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...

That reads just like a Daily Mail comment piece 🙄
 
Facefuzz said:
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
Click to expand...
They're in a minority and they're often told they will be found real work when they arrive. They don't expect to be chained up on a farm looking after weed plants and they're petrified of being sent home.
 
Big_Nothing said:
They're in a minority and they're often told they will be found real work when they arrive. They don't expect to be chained up on a farm looking after weed plants and they're petrified of being sent home.
Click to expand...
I know. It’s tragic. I’ve first hand knowledge of their plight
 
SmallTown said:
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.
Click to expand...
"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."

With this post I wasn't meaning people conflating refugees and migrants. I meant when they say 'illegal' they mean the 'refugees' who have came over here and would be turned away during processing. That in my experience is who they are referring to when they say illegal refugees. They aren't trying to follow the government line of 'all refugees are illegal by default' when they use the word illegal.
 
Facefuzz said:
I know. It’s tragic. I’ve first hand knowledge of their plight
Click to expand...
Same. At times a post sound a little like you're blaming them for it. Of course we should be trying to stop it and not encouraging it but let's not conflate it with people fleeing strife, in at least one of your posts it reads as though you're lumping them together in a enough is enough type approach towards anyone who hasn't got prior permission to enter the country, which is not something which is currently possible for refugees.

Maybe it wasn't your intention, maybe it is and you really do believe that we can remove any distinguishable way for a legal refugee to exist and still use the term illegal refugees. I hope not but it is the view of some.

This is what I meant by it getting hazy. But it is important.
 
Big_Nothing said:
"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."

With this post I wasn't meaning people conflating refugees and migrants. I meant when they say 'illegal' they mean the 'refugees' who have came over here and would be turned away during processing. That in my experience is who they are referring to when they say illegal refugees. They aren't trying to follow the government line of 'all refugees are illegal by default' when they use the word illegal.
Click to expand...
For enough. But it shows how the use of language is important isn't it: Illegal suggest the person is bad, refugee suggests the person is trying to avoid bad.
 
SmallTown said:
For enough. But it shows how the use of language is important isn't it: Illegal suggest the person is bad, refugee suggests the person is trying to avoid bad.
Click to expand...
It definitely does yeah, it also highlights how we should try and understand who people are talking about before we suggest they or their views are this or that. We end up infighting, again precisely what they want.
 
Big_Nothing said:
"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."

With this post I wasn't meaning people conflating refugees and migrants. I meant when they say 'illegal' they mean the 'refugees' who have came over here and would be turned away during processing. That in my experience is who they are referring to when they say illegal refugees. They aren't trying to follow the government line of 'all refugees are illegal by default' when they use the word illegal.
Click to expand...
The extant home office guidance is a flagrant abuse of this, with deliberate elision between unlawful/illegal/undocumented/irregular etc. See

Risks of illegal migration to the UK​

 
Colgates_shaving_foam said:
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??
Click to expand...

JackG said:
The extant home office guidance is a flagrant abuse of this, with deliberate elision between unlawful/illegal/undocumented/irregular etc. See

Risks of illegal migration to the UK​

Click to expand...
Almost makes you think it could be intentional doesn't it 😔
 
sherlock1969 said:
Yes, lots.

However, two things:

1. This isn't just a football message board
2. I'm not sure someone with 30 posts in 3 years should be questioning the merits of another member's posting contribution

Have a great day.
Click to expand...
Why has amount of posts someone has sent got do with the it making lots of posts suggest to me you have too much time on your hands and still never answered question do you actually go to boro matches I won't be replying to you again so mybe my posting will stop at 30
 
sledge said:
Why has amount of posts someone has sent got do with the it making lots of posts suggest to me you have too much time on your hands and still never answered question do you actually go to boro matches I won't be replying to you again so mybe my posting will stop at 30
Click to expand...
Firstly, that is probably the most poorly constructed sentence I have ever read in my life.

I owe you no explanations but here goes anyway. I'm in my early 50s. In my life I have had a season ticket for almost 20 seasons. I don't go currently because I don't live locally and also I am very vulnerable to covid so have to avoid crowds.

Silly question anyway as it implies someone can't be a fan unless they go, which in turn would mean Boro could only ever have around 30,000 fans at once. Which is clearly nonsensical.
 
sherlock1969 said:
Firstly, that is probably the most poorly constructed sentence I have ever read in my life.

I owe you no explanations but here goes anyway. I'm in my early 50s. In my life I have had a season ticket for almost 20 seasons. I don't go currently because I don't live locally and also I am very vulnerable to covid so have to avoid crowds.

Silly question anyway as it implies someone can't be a fan unless they go, which in turn would mean Boro could only ever have around 30,000 fans at once. Which is clearly nonsensical.
Click to expand...
Yes ad I thought never been for over 20 yrs by the way they play Huddersfield tomorrow if your interested
 
sledge said:
Yes ad I thought never been for over 20 yrs by the way they play Huddersfield tomorrow if your interested
Click to expand...
Read my post again and tell me if it really says I haven't been for over 20 years.

I think you struggle with basic language and comprehension. If you are interested in improving that please send me a message because I can point you to some good online resources for literacy (y) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top