To think it’s easier to want open boarders if you’re privileged?

[Theselfishsister]

Having an ongoing conflict with my sister regarding refugees, she’s very ‘let everyone in’ I would say I’m somewhere in the middle.

She’s given up spare bedrooms to refugees, spends weekends in Calais helping them and is posting everywhere on SM about letting them all in. As well as attending protests regularly for the last 4 years or so.

What strikes me is that her and her other friends going to all of the events are white, MC (although she is by marriage, we grew up very WC) and live incredibly comfortably. She’s a SAHM and her husband owns his own company, they have never needed benefits or social housing and her children are privately educated with all of them receiving private medical care.

A massive increase in people here are unlikely to ever have much affect on her life, she won’t have to fight for jobs or wait for a house or deal with benefit cuts when too much is paid out, as well as the increase in waits for Medical care and school admissions. Whereas for someone like me, this is obviously a more worrying factor and the thought of just opening our borders to everyone does scare me. As much as I would love to be able to take every person fleeing a great life, it just causes me worry and I don’t think I could support completely open boarders.

She obviously just thinks I’m a selfish heartless bitch for not protesting to remove our borders or similar. When I asked why she let refugees sleep in her spare rooms but never the homeless man on the road behind her (who’s been in the same spot since she moved there 5 years ago!) she called me a racist!

So AIBU to think it’s easier to want open boarders if you’re privileged or am I just a selfish cow?

Better to make people not need to be refuges or economic migrants by improving their situation

I am sure war torn Syria would love to know what ideas you have. Sometimes people need shelter now, not when peace may finally be restored.

Some posters on here still seem determined to not recognise the UK take in very few refugees. .I support those we do take in and think there is an argument we could take more refugees than current numbers. So I respect the OP’s sister campaigning for more refugees being given asylum in this country. As a previous poster said the UK agreed to take 20,000 Syrian refugees by 2020. I think the Syrian war began in 2011. 20,000 is really v few.

Economic migration is a separate issue.

I think about 250 refugees have tried to cross the English Channel in 2018, hardly a figure suggesting this is a huge issue either. There will always be some desperate people who will resort to such extreme measures because their situation is extreme.

The British Empire rules 100+ years in many territories so I suspect it takes 100+ years to rectify things

So why are we bothering if the UK isn't going to be forgiven for decades.

Might as well just look after those born in the UK.

I think the reason we don't take more refugees is because we are already one of the most crowded country.

France and Germany have so much more acreage and so fewer people per square mile than the UK

Okay, so where do I fit into your theory? I'm working class, work in a supermarket, live in a shared house and I never went to university, but I think open borders are a good idea and we should certainly take in refugees from an area we caused to get into such a mess because of stupid wars, interference and arms deals with the Saudi government.

We also already have an open border between us and the Republic of Ireland.

(There is always the possibility of course, that if we actually do get around to leaving the EU, if we wish to trade with everyone else we'll have to sign up to the Schengen Agreement, which we opted out of.)

The evidence suggests that the impact of low skilled immigration on wages is small but is concentrated on the bottom end of the job market. The problem is that these are the people who are most vulnerable and resentful at society anyway, so you are looking at knock-on effects on inequality and social cohesion even if the numerical effects are really small on paper.

But the real problem with having lots of low-skilled immigration is the long-term effects on economic policy and things like trust levels.

You have to ask yourself, why is Europe so much worse at integrating immigrants from poor countries than America, and why are France and the Nordic countries so particularly bad at it? The answer probably has a lot to do with the size of the welfare state and the way the labour market works.

In countries with generous worker protections, high minimum wage and so on, it is harder to get poorly educated people onto the jobs laddersuch economies generate relatively few jobs, low-skilled jobs tend to get automated (because it is expensive and risky to hire peopleyou can't kick them out easily if they turn out to be duds), and employers are reluctant to take a risk on a migrant from a different culture. And the generous welfare state means that people can live long-term without working too. Widespread provision of cheap social housing (i.e. council housing) makes it more likely that ghettos will start to accumulate--there have been large-scale studies that show that integration of immigrants tends to work less well in countries that provide lots of nice social housing.

So countries end up stuck with this dilemma--do they organize their economy so as to help low-skilled immigrants integrate quickly by slashing worker protections, winding down minimum wages and reducing the welfare state and the provision of social housing? (In doing so, they will of course screw over their own poor and make society a less fair, equal and socially cohesive place)

Or, do they continue to run their society along the European model, with lots of nice things like social housing, welfare, job protections and so on--and just accept that this will mean that ghettos will accumulate in their midst?

Plus, in the long run a highly diverse society which has fragmented into little groups of different ethnic groups and religions and cultures is likely to be less willing to pay the high levels of tax required for the classic European way of running a fair society.

