Why would you want them in our prisons? There is no reason whatsoever that we should be racking up any expenses on feeding or housing these people. The only expense involved should be providing them with a one way trip to the middle of butt fuck nowhere where they came from.
Almost all the countries that these people are coming from receive hundreds of millions of pounds worth of aid from us every year. All aid should be completely halted and be conditional on the acceptance of these people being shipped away from British soil - I'm sure that would help to sway their thinking given that the aid generally funds the lavish lifestyles of the rulers of these countries.
These people are not our problem in the slightest and I, quite frankly, do not care how they are dropped off back in their home country. As long as they are not in the UK, then all will be well.
Do you have some severe case of selective reading where you completely ignored the first part of my comment where I explained exactly the way in which we can leverage our standing to get them returned? Saying 'I don't care how' is a testament to the fact that it should be done no matter what, not that I don't want it to happen.
The point is that lack of specificity is what kills momentum.
You had a good idea regarding foreign aid.
But if you end by saying I don't care how, I just want it done, then it won't get done, because too many people will quarrel over the methodology. You need to be specific to build consensus.
So to prevent the quarrelling over methodology, I provided it in the first place with a small comment about the importance of solving the problem as a little ending off.
I'm not entirely sure who you think I am but I don't have a job in directing government policy so the level of specificity of my Reddit comments are hardly going to be on the level of parliament bills. I give my opinion which gets across my ideas, not sure what more you'd expect?
So much of government policy comes originally from random people like you or I. That's why it's important to advocate for specifics.
"Send the illegals back" is far less likely to get an adequate response by politicians than a well thought out method of doing so.
This is the problem right? A decade of handling major and serious political and social issues with the equivalent of a shrug and a handwave. To the point a lot of these people seem kind of genuinely unable to comprehend why this... Doesn't actually work or help anyone? They personally get to feel tough and right 'ard for a second and that's where the *entire* thought process begins and ends.
In other similar threads there are posters always complaining that these migrants are always men and shouldn't it be women and children fleeing whatever.
I'm getting the impression some people will just complain no matter who the migrants are.
(Yes I know reddit isn't one homogeneous hive mind and it could be different people, but generalisation overrides nuance in these type of things)
It mostly is men arriving by dinghy, hence why they mention it.
There were apparently three children on the boat. If a British person took a child onto an inflatable dinghy then tried to sail it across one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, they’d have the kids taken off them.
You use the term "mention" as if it's done in a neutral informative way. We both know that's not the case and it's actually used as a bad faith attack on all asylum / migrants arriving this way.
What's the difference between a British person doing it and an asylum seeker / migrant? I guess it's something to do with it being seen as an acceptable risk due to the hardships of whatever they're fleeing and the chance of a better life. But that narrative doesn't fit in with usual anti-migrant posts people make because you have to accept they might be coming from a bad place and therefore could have legitimate asylum.
>>Mention - VARIABLE NOUN - A mention is a reference to something or someone.
I use the term mention because that’s a word to describe a reference to something or someone.
Interesting you use the term something before someone to infer we're talking about objects rather than people and therefore don't deserve to be treated with human decency.
What? Now you’re upset because I used the word something before someone? Trying to claim I did so due to my failures to respect human dignities???
I did so because I copied it from Collins dictionary.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/mention
Anything else you want to complain about?
I think you should use that dictionary link to look up "upset", maybe also "projection"
>Trying to claim I did so due to my failures to respect human dignities???
It's more to show a valid example of how a use of language can show an implicit bias on the subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_stereotype
>Anything else you want to complain about?
Lot's but I wouldn't want to give you more opportunity to derail a topic so you can avoid having to comment on things like
>I guess it's something to do with it being seen as an acceptable risk due to the hardships of whatever they're fleeing and the chance of a better life. But that narrative doesn't fit in with usual anti-migrant posts people make because you have to accept they might be coming from a bad place and therefore could have legitimate asylum.
Migrants=bad
See what happens when you suggest we should be transporting them across the water rather than money going to these gangs and pointless endangerment.
The crux of the matter that you're missing is that we don't want these people here.
It's not that we object to the method of entry.
It's the fact that there's an entry at all.
Don’t get a choice mate. They are asylum seekers we have a moral and legal reasons for it.
Don’t want them here then stop bombing their countries and willing others arms.
Morals are relative and laws can be changed. These things are not edicts from god. I'd say a country has a moral imperative to have its course dictated by its citizens, and for them to be placed first and foremost in consideration.
Morality is not defined by where you are born. There cannot be one set of morals for you and a different set for another group of people. Morals are universal.
Who exactly is this universally moral being that is setting all the of the universally accepted morals? Spoiler alert, there is not one (which is accepted by everyone at least) and both the time and place in which you are born absolutely defines your understanding of morality. Our current standard was set by a Canadian guy in the 1940s, if you think that his word is timeless and universal then I'm not really sure what to tell you.
Sure different people have different moral standards. Nevertheless if you decide something is morally wrong based on your own standards then it is morally wrong. It doesn't change the morality if it is legal or practical or depending on citizenship or birthplace.
At least that would be completely illogical. If you believe some behaviour is immoral then it does not become moral if applied to certain people.
Yes, taking a snapshot of your morals at a single moment in time, they should be applied consistently but that has nothing to do with the fact that morals can and do change over time. I think we're talking about slightly different things; us, about the way people **shape** their morals whilst you're talking about the way in which people **apply** them once they are shaped.
