Turn on thread page Beta

Labour MP demands unlimited immigration & says she doesn't care if Brits suffer watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Labour and Liberal Democrats.

    Should be outlawed they are the true traitors of the UK.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This is why Labour, for quite some time now, has ceased being the party for the working man. When immigration levels reach 'saturation' point, who will be impacted the most? Labourites in their expensive Islington streets? No. It will be the poor who will suffer the most and bear the brunt of it.

    All because Labour enjoys standing on the moral high ground, which is held up by the poor. It reminds me of the statute in the Ministry of Magic:

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Your title is extremely misleading because she is talking about refugees, not economic migrants, and made it very clear that she is not talking about "unlimited" migration. I think what's she's saying is completely fair enough. Our problems are absolutely minute in comparison to the suffering these people are escaping. These people desperately need help and if we need to use some of our resources to help them, so be it. Any kind of dent in quality of life that we have to take (and to make it perfectly clear, it will probably incredibly small) will be negligible in comparison to how much it would help these people. We can afford to spend resources on them, we're a very wealthy country.
    Who will be impacted the most by this 'saturation' do you think?

    Why is it Britain that has to reach saturation point and have its citizens' way of life and access to public services impacted? If the rest of the world took its fair share, there would be no need for us to reach saturation point; she would be better advocating that than a policy that would hurt Britain's poor.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Who will be impacted the most by this 'saturation' do you think?

    Why is it Britain that has to reach saturation point and have its citizens' way of life and access to public services impacted? If the rest of the world took its fair share, there would be no need for us to reach saturation point; she would be better advocating that than a policy that would hurt Britain's poor.
    Yes, if the rest of the world took its fair share. But it isn't. We can lament this fact as much as we want but in the mean time, people are suffering. Pointing out that other countries are responding appallingly to this situation doesn't change the fact that the situation exists and as (hopefully) ethical people, we should do as much as we can to help.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    "Ms. Maskell is a former physiotherapist who has worked within the National Health Service (NHS) and as the “Head of Health” for hardline trade union Unite."

    Well, at least she's qualified to look at the economic problems her ideas would cause.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Yes, if the rest of the world took its fair share. But it isn't. We can lament this fact as much as we want but in the mean time, people are suffering. Pointing out that other countries are responding appallingly to this situation doesn't change the fact that the situation exists and as (hopefully) ethical people, we should do as much as we can to help.
    Yes, people are suffering: billions are suffering. There are conflicts all over the world, starving children, homeless people, etc. Why are you being selective in whose suffering you deem subjectively important enough to warrant entry to the UK? Why not take in all of the world's people who are suffering?

    Do you believe it's ethical to allow in such a large number of people that Britain reaches saturation point and the poor are the most impacted? What if they don't want their standard of living damaged so that you can feel ethical?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Yes, people are suffering: billions are suffering. There are conflicts all over the world, starving children, homeless people, etc. Why are you being selective in whose suffering you deem subjectively important enough to warrant entry to the UK? Why not take in all of the world's people who are suffering?

    Do you believe it's ethical to allow in such a large number of people that Britain reaches saturation point and the poor are the most impacted? What if they don't want their standard of living damaged so that you can feel ethical?
    This is an immediate crisis where we are in a realistic position to take in refugees, who are fleeing from a war zone. As much as I'd like to alleviate everyone's suffering this clearly isn't possible, but we can do what we can and this is a situation where we can realistically do something significant to help people, at least in the short term.

    There's no reason why the poor of Britain would have to be most impacted. If they were, that's because of the awful amount of inequality in British society but there's nothing fundamental or natural about this. The funds and resources could easily be taken from the more wealthy in British society, for instance through taxation, reducing the wasteful use of homes as second homes or to wealthy international buyers, and building affordable new homes. If the poor of Britain are hurt by this then that's the government's fault, not the fault of these refugees. And regardless, I'm not sure what cataclysmic event you're imagining but the number of refugees we're proposing to allow in is a fraction of a percentage point of our overall population, only a few dozen refugees per local authority. We could quadruple the current new proposed quotas and still take in less than 0.1% of the existing population.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rad-Reloaded)
    LMAO


    Seriously, very funny


    If this country is going to be run in way where taxes are being increased and public services are suffering simply because White people feel they have a duty to bend over and get ****ed in the ass by Arabs, if you have money or qualifications, it's time to leave, move to America, move to Canada, move to Switzerland, move to a tax haven, get private healthcare. Let's see how many refugees this country can help when it's totally bankrupt.


