• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
The measures implemented gave us greater ability to tackle illegal immigrants, which is perfectly valid.

That the Windrush generation is caught up in this is shocking, and shows how poorly implemented the policy was - but that doesnt mean it is either racist or even incorrect.

A good idea, badly implemented, is still a good idea. There should have been much clearer communication, with the like of the Windrush generation targetted to have them attain the required documents. A passport, some sort of certification, something to give them the ok.

That being done, this was a perfectly valid policy. Make it harder for ILLEGAL immigrants to thrive here, make it less appealling to them and easier to send them home. Im totally ok with that, even if I think what has happened since is awful.

I fail to see any racism in it though, unless the idea of borders themselves are racist.
Click to expand...

Well Diane "The Dunce" Abbott spotted a problem with it and raised the issue with May, in Parliament at the time. It wasn't a good policy because it hurt innocent people and a lot of them -- they happened to be mostly non-white, and that's where the institutional racism is. You won't find a paragraph in the legislation where it says "deport/detain/deny healthcare to innocent black people" but that's what happened. This was not an unknown consequence, or Diane Abbott would not have been able to raise the issue. Now, the chickens have come home to roost.

That you are ok with the policy doesn't mean that it was good policy and it also doesn't mean that it's not an example of institutional racism. It's a phucking stunning example of it. The communication was perfectly clear, they did not care about the consequences because it was all about chasing immigration targets that play well in the right-wing media. "Low hanging fruit."

This hasn't just started to happen in the past month, this has been going on for awhile, but it wasn't getting enough negative media attention before. Now it has done and politicians are having to pretend that they could never have known this was going to happen. But if you believe that, then you must believe that Diane Abbott was smarter than everyone else when they were putting this legislation through.
 
By the very nature of them being immigrants, there is a fair chance they arent ethnically British/caucasian, so either its ok to deport people or its racist. Which is it?

That there was an issue with the implementation shows not necessarily "institutional racism", but could simply be incompetence. Not acceptable, of course, but not the same thing either.

The policy was defined as ILLEGAL immigrants, not "any and all" immigrants. By that definition I have no issue with its intent, at all.

That it was so poorly implemented? Of course I take issue, its quite frankly disgusting how some people are being treated. At no point though do I see racism.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Its not stupid at all.

Is kicking illegal immigrants out of the country racist, yes or no?
Click to expand...

It's a strawman argument and therefore a stupid question.

The people caught up in this scandal were not illegal immigrants, but they were/are overwhelmingly non-white. This was a known consequence, I have given you the example of Diane Abbott raising an issue in Parliament at the time in 2014, with Theresa May who was then Home Secretary. People who are British but appear to be migrants, as she said. They would be the ones who suffer.

If she knew it, then May and the rest knew it. They knew it would disproportionately hurt non-white British people. People without the correct documentation were regarded, in Home Office memos, as "low-hanging fruit." They did not care. Just try and hit the net migration targets, whatever the cost. There is the institutional racism.
 
Its not a straw man argument at all. Its really quite simple.

The policy was intended to effect illegal immigrants. Is this racist?

I say not. Hence, I say, its a bit much to accuse of institutional racism. Now I know youre big on your anti Tory soapbox, and honestly I think thats informing your opinion here.

Stupidity, ignorance, poor implementation - all fair accusations. NONE infer racism. All fair complaints as well, the whole thing is a clusterfudge that has caused undue stress and worry to people whom it shouldnt have even effected.

I dont think anyone is going to tell you they did the right thing. BUT thats all about how it was handled, not the actual immigration act changes in the first place.

And lets be honest, what do you expect first from the government of a country built on immigration and mutli-cultural living? Incompetence? Silly buerocracy? Career politicians? People in jobs they arent qualified for? or Racism?

Im pretty cynical, I have very low expectations of our government and local services - but at no point have I ever thought racism was a motivation behind choices they have made.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Its not a straw man argument at all. Its really quite simple.

The policy was intended to effect illegal immigrants. Is this racist?
Click to expand...

It was known that the policy would hurt British people who might appear as if they are migrants. To carry on anyway shows a disregard for those people. Overwhelmingly non-white. I think that's an example of institutional racism.

I don't think I can make my opinion much clearer than that. If you disagree, fine, Ill agree to disagree with you.
 
I do disagree.

I think by the very nature of being an immigrant there is a very good chance you arent white, or at least of white/european descent. It goes with the territory and IMO doesnt mean any measures taken involving immigration are racist. Its going to happen that disproportionate amounts of non white people will be effected by any immigration measure, thats simply the nature of it.