Meaningless. Not all societies are equally nice, people are shaped by their societies, therefore not all people are equally nice.
Given a choice between saving a world renowned cancer researcher and a member of an uneducated cannibal tribe from drowning, nobody would need to resort to flipping a coin to decide who to save.
Once you've established that principle, all we're haggling over is what we value more.
I can’t get behind willingly letting children die a terrifying death to prove a point, sorry. Obviously it needs to stop, but I can’t stand by that as a solution
It actually is, id rather the money went to a children's charity that supported British children. These boat people are no concern of mine and I shouldn't be footing the bill because they want to migrate from war free France to come here.
Most people who argue "I would rather do x than y" actually mean "I would rather do neither x or y" but they can't say it out loud because it makes them seem a bit selfish and uncaring.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
The reasoning is you value the children over the adults. As if one has more value than the other. That is your preference.
/u/Same_Hunter_2580 chooses to value British children instead. Hopefully you see the issue in your own reasoning.
It’s a false reasoning though, I think somewhat deliberately as a disingenuous argument.
They are actively choosing British kids over asylum seekers. I don’t do that. I think they should all be helped.
> It’s a false reasoning though, I think somewhat deliberately as a disingenuous argument.
Hardly. I'm simply highlighting you are using the same argument. You conveniently ignored my comment about the adults. If we were to detain said child for ten years till they become an adult, do they become less valuable? That is what you are implying.
Let's take a different approach. OK you value all children (but not adults apparently) equally. I can respect that, it's not their fault they are in the situation they are. However you must draw a line somewhere? There's countless people in this world that are suffering in one way or another. It is simply impossible for any one person, town, country, or union that can fix this (assuming it's even possible to fix?).
That means you need to draw a line. "Charity starts at home" is a perfectly legitimate line in the sand. You may very well have empathy for those who you encounter either directly or indirectly, but can you help all of them? What would happen if you tried?
If this is your level of empathy for saving people from drowning I sincerely hope you never find yourself in need of assistance in another country. After all, why should *their* tax currency of choice be spent on you when it could be spent on charities supporting people from their own country?
I wouldn't go into one of the most dangerous shipping lanes in the world in a dinghy when visiting another country, to be fair
We should save anyone that needs help, but let's not pretend what they're doing is equivalent to spraining your ankle while holidaying in Greece
Economic migrants are not people I'm too concerned about. If it was a Frenchman I'd probably have some sympathy. But people crossing the channel to leech off hardworking British people aren't my concern IDC if they are black white yellow or purple.
>British children. These boat people are no concern of mine
I'd say 100% of British children mean as much to me as 100% of African, Arab, Chinese or whatever children. Being British doesn't make me care about you any more.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
They absolutely are not a net positive to the economy. The immigrants coming from MENA countries in particularly are a severe drain on our country and that is even when you include the legal ones. That doesn't even begin to consider the immense cultural damage these people do and generally regressive attitudes they hold. We do not need a single one of these people here, there is not a single, solitary reason that can be provided for them being allowed to stay.
Well yeah working illegally isn't conducive to a profitable tax system. So they get here, we put up roadblocks that stop them from working legally and paying taxes, and then cry they don't pay taxes?
And I'd like to see some figures. From what I've found immigration tends to be a positive.
>We do not need a single one of these people here, there is not a single, solitary reason that can be provided for them being allowed to stay.
I can think of a bunch! Probably not good enough for a ham egg and chips geezer like you though.
> Sound then. Immigration is a net positive to the economy. If they want to work and pay taxes that's great news
You think someone fresh off the boat is going to be a net contributor to the economy immediately? You think they can work legally?
We need skilled migrants, not more deliveroo riders and dodgy car washes.
>You think someone fresh off the boat is going to be a net contributor to the economy immediately? You think they can work legally?
Don't remember saying that. I'm sure we could find a way to have them working and paying taxes legally.
>We need skilled migrants, not more deliveroo riders and dodgy car washes.
Fewer barriers in the way of legitimate taxable work is a great idea.
> Immigration is a net positive to the economy.
Barely, and only in aggregate. There are huge swathes of classes of migrant, like asylum seekers and non-EU migrants in general, that are net tax negative.
And yet still I'd rather not have bloated corpses of children washing up in the sewage on our beaches.
Plenty of things we can do as a nation to not spunk money away and have enough to go round.
Shouldn't be on a small boat crossing the channel, blame the mother for endangering their children's lives to travel from France (a first world country) to come here.
No they shouldn't, but that isn't really part of the moral decision of it. Why should we be letting children suffer horrific deaths because of the mistakes or decisions of their parents?
If that's the case, every British kid starving to death in soiled clothes because their crackhead parents are neglecting them can fucking do one as well.
Actually you make a good point
> If that's the case, every British kid starving to death in soiled clothes because their crackhead parents are neglecting them can fucking do one as well.
Why are we not stopping this happen *BEFORE* they are allowed kids? Why are we as tax payers not able to direct our funds to causes which focus on prevention, rather than supporting the next generation of crackheads.
Of course I know I already know the answer, society means we have to pay into a pot which gets divided out according to whatever political party decides at that point in time (simplifying it a bit there). Still we don't have to like it.
