Should police be allowed to shoot illegal migrants at the border?

Scroll to see replies

Okay, we don’t have the resources for 3 billion people, of course. But as for your “as long as their are people in poverty here” point, many conservatives like you also propose cutting the welfare state! (I’m not a liberal tho dw)

And okay and as for unemployment, as long as employment is tied to profit, things will never get done. It is clear that there is work to be done across the nation yet we only use employment for profit and therefore nothing gets done apart from creating wealth for the bosses, and that’s wrong.

Conservatives - like myself - support cutting the welfare state because - for many people - it has become an alternative to employment. On the contrary, I support social entitlement programs, but only for those who have fell on genuine hardships and need governmental support to cover the costs of living. However, the benefits programs concocted by the Labour government was a huge burden on public finances and a lot of the money wasn't going to people who needed it. Social benefits are not an alternative to paid employment.

Let's remind ourselves that it was this government which raised the living wage; it is this government which has got more people into work; and that it is this government which got us out of recession. If people in this country are unemployed, but able to work, then I'd rather see those people in employment as oppose to economic migrants from abroad.

Reply 121

gigglefits

why is this even a question.
No is the obvious answer.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 122

queenint

Original post by 1010marina

You do realise that, as always on the internet, pointing out typos instead of debating just makes it look like you've lost.

+1 to the other person

Except, I did mention human rights, I did mention the issue of racism and corruption and the right to a fair trial and the right to life, and he was incapable of debating or debunking those points.

Reply 123

username2585877

Original post by jake4198

Let's remind ourselves that it was this government which raised the living wage; it is this government which has got more people into work; and that it is this government which got us out of recession. If people in this country are unemployed, but able to work, then I'd rather see those people in employment as oppose to economic migrants from abroad.

But I thought the Living Wage was “economic illiteracy” during the election campaign, where labour wanted an £8.50 minimum wage???? And plus, getting people into zero hour contracts is a terrible way to improve unemployment.

Conservative Logic:
*Gets people working two 20 hour a week jobs instead of one 40 hour a week job*

Yay!!! Creating jobs!

Reply 124

anarchism101

Original post by Reue

If a country refuses entry and someone tries to get in how is that any different to being invaded?

It's different in the sense that invasion is committed by the armed forces, i.e. combatants, of another state. So just about in every relevant way.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 125

Reue

Original post by anarchism101

It's different in the sense that invasion is committed by the armed forces, i.e. combatants, of another state. So just about in every relevant way.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Not always

Reply 126

Underscore__

Whilst i disagree with labelling people trying to enter the UK as asylum seekers, what an absolutely disgusting suggestion

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 127

Laomedeia

Maybe the use of tazers and other less than lethal stuff. Live ammo would be a bit extreme, and to be reserved for terrorists and serious threats. Many migrants manage to kill themselves anyway.

Reply 128

anarchism101

Original post by Reue

Not always

Expand?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 129

Antioch

There is no need for it in the vast majority of cases but it could be an option in the most extreme occasions.

Reply 130

Plum1998

Original post by Reue

I expect your great grandfather stayed and fought in the war threatening his family.

If families are escaping war then then should go to the refugee safety areas. Continuing to risk your lives by ilegally swarmimg across europe gains no sympathy.

Lmao well i don't actually have a clue about what my family did back then to be honest, no need to bring it up now, its not part of the discussion, times have changed a lot since then, and so has society.

The issue still lies, if they don't have anymore room at the safety areas, where are they meant to go? They don't deserve to be shot, no matter what, they should handle it how most crimes are handled in the UK, with arresting them, not hurting them.

Reply 131

lamaragymnast

There are some heartless, stupid, selfish, cruel people on this site. I hope you never have any big problems in your lives. :angry:

No wait, actually I do.

Reply 132

Reue

Original post by Plum1998

Seemed particularly relevant to bring it up but nevermind if the relevance was lost.

These people arnt coming over because theres not enough room in local refugee centres. By their own admission they are targetting the UK specifically.

By all means; attempt to arrest them..however there needs to be a last resort and that should be with a bullet.

Reply 133

mojojojo101

Original post by Laomedeia

Maybe the use of tazers and other less than lethal stuff. Live ammo would be a bit extreme, and to be reserved for terrorists and serious threats. Many migrants manage to kill themselves anyway.

How would you know they were terrorists? I doubt they 'd be wearing 'Im a jihadi, come to bomb your children' t shirts...

Reply 134

Reue

Original post by lamaragymnast

There are some heartless, stupid, selfish, cruel people on this site. I hope you never have any big problems in your lives.

No wait, actually I do.

And with that final line the irony shines through

Reply 135

lamaragymnast

Original post by Reue

And with that final line the irony shines through

It was deliberate irony.

If someone thinks killing people is the best way to solve a problem like this, well that's so sad.

Reply 136

Reue

Original post by lamaragymnast

It was deliberate irony.

If someone thinks killing people is the best way to solve a problem like this, well that's so sad.

I dont think anyone said it was the best way.. just an option they should have if all others have failed.

Deliberate irony or not, its quite sad youd resort to name calling and wishing harm upon others just for expressing their opinions.

Reply 137

lamaragymnast

Original post by Reue

It's nowhere near the best way, killing someone, for anything. Plenty didn't said it should be a last resort either.

Oh, and I didn't call anyone any names, just pointed out their attitude, not the same thing.