Asylum seekers to be housed at Catterick Garrison...

Facefuzz said:
You said I used racist language. Sherlock and bri mar wood called me racist.

I’ve explained already.
Burden is a fair word. There maybe better words but I used that one. The situation is a burden. It’s a burden on an island nation and is contributing to services being overstretched.

I also stand by the word illegal aswell. If I crossed the border from Mexico to America through a tunnel dug by criminals who I’ve paid money to I’d be there illegally. If I flew into Australia on a one way ticket from China (bought by criminals) with £30 in my pocket knowing I was going to go off grid and not return home then I’d be there illegally.

Do I support immigration, yes
Within reason.

I support economic migration and refugee/asylum fleeing persecution.

We need doctors, nurses and other professionals. We don’t have enough. I encourage those people to come. I’d rather we had more getting the qualifications here but we don’t.

I support refugees and those fleeing persecution, mainly women children elderly and the infirm. We should help as many as we can. And there is a finite number to how many people we can help. I don’t know what the number is but once the balance flips and stresses are on systems then it has to slow down. That is were we are now. It may have also been caused by what roofie pointed out like selling off housing stock and under investing but nevertheless we are there.

I’ll tell you this aswell. I want my kids and my friends kids and all of your kids to have the opportunity of having a job and house and access to health care. If immigration was not controlled then those opportunities for the futures of people who were born here and heritage is here would be eroded further.

What I don’t want, and most people don’t want, but you fail to see is bad people coming here and staying.
Murders, rapists and terrorists in their own countries.
I don’t want Thai and Vietnamese young lads here working shifts in cannabis farms paying off a never ending debt in fear that their family back home are harmed.
I don’t want Kurds and Albanians who come and join gangs, deal drugs and use horrendous violence to get what they want.
I don’t want girls coming here from Eastern Europe, Africa, the far east then being shifted from town to town to work in massage parlors providing happy endings.

See those thai, Vietnamese, Albanians, Kurds, Eastern Europeans, Africans (pretty much every country). They all come on boats, they come in wagons and containers. That HAS to stop.

You can’t differentiate on a boat or in a wagon who is who. You also can’t give them all a nice little day pass to return once we’ve done some checks, because they disappear and don’t come back.
Click to expand...
You're confusing two issues: you're confusing the current refugee crisis with the need for controlled immigration. We have the latter. I get the feeling, we would very much disagree on the level of controlled immigration we need but that's for another thread.

Back to talking about the migrant crisis

I'll relate it again: the word illegal is simply incorrect. They have a legal right to seek asylum here. Everyone does. This is the issue with I have with the the government pogrom and its use of rhetoric. You are convinced that you are right to call people illegal. Despite knowing that they have the right to seek asylum here. I find that scary. You've fallen for a use of loaded language despite knowing, deep down, that's exactly what it is. I'm trying to find out what drives you to do this because, frankly, it scares me. You've lumped in peoples from 5 countries and even one and a half continents and painted them ALL as criminals. That is a staggering amount of bigotry to show no?

You've essentially taken nearly 3 billion people and labeled them as criminals.

Honestly, that's a shocking, shocking thing to read.
 
SmallTown said:
Mate. I haven't called you a racist. I know @Laughing implied that evasue he also WANTS to think ill of me for some reason.

I'm trying to find out what motivates you to have such hate in your heart though. Why you happily use words like burden and illegal to describe people fleeing persecution. I've even asked you questions to try and understand your point of view but you can't answer them.
Click to expand...
Be quiet St! I wasnt refering to you.
 
SmallTown said:
I agree with most of this but I think the burden bit was the thing end of the wedge. Fuzz's use of the word illegal was significantly more troubling.

Thing is though both words are loaded. Both words are aimed at keeping the mindset that the asylum seekers themselves are the problem. Not the governments refusal to fix the situation. That's the bit I have issues with. The Tories are very good at it. they have repeated the illegal lie so many times people are starting to believe it as fact and are incredulous when you tell them that they have a legal right to seek asylum here. Words matter. especially ones designed to stir up hatred or contempt for a group of people. They can lead to dangerous situations.
Click to expand...
I'm very aware that words matter, I think (a bit rich of me to say, perhaps) that how we respond to people's use of words matter too. He didn't call them invaders, or savages or slag them off. I'm usually the first to jump on people who are dehumanising etc. but his initial post genuinely seemed to be in relation to the logistical issue that areas encounter rather than a reflection of his feeling towards refugees.