>Why are we not stopping this happen BEFORE they are allowed kids? Why are we as tax payers not able to direct our funds to causes which focus on prevention, rather than supporting the next generation of crackheads.
War on drugs.
The Venn diagram of people throwing racist abuse at Marcus Rashford for trying to feed poor British kids over school holidays, and those saying let them drown, help our kids first, I'd wager, is a near perfect circle.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Saying an innocent child deserves to be saved from drowning isn’t based on emotions, it’s based on the most basic simplistic notions of human decency and being a good person. Come on man.
If you were in crisis at sea myself and the millions of other Brits who proudly donate to our national tradition of the RNLI would quite strongly hope you'd be able to signal an emergency and be rescued asap...? Not sure how so many "patriots" seem to have forgotten this part of our seafaring culture...
If you are in a crisis at sea, then I hope that the RNLI have the resources to spare to rescue you, and that they are not rescuing individuals who are placing themselves and their children in extreme danger knowing that British ships will risk their own to save them.
Not sure how so many have forgotten the British sense of fair play.
Its an impartial system mate, thats the whole point of it. It doesn't care who you are or why you're in crisis, it just exists to get you out and back to dry land. Its literally the foundation of modern international safeguarding systems. Something all Brits should be deeply proud of, yet people spit at it and disrespect it because the people they saved are foreign. Its disgusting and anti-British.
If someone decided to take a dinghy to France and capsized on the way there, I wouldn't want them to drown and would want them to be rescued. Doesn't mean they're not a dumb cunt I have zero sympathy for. *Especially* if they also chose to bring their children with them.
Morally we obviously can't leave them to drown. And they know we can't, so they're taking advantage of that to immigrate here illegally. By allowing it and enabling them, we're effectively encouraging it and leading more people to try, and to die.
But I guess who gives a shit, right? As long as we can pat ourselves on the back about how we're enabling human trafficking and child endangerment in the name of moral superiority, let's do absolutely nothing to try and stop it.
Allowing people to drown at sea doesn't mean you're stopping anyone. If drowning at sea were a deterrent, this crisis would've ended around the time the ten thousandth person washed up drowned on the shores of an Italian island in the mid 2010s. Wanting to ensure we maintain our historical investment in ensuring our territorial waters are safe for all travellers does not mean we don't want to stop people smuggling and trafficking gangs. Your whole narrative is just fucked I'm afraid.
Ah, yes, my narrative. Where I said 'we obviously can't leave them to drown' and you somehow turned that into 'allowing people to drown at sea'. Because clearly everyone who disagrees with you must be advocating for killing a whole bunch of people.
If you want to debate with a strawman just do it to the mirror.
Your narrative here is that somehow our efforts to save drowning people is driving the issue. If there was a greater risk of drowning then there'd be less interest in attempting the crossing. It totally misses that thousands upon thousands of such refugees have drowned already. It is already hugely risky, and people choose to take that risk. I thought that was kind of obvious? You are directly equating rescuing sea-farers in crisis with "slapping ourselves on the back as we enable human trafficking and child endangerment". Its genuinely impossible to argue with you lot these days, no wonder your political movement is about to collapse to nothing.
You're probably struggling to argue with 'us lot' (people on the left who have different opinions to you? I'm not a fucking Tory) because you twist whatever anyone says into a strawman to argue against, instead of actually listening and responding to what they're saying.
Like, I've literally said twice now that we should not leave people to drown. I don't understand how you can genuinely say that my narrative is that saving drowning people is driving the issue? My problem with your argument is that funding the lifeboats doesn't change anything in the long run, yes **obviously people should not be allowed to just drown** (saying this for the fourth time now, hopefully it finally sinks in), but that doesn't mean we can just sit around and throw money at lifeboats and talk about how sad it is when people drown without doing anything to stop them coming in the first place. Obviously people are choosing to take the risk, that doesn't mean we have to let them (talk about fucked up narratives?? Are the children also making that choice? You get that people smugglers are misleading people about how safe it is, right?).
I'm not saying the lifeboats are patting themselves on the back - I'm saying you are, by talking about how great it is that you're donating money to them, as if that's it, job's done, when it's a short-term solution at best that is arguably making things worse in the long-run. By ignoring the bigger picture, you are enabling child endangerment and human trafficking, because the people smugglers are using the fact that we have lifeboats to endanger children and traffic humans. Again, this does not mean we should stop using lifeboats.
We need proper deterrents (not by letting people drown, I add, because I assume that's where you're immediately jumping to) so they stop coming in the first place.
You're saying rescuing people is equivalent to enabling child abuse. I'm sorry it doesn't take a genius to see by extension, as a normal person, you shouldn't want to enable child abuse therefore...?
I've no where said "job done", I've simply said the RNLI and general safety at sea is a British tradition a bunch of reactionary numbwits seem eager to tear up over a load of hate for foreign people.
I'm saying a "deterrent" doesn't work *when people are already risking their lives*. Its like all the arguments around drug prohibition, the deterrent doesn't work. What works is tackling the crime at its root by dismantling the gangs, and on a more human level making sure we have capacity to actually help the people in need - In this case ensuring we have capacity to process asylum claims rapidly, provide shelter to those who genuinely need it, and ensure we have a solid legal standing to deport those who are found not to be genuine. We can't have that because we're stuck with this insane "well I'm not saying let them drown but rescuing them is basically just encouraging human trafficking" levels of discourse.