    **** Britain.


    No matter where you go it is going to be the same, it is called globalisation. It is everywhere.

    Tell me about it - I travelled the world and I didn't find <for now> better place than Britan <which can be changed tomorrow immediately after I told you that>


    Today I am in Britain tomorrow God knows where. All the planet is insecure - not only Britain.


    Just a one single nuc - and the planet will burst in fire.


    Drop any delusions and stand up for your values, that is what I do, what I believe is valid.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhiteSatin)
    No matter where you go it is going to be the same, it is called globalisation. It is everywhere.

    Tell me about it - I travelled the world and I didn't find <for now> better place than Britan <which can be changed tomorrow immediately after I told you that>


    Today I am in Britain tomorrow God knows where. All the planet is insecure - not only Britain.


    Just a one single nuc - and the planet will burst in fire.


    Drop any delusions and stand up for your values, that is what I do, what I believe is valid.
    I'm not a White nationalist.


    Just move to a really economically liberal country and enjoy the fireworks
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    This is an immediate crisis where we are in a realistic position to take in refugees, who are fleeing from a war zone. As much as I'd like to alleviate everyone's suffering this clearly isn't possible, but we can do what we can and this is a situation where we can realistically do something significant to help people, at least in the short term.
    There are other war zones and other people suffering from human rights abuses, persecution, famine, etc., and who are dying at this very moment. We are absolutely in a position to help them if we wanted to; I mean, according to this Labour politician, money and logistics are no problem in making us feel ethical.

    Most Syrian refugees are largely safe at present – either in refugee camps or in European countries. Immediacy is therefore not an argument.

    There's no reason why the poor of Britain would have to be most impacted. If they were, that's because of the awful amount of inequality in British society but there's nothing fundamental or natural about this.
    Regardless of the merits of this argument, you have suggested that they would need to be taken in immediately, which would most definitely not be enough time to remedy such deep-rooted inequalities.

    The funds and resources could easily be taken from the more wealthy in British society, for instance through taxation, reducing the wasteful use of homes as second homes or to wealthy international buyers, and building affordable new homes.
    How will this be done overnight? And the rich would just leave the country, which would then land the responsibility on the poor.

    If the poor of Britain are hurt by this then that's the government's fault, not the fault of these refugees. And regardless, I'm not sure what cataclysmic event you're imagining but the number of refugees we're proposing to allow in is a fraction of a percentage point of our overall population, only a few dozen refugees per local authority. We could quadruple the current new proposed quotas and still take in less than 0.1% of the existing population.
    The argument revolves around the topic of this thread, which is the proposal that we should take in refugees to saturation point. If we did this immediately, the poor would undoubtedly be most impacted.

    It seems quite authoritarian to me to force the poor, or even the rich, to suffer an impact on their standard of living so that you can feel more ethical. Should such a significant thing not be put to a referendum?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rad-Reloaded)
    I'm not a White nationalist.


    Just move to a really economically liberal country and enjoy the fireworks


    You are a dreamer, there is no such country. The richest countries have the highest standard, you pay it anyway - taxes, or prices....but you pay it, believe me.

    Poor country - yes, you don't pay so much, but you still pay a lot and you earn much less and when you drop the line, it comes to be a drama.

    Take it with a pinch of salt - just stand up your own visions.

    If you don't believe me - go abroad and suffer it, I personally don't mind. I know what you will find.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhiteSatin)
    You are a dreamer, there is no such country. The richest countries have the highest standard, you pay it anyway - taxes, or prices....but you pay it, believe me.

    Poor country - yes, you don't pay so much, but you still pay a lot and you earn much less and when you drop the line, it comes to be a drama.

    Take it with a pinch of salt - just stand up your own visions.

    If you don't believe me - go abroad and suffer it, I personally don't mind. I know what you will find.
    I don't know how to explain, but I understand you people really well


    You would say I am a part of the problem, like behind the scenes, you understand?


