The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80
neomayemer
excuse me? colonialism?! so we will go back a few hundred years to place blame? why not make it a few hundred more blame the French for our problems or several hundred more and blame the Romans?

The UK is not the world power it once was, we cannot solve the worlds problems

Few hundred years? I suggest you need brushing up on your history. The UK was a colonial power well into the twentieth century. Much of sub-Saharan Africa became independent in 1950s and 1960s. Immigration today is a spillover from that legacy as I said, rightly or wrongly, it is undeniably one of the main consequences of people flooding into the UK rather than some other random place.

The UK is very much a worldpower, complaining about everything is merely a british pastime.
Reply 81
neomayemer
excuse me? colonialism?! so we will go back a few hundred years to place blame? why not make it a few hundred more blame the French for our problems or several hundred more and blame the Romans?

The UK is not the world power it once was, we cannot solve the worlds problems


Britain's position in the world as one of the wealthiest nations is in no small part a product of its former Empire and policies of colonialism. And, as has already been pointed out, colonialism has been abandoned much more recently than you seem to think. Obviously as time passes so events and processes in the past generally have less and less a hand on current situations, but places like Africa still very much happen to be dealing with colonial legacies. No, Britain can't solve the world's problems, but rich countries like Britain got rich in part by their willingness to take over other countries when it suited them to use their resources.
Reply 82
Socrates
Few hundred years? I suggest you need brushing up on your history. The UK was a colonial power well into the twentieth century. Much of sub-Saharan Africa became independent in 1950s and 1960s. Immigration today is a spillover from that legacy as I said, rightly or wrongly, it is undeniably one of the main consequences of people flooding into the UK rather than some other random place.

The UK is very much a worldpower, complaining about everything is merely a british pastime.


Yes then we fought two world wars, survived by the skin of our teeth, were stripped of our colonies and our naval power

and we are expected to solve these problems still because? We are not the sole cause of these problems and as such we should not be the nation nominated to fix all these problems.

They are flooding here because our system is easy to abuse. we are a world powerand have a seat at the highest table because we can play our nuclear card.

Invading other countries has been a fact of life since borders were first established, humans are selfish and strive to expand its our nature. if you go back far enough you will find that some of the inhabitants of the top of the african continent used to prey on other european countries.


Edit:
dd1989
I'm finding the results of this quite hard to believe, since we know for a fact there are people in this country...white native brits, who do nothing for society, yet simply by being here they deserve a house?


As i said in an earlier post i dont nescesarily believe they should get them by default, i believe that a decision should be made on how much an individual/family does, for the good of the nation that is. People who are living their lives on benefits because they are too lazy to get a job are not deserving. And when you see how hard some families abroad work for so few gains it really does make it seem terrible.
Reply 83
Socrates
Problems are self inflicted. The legacy of colonialism, rightly or wrongly, means that the UK has a responsibility to deal with these issues. It isn't a crazy decision, its a consequence of what was then perfectly politically rational.


Right, i have to pay tax to support some people i have nothing in common with just because britain was an imperial power many years ago:rolleyes: , alot of the immigrants aren't even from ex-imperial countries.

And secondly the problems in most of the ex-colonies are of their own making, Zimbabwe? hyperinflation and starvation.... all avoidable.

Basically Socrates everything you have said in this thread has been pro-immigrant and anti-british - whats your beef? you are british aren't you?

I agree wholeheartedly with neomayemer
Reply 84
wesetters
Why should we value someone based on such an arbitrary notion as nationality ?

Sure, you might not get back what you paid for entirely, but money isn't everything. Social justice > personal gain.
How about when the welfare provision is made from the national pocket?

Hodge's comments are sensible and well intentioned. Some people do make an economic decision to come to Britain knowing full well that they will get a house at the taxpayers expense, as well as a basic welfare provision until they get permission to get a job. Remove that incentive, and suddenly coming to the UK is a lot less attractive a proposition for these people.

Rather than giving these people incentive to come here and use our taxpayers money, we should invest it in improving their lot so that they don't feel they need to come over here. It's the harder option, but in the long run it's best for everyone.
Reply 85
Carl
Rather than giving these people incentive to come here and use our taxpayers money, we should invest it in improving their lot so that they don't feel they need to come over here. It's the harder option, but in the long run it's best for everyone.


Why not invest it on ourselves and just not allow them to come?

Seriously, why are you so hung up on helping them. We never got help when we were a developing country - i would expect none. If you want to do good deeds, thats what charities are for and we allready give quite alot of money as aid.

