SuttaCentral
There’s many ways to skin a cat as they say. Politicians can be fiendishly clever. First they make safe and legal routes into the UK for refugees less and less available, then whatever you do is only affecting illegal immigrants, not genuine refugees. Genius!
It hasn’t gone down well with the UNHCR. It’s such a shame. The UK used to be so respected on these issues. That’s the way it goes I guess.
It really comes down to if a country is to have controlled borders or not. If you think there should be controlled borders then their will inevitably be people who break those rules. The question is then how to deal with those that do. This policy is one way. I must say I wasn’t completely sold on the idea when I heard it, but i wasn’t horrified like most of the left were.
I think it should also be pointed out that those who cross the Chanel have actually passed through several safe countries already, France being one of them.
There is a difference, is there not? An economic migrant and someone escaping genocide or warzone is not the same.
Also, there’s a certain allowable percentage of migration an economy can handle, for example Canada tries to only allow 2-3% of yearly population increase to come from immigrants, they base how many immigrants are approved a year on that percentage, therefore illegal immigrants are skirting around that and ruining it for honest migrants waiting years in line. It’s unethical and unfair for those doing things legally.
The ‘left’ like David Davis, Simon Hoare and Andrew Mitchell and of course Baroness Warsi (first Muslim MP in the UK I think), the Conservative member of the House of Lords who said the policy was “inhumane and shames our proud history as advocates of human rights and the refugee convention” (go Tory Muslims!). Actually I’m a bit out of the touch, so maybe these fellow subjects of mine - all Tories - have all changed their mind now?
It’s not a left wing/right wing thing to my mind, it’s just being a decent human and trying to do our bit in the world for those in need. As a side benefit to this, I believe that a humane response in this area increases our standing in the world and fosters trade and investment in the UK.
Yeah. Sure. That’s what it used to be like in the old days. You should read the first link in my post above to see what it looks like now.
I think net migration is running around 0.36% in the UK at the moment, that’s 239,000 and we have job vacancies for 1,300,000. I realise that it is much more complicated than this, but just giving you an indication.
But how do you avoid turning it into an equality conceit? A la “my Buddhism, where I advocate for less compassion and less generosity, is just as good as your Buddhism that advocates for more compassion and more generosity”
Well, that’s not what I said. I said I don’t think it is helpful to hold one’s Buddhism up as superior. I have no problem with being challenged by the practice of others to improve my own practice. It’s the belief that “my Buddhism is best” that I resist as unhelpful to one’s practice. “My Buddhism has issues” seems like healthy self-evaluation. (Okay, a bit more complicated than that. One also has to evaluate healthy self-criticism from doubt, a hindrance.)
The ‘left’ like David Davis, Simon Hoare and Andrew Mitchell and of course Baroness Warsi (first Muslim MP in the UK I think), the Conservative member of the House of Lords who said the policy was “inhumane and shames our proud history as advocates of human rights and the refugee convention” (go Tory Muslims!). Actually I’m a bit out of the touch, so maybe these fellow subjects of mine - all Tories - have all changed their mind now?
It’s not a left wing/right wing thing to my mind, it’s just being a decent human and trying to do our bit in the world for those in need. As a side benefit to this, I believe that a humane response in this area increases our standing in the world and fosters trade and investment in the UK.
Sure, some Tories didn’t like it either. As I said I wasn’t enthralled by it as such. What’s inhumane about it? They are already in safe countries. Are we to have border control or not? Should we just let everyone in regardless? If not, then you agree there will be some people that can’t be taken and that there will be some people who illegally enter the country. How we then deal with illegal immigrants when they are here is the question? This is one attempt at a solution. It’s also argued that it’s a policy aimed at trying to disincentivise people from making that dangerous trip.
Should there be border control at all in your view?
Buddhism taught non greeds , without greeds who wants to be a politician ? For what purpose they would think , there is no profits whatsoever in it isnt it ?
Agreed, I put it that way to explain what I meant by equality conceit, I didn’t mean to imply that that was your point.
It is inhumane to force people onto an aeroplane and send them to a country where they do not want to go.
To make it one’s obsession, to dream about it, is perverse.
By this logic prisons are inhumane. The people we are talking about have entered the country illegally, from a perfectly safe country. Last time i checked France wasn’t in a state of civil war.
E.g. it keeps refugees (often women with children) separated from their families during the most vulnerable time of their lives.
Clause 11 of the Nationality and Borders Bill will remove family reunion rights for thousands of people recognised as refugees each year, leaving their family members with no safe way to get to the UK.
Does that abolish Refugee Family Reunion? That still seems to be in effect. An aim of the current policy is to help to stop people drowning to death in the English Channel. How is that inhumane?
Perhaps this thread has ceased to be relevant to the study of Early Buddhist Texts, and should be moved to a different forum.
Attending a Triratna class once a month? It doesn’t sound like a major commitment to Buddhism.
As it happens, I began my Buddhist “career” at the London Buddhist Centre, around 1981.
With Liz Truss as the new leader, the Tories seem to have lurched to the right.
I guess it would be a push to suggest that those facilitating the scheme are involved in wrong livelihood?
The UK-Rwandan Plan: an agreement to trade people
“This is simply a deal where the UK pays Rwanda money to accept people who are being moved against their will.”
Stephen I did post it in the “Watercooler”.
Dear All,
Thanks all for keeping the conversation respectful and generally on topic.
In order to continue like that and to allow for proper reflection before posting, the slow mode has been setup.
With Metta,
Ric
No, what it says, and what I maintain is that it
will remove family reunion rights for thousands of people recognised as refugees each year, leaving their family members with no safe way to get to the UK.
The aim is one thing, but the plan of action is something else. The evidence from similar schemes around the world suggest that this will not help, as you say, to stop people drowning to death in the English Channel. It’s the specifics of Act on real people that make it inhumane, not the motivation and aim behind the policy.