are already lawfully denied access to public funds, we pay asylum support, if they don't work, so be it, we will still in fact pay them their asylum support, we just advise that they will not become future full citizens as all our fit citizens of working age need to be available for work. Happy for them to choose to not work. They just need to know the consequences.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I don't think you have quite grasped the problem, Wiley. Or rather you do what all liberally-minded people do and assume there is this huge (now) group of people who are good people who have somehow found themselves among among a sullen, illiberal populace. Try this for size:
| These are wicked people, criminals, who have broken into the home of ordinary decent law-abiding folk who just want rid of them. |
That is, after all, literally true and is at the heart of the matter because the real question is:
Is it, as liberals would have it, the migrants, people driven out of their homes by circumstances beyond their control seeking only refuge where e're they can find it? Or is it, as the people who vote for right-wing populists say, "Us." I would suggest the applied epistemological response ought to be
| It doesn't matter because the natives will out, one way or the other |
so either 'get rid' of the migrants or suffer a right-wing populist government. Picking apples won't cut it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| I don't think you have quite grasped the problem, Wiley. Or rather you do what all liberally-minded people do and assume there is this huge (now) group of people who are good people who have somehow found themselves among among a sullen, illiberal populace. Try this for size: |
We are currently a liberal nation, many of those fleeing do not share our liberal values. Whether they do or not, they should be offered temporary protection (we are a liberal tolerant nation), however only those that swear and show allegiance to the nation should become citizens.
For example, if they are under 40, there should be a form of national service, not a paper citizenship test.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
We are quite capable of handling this problem, if we take into account that we are capable of cocking it up.
The easiest way of cocking it up is to have a 3 or 4 year process, where we act as absentee landlords, minimum subsistence, no jobs or training whilst granting folks free legal assistance to overturn our processes.
At the end of which, virtually all folks get through, hate us for it, and are now tied into a dependency, begging type of victim culture.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
We are not a liberal nation, Wiley. We were a liberal nation. We are now an illiberal populace governed by a liberal elite. You keep assuming if we tweak this, reform that, it will all go away. Not so.
| It is a structural problem facing all developed countries |
1. People in developed countries don't want to do 'undeveloped' jobs.
2. But the jobs need doing.
3. So they have to import 'undeveloped' people to do the jobs.
4. People in any country don't like imported people.
That's the circle that has to be squared by the governments of all developed countries. If they do nothing
| Illegal migrants do the jobs |
But people especially dislike illegal migrants who, left to their own devices, will likely migrate out of the undeveloped jobs anyway. Or form a semi-permanent welfare underclass. Or turn to crime. Or go home. It's the worst possible option and it is essentially what all British governments (what all European governments and US governments) have been doing with their mixture of ineffectual measures and tut-tutting while numbers rise inexorably.
That is not to say that legal migration is easy. At the moment most of them are 'students' who for the most part won't go near 'undeveloped' jobs. Or 'apple-pickers' from eastern Europe brought in expensively, haphazardly and in inadequate numbers.
| But they are white (or sub-Continental off-white). |
This is hugely important because the real elephant in the room is race. We might have moaned about Polish plumbers but we soon got over that. The British will never accept Nigerian plumbers in their home. Never, ever. Racism is part of the human condition.
| Until HMG is allowed to be racist, the circle will never be squared. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
Will the Pakistan India spat be ended by Trump tomorrow, or did it start on Biden's watch?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Yesterday was most exciting. Al-Jazeera went straight over to a State Department press briefing to hear about the peace deal between America and the Houthis. That's like a cat making peace with a mouse, except it was the Houthis that had proved to be the cat.
Then we heard Trump had done it behind Netanyahu's back who was spitting feathers about it. We then learned this was probably part of the nuclear deal between America and Iran. Which Trump had also done behind Netanyahu's back. The president is not best pleased Israel has broken 'his' ceasefire, we were assured.
Then the State Department spokesperson (their term for a woman) went all coy about what the Big Reveal Trump has promised before his Middle East visit next week. So prolly Iran, not India/Pakistan or Russia/Ukraine.
That guy sure gets around, think of him what you will.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Nevertheless, let's see the India/Pakistan flare-up in terms of the rules-based world-order.
1. India legally owns Kashmir--the British divided the Raj according to the wishes of the maharajahs and the Maharaja of Kashmir did an iffy deal with India
2. India 'should not' hold any portion of Kashmir, it has a large Muslim majority
3. India's portion was acquired by military action, stopped by Pakistani military action
4. Technically, Pakistan holds their portion of Kashmir illegally
5. Pakistan is allowed to support Kashmiri Muslim separatists in Indian Kashmir
6. Pakistan is not allowed to support Kashmiri Muslim terrorists
7. Everyone knows only terrorism will have the slightest effect on India
8. Everyone knows Pakistan has been supporting Kashmiri terrorism
9. Nobody knows whether this particular terrorist act was supported by Pakistan
10. India is just about entitled to bomb terrorist-related targets in Pakistan.
What comes next is not as yet known but will be acceptable to the rules-based world-order. Up to and including thermonuclear war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| "... part of President Trump's attempt to bend cultural, artistic institutions to his will." Jamie Gangel, CNN, reporting on the forthcoming Les Miz performance at the Kennedy Center. |
True enough but let's remember who is bending what to whose will when it comes to the publicly-funded arts. Jamie Gangel and the Kennedy crowd's cultural and artistic tastes coincide with maybe ten per cent of the public's. Donald J Trump's align more with the other ninety per cent. Bend it like Beckham, big man.
But then again Adolf J Hitler used to get way over ninety per cent endorsements for his artistic and cultural plebiscites. Except when he went to Bayreuth. Come on, nobody outside the Beltway is going to sit through the Ring Cycle. You can pay for that out of party funds, mein fuehrer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
What are we to make of an American pope?
I haven't been taking much of an interest but I got the impression that he was a complete outsider. Since outsiders only get elected when the conclave can't agree on any one of the insiders and yet the geezer got white-smoked before I even knew they were in conclave, something odd must be afoot. Something AE.
It can only mean Donald Trump. But why were the cardinals making a beeline for someone hailing from a country where Roman Catholics are not terribly important? Or, looking at it another way, why did they not even stop to consider an African candidate, an Asian candidate, even a safe European candidate? Like I say, it must be because of Donald Trump.
But what's his connection with--of all things--Catholicism? It can't be tariffs. It can't be Israel or Ukraine or China. It surely can't be fundamentalist (Protestant) Christianity. The Monsignor did, I am informed, have a go at Trump over migrants--both inwards and outwards--but The Universal Church doesn't play politics at this tawdry level.
No, I think they've been mesmerised. Just like the rest of us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
What the cardinals may not have realised is that every strand of American prurient enquiry will be in high gear examining the new pope's entrails. He'd better not have put a foot wrong in his life thus far and if there is one thing I know everyone's put a foot in it at one time or another. They'll find it if he has. And plenty of people will be coming forward to say he has if he hasn't.
I don't give him a rat's chance in hell of surviving scrutiny that no-one has got a cat's chance of surviving. Especially someone so deeply unhappy as to decide early doors on the priesthood as his best way of surviving. One can only hope, from his point of view, it was just being gay. That means he'll be going to hell but he may keep his pontificate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