At the end of the day life is a competition, we are the winners atm. But such liberal thinking is going to cost us our advantage. Don't think for a second that if places were reversed they would help us. we gotta look after our own interests first and foremost. Aid should be what we do when things are sorted out in the UK.
Reply 86
Why help them?

A legacy of colonialism, the Commonwealth and a sense of moral duty for one, and if not, perhaps more practical options like helping them is economically benificial to all, it brings them out of poverty, and will help avoid resentment and curb extremism: economic developement is clsely linked with political development and thus by helping them to improve it makes the world a more stable place.

It's all well and good saying leave them to rot, but eventually it will bite you in the ass. Look at the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, or the 9/11 attacks in the USA.

EDIT: I notice you mention aid...what is that if it is not helping them? We DO need to help them via aid, but aid needs to be well targetted and responsibly dealt out.
Reply 87
Zebedee
Why not invest it on ourselves and just not allow them to come?

Seriously, why are you so hung up on helping them. We never got help when we were a developing country - i would expect none. If you want to do good deeds, thats what charities are for and we allready give quite alot of money as aid.

At the end of the day life is a competition, we are the winners atm. But such liberal thinking is going to cost us our advantage. Don't think for a second that if places were reversed they would help us. we gotta look after our own interests first and foremost. Aid should be what we do when things are sorted out in the UK.


We cant ignore them, equally if we put all our resources into helping them then we will just create more "casualties". we CANT help everyone. we just need to change the benefit system to stop abuse.

immigration does not hurt this country, illegal immigration does the numbers must be curbed.

As you said we have our own problems to attend to.
Reply 88
Carl
A legacy of colonialism, the Commonwealth and a sense of moral duty for one


Doesn't that infer we've done something wrong?

and if not, perhaps more practical options like helping them is economically benificial to all, it brings them out of poverty, and will help avoid resentment and curb extremism: economic developement is clsely linked with political development and thus by helping them to improve it makes the world a more stable place.


We can help, but that doesn't mean send them loads of money. Most of it seems to be wasted, i mean most sub-saharan africans countries have not come along way in the last 50 years. Some like Zimbabwe have gone backwards.

It's all well and good saying leave them to rot, but eventually it will bite you in the ass. Look at the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, or the 9/11 attacks in the USA.


Hmmm, thats muslim extemism last time i checked. Poverty creates extemism? yes - it probably adds to the mix but paying them a "bribe" so to speak certainly isn't the way out! the way out is to win their hearts and minds.

EDIT: I notice you mention aid...what is that if it is not helping them? We DO need to help them via aid, but aid needs to be well targetted and responsibly dealt out.


Yes i agree. Its just when you say we need to help them i thought you meant in the context of housing money etc. Socrates certainly seemed to be suggesting some sort of obligation to either accomodate them in the UK or help them in their own country. like we owe them something. Anything we give is a gift, not reparations :wink:
Reply 89
Yes the BNP is gaining votes because the population is starting to believe their goverment does not care about them.... true or not allocating housing to specific groups of people is not the answer it is merley a continuation of what this goverment has always done i.e. treat the symptoms not the problem
Reply 90
Zebedee
We can help, but that doesn't mean send them loads of money. Most of it seems to be wasted, i mean most sub-saharan africans countries have not come along way in the last 50 years. Some like Zimbabwe have gone backwards.
Of course we can't throw money at the problem. However, it is entirely in our interest to send targetted aid to area where it will be effective, notably to countries where political reform is working to the benefit of the people. Notably, the UK doesn't give out aid willy nilly (at least not on the scale the EU does, that's another debate); it distributes aid in accordance with a number of priorities, which include how this will benefit the UK stratregically, and to what extent the aid will be useful to the benefitting country. Note we suspended Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth, and they certainly don't receive development aid directly from us. IMO the Department for International Development (DfID) does a great job at effectively targetting aid money so it benefits both us and the beneficiary nation. To relate this to this thread, happier foreigners means less immigrants to here, and so we don't need to give them social housing.

Hmmm, thats muslim extemism last time i checked. Poverty creates extemism? yes - it probably adds to the mix but paying them a "bribe" so to speak certainly isn't the way out! the way out is to win their hearts and minds.
And how do you propose we do that? As I said, "paying a bribe" is to do development spending a great disservice. Poverty does create extremism, and by putting in the place the steps for countries to remove themselves from poverty the UK benefits greatly.