Again, the use of the word illegal, it is wrong and is a sign of the government's disturbing rhetoric filtering into daily conversation. Correcting it, I agree with, but many people are still taken in by or unsure of what is exactly the correct language to use when our own government is labelling people one thing or the other.

Importantly, as we both agree on the importance of words and how they're interpreted, I think 'illegal' is often used with intention to refer to the % of people who would be turned away after processing. They're the one's people are unhappy about and the government obviously like to suggest, infer and guide people towards thinking that's a far larger % than in reality. I do believe these are the 'illegals' that a lot of people are talking about in these conversations and they end up being lumped as someone who thinks anyone attempting to gain asylum is illegal, as that's the situation the government has essentially created, most people do believe those fleeing are entitled to seek asylum.

It's almost as if they want us to argue between ourselves on semantics when we often believe the same thing but sometimes aren't fully educated on or correctly expressing things in conversation.

The likes of Wez going on about "why do they have to come here, they could stay in another country" are different, you're bang right there. Not even a mask that needs to slip.

You're very informed on the issue ST, I'm glad there's people like you making the point and clarifying, we need it. Maybe sometimes we could both not so easily slide towards thinking people are being deliberate and assuming their views and intentions so quickly. It doesn't seem to change many minds or win many people over and even from someone in myself who is with you on 99% of issues, it seemed like you charged in a bit too hard on owld FaceFuzz.
 
SmallTown said:
You're confusing two issues: you're confusing the current refugee crisis with the need for controlled immigration. We have the latter. I get the feeling, we would very much disagree on the level of controlled immigration we need but that's for another thread.

Back to talking about the migrant crisis

I'll relate it again: the word illegal is simply incorrect. They have a legal right to seek asylum here. Everyone does. This is the issue with I have with the the government pogrom and its use of rhetoric. You are convinced that you are right to call people illegal. Despite knowing that they have the right to seek asylum here. I find that scary. You've fallen for a use of loaded language despite knowing, deep down, that's exactly what it is. I'm trying to find out what drives you to do this because, frankly, it scares me. You've lumped in peoples from 5 countries and even one and a half continents and painted them ALL as criminals. That is a staggering amount of bigotry to show no?

You've essentially taken nearly 3 billion people and labeled them as criminals.

Honestly, that's a shocking, shocking thing to read.
Click to expand...
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Your proving to be abit of a t*t.

You read what you want.

I never labeled 3 million people. I labeled people coming here from various countries to do illegal things. Drugs, prostitution violence, gangs.

I don’t use loaded language and I don’t peddle hate.
 
Big_Nothing said:
I'm very aware that words matter, I think (a bit rich of me to say, perhaps) that how we respond to people's use of words matter too. He didn't call them invaders, or savages or slag them off. I'm usually the first to jump on people who are dehumanising etc. but his initial post genuinely seemed to be in relation to the logistical issue that areas encounter rather than a reflection of his feeling towards refugees.

Again, the use of the word illegal, it is wrong and is a sign of the government's disturbing rhetoric filtering into daily conversation. Correcting it, I agree with, but many people are still taken in by or unsure of what is exactly the correct language to use when our own government is labelling people one thing or the other.

Importantly, as we both agree on the importance of words and how they're interpreted, I think 'illegal' is often used with intention to refer to the % of people who would be turned away after processing. They're the one's people are unhappy about and the government obviously like to suggest, infer and guide people towards thinking that's a far larger % than in reality. I do believe these are the 'illegals' that a lot of people are talking about in these conversations and they end up being lumped as someone who thinks anyone attempting to gain asylum is illegal, as that's the situation the government has essentially created, most people do believe those fleeing are entitled to seek asylum.

It's almost as if they want us to argue between ourselves on semantics when we often believe the same thing but sometimes aren't fully educated on or correctly expressing things in conversation.

The likes of Wez going on about "why do they have to come here, they could stay in another country" are different, you're bang right there. Not even a mask that needs to slip.

You're very informed on the issue ST, I'm glad there's people like you making the point and clarifying, we need it. Maybe sometimes we could both not so easily slide towards thinking people are being deliberate and assuming their views and intentions so quickly. It doesn't seem to change many minds or win many people over and even from someone in myself who is with you on 99% of issues, it seemed like you charged in a bit too hard on owld FaceFuzz.
Click to expand...
Maybe I was too har don his use of the word burden but I was concerned about his use of the word illegal. Especially still repeating it when we've explained why it's not the correct phrase. He seems to want to. And, yes I realise now he's getting the asylum seeker problem and plain old controlled immigration mixed up but I don't think that can excuse the phrases he used in his last post, that kind of shocked me that level of bigotry. And yes, by very definition it is bigotry to claim that 3 billion people from all over the world are criminals.
 
