Reform plans to scrap indefinite leave to remain for migrants

It was, thank you. I’d rather people were clear on what they believe, and why.

I think I did deal with your example? Nothing macro (I think you mean large scale, looking it up? I'd assumed you were referring to economics!).

I think UK citizens should have more rights than non UK citizens within the UK, for the reasons already given. Hopefully that's the answer you were looking for even if you don't agree with me.

There are people now who get to stay or don’t based on earnings, with Labour in. Why do you not say that is racist?

It’s not an insult, it is a fact clearly evidenced by your posts which repeatedly have claimed that posters wrote things that they didn’t write, and claimed that sentences have alternative meanings that would require them being written with different punctuation (or, indeed, completely different words) to have any validity.

I thought we weren't allowed personal insults?

I on the other hand am not so frail as to grass you up to MN.

I forgive you for your insult.

Macro, ie you didn’t deal with the reality of the example I gave. But I understand from your answer that you think it is an okay thing to happen.

It’s such a curveball view below. But yes not much on what Labour are changing now.

Well, I think my concern is the effect and the motivation which imo is. But of course I accept that it is not badged in that way.

I believe that probably there would be a problem with this legally regarding discrimination law in the ECHR, as the intent or effect of this discrimination in my example is the element that concerns me. That is to me the bit I find morally repugnant.

Yes, I'm amazed about what Labour can get through with this Trojan Horse narrative of being a good egg that would be hailed as racist and xenophobic with a different coloured rosette.

It was you who needed to be corrected. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you don’t understand basic written English.

If you mean your example of the right to benefits then yes I do think it an acceptable outcome. I think UK citizens should have more rights within the UK than non UK citizens. I wouldnt expect the same rights as a US citizen if I were in the US. If I were in Norway for example I would have to support myself for many years before being able to apply for citizenship.

Not sure what you mean by "bit macro".

Why don’t you ask this of the government today?

There are benefits related to status now.

Look, if you think what Reform is proposing is fine and dandy, then you are entitled to that view.
I am equally entitled to view the proposals with disgust and find them racist, xenophobic and abhorrent.

This is exactly how I feel about it. I have family in the UK and many other countries, with many different nationalities and passports. These small minded politicians pandering to the very worst aspects of human nature are destroying so many opportunities for our young people, making them poorer if they stay in the UK and making them grow up in a society full of hate and division, as well as taking away so many wonderful opportunities to expand their horizons.

High achievers from the UK will still have these opportunities even if they’re not dual passport holders: they will be welcomed by other high income countries hence the brain drain of bright young people currently taking place, which more economically damaging policies lowering living standards in the UK further and the normalising of xenophobia and racism in public discourse by Farage and his ilk will only ramp up further.

Those who will suffer the most are those from poorer backgrounds who are less likely to have the qualifications to make them welcome wherever they want to go and won’t have such opportunities easily available to them in future. Farage’s Brexit already took away much of this and his latest proposals will damage it even further. If he was in a position to implement his policies the economy would tank further, education would become even more poorly funded than it is now: all routes to a better life are being closed off, very deliberately, to exacerbate the division and sense of disenfranchisement which is the only thing which gains him votes.

People should ask themselves what incentive a politician would have to improve things for the majority of the population when their only way to gain power is by creating division and exacerbating their sense of despair to the point that they are prepared to vote for a party made up of fraudsters, liars, racists, wife beaters and violent criminals in the desperate hope they might be better than the dire politicians we’ve had for the last few decades. If this is the only basis upon which they can gain the required support to be elected (as they’ve clearly concluded, hence this strategy) then what incentive would they have to change this situation and improve living standards post-election? Their only way to maintain power would be to increase this desperation, despair and division further. Or by force, of course.

This is where we differ. I don't think it's a good policy, it's not very workable but I don't think it is racist - by any definition.

This is a bit macro though isn’t it? So could you deal with my example? I assume you think it is an acceptable outcome?

This is true. But, TBF, people with ILR haven't had to, there is no material difference between this visa and citizenship and who can't think of something they wouldn't rather spend £2k on.

But, yes, I agree, it's not beyond civility to ask people to choose.

The point is not the goad anyone, btw. I disagree that this is a good policy, I believe it is racially motivated, but people can support it. I expect Reform voters or supporters to make a proper case because the apparent economic case makes it suspect as to the motives.

Because it doesn't distinguish between race.

I think it's based on the notion of citizenship. Does citizenship of a particular country give you rights in that country over and above a non citizen? Answer..yes. Otherwise what's the point in citizenship.

If you don't distinguish between citizens and non citizens then it's a free for all for everyone in the world. Which is unworkable as you need a tax base that sees the social benefit in paying tax in the UK. The Social Contract.

If they have been here so long, have kids here etc, why shouldn’t they have to decide where they belong?

Even then every country had limitations on who can enter and stay. And again has different benefits based on status.

I know that. But what is the motivation in your view for the distinction?

My feeling is that it is racist. Why do you consider that it is not?

So, a fear of white Kiwis, Aussies, Americans, etc?

Xenophobic might be the correct term in the case of white immigrants.

Labour and probably all governments have policies that differentiate in status between people. There may be differences in what they are but to say any differentiation is racist is odd.

Where has exactly the same benefits regardless of status? I can’t think of anywhere.