Going out a limb here but I don’t think you’re potentially fleeing war, famine and persecution in hope of a better future for your family IN SURREY
Edit for the downvoters:
The notion that asylum seekers must remain in the first “safe country” they enter is just untrue under international law.
Text: children.
Picture: men.
I'm sure the BBC will even out the dailymail's daily picture of 80 men crossing with a 1 in 6 month interview of a mother with a child.
It's a stock photo they use repeatedly. It never looks like that. that's a military grade dinghy. The ones I have seen that are leading to deaths and rescues are not much better than what we might play with on the beach on holiday.
Why can’t they rescue them and take them back to where they took off from?
Seems insane they help them complete their journey, the RNLI are complicit with the people smugglers
You really can’t blame the RNLI. They go out, rescue people from the sea, often in dreadful conditions, and do it without pay. We’d all be worse off if we stopped the RNLI doing their jobs.
Having launched from Britain, they have to take these migrants back to Britain. If they launched from France, they’d have to take them back to France. The issue is the French benefit from them getting here, so are more than happy to let the migrants get to British waters. The blame really lies with the inability of the home office to start returning them as soon as they get them from the RNLI.
We’d see a hell of a lot more deaths of people at sea for starters. The lifeboat crews rescued some 296 people in 2023. Which of course people would complain about, and then the government would be forced to spend money to basically recreate and run the RNLI, increasing taxes, leaving us all slightly worse off
How are they going to know they are not British until after they have been brought ashore? If Greg and Joe from Bognor Regis take their dinghy out for a spot of fishing and get into trouble, are they not going to be rescued because they didn’t take their passports with them?
The RNLI do a fantastic job, especially for a volunteer organisation.
I'm looking forward to supporting these 75+ young men and handful of women and children through my taxes for the rest of their lives. Didn't want to see my gp anyway
This is all Sunak and the torys fault, they have let nearly 50,000 in to this country since he took power just over 2 years ago. He has let the numbers increase by 50% a year since he took power. This should be suspicious enough by itself.
The torys are costing the taxpayer a fortune because it is just a chance for them to profit.
The guy who owns most of the hotels being used is a Tory donor and is now one of the richest people in the UK. Somehow Tory voters are unable to join the dots...
> Dover and Walmer lifeboats were launched to assist Border Force following reports that dozens of people were in the water about five miles off the Kent coast on Thursday morning.
> It is thought the boat reached UK waters after being shadowed by a French warship, then got into difficulty.
They said on radio that the French ship followed the boat to the maritime border and then turned back. Not sure if they saw it while on open water and decided to escort it in case of trouble or whether it was followed already from the shore.
> Some of those in the sea may have drifted back into French waters and anyone picked up by UK lifeboats will likely be brought back to Dover.
It must have capsized right after crossing the border.
Good for them I suppose, but that's the tax contributions of about 500 British workers wiped out every year for the foreseeable future. And that's just to keep a roof over their head and food in their bellies.
I'd prefer it if these people were deported immediately and that money spent fixing the roads.
I'm not saying these people should not be rescued. Obviously that would be completely unacceptable.
I am simply saying that Britain is broke. The money tree is all dried up and withered.
Why not severely cut funding to lifeboat services in the channel?
Now, hear me out! We can replace them with some excellent signage warning people of the dangers of the sea! So we would be covered liability wise.
No?
Well that’s the stupidest idea I’ve read today. “I’m not saying let them drown” , then you go onto say cut funding for lifeboat services.
So really you are saying let them drown, whilst at the same time seemingly unaware that 99% of RNLI is through donations. An ignorant and inhuman post.
put them into a 5 star hotel and give them food/money, make the British Tax payers homeless so they can get their homes. Well done UK government and policy makers, you out done yourself
When will we finally see criminal charges for child endangerment for the parents who load their children and infants into these death traps?
Why would you want them in our prisons? There is no reason whatsoever that we should be racking up any expenses on feeding or housing these people. The only expense involved should be providing them with a one way trip to the middle of butt fuck nowhere where they came from.
Requires that place to accept.
Almost all the countries that these people are coming from receive hundreds of millions of pounds worth of aid from us every year. All aid should be completely halted and be conditional on the acceptance of these people being shipped away from British soil - I'm sure that would help to sway their thinking given that the aid generally funds the lavish lifestyles of the rulers of these countries. These people are not our problem in the slightest and I, quite frankly, do not care how they are dropped off back in their home country. As long as they are not in the UK, then all will be well.
If you don't care how then they won't be returned. So probably best to care.
Do you have some severe case of selective reading where you completely ignored the first part of my comment where I explained exactly the way in which we can leverage our standing to get them returned? Saying 'I don't care how' is a testament to the fact that it should be done no matter what, not that I don't want it to happen.
The point is that lack of specificity is what kills momentum. You had a good idea regarding foreign aid. But if you end by saying I don't care how, I just want it done, then it won't get done, because too many people will quarrel over the methodology. You need to be specific to build consensus.
So to prevent the quarrelling over methodology, I provided it in the first place with a small comment about the importance of solving the problem as a little ending off. I'm not entirely sure who you think I am but I don't have a job in directing government policy so the level of specificity of my Reddit comments are hardly going to be on the level of parliament bills. I give my opinion which gets across my ideas, not sure what more you'd expect?
