UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
view the rest of the comments
So it's racist now to think letting criminals into the country unchecked is a bad thing? What are you going to tell me next, it's racist to put people in prison? I'm not talking about a specific race. I don't have a specific race in mind. In fact, I believe the current laws are far too harsh on good people who want to come here and actually contribute to society. But sure, just call everyone a racist so people stop taking the issue seriously. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
"Anyone I don't like is a racist" you pig.
Criminals are not being let into the country unchecked. That is not a valid concern.
A valid concern would be that foreign actors are feeding false information to the British public to destabilize the country.
The small boats?
You think that the small boats are unchecked? That they are not intercepted and the people detained?
In any case, that is only illegal because the last government made it so that you cannot claim asylum upon landing. They are not criminals in any other sense.
They don't have a right to be here- They're coming from France, a safe country. They're not fleeing persecution, they're just trying to cheat the system. And they're paying criminal gangs and they keep causing deaths among their own people.
Theresa May introduced the Hostile Environment, and Priti Patel made it even more strict. If the Home Office could refuse asylum applications for any reason whatsoever, they would. Despite that, the vast majority of asylum applications are successful.
So they are not cheating the system and they do have the right to be here.
Besides which, how many people do you think we're talking about? Small boats. The clue is in the name. It's not like Dunkirk out there.
30k people arrived here in 2023 via small boat.
Theresa may also lacks common sense immigration policy. She was far too harsh on people wanting to come into this country for good sincere reason
You're quoting the statistic about how many people were stopped on landing or shortly afterwards to tell me how they're arriving "unchecked".
They're still allowed into the country instead of being deported back to France
Because they have valid claims - 67% of claims in 2023 were successful.
They are not criminals. People who smash gravestones to throw them at policemen, though, they are criminals. We should put them in a prison barge.
How is their claim valid though if they came from France?
I wholeheartedly agree
How is their claim not valid if the Home Office allowed it? You think Priti Patel was like "oh, go on then, I'll turn a blind eye just this once" ?
It isn't the case that they have to claim in the first country they come to. That's just misinformation.
If they spoke French, they would probably claim there. France takes more asylum seekers than the UK, so why would they risk their lives? We didn't even take our interpreters from Afghanistan.
You'd think that Nigel Farage would be as informed as anybody on these topics and he's getting his information from Andrew Tate. I repeat: they do not have valid concerns; they are just racists rioting.
It should be the case, though
It should be the case that we do our part and take in as many refugees as France.
It should be the case that we honour our debts and take in the people that risked their lives to help our troops in Afghanistan.
It should be the case that people stop listening to grifters peddling lies on the internet.
I agree with the helping people who helped us in Afghanistan. No reason why we should inflict on ourselves the same problem france has. We don't want teachers being beheaded here.
Using the phrase 'valid concerns about immigration' today is a little bit like waving a St. George's cross in the 80's though. I mean, it can be done with the purest of intentions, but you're using a symbol that people (taking you at your read) you'd rather not be associated with use to identify each other.
So what should I say to refer to my literally valid concerns about immigration
It's up to you. You could add context to those concerns, you could tweak the phrasing, you could undertake a heroic quest to reclaim the phrase if you want.
I'm just adding some context as to why some people react to the phrase.
Of course you do, sweetheart 🙄
Ah, so you aren't calling me racist because of what I'm saying, you're calling me racist because you jumped to a conclusion, creating a headcanon of me, then rejecting anything I say because it contradicts your headcanon.
When you ignore people with moderate concerns about things, things get worse. I'll never ever advocate for or justify violence, but like how the black lives matter riots happened, or the stonewall ones, I can see how these ones spawned. Because people are ignored and dismissed, whether as "nasty marxists", "(homophobic slur)s" or "racists"
Apparently building social housing and reducing literal crime is "racist" now.
I am calling you a racist because you use racist language. And then you are lying pretending you are not a racist. You should have also said that "some of my best friends are Asians", it would be as credible as your other statement.
What part of my language was racist? And how would me having an Asian best friend not be credible or believable?
Can you actually read? If so, read my previous comments.
Since when was the term "valid concerns about immigration" racist? Valid concerns refers to non racist concerns.
Have you ever heard about dog whistling? And no, there is no such thing as "valid concern about migration" in the UK, country with smaller migrants proportion than many other west European nations. It is racism, pure and simple - unless you also have "valid concerns about too many white children being born".
Damn, I made an error of discussing with a racist 🙄 You won't hear from me again, sweetie.
And the situation in Western european nations is worse. It's got nothing to do with race.