[Ham and Cheese]

(Original post by JPKC)
Because we're bloody loaded compared to most 'safe' countries. A humanitarian disaster occurs in Somalia, why should Kenya (the safest country nextdoor) have to handle all the refugees? Britain has a moral responsibility to act within its means to alleviate suffering, and letting people take refuge here is a part of that.

What about the other countries? Spain, France, Italy, Switzerland? All these countries are 'rich' and are geographically closer to Somalia. The point I am trying to make is that claiming asylum should not be a choice, but a last resort, and therefore if someone needs to flee a country then they should need to choose a country but merely travel to the nearest safest country. It is illogical for someone in Somalia to pass so many safe countries to get to the UK and then claim asylum.

Yes, we do have a moral responsibility to alleviate suffering, which is why the Government is still committed to international development!

(Original post by Alofleicester)
123

(Original post by SciFiBoy)
123

[Ham and Cheese]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
Let's just say that this bill isn't morally reprehensible and xenophobic for a second. Let's say someone moves to the UK and earns £21,000 in the first year they stay here, then they're made redundant. As far as I can tell, they wouldn't be entitled to any benefits. How the hell are they going to live without money?

After being made redundant, they would have twelve months to find alternative work. If they failed to do so then they would return home.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Ham and Cheese)
After being made redundant, they would have twelve months to find alternative work. If they failed to do so then they would return home.

That last sentence isn't written properly. You actually mean "they would be returned home", which is rather different than having a choice. Your government - no, let's not dress this up anymore than it is, YOU - would impell people to leave.

[Mechie]

(Original post by Ham and Cheese)
After being made redundant, they would have twelve months to find alternative work. If they failed to do so then they would return home.

How would they live for 12 months without any money if they don't get benefits (and this is, once again, going on the basis that this bill isn't morally reprehensible and xenophobic for a second)?

[Ham and Cheese]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
That last sentence isn't written properly. You actually mean "they would be returned home", which is rather different than having a choice. Your government - no, let's not dress this up anymore than it is, YOU - would impell people to leave.

Tomato/Tomáto

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Ham and Cheese)
Tomato/Tomáto

Not even a little bit.

[Ham and Cheese]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
How would they live for 12 months without any money if they don't get benefits (and this is, once again, going on the basis that this bill isn't morally reprehensible and xenophobic for a second)?

Why should they receive benefits? That is as illogical as employing ten employees who are on full pay, but are not expected to turn up and work. Immigrants are supposed to benefit the economy; the moment that they are no longer benefiting the economy but are costing more than they bring, then something is wrong.

[Mechie]

(Original post by Ham and Cheese)
Why should they receive benefits? That is as illogical as employing ten employees who are on full pay, but are not expected to turn up and work. Immigrants are supposed to benefit the economy; the moment that they are no longer benefiting the economy but are costing more than they bring, then something is wrong.

Because they're people. Just like you and me. Just because they classify as an immigrant doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to get the very minimum required to live.

[Ham and Cheese]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Not even a little bit.

Why should they stay? Immigrants are supposed to benefit and contribute to the economy; this Government does not believe in accepting immigrants into the country for them to only be unemployed. This is a reasonable bill which rewards hard work and stops immigration from becoming uncontrollable.

If an immigrant becomes unemployed then they have a whole year to seek alternative work. If they do not find the work, then there is not much point in them remaining in the UK; at this point they will be invited to return to their home country.

[Ham and Cheese]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
Because they're people. Just like you and me. Just because they classify as an immigrant doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to get the very minimum required to live.

Yes people of a different nationality. If they are unable to find work then they can return to their own country where they are likely to be better off than remaining in the UK.

This is the problem with left-wingers; you all try too hard to turn government into a charity and attempt to save the world from hardship. This is why we are always left with huge debts when you lot leave office; this is not the way that governments should be run.