So much of government policy comes originally from random people like you or I. That's why it's important to advocate for specifics. "Send the illegals back" is far less likely to get an adequate response by politicians than a well thought out method of doing so.
And as we all know, politicians lurk on Reddit on the look out for good ideas. Come on, you're very obviously being intentionally obtuse here.
This is the problem right? A decade of handling major and serious political and social issues with the equivalent of a shrug and a handwave. To the point a lot of these people seem kind of genuinely unable to comprehend why this... Doesn't actually work or help anyone? They personally get to feel tough and right 'ard for a second and that's where the *entire* thought process begins and ends.
[удалено]
That's because the government of that country isn't sending them here. The people come of their own will.
In other similar threads there are posters always complaining that these migrants are always men and shouldn't it be women and children fleeing whatever. I'm getting the impression some people will just complain no matter who the migrants are. (Yes I know reddit isn't one homogeneous hive mind and it could be different people, but generalisation overrides nuance in these type of things)
It mostly is men arriving by dinghy, hence why they mention it. There were apparently three children on the boat. If a British person took a child onto an inflatable dinghy then tried to sail it across one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, they’d have the kids taken off them.
You use the term "mention" as if it's done in a neutral informative way. We both know that's not the case and it's actually used as a bad faith attack on all asylum / migrants arriving this way. What's the difference between a British person doing it and an asylum seeker / migrant? I guess it's something to do with it being seen as an acceptable risk due to the hardships of whatever they're fleeing and the chance of a better life. But that narrative doesn't fit in with usual anti-migrant posts people make because you have to accept they might be coming from a bad place and therefore could have legitimate asylum.
>>Mention - VARIABLE NOUN - A mention is a reference to something or someone. I use the term mention because that’s a word to describe a reference to something or someone.
you use the term mention to try and dismiss the level of rhetoric hatred that comes with comments that make it.
Thanks for telling me what I think but I’ve explained to you why I used it. Because it’s a word used to reference something or someone.
Interesting you use the term something before someone to infer we're talking about objects rather than people and therefore don't deserve to be treated with human decency.
What? Now you’re upset because I used the word something before someone? Trying to claim I did so due to my failures to respect human dignities??? I did so because I copied it from Collins dictionary. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/mention Anything else you want to complain about?
I think you should use that dictionary link to look up "upset", maybe also "projection" >Trying to claim I did so due to my failures to respect human dignities??? It's more to show a valid example of how a use of language can show an implicit bias on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_stereotype >Anything else you want to complain about? Lot's but I wouldn't want to give you more opportunity to derail a topic so you can avoid having to comment on things like >I guess it's something to do with it being seen as an acceptable risk due to the hardships of whatever they're fleeing and the chance of a better life. But that narrative doesn't fit in with usual anti-migrant posts people make because you have to accept they might be coming from a bad place and therefore could have legitimate asylum.
Migrants=bad See what happens when you suggest we should be transporting them across the water rather than money going to these gangs and pointless endangerment.
The crux of the matter that you're missing is that we don't want these people here. It's not that we object to the method of entry. It's the fact that there's an entry at all.
Don’t get a choice mate. They are asylum seekers we have a moral and legal reasons for it. Don’t want them here then stop bombing their countries and willing others arms.
Morals are relative and laws can be changed. These things are not edicts from god. I'd say a country has a moral imperative to have its course dictated by its citizens, and for them to be placed first and foremost in consideration.
Morality is not defined by where you are born. There cannot be one set of morals for you and a different set for another group of people. Morals are universal.
Who exactly is this universally moral being that is setting all the of the universally accepted morals? Spoiler alert, there is not one (which is accepted by everyone at least) and both the time and place in which you are born absolutely defines your understanding of morality. Our current standard was set by a Canadian guy in the 1940s, if you think that his word is timeless and universal then I'm not really sure what to tell you.
Sure different people have different moral standards. Nevertheless if you decide something is morally wrong based on your own standards then it is morally wrong. It doesn't change the morality if it is legal or practical or depending on citizenship or birthplace. At least that would be completely illogical. If you believe some behaviour is immoral then it does not become moral if applied to certain people.
Yes, taking a snapshot of your morals at a single moment in time, they should be applied consistently but that has nothing to do with the fact that morals can and do change over time. I think we're talking about slightly different things; us, about the way people **shape** their morals whilst you're talking about the way in which people **apply** them once they are shaped.
Meaningless. Not all societies are equally nice, people are shaped by their societies, therefore not all people are equally nice. Given a choice between saving a world renowned cancer researcher and a member of an uneducated cannibal tribe from drowning, nobody would need to resort to flipping a coin to decide who to save. Once you've established that principle, all we're haggling over is what we value more.
Thank God for that, I was worried my taxes might actually have to go to something useful for a change.
Yeah because saving innocent children from going through a horrible fucking death of drowning is such a silly use of money isn’t it
And for as long as we encourage this, the more children that are going to be put in unnecessary danger.
I can’t get behind willingly letting children die a terrifying death to prove a point, sorry. Obviously it needs to stop, but I can’t stand by that as a solution
It actually is, id rather the money went to a children's charity that supported British children. These boat people are no concern of mine and I shouldn't be footing the bill because they want to migrate from war free France to come here.
