Post Brexit Racism.

[mafya 252]

People do, but still get called racists.

 

Only if you go about it in a racist/bigoted manner...

[I1L2T3 10]

People do, but still get called racists.

 

Quite rightly in a lot of cases.

 

Can't really blame some people though, the way this is discussed by politicians like Farage sets the tone for the national discussion. People don't really know any other way to articulate their fears and concerns over immigration.

 

Quite often their fears are parochial and irrational. Somebody on TV the other night was complaining that she couldn't get a new build four bedroom hoising association property and that asylum seekers were routinely getting allocated such houses on arrival. Clearly complete nonsense but people believe it. They have been brainwashed into believing it.

[GLASGOWOODS 10]

Only if you go about it in a racist/bigoted manner...

 

There you go....

[chalga 10]

There you go....

 

 

Where do you go?........there's nothing wrong with telling a bigot/racist that they are a bigot or a racist,it's telling it like it is.

[Solomon1 10]

The problem is that that those who support a policy of granting asylum to these people cannot make a positive case for it. They are left with no alternative but to dismiss those who raise concerns as racist because you don't have to listen to racists and you must do the opposite of what the racist wants, right? It is childish nonsense that, ironical, only fuels racism

 

Your leader chooses to disagree

 

 

"Actually there is a responsibility on all of us in the free West, to help some of those people fleeing Syria, literally in fear of their lives"

Edited July 2, 2016 by Solomon1

[Radan 10]

As what? Don't tell me... a racist?

 

You still don't get it. The immigration policy you support is akin to the 'war on terror' that only drove people to the cause. It is an immigration policy that will fuel the racism that is clearly growing across Europe.

 

What would you do then, in the ME?

 

Tired of reading this, 'they're all young men and they all have iPhones,' drivel.

 

Would you make them stay and fight? What with? Hummus?

 

It's not an immigration policy. It's a refugee policy.

Edited July 2, 2016 by Radan

[Zamo 10]

You say you aren't a racist and then make a number of racist assumptions - not least that ''they will collectively be a financial burden''.

 

Most depressingly stupid is your line - ''Giving them asylum...works for the immigrants but not the natives....that is a recipe for racial / cultural division....''

Extraordinary - you are, in effect, saying that the way to prevent racism is to keep all the foreigners out. Which is an almost perfect example of classic 'I'm not racist but...' thinking.

 

The definition of racism is assuming that a person has particular qualities based on their perceived race. As Halibut says, you are making a lot of assumptions in your post about immigrants.

If we disagree with the levels of immigration, we should criticise the policies and the bureaucracy that makes them reality, not attack the individuals who are simply taking advantage of what is offered to them, and bettering their situation.

 

I've assume they are poor, English isn't their first language and they are unfamiliar with our culture. I also assume that the vast majority will not have any trade qualifications recognised in this country. As we know, social mobility is a problem in this country even without the barriers of culture, language and recognised educational qualifications. Th chances of these migrants making it into the top 1/5th of earners (who make a positive financial contribution) are remote and the reality is the vast majority will be a life long financial burden.

 

This assumption is also supported by the many reports into immigrant contribution that confirm immigrants from outside of the EEA have consistently made a significant negative contribution.

 

I further assume that they will need housing and that will be in the cheapest areas i.e. the areas that have seen the most immigration and communities where the resulting cultural strain is at it's greatest. The immigrant kids are going to need places at schools and we already have a shortage of places (because of immigration fuelled population growth). More pressure on housing and schools can only cause more resentment with the natives.

 

They are also going to need heath services an the support of social services - both of which are already under great strain. This means more taxes to pay for this or accepting a decline in service provisions... again, not something that is going to be popular either way with those already here.

 

And then there is the Islamic extremism that is impossible to strip out. Accept these people means we are accepting more extremists. Fact.

 

There are no racial assumptions at all. It is simply a fact that these people are going to make us poorer, cause social tensions and we are far better off without them. If we ignore this then it is inevitable that people will eventually blame and turn on immigrants... it is how us humans have behaved throughout history and it is ridiculous to blindly ignore our form.

 

---------- Post added 02-07-2016 at 13:44 ----------

 

Your leader chooses to disagree

 

 

"Actually there is a responsibility on all of us in the free West, to help some of those people fleeing Syria, literally in fear of their lives"

 

He isn't my leader and he is entitled to be wrong!

 

I've not said we shouldn't help them.... I've said we shouldn't bring them here.

[runningman1 12]

You say you aren't a racist and then make a number of racist assumptions - not least that ''they will collectively be a financial burden''.

 

Most depressingly stupid is your line - ''Giving them asylum...works for the immigrants but not the natives....that is a recipe for racial / cultural division....''

Extraordinary - you are, in effect, saying that the way to prevent racism is to keep all the foreigners out. Which is an almost perfect example of classic 'I'm not racist but...' thinking.

 

They are likely to be a financial burden as they are less educated than the average European..They also largely don't speak a European language fluently, which harms their job prospects. They will cost the tax payer of their host country money, and denying this doesn't make you a cool progressive, it makes you look silly. These people are highly likely to be a burden on the state, it is a price I am happy to pay, because I think people sometimes need help and we are in a position to offer that help. However, calling someone racist for not wanting to help is offensive and nasty.

[Radan 10]

They are likely to be a financial burden as they are less educated than the average European..They also largely don't speak a European language fluently, which harms their job prospects. They will cost the tax payer of their host country money, and denying this doesn't make you a cool progressive, it makes you look silly. These people are highly likely to be a burden on the state, it is a price I am happy to pay, because I think people sometimes need help and we are in a position to offer that help. However, calling someone racist for not wanting to help is offensive and nasty.

 

We have offered to help 20,000 and we are hand picking them from refugee camps.

 

Remind me, how many Jewish refugees did the UK accept in WW2. Did they all speak English?

[runningman1 12]

We have offered to help 20,000 and we are hand picking them from refugee camps.

 

Remind me, how many Jewish refugees did the UK accept in WW2. Did they all speak English?

 

It isn't reminding you if you never knew in the first place, but it was about 65,000 I think. They were actually more educated than the average Brit (as it was the wealthier ones that were able to get out) and therefore more likely to speak English and be financially independent.

 

What has this got to do with whether or not the Syrian refugees will be a financial burden to the host countries of Europe?

[Radan 10]

It isn't reminding you if you never knew in the first place, but it was about 65,000 I think. They were actually more educated than the average Brit (as it was the wealthier ones that were able to get out) and therefore more likely to speak English and be financially independent.

 

What has this got to do with whether or not the Syrian refugees will be a financial burden to the host countries of Europe?

 

Really? All of them were financially independent? So, when they arrived they all bought houses did they? Got nothing for free at all?

[Vaati 11]

The accusation and arguing are to cease. Any further continuation will result in suspensions.