    'Rootless cosmopolitan'
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ace123)
    Labour MP demands more immigration until Britain is at 'saturation point' and says she doesn't care if more immigration makes the NHS or schools worse for Brits and even suggest taxes should rise to pay for them

    “We need to shout so much more and say 20,000 is not enough, 30,000 is not enough. We will keep going until we hit our saturation point because what does it matter if we have to wait another week for a hospital visit? Or if our class sizes are slightly bigger? Or if our city is slightly fuller? What does it matter if things are slightly more challenging? If we have to pay a little bit more into the system? Surely it is worth it to see those lives being restored again.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015...ools-are-full/
    Complete Mong.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Killer Bean)
    "She wants for us to provide shelter for as many human beings fleeing from war-torn countries as we possibly can. When an evil woman!!"
    Economic migrants. They are passing safe countries


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rad-Reloaded)
    I don't know how to explain, but I understand you people really well


    You would say I am a part of the problem, like behind the scenes, you understand?


    'Rootless cosmopolitan'


    Right.


    I will only add - 'Rootless cosmopolitan' is fine for me, also the 'Rootless cosmopolitan' pays the bills and it is not for free to be a 'Rootless cosmopolitan' I can assure you.At this base I feel fine and equal with every other creature on the planet Earth.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhiteSatin)
    Right.


    I will only add - 'Rootless cosmopolitan' is fine for me, also the 'Rootless cosmopolitan' pays the bills and it is not for free to be a 'Rootless cosmopolitan' I can assure you.At this base I feel fine and equal with every other creature on the planet Earth.
    Well that's good

    See you in the Bahamas
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nmys)
    This statement that you seem to find so offensive is called being human and having some care for fellow man - something unfamiliar under our government where refugees and people costing a bit more are seen as debilitating economic factors.

    If that is the direct quote then yes it would be unrealistic and somewhat damaging if that WORD FOR WORD was carried out - but that won't happen.

    You are first and foremost human, everything else is secondary. If you cannot look after your fellow man then something has gone terribly wrong - probably why this world has gone to hell.
    Our fellow man is breeding out of control 2 billion 100 years ago 7.2 billion now and 11 billion in 35 years time.

    Billions will die through starvation.


    It isn't the western worlds problem to deal with issues these people bring on themselves


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Economic migrants. They are passing safe countries


    Posted from TSR Mobile


    Economic migrants are absolutely fine if they keep the law and they behave.


    Trust me.

    The truth is that Middle East has different culture and people there don't behave like economic migrants for the simple reason they are spoiled Muslims with a superiority complex.


    Who doesn't know Muslims in their bottoms doesn't know what they are all about.


    Here I will leave you to learn what Muslims are, it is not my goal to educate you about cultural differences.


    The biggest mistake of the Britons is that Britons expect Muslims to behave like Britons.

    No, Muslims are not Britons, and they will never be - they avoid marriages with locals, changing religion, changing cultural environment etc.


    Muslims are NOT SUITABLE FOR CIVILISING AND INTEGRATION.


    It is forbidden for them, please read the Qur'an and the Muslim history.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Our fellow man is breeding out of control 2 billion 100 years ago 7.2 billion now and 11 billion in 35 years time.

    Billions will die through starvation.


    It isn't the western worlds problem to deal with issues these people bring on themselves


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's not our fellow man that is breeding out of control, it is mankind in general which includes everyone. Part of the issue of the rocketing population is people living too long as well - this applies mainly to the West, so should we stop giving healthcare to those over the age of 50 as well as letting "those other people" die?

    "These people" did not bring the issues onto themselves, it was through intervention of the West and the rest of the world - society is now global nothing is self-contained thus nothing is self-inflicted; the initial cause and perpetrators are either forgotten about or not fully acknowledged/disguised and dishonest.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by beruangmacan)
    seems like british really hate immigrant
    i'm getting worried as international student for some reason
    please tell me you guys don't think "oh, another outsider cnt..." when you see int.student
    No it's not the case.
    They don't hate immigrants just immigration (not everyone anyway. There are loads of pro immigration brits)
    Mass immigration is a problem. No matter how kind hearted you are you have to turn on your rational thinking and see that hundreds of thousands of people flooding into your country is very problematic for a lot of reasons. It doesn't mean that the people of that country are mean for not liking it. It's their country and any patriotic member would do anything they could to protect it.
    There's a reason why some countries close their borders completely. There's nothing wrong with people applying legally and following due process to get into a country (ie visas)
    And half the time these immigrants have absolutely no respect for the country they are taking refuge in. You'd think they'd come and work hard and even add to the country's growth but no. Some just want to leech off the government and taxpayers which is not fair at all.
    So yeah do all you can to help those in need but without sacrificing the peace and progress of your nation. That's basically the stance of most (rational) people.




    This is all coming from a fellow international
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 6, 2015
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.