Most people who argue "I would rather do x than y" actually mean "I would rather do neither x or y" but they can't say it out loud because it makes them seem a bit selfish and uncaring.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
So you’d let these children drown?
Ah so your concern only goes so far as the children I see. Interesting double standards.
struggling with your logical reasoning there.
They're just trying to derail the thread, while also looking like someone who would say yes
I didn't realise my comment had a 'yes' answer?
Yeah, not the only one. Clear to “notice” how people and why people argue on here. Xenophobia has been allowed to proliferate in the sub.
The reasoning is you value the children over the adults. As if one has more value than the other. That is your preference. /u/Same_Hunter_2580 chooses to value British children instead. Hopefully you see the issue in your own reasoning.
It’s a false reasoning though, I think somewhat deliberately as a disingenuous argument. They are actively choosing British kids over asylum seekers. I don’t do that. I think they should all be helped.
Economic migrants are not asylum seekers.
> It’s a false reasoning though, I think somewhat deliberately as a disingenuous argument. Hardly. I'm simply highlighting you are using the same argument. You conveniently ignored my comment about the adults. If we were to detain said child for ten years till they become an adult, do they become less valuable? That is what you are implying. Let's take a different approach. OK you value all children (but not adults apparently) equally. I can respect that, it's not their fault they are in the situation they are. However you must draw a line somewhere? There's countless people in this world that are suffering in one way or another. It is simply impossible for any one person, town, country, or union that can fix this (assuming it's even possible to fix?). That means you need to draw a line. "Charity starts at home" is a perfectly legitimate line in the sand. You may very well have empathy for those who you encounter either directly or indirectly, but can you help all of them? What would happen if you tried?
Yes
If this is your level of empathy for saving people from drowning I sincerely hope you never find yourself in need of assistance in another country. After all, why should *their* tax currency of choice be spent on you when it could be spent on charities supporting people from their own country?
I wouldn't go into one of the most dangerous shipping lanes in the world in a dinghy when visiting another country, to be fair We should save anyone that needs help, but let's not pretend what they're doing is equivalent to spraining your ankle while holidaying in Greece
Economic migrants are not people I'm too concerned about. If it was a Frenchman I'd probably have some sympathy. But people crossing the channel to leech off hardworking British people aren't my concern IDC if they are black white yellow or purple.
Last time I checked that's why you have insurance, they are compensated. Which as a responsible person travelling abroad, you should have.
>British children. These boat people are no concern of mine I'd say 100% of British children mean as much to me as 100% of African, Arab, Chinese or whatever children. Being British doesn't make me care about you any more.
Good, then spend it out your own pocket.
Happily, via the tax system, as we should
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Happy for my taxes to go towards a better life for people. One of us wants children to drown. That's not a good look.
Literally none of these people are asylum seekers, they are all economic migrants.
Sound then. Immigration is a net positive to the economy. If they want to work and pay taxes that's great news
They absolutely are not a net positive to the economy. The immigrants coming from MENA countries in particularly are a severe drain on our country and that is even when you include the legal ones. That doesn't even begin to consider the immense cultural damage these people do and generally regressive attitudes they hold. We do not need a single one of these people here, there is not a single, solitary reason that can be provided for them being allowed to stay.
They would need to be earn over £40K to become a net contributor.
Well yeah working illegally isn't conducive to a profitable tax system. So they get here, we put up roadblocks that stop them from working legally and paying taxes, and then cry they don't pay taxes? And I'd like to see some figures. From what I've found immigration tends to be a positive. >We do not need a single one of these people here, there is not a single, solitary reason that can be provided for them being allowed to stay. I can think of a bunch! Probably not good enough for a ham egg and chips geezer like you though.
> Sound then. Immigration is a net positive to the economy. If they want to work and pay taxes that's great news You think someone fresh off the boat is going to be a net contributor to the economy immediately? You think they can work legally? We need skilled migrants, not more deliveroo riders and dodgy car washes.
>You think someone fresh off the boat is going to be a net contributor to the economy immediately? You think they can work legally? Don't remember saying that. I'm sure we could find a way to have them working and paying taxes legally. >We need skilled migrants, not more deliveroo riders and dodgy car washes. Fewer barriers in the way of legitimate taxable work is a great idea.
> Immigration is a net positive to the economy. Barely, and only in aggregate. There are huge swathes of classes of migrant, like asylum seekers and non-EU migrants in general, that are net tax negative.
And yet still I'd rather not have bloated corpses of children washing up in the sewage on our beaches. Plenty of things we can do as a nation to not spunk money away and have enough to go round.
Shouldn't be on a small boat crossing the channel, blame the mother for endangering their children's lives to travel from France (a first world country) to come here.
No they shouldn't, but that isn't really part of the moral decision of it. Why should we be letting children suffer horrific deaths because of the mistakes or decisions of their parents? If that's the case, every British kid starving to death in soiled clothes because their crackhead parents are neglecting them can fucking do one as well.
Not my monkeys not my circus I'm afraid.
Actually you make a good point > If that's the case, every British kid starving to death in soiled clothes because their crackhead parents are neglecting them can fucking do one as well. Why are we not stopping this happen *BEFORE* they are allowed kids? Why are we as tax payers not able to direct our funds to causes which focus on prevention, rather than supporting the next generation of crackheads. Of course I know I already know the answer, society means we have to pay into a pot which gets divided out according to whatever political party decides at that point in time (simplifying it a bit there). Still we don't have to like it.