You can flip it on its head, and take a predominantly non-white country and apply the same thinking - the white people will be disproportionately caught up by virtue of immigrants being largely white, for example.

It was raised that there could be issues with genuine citizens, it was also countered that those concerns had apparently been meet. That the warning came to be screams incompetence to me, not racism.

Racism is a pretty heavy accusation to make, Im weary of just throwing it around, and in this case I really do think you are wrong.

I think this is ignorance, incompetence, beurocratic rooster up - I dont think its "lets target black British people unfairly".

As I say, Ive no issue with the intent of the Act. The implementation, however...
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I think this is ignorance, incompetence, beurocratic rooster up - I dont think its "lets target black British people unfairly".
Click to expand...

I just want to clarify this point and then I'll leave it alone. It's not that they were "targetted." It is that it was known they they would be the ones potentially caught up and no regard was given to them. That goes beyond incompetence imo.
 
Could/potentially. Doesnt seem deliberate. Which sits with incompetent more than racist, for me.

It seems the destruction of documents at a later, seperate, incident has caused most of this. With those documents most people would have had record of their landing and been ok, wouldnt they?

You make it sound deliberate, I still think stupity is more likely the culprit.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Could/potentially. Doesnt seem deliberate. Which sits with incompetent more than racist, for me.

It seems the destruction of documents at a later, seperate, incident has caused most of this. With those documents most people would have had record of their landing and been ok, wouldnt they?

You make it sound deliberate, I still think stupity is more likely the culprit.
Click to expand...

The documents were destroyed in 2010 (landing cards) but they would not have been required before the policy changes came in, in 2014.
 
the dza said:
The documents were destroyed in 2010 (landing cards) but they would not have been required before the policy changes came in, in 2014.
Click to expand...

Right. Were they not destroyed, however, there wouldnt be much of a problem - would there?

Expecting a legal resident of the country to have some form of documentation to prove so really isnt that wild or out of line.

Destroying such a document, that would have helped those who had been here 70 years without ever having another form of document was bloody ridiculous. That said, how many people actually fit that criteria? Im yet to see.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Expecting a legal resident of the country to have some form of documentation to prove so really isnt that wild or out of line.
Click to expand...

People, in many cases, had reams of documentation. But it wasn't enough unless it met very specific criteria. That's where this whole thing comes from. Set the burden of proof high and take out the "low hanging fruit." Do so wilfully, knowing that certain innocent groups will be vulnerable to being declared as illegal immigrants, and all the life consequences that come for them as a result. (which, as I've said, imo is an institutionally racist policy). Phuck 'em, just try and hit those net migration targets. That's the attitude.
 
How high a bar? Is it really that unacceptable to think someone that has been here 70 years should have adequate documentation?

I dont believe any LEGAL migrant has been deliberately targeted. As you say, agree to disagree. Feel free to call everyone racist, Ill continue to think they are incompetent before believing they want rid of legally resident and elderly black people.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
How high a bar? Is it really that unacceptable to think someone that has been here 70 years should have adequate documentation?

I dont believe any LEGAL migrant has been deliberately targeted. As you say, agree to disagree. Feel free to call everyone racist, Ill continue to think they are incompetent before believing they want rid of legally resident and elderly black people.
Click to expand...

Incomeptence is something politicians do well whether they be tory, labour, whatever
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
How high a bar? Is it really that unacceptable to think someone that has been here 70 years should have adequate documentation?
Click to expand...

4 pieces of documentation for every year resident in the UK, but they cannot be the same, so 4 bank statements won't work. The Home Office also would not use central tax/pension records as proof. How many people have that kind of documentation going back 40 years, particularly when they never thought they'd need it? Got 20 years worth of proof? Tough brick, what about the 20 before that?
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
How high a bar? Is it really that unacceptable to think someone that has been here 70 years should have adequate documentation?

I dont believe any LEGAL migrant has been deliberately targeted. As you say, agree to disagree. Feel free to call everyone racist, Ill continue to think they are incompetent before believing they want rid of legally resident and elderly black people.
Click to expand...

And that's another strawman. You can't just say this and pretend that is what I am saying, when it isn't.

The point is not that they "want rid of legal, elderly black people." The point is that THEY KNEW that this group would be disproportionately hurt by the changes they made, but they went ahead anyway. Because to them, it was more important to try and hit net migration targets than ensure the innocent people were protected. That's why I say it is "institutionally" racist, rather than just racist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back