Yes i agree. Its just when you say we need to help them i thought you meant in the context of housing money etc. Socrates certainly seemed to be suggesting some sort of obligation to either accomodate them in the UK or help them in their own country. like we owe them something. Anything we give is a gift, not reparations :wink:

I think morally and practically we are obligated to help people in other countries, not helping them simply isn't an option. As I said, I'd rather money was spent abroad helping people, than making it a sensible economic decision for them to come here and get council housing and benefits. International aid is an investment for us that may or may not have tangible returns, but social housing for immigrants, especially those who can't work, is simply a tangible cost.
Reply 91
i really don't see how its any of our concern, in the real world its all a big competition, none of this "we need to share things equally". i don't really see why we should see ourselves as "world developers" and go round to other countries and telling them they should do certain things to become "more developed". Seems very arrogant.

Can't we just let them get on with it?

I don;t understand your logic of a) let immigrants come here or b) develop their countries. Its a false dictonomy, we can just not let immigrants come here AND not "develop" other countries. Just let them do the best they can and see what happens, we don't want these countries becoming dependent on our aid do we? because as soon as we cut it off they will not know how to work without them.

Besides if they did badly we will be criticised for interfering and if they do well we will be told how we diddn't help at all so really we have little to gain.

Your argument that we NEED to develop other countries in order to lessen the risk of acts of terror seems like scaremongering, if people resort to terror because of poverty then thats their own moral failure, not ours for not giving them what they want.
Reply 92
You would have thought that after the second world war when we lost a large proportion of our means to police the world. We would no longer feel obliged to do so.
Reply 93
Zebedee
i really don't see how its any of our concern, in the real world its all a big competition, none of this "we need to share things equally". i don't really see why we should see ourselves as "world developers" and go round to other countries and telling them they should do certain things to become "more developed". Seems very arrogant.

Can't we just let them get on with it?
No, we can't. Countries where development does not occur often degenerate into chaos and war. This creates refugees, who then come to us looking for help. To help countries develop, and become economically and politically stable, serves our interests in the long run. "Leaving them to it" does not serve our purposes.

I don;t understand your logic of a) let immigrants come here or b) develop their countries. Its a false dictonomy, we can just not let immigrants come here AND not "develop" other countries. Just let them do the best they can and see what happens, we don't want these countries becoming dependent on our aid do we? because as soon as we cut it off they will not know how to work without them.
Where did I say we'd make them dependent on our aid. You may see it as condescending, I see it as the way things are, but many countries who are eager to reform their poltical and economic scenery are glad of our aid and assistance. The fact is that such development requires this assistance from us. The DfID, for example, teaches farmers skills, pays for irrigation to be put in place, and trains people to maintain these systems. The UN Development Agency (UNDA) does similar work, a woman I met had spent several years in Cameroon assisting them with the establishment of a stock exchange. Part of the aid package is political reform, read up on the Cotonou and Lomé agreements. Without political reform these countries cannot "go it alone", that is why aid is by and large conditional on political reform.

Besides if they did badly we will be criticised for interfering and if they do well we will be told how we diddn't help at all so really we have little to gain.
Well that's simply wrong. Most aid work is done quietly and effectively. This arrogance you claim we have in assisting other countries might be justified if we trumpetted about it all over the world, but the fact is, we don't.

gument that we NEED to develop other countries in order to lessen the risk of acts of terror seems like scaremongering, if people resort to terror because of poverty then thats their own moral failure, not ours for not giving them what they want.
It's not a moral failure, it's an avoidable social failure, and one we can act to prevent.

You make it seem like we can cut ourselves off and be free of the problems of other countries Zebedee, and that simply is not the case. We have an agency for International Development for a reason, and that reason is that International Development is in our own interests.
Reply 94
Zebedee
Doesn't that infer we've done something wrong?
Socrates certainly seemed to be suggesting some sort of obligation to either accomodate them in the UK or help them in their own country. like we owe them something. Anything we give is a gift, not reparations :wink:

We do have an obligation because it was wrong.
Reply 95
Zebedee
Can't we just let them get on with it?

You aren't that naive to believe that all countries are on a equal footing, surely?
Reply 96
Socrates
We do have an obligation because it was wrong.


There have been a lot of things done wrong in history.... and a lot of things done today will be seen as wrong by our children.

Playing the blame game will not solve these problems
Reply 97
neomayemer
There have been a lot of things done wrong in history.... and a lot of things done today will be seen as wrong by our children.

Playing the blame game will not solve these problems

We can do what we can...otherwise we can face the consequences.
Socrates
We can do what we can...otherwise we can face the consequences.


Which are...
Reply 99
a guilt trip apparently

Yes we need a stricter system like many other similar countries