[Mechie]

(Original post by Ham and Cheese)
Yes people of a different nationality. If they are unable to find work then they can return to their own country where they are likely to be better off than remaining in the UK.

This is the problem with left-wingers; you all try too hard to turn government into a charity and attempt to save the world from hardship. This is why we are always left with huge debts when you lot leave office; this is not the way that governments should be run.

You lot? Yeah, I think you'll find that I'm not affiliated with the Labour party IRL and have nothing to do with any of their decisions

Answer me this: why should you be entitled to benefits? How have you contributed to the economy? Especially considering, say, someone who's come here and worked for 9 years then gets made redundant.

[ukdragon37]

(Original post by Ham and Cheese)
...

Can I confirm that immigrants who, upon obtaining British nationality, no longer fall within the provisions of this Act?

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Ham and Cheese)
Why should they stay? Immigrants are supposed to benefit and contribute to the economy; this Government does not believe in accepting immigrants into the country for them to only be unemployed. This is a reasonable bill which rewards hard work and stops immigration from becoming uncontrollable.

If an immigrant becomes unemployed then they have a whole year to seek alternative work. If they do not find the work, then there is not much point in them remaining in the UK; at this point they will be invited to return to their home country.

Yah yah yah. You don't even want to begin to tackle the problems of unemployment, you just want to shift all blame onto immigrants which is neither justifiable nor appropriate. Why stop at immigrants? Why not get rid of everyone who cannot find a job at £21,000 a year? Who really cares what passport they have...

[tehFrance]

(Original post by ukdragon37)
Can I confirm that immigrants who, upon obtaining British nationality, no longer fall within the provisions of this Act?

Why the hell would they if they are naturalised British citizens?

[ukdragon37]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Why the hell would they if they are naturalised British citizens?

I actually wanted to seek clarification on the wording of 3a), namely "irrespective of their immigration status". Naturalised British citizenship could still be regarded as an immigration status and I wanted to find out whether those citizens could be deported under these provisions.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by ukdragon37)
I actually wanted to seek clarification on the wording of 3a), namely "irrespective of their immigration status". Naturalised British citizenship could still be regarded as an immigration status and I wanted to find out whether those citizens could be deported under these provisions.

No it would not, once you are naturalised you are a citizen as if you were born here, that cannot be revoked and I am sure it is against the Human Rights convention.

[ukdragon37]

(Original post by tehFrance)
No it would not, once you are naturalised you are a citizen as if you were born here, that cannot be revoked and I am sure it is against the Human Rights convention.

Thank you for the clarification. I think that is a position I would agree with.

[Ham and Cheese]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Yah yah yah. You don't even want to begin to tackle the problems of unemployment, you just want to shift all blame onto immigrants which is neither justifiable nor appropriate. Why stop at immigrants? Why not get rid of everyone who cannot find a job at £21,000 a year? Who really cares what passport they have...

If only it was that simple

But in all seriousness, I am not putting the blame on immigrants at all. This bill is only one piece of the puzzle to reduce unemployment.

[Ham and Cheese]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
You lot? Yeah, I think you'll find that I'm not affiliated with the Labour party IRL and have nothing to do with any of their decisions

Answer me this: why should you be entitled to benefits? How have you contributed to the economy? Especially considering, say, someone who's come here and worked for 9 years then gets made redundant.

I am a British citizen and was born here; my parents have both contributed to the economy for years. The provisions in this bill allow an immigrant my age to benefit from contributions made by their parents too.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Ham and Cheese)
If only it was that simple

But in all seriousness, I am not putting the blame on immigrants at all. This bill is only one piece of the puzzle to reduce unemployment.

*******s. You want to reduce unemployment, fine, so why not seek to actually do something to create jobs rather than get rid of migrant workers? I can't get a job, says person a; well, says person b, have you tried looking for one; no, says person a, why would I do that, it's not my fault I can't get a job, it's them immigrants, it says so in my Daily Mail.