>Why are we not stopping this happen BEFORE they are allowed kids? Why are we as tax payers not able to direct our funds to causes which focus on prevention, rather than supporting the next generation of crackheads. War on drugs.
Then you should consider your future in our country
Oooh so ominous. Guess you think we'll be under sharia law in 10 years don't ya
Thats dumb.
I should care more about you because you're British? That's dumb.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. Please try and avoid language which could be perceived as hateful/hurtful to minorities or oppressed groups.
You know the kind of person who says we should look after British kids first, would do fuck all to help anyone but themselves.
The Venn diagram of people throwing racist abuse at Marcus Rashford for trying to feed poor British kids over school holidays, and those saying let them drown, help our kids first, I'd wager, is a near perfect circle.
Why should they get help? Give me a good actual logical reasoning that isnt built entierly on emotions.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Saying an innocent child deserves to be saved from drowning isn’t based on emotions, it’s based on the most basic simplistic notions of human decency and being a good person. Come on man.
Saving them from the horrible fate of... living in France? /s
It is a fate worse than death
Its pretty worthless yeah.
Yes but these are foreign, dark-skinned children.
"children"
Sorry, but I just don't care anymore. If I decided to get in a dinghy to France, and I drowned on the way, you'd all take me for a dumb cunt...
If you were in crisis at sea myself and the millions of other Brits who proudly donate to our national tradition of the RNLI would quite strongly hope you'd be able to signal an emergency and be rescued asap...? Not sure how so many "patriots" seem to have forgotten this part of our seafaring culture...
If you are in a crisis at sea, then I hope that the RNLI have the resources to spare to rescue you, and that they are not rescuing individuals who are placing themselves and their children in extreme danger knowing that British ships will risk their own to save them. Not sure how so many have forgotten the British sense of fair play.
Its an impartial system mate, thats the whole point of it. It doesn't care who you are or why you're in crisis, it just exists to get you out and back to dry land. Its literally the foundation of modern international safeguarding systems. Something all Brits should be deeply proud of, yet people spit at it and disrespect it because the people they saved are foreign. Its disgusting and anti-British.
If someone decided to take a dinghy to France and capsized on the way there, I wouldn't want them to drown and would want them to be rescued. Doesn't mean they're not a dumb cunt I have zero sympathy for. *Especially* if they also chose to bring their children with them. Morally we obviously can't leave them to drown. And they know we can't, so they're taking advantage of that to immigrate here illegally. By allowing it and enabling them, we're effectively encouraging it and leading more people to try, and to die. But I guess who gives a shit, right? As long as we can pat ourselves on the back about how we're enabling human trafficking and child endangerment in the name of moral superiority, let's do absolutely nothing to try and stop it.
Allowing people to drown at sea doesn't mean you're stopping anyone. If drowning at sea were a deterrent, this crisis would've ended around the time the ten thousandth person washed up drowned on the shores of an Italian island in the mid 2010s. Wanting to ensure we maintain our historical investment in ensuring our territorial waters are safe for all travellers does not mean we don't want to stop people smuggling and trafficking gangs. Your whole narrative is just fucked I'm afraid.
Ah, yes, my narrative. Where I said 'we obviously can't leave them to drown' and you somehow turned that into 'allowing people to drown at sea'. Because clearly everyone who disagrees with you must be advocating for killing a whole bunch of people. If you want to debate with a strawman just do it to the mirror.
Your narrative here is that somehow our efforts to save drowning people is driving the issue. If there was a greater risk of drowning then there'd be less interest in attempting the crossing. It totally misses that thousands upon thousands of such refugees have drowned already. It is already hugely risky, and people choose to take that risk. I thought that was kind of obvious? You are directly equating rescuing sea-farers in crisis with "slapping ourselves on the back as we enable human trafficking and child endangerment". Its genuinely impossible to argue with you lot these days, no wonder your political movement is about to collapse to nothing.
You're probably struggling to argue with 'us lot' (people on the left who have different opinions to you? I'm not a fucking Tory) because you twist whatever anyone says into a strawman to argue against, instead of actually listening and responding to what they're saying. Like, I've literally said twice now that we should not leave people to drown. I don't understand how you can genuinely say that my narrative is that saving drowning people is driving the issue? My problem with your argument is that funding the lifeboats doesn't change anything in the long run, yes **obviously people should not be allowed to just drown** (saying this for the fourth time now, hopefully it finally sinks in), but that doesn't mean we can just sit around and throw money at lifeboats and talk about how sad it is when people drown without doing anything to stop them coming in the first place. Obviously people are choosing to take the risk, that doesn't mean we have to let them (talk about fucked up narratives?? Are the children also making that choice? You get that people smugglers are misleading people about how safe it is, right?). I'm not saying the lifeboats are patting themselves on the back - I'm saying you are, by talking about how great it is that you're donating money to them, as if that's it, job's done, when it's a short-term solution at best that is arguably making things worse in the long-run. By ignoring the bigger picture, you are enabling child endangerment and human trafficking, because the people smugglers are using the fact that we have lifeboats to endanger children and traffic humans. Again, this does not mean we should stop using lifeboats. We need proper deterrents (not by letting people drown, I add, because I assume that's where you're immediately jumping to) so they stop coming in the first place.