These are awkward tradeoffs and the left doesn't seem to want to talk about them honestly.

golden

I think it’s also daft that the commonwealth even exists. No more monarchy and no more special treatment to disproportionately white migrants.

I’m in favour of us taking more asylum seekers (who become refugees once their application is successful) but using a stricter points based system for everyone else.

I don’t think anyone with a criminal record for violence or any serious crime should be allowed in, whether they’re European, a medic or have £££.

Re:refugees ime they are usually highly skilled compared to Eastern European migrants due to needing funds and social capital in their own country to organise and manage the journey here.

Do refugees affect you, op? One hears a lot of people moaning about them yet are totally untouched by them - maybe never even met one - they just spout Daily Mail stuff. Refugees are human beings like ourselves. "There but for the grace of...." etc. We are fortunate to live in a relatively tolerant part of the world.

I agree with you.
Also open borders is ridiculous. It would be fine in Europe if there weren't a migrant crisis but there is. People shouldn't be leaving the place they have been seeking aslym first in nor should droves of people cross countries unregistered in general, particularly children. In Sweden they lost thousands of migrant children who just went missing, perhaps they are now being sex trafficked.
Besides, so many weapons and even a terrorist plot has been prevented at the Danish border. I'd want Denmark out of the Schengen agreement until they have figured out a way to deal with the massive migration problem.
In an idealistic world open borders is nice, but a lot of people are not kind. So perhaps it's wise to regulate just exactly who you let in.

Another thing that people dont mention is that quite a few unaccompanied children are not actually children.
For example, near me there was a syrian refugee child who turned out to be a 30+ year old man with a wife and child back home in syria. He was housed in a family home and sent to school.
What kind of man leaves his family at home for years in a war torn country?

I'm guessing that the privileged folk are less likely to have kids at school alongside refugee children.

I’m in favour of us taking more asylum seekers (who become refugees once their application is successful) but using a stricter points based system for everyone else
This is basically where I stand too, but I do also think we need to look closer at who the refugees are. I do think we should be taking refugees out of the camps in Jordan or similar and not giving it to the mainly young fit men that have the money to pay smugglers.
I also think (and this won’t be popular) that to get to the UK from Syria you would have to pass through quite a few ‘safe’ countries, so the question as to whether it is a life or death situation or for economic reasons will obviously arise.
We don’t know who they are, they have no documentation, we have been putting old men in schools with our children because they say they’re kids to get let in - there have been lots of concerns over the ages of these men reported but liberals don’t care, because it’s never going to be their kids schools.
If you’re a mother in a hostel with her 4 children 30 miles away from your home because the council can’t find you a house, you might feel less accommodating to just opening up the country to thousands of people a year.
A single homeless person with no vulrenabilities has no duty to be helped with housing, they are essentially told to try the car parks, a refugee has a duty to be helped to be housed. Do you think that man sleeping outside McDonald’s is going to be accommodating?
Or when you can’t get a job becuase your town is full of immigrants who will do it for less rights and pay?
Or when your neighbourhood becomes quite deprived because of it?
79,000 people in temp accommodation since 2010 becuase there was nowhere permenant for them, but people want to just open it up to whoever wants to come. These are not the people who will be fighting with them for a house (1.2 million Brit’s are currently on the waiting list for social housing) these are not the people that will be affected.

I am middle class and consider myself fairly privileged - went to private school, have private healthcare, don't have kids but if I did they too would go to private school.

However I totally disagree with open borders/mass immigration.

And on the refugee front, these people have passed through safe countries on their way here already. I also believe charity begins at home.

We can't help everyone (we don't have the space or resources) but we should start by helping those in THIS country in need - ex army personnel for a start! And then more generally the homeless and those who have homes but are essentially living in poverty.

I think a lot of the Brexit vote is about the class divide

You are right there. A lot of my Remainer friends have immigrant nannies/builders/odd-job men whilst their kids are at private school, unaffected by anything in daily life.

Personally, I am for free movement of qualified workers (seasonal labour, jobs in which there is a shortage) and I am for letting genuine political refugees (families) from war torn countries in. I am wary about economic migrants, especially sole males, as they can be a big destabilising factor to any society, sadly.

Letting 1 million migrants into Germany has been (will be) the undoing of Merkel. She acted out of compassion, but it will be the end of her career. That was too many, too quickly and has led to civil unrest in the towns and cities who are dealing with large groups of migrants.

For the record (your files, OP) I am MC and a remainer myself (also an immigrant)

I am fairly WC, work in a low paid job, live in social housing, just about keep my head above water financially. Children in state schools etc.

I agree with “letting them all in”. As human beings we are all equal. No part of this earth belongs exclusively to one group of humans. I believe people born in other countries should have the same freedom to move around as we should have.

Obviously anyone living in this country should be expected to work & pay taxes as per anyone born here. But I don’t know very many non-British nationals here who don’t already do that. The ones I do know are SAHP or supported by working family members.