Facefuzz said:
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Your proving to be abit of a t*t.

You read what you want.

I never labeled 3 million people. I labeled people coming here from various countries to do illegal things. Drugs, prostitution violence, gangs.

I don’t use loaded language and I don’t peddle hate.
Click to expand...
You've used A LOT of loaded language to be honest mate. And yes, you exactly did label peoples from all those countries and continents criminals

This is the concern I have. Once again, you are believing the rhetoric. It seems to have made you hate 3 billion people. Which is a bit scary.

The tragic thing is, if you could understand the situation a bit more you'd see there was a need to process these people and get rid of those not genuinely seeking asylum. Your approach of wanting people not to seek asylum in the first place isn't legal.
 
Facefuzz said:
You said I used racist language. Sherlock and bri mar wood called me racist.

I’ve explained already.
Burden is a fair word. There maybe better words but I used that one. The situation is a burden. It’s a burden on an island nation and is contributing to services being overstretched.

I also stand by the word illegal aswell. If I crossed the border from Mexico to America through a tunnel dug by criminals who I’ve paid money to I’d be there illegally. If I flew into Australia on a one way ticket from China (bought by criminals) with £30 in my pocket knowing I was going to go off grid and not return home then I’d be there illegally.

Do I support immigration, yes
Within reason.

I support economic migration and refugee/asylum fleeing persecution.

We need doctors, nurses and other professionals. We don’t have enough. I encourage those people to come. I’d rather we had more getting the qualifications here but we don’t.

I support refugees and those fleeing persecution, mainly women children elderly and the infirm. We should help as many as we can. And there is a finite number to how many people we can help. I don’t know what the number is but once the balance flips and stresses are on systems then it has to slow down. That is were we are now. It may have also been caused by what roofie pointed out like selling off housing stock and under investing but nevertheless we are there.

I’ll tell you this aswell. I want my kids and my friends kids and all of your kids to have the opportunity of having a job and house and access to health care. If immigration was not controlled then those opportunities for the futures of people who were born here and heritage is here would be eroded further.

What I don’t want, and most people don’t want, but you fail to see is bad people coming here and staying.
Murders, rapists and terrorists in their own countries.
I don’t want Thai and Vietnamese young lads here working shifts in cannabis farms paying off a never ending debt in fear that their family back home are harmed.
I don’t want Kurds and Albanians who come and join gangs, deal drugs and use horrendous violence to get what they want.
I don’t want girls coming here from Eastern Europe, Africa, the far east then being shifted from town to town to work in massage parlors providing happy endings.

See those thai, Vietnamese, Albanians, Kurds, Eastern Europeans, Africans (pretty much every country). They all come on boats, they come in wagons and containers. That HAS to stop.

You can’t differentiate on a boat or in a wagon who is who. You also can’t give them all a nice little day pass to return once we’ve done some checks, because they disappear and don’t come back.
Click to expand...
1. They're illegal by DEFAULT as there is no legal route to being an asylum seeker in the UK as it stands. Yet we are acting in contradiction of international law by not allowing an access route and by trying to pass this bill. SO WE ARE ILLEGAL, ARE WE NOT?

2. "What I don’t want, and most people don’t want, but you fail to see is bad people coming here and staying."
I'm pretty sure he does see that, everyone does, he just disagrees with the number of likely 'bad people' coming over here and how the way that we treat them contributes to them becoming 'bad people'.

3. It DOES matter why we're at that point, if we're at that point because of ideological governmental underfunding then that doesn't mean we can scapegoat refugees. We can be better, better for British nationals and better for refugees, it is not a zero sum game.

4. Africans aren't a country. Thailand has barely any such people, Vietnam the same, those who do it are usually the victims of TRAFFICKING.

Your last post almost makes me regret my last post, I stand by what I said but perhaps I was wrong about how moderate your view on the situation was. ST, snappy as he was, seemingly was on the money.
 
SmallTown said:
You've used A LOT of loaded language to be honest mate. And yes, you exactly did label peoples from all those countries and continents criminals

This is the concern I have. Once again, you are believing the rhetoric. It seems to have made you hate 3 billion people. Which is a bit scary.

