Turn on thread page Beta

Majority of UK against Iraq/Afghanistan wars, yet immigrants not allowed to be watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    From the Guardian link above:

    But migrants who contribute to the "democratic life of the country" by canvassing for political parties could find the application process speeded up so that it takes one year instead of three.
    I don't think immigrants should canvass for any political parties. (And I think canvassing for mainstream political parties will be much more acceptable to the authorities than canvassing for smaller ones ones will be.)

    Let limited numbers enter the country, work for a few years, become a part of community life, then try to influence politics if they wish. Canvassing for political parties should NOT gain an immigrant brownie points.

    And the British public is highly emotional, so it isn't surprising that they see the coffins and are against the war. That does not mean the war is wrong any more than it means it is winnable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think the weakness here is that, while the majority of the british public are against the iraq and to a lesser extent afghanistan wars, they are supportive of our troops as they understand that they are putting their lives on the line to serve our country. Contrast that with those immigrants who actively protested against the TROOPs themselves not the war in general calling them things like "butchers of basra", that is something no BRITISH person should do!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Do you think activist protesting should be punished by deportation? Seriously?
    A non-British citizen who actively protests against British troops, in an attempt to shock and offend other British citizens should have a detrimental effect on their citizenship application.

    You could certainly equate gaining citizenship to applying for a job. You want to gain the benefits from working for such a company (payment, bonuses, prestige, the ability to use the company's facilities, and so on) and the company you are applying to wants to utilise your skills, develop you as an individual and ensure you incorporate into the corporate culture of the company. There are plenty of other people applying for the job with potentially better skills and more to offer than yourself, so you wouldn't ruin your chances by standing on the street and protesting against staff walking into the company's offices, would you? And why would the company want to employ someone like that, when there are plenty of better applicants?

    Or perhaps it would be more relevant to apply this to an employee hoping to emerge from their probation period as a permanent employee. The point still remains.

    The plain fact is, we have a right to be picky about who we receive and immigrants have plenty of other options than migrating to the UK.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Temporal)
    A non-British citizen who actively protests against British troops, in an attempt to shock and offend other British citizens should have a detrimental effect on their citizenship application.
    And why is it not possible that these people have a genuine conviction leading to their protest? He's foreign, and he's protesting, therefore he must be trying to shock and offend other British citizens. The fact is that in most cases of war protest, the British people are not shocked or offended by foreign protesters - they agree with them, they join them, they back them.

    I find this whole attitude totally horrendous.

    You could certainly equate gaining citizenship to applying for a job. You want to gain the benefits from working for such a company (payment, bonuses, prestige, the ability to use the company's facilities, and so on) and the company you are applying to wants to utilise your skills, develop you as an individual and ensure you incorporate into the corporate culture of the company. There are plenty of other people applying for the job with potentially better skills and more to offer than yourself, so you wouldn't ruin your chances by standing on the street and protesting against staff walking into the company's offices, would you? And why would the company want to employ someone like that, when there are plenty of better applicants?
    It doesn't equate to working for a company at all. That's a poor analogy. The fact of the matter is that lots of immigrants come to Britain because of the freedom we indulge in. There are bright, liberal young minds all over the world that want to come to this country and take advantage of our freedom of speech and right to opinion in order to make further changes to the country, and improve its prosperity and it's liberal attitudes. It's great, isn't it, this freedom of speech thing? We can say what we please, protest against what we like, hold whatever convictions we like and air our opinion liberally. But, in order to gain entrance to this freedom-of-speech-loving country, you have to shut up and only think what the government wants you to think? There's something extremely hypocritical in that, and it stinks.

    The fact of the matter is that this country still has a lot of problems that need to be taken care of. The government rely on its citizens to air their opinions and stage their protests. How can a government serve the people if it does not let the people tell the government what they want?

    If you only bring in immigrants who promise to agree that Britain is already perfect, and couldn't be doing with improvement, then you are limiting your scope for improvement. You are disabling a fundamental force in moral and political progress, the force of protest.

    Or perhaps it would be more relevant to apply this to an employee hoping to emerge from their probation period as a permanent employee. The point still remains.
    If you insist on using the 'company-employee' analogy, then I'd say it was more like this:

    A company brings you in as a consultant, hoping that you will generate ideas to improve the companies management system, it's financial system, it's business processes, or whatever else. But then the company refuses to accept any sort of constructive criticism, and fires you on the spot for suggesting that the company wasn't perfect to begin with.

    The plain fact is, we have a right to be picky about who we receive and immigrants have plenty of other options than migrating to the UK.
    Yes, we do have a right to be picky. But we should by being picky about their skills, their intelligence, their culture, their enthusiasm and their moral values, we should absolutely not be discriminating against them based on whether or not they are brain-dead patriots.

    A true patriot is a man who criticises the imperfections of his country in hopes that this will initiate a process for removing them. A false patriot is a man who bows and cowers in fear of his country, doing whatever it says, regardless of whether it's commands are justified or not. A true servant will stop his master from making a mistake, a false servant will help his master to commit it. If you insist that your citizens do nothing but blindly agree with you, what hope can you possibly have for progress?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by munro90)
    I think the weakness here is that, while the majority of the british public are against the iraq and to a lesser extent afghanistan wars, they are supportive of our troops as they understand that they are putting their lives on the line to serve our country. Contrast that with those immigrants who actively protested against the TROOPs themselves not the war in general calling them things like "butchers of basra", that is something no BRITISH person should do!
    Well I'm British and I do protest against the troops themselves, albeit, not actively.

    Remember, the troops are people too. They aren't robots who take instructions and carry them out. They are (or they should be) moral beings with consciences, opinions on what is right and what is wrong and a moral responsibility for their actions. Now, if the troops are a good sample of the British people, then the majority of them also oppose the war. But despite their ethical convictions, they turn off their brains and go running into battle in a war that they know is wrong. I'm sorry, but I can't respect somebody with such a brain-off attitude, and I actively protest against the moral convictions and the ill-considered actions of such people.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.