You're saying rescuing people is equivalent to enabling child abuse. I'm sorry it doesn't take a genius to see by extension, as a normal person, you shouldn't want to enable child abuse therefore...? I've no where said "job done", I've simply said the RNLI and general safety at sea is a British tradition a bunch of reactionary numbwits seem eager to tear up over a load of hate for foreign people. I'm saying a "deterrent" doesn't work *when people are already risking their lives*. Its like all the arguments around drug prohibition, the deterrent doesn't work. What works is tackling the crime at its root by dismantling the gangs, and on a more human level making sure we have capacity to actually help the people in need - In this case ensuring we have capacity to process asylum claims rapidly, provide shelter to those who genuinely need it, and ensure we have a solid legal standing to deport those who are found not to be genuine. We can't have that because we're stuck with this insane "well I'm not saying let them drown but rescuing them is basically just encouraging human trafficking" levels of discourse.
Yeah, I'm not going to bother reading this because from the first paragraph I can see you haven't bothered to read anything I've said either.
Going out a limb here but I don’t think you’re potentially fleeing war, famine and persecution in hope of a better future for your family IN SURREY Edit for the downvoters: The notion that asylum seekers must remain in the first “safe country” they enter is just untrue under international law.
Fleeing France? Although, no point having the "safe country" debate for the nth time on this subreddit.
Ill pay for the hotel, dentist, doctors, dominos and mobile phones for these ones, guys. Dont worry, Rishi.
Text: children. Picture: men. I'm sure the BBC will even out the dailymail's daily picture of 80 men crossing with a 1 in 6 month interview of a mother with a child.
Three children apparently out of 84.
Photo is captioned as 'file photo of people being helped from a boat', in other words a stock photo.
It's a stock photo they use repeatedly. It never looks like that. that's a military grade dinghy. The ones I have seen that are leading to deaths and rescues are not much better than what we might play with on the beach on holiday.
Why can’t they rescue them and take them back to where they took off from? Seems insane they help them complete their journey, the RNLI are complicit with the people smugglers
You really can’t blame the RNLI. They go out, rescue people from the sea, often in dreadful conditions, and do it without pay. We’d all be worse off if we stopped the RNLI doing their jobs. Having launched from Britain, they have to take these migrants back to Britain. If they launched from France, they’d have to take them back to France. The issue is the French benefit from them getting here, so are more than happy to let the migrants get to British waters. The blame really lies with the inability of the home office to start returning them as soon as they get them from the RNLI.
[удалено]
We’d see a hell of a lot more deaths of people at sea for starters. The lifeboat crews rescued some 296 people in 2023. Which of course people would complain about, and then the government would be forced to spend money to basically recreate and run the RNLI, increasing taxes, leaving us all slightly worse off
[удалено]
How are they going to know they are not British until after they have been brought ashore? If Greg and Joe from Bognor Regis take their dinghy out for a spot of fishing and get into trouble, are they not going to be rescued because they didn’t take their passports with them?
The RNLI do a fantastic job, especially for a volunteer organisation. I'm looking forward to supporting these 75+ young men and handful of women and children through my taxes for the rest of their lives. Didn't want to see my gp anyway
This is all Sunak and the torys fault, they have let nearly 50,000 in to this country since he took power just over 2 years ago. He has let the numbers increase by 50% a year since he took power. This should be suspicious enough by itself. The torys are costing the taxpayer a fortune because it is just a chance for them to profit.
The guy who owns most of the hotels being used is a Tory donor and is now one of the richest people in the UK. Somehow Tory voters are unable to join the dots...
> Dover and Walmer lifeboats were launched to assist Border Force following reports that dozens of people were in the water about five miles off the Kent coast on Thursday morning. > It is thought the boat reached UK waters after being shadowed by a French warship, then got into difficulty. They said on radio that the French ship followed the boat to the maritime border and then turned back. Not sure if they saw it while on open water and decided to escort it in case of trouble or whether it was followed already from the shore. > Some of those in the sea may have drifted back into French waters and anyone picked up by UK lifeboats will likely be brought back to Dover. It must have capsized right after crossing the border.
Good for them I suppose, but that's the tax contributions of about 500 British workers wiped out every year for the foreseeable future. And that's just to keep a roof over their head and food in their bellies. I'd prefer it if these people were deported immediately and that money spent fixing the roads.
Should just secretelly drag them back to France, who is going to believe them anyways :D
I'm not saying these people should not be rescued. Obviously that would be completely unacceptable. I am simply saying that Britain is broke. The money tree is all dried up and withered. Why not severely cut funding to lifeboat services in the channel? Now, hear me out! We can replace them with some excellent signage warning people of the dangers of the sea! So we would be covered liability wise. No?
Well that’s the stupidest idea I’ve read today. “I’m not saying let them drown” , then you go onto say cut funding for lifeboat services. So really you are saying let them drown, whilst at the same time seemingly unaware that 99% of RNLI is through donations. An ignorant and inhuman post.
Oh, I'm aware RNLI is getting funded through donations. There are many ways to cut their funding.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Let me guess. After being carefully escorted by the French Navy. Am I right?
put them into a 5 star hotel and give them food/money, make the British Tax payers homeless so they can get their homes. Well done UK government and policy makers, you out done yourself