The tragic thing is, if you could understand the situation a bit more you'd see there was a need to process these people and get rid of those not genuinely seeking asylum. Your approach of wanting people not to seek asylum in the first place isn't legal.
Click to expand...
Please don’t call me mate again.

I have know about Kurdish and Albanian gangs. I know about far eastern people working drugs farms.
A lot of them HAVE been trafficked - illegally. They have no future here. It’s been taken from them. I don’t want that.
 
Big_Nothing said:
1. They're illegal by DEFAULT as there is no legal route to being an asylum seeker in the UK as it stands. Yet we are acting in contradiction of international law by not allowing an access route and by trying to pass this bill. SO WE ARE ILLEGAL, ARE WE NOT?

2. "What I don’t want, and most people don’t want, but you fail to see is bad people coming here and staying."
I'm pretty sure he does see that, everyone does, he just disagrees with the number of likely 'bad people' coming over here and how the way that we treat them contributes to them becoming 'bad people'.

3. It DOES matter why we're at that point, if we're at that point because of ideological governmental underfunding then that doesn't mean we can scapegoat refugees. We can be better, better for British nationals and better for refugees, it is not a zero sum game.

4. Africans aren't a country. Thailand has barely any such people, Vietnam the same, those who do it are usually the victims of TRAFFICKING.

Your last post almost makes me regret my last post, I stand by what I said but perhaps I was wrong about how moderate your view on the situation was. ST, snappy as he was, seemingly was on the money.
Click to expand...
Shame you typed that because ST is not on the money.
You have sense and reasoning. ST does not. It’s his way or the highway.

I’ve justified my point on why I want immigration and who I don’t want to be in the country.
Must have been nice in a time when the world didn’t have imaginary lines on it saying where you can go and where you can’t and this thread wouldn’t exist.
 
Facefuzz said:
Thanks for clearing that up. It is however legitimate wording as used in media and government. It is not racist
Click to expand...
Wow, I'm a bit late to this thread but this comment pretty much epitomises the reason this country is going backwards at a rate of knots.

Somebody feels that because the 'media and government' uses a particular word or phrase then it cannot be racist???
 
Facefuzz said:
Please don’t call me mate again.

I have know about Kurdish and Albanian gangs. I know about far eastern people working drugs farms.
A lot of them HAVE been trafficked - illegally. They have no future here. It’s been taken from them. I don’t want that.
Click to expand...
If I'm clear, and happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. You want to stop ALL asylum seekers from entering the country. In order to stop criminal gangs.

Why not, and hear me out on this, allow asylum sellers to come, process them, and remove the ones who aren't claiming asylum. Rather than a blanket lack of humanity for everyone?
 
Facefuzz said:
Shame you typed that because ST is not on the money.
You have sense and reasoning. ST does not. It’s his way or the highway.

I’ve justified my point on why I want immigration and who I don’t want to be in the country.
Must have been nice in a time when the world didn’t have imaginary lines on it saying where you can go and where you can’t and this thread wouldn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Again you have confused immigration with the asylum seeker issue. Please try and educate yourself on the difference and try and realise we DO have controls on immigration. I think you'd come across as less, I don't even know what the word is mean maybe, when you speak of immigrants. You is the word in the pejorative. Ignoring all the immigrants who have enriched this country and ignoring all of those seeking asylum and wanting a better life. It, yes I think that's the word. It sounds mean.
 
SmallTown said:
Why not, and hear me out on this, allow asylum sellers to come, process them, and remove the ones who aren't claiming asylum. Rather than a blanket lack of humanity for everyone?
Click to expand...
Last post.

You are on the money in this sentence. That is what I want. Thankyou .

Unfortunately a lot of people who come on boats or in containers choose not to be processed and disappear. That is the problem
 
SmallTown said:
You is the word in the pejorative. Ignoring all the immigrants who have enriched this country and ignoring all of those seeking asylum and wanting a better life.
Click to expand...
Last post again 😂

YOU use loaded language. Like above

Read my posts. I DO want people to flee persecution and have a better life.

I NEVER once mentioned ignoring migrants who enriched this country.

Those are your words. You say I said them and I never and they are incorrect.
Posters who jump on at page 10 would think I said them as you try to appear as quoting me but you’re not. You’re making stuff up. You ought to be careful about that, given what you preach about language
 
Facefuzz said:
Read my posts. I DO want people to flee persecution and have a better life.
Click to expand...
I'm confused, you said you wanted to stop the boats? Which is the only way these people can get across as there are no other means.

That's the problem when you try and justify a view that's based on prejudice and not fact, you can often contradict yourself
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top