No country can give out “free” money - of course not. But if you are prepared to abide by the laws of a country, work & pay your way in life I honestly believe anyone should be able to settle anywhere.

YABU - most of the privileged people I know are pretty racist, Tory and have no clue about what it’s like to. E poor or a refugee and no empathy towards them at all.
Your sister sounds like she’s putting her money where her mouth is. I have friends - WC definitely not privileged who are doing Calais runs, asking people for donations of clothes etc. Because they realise that as people living in one of the richest countries in the world we are all fairly privileged. Closed borders isn’t going to miraculously save our economy from the Brexit disaster.

How long do we have to pay for this? Germany has been forgiven for WW2 - when we will be forgiven?

We will be forgiven when people are no longer suffering from the actions of this country. Helping the innocent people we have affected is a step towards forgiveness. Abandoning them because they were not born here is a step back.

If you’re a mother in a hostel with her 4 children 30 miles away from your home because the council can’t find you a house, you might feel less accommodating to just opening up the country to thousands of people a year. A single homeless person with no vulrenabilities has no duty to be helped with housing, they are essentially told to try the car parks, a refugee has a duty to be helped to be housed. Do you think that man sleeping outside McDonald’s is going to be accommodating? Or when you can’t get a job becuase your town is full of immigrants who will do it for less rights and pay? Or when your neighbourhood becomes quite deprived because of it?

The point that you still don't seem to be getting is that these refugees are equal to the people here. They have been affected by this government just as much as the people you describe. And the refugees are in far worse situations then the people in your example. A mother with four children in a hostel is in no way comparable to fleeing mass murder, yet you see it as a reason to not let refugees in. Would you tell that to someone at the border? We have our own children to look after, I know you've literally run from bombs but we have a mother(!) living in a hostel so they need a proper nice house before we can let you in? I think a mother with four children would rather live in a hostel than in war-torn Syria. I think a homeless man would rather be homeless than be travelling across the world as a refugee to find safety. To be honest, I don't give a shit whether these people have an accommodating attitude. We have a duty to help people that are dying because it's our fault. That's going to happen whether they want to blame all their life problems on them or not.

What has been said on this thread already but you don't seem to understand OP is that the government is not suddenly going to start funding working class areas and improving your lives if refugees aren't let in. They aren't going to start taking homeless people off the streets if there aren't any more refugees. 25,000 people not being let in any more is going to have almost no effects on working class areas. As its been said before, housing shortages are not the fault of refugees. Underfunding is not the fault of refugees. The only thing that will stop working class areas from being deprived is investment from the government. They are not going to invest OP and you know it, but you don't want to face the fact that working class areas aren't going to improve no matter what so you're blaming less than 1% of the population.

These refugees are equal to the people here. They have been affected by this government just as much as the people you describe. And the refugees are in far worse situations then the people in your example

So British folks in dreadful living conditions should think themselves lucky? Charity begins at home. We have more than enough problems here to be tackling. Time we stopped meddling in things that don’t concern us and put our own house in order.

@MotherOfMinions residents of the UK also benefit from the fucking hard work

Hmmm let's think about that. My family are working class, northern, mill workers. They worked hard.

But they weren't slaves.

On a set of scales put slavery on one side and working hard on the other. Then think about it.

Lots of people in lots of countries work hard it was the capital slavery gave to the U.K. that funded the industrial revolution that made the difference.

In relation to Germany and WW2. It was in part Merkel facing up to Germany's role in killing and displacing millions that caused her reaction to the migrant crisis.

We all have to face up to the responsibilities of our pasts, personally and as a countries.

The sex ratio of all migrants is a significant issue for any receiving country.

An excess of young men isn’t healthy for any society.

I’d rather we took more families from the camps in Jordan as suggested earlier.

Personally I'd accept families, single women and children, and not let in all of those lone males.

Less likely to be terrorists and don't cause mass brawls.

Families will cost the country a lot more.

Many posters are concerned about the money being spent.

Taking in families means, education, more health care and you can't easily make a family homeless.

Taking in young men is significantly more costs effective and they begin contributing to the economy much more quickly.

If you care about that kind of thing.

I think of it like a town. Imagine you had a town with 40 people in. They decide wether to let 10 people move in. Some say no, they're worried about the strain on jobs and the services. But some see that the because the new people will need goods and services they will create jobs. And some can work in the services and they'll also be paying tax.

I think the issue with the UK, possibly is that we have no idea of the scale of illegal immigration. It might be bad, it might be ok. But we don’t have ID cards as with the rest of Europe.
If you want to work legally, even in low paid work, in France you simple have to have an ID card.
We don’t have a good log of who is who.
Of course there are a lot of people without papers in France but at least they know from ID cards who is working etc.

We have a duty to help people that are dying because it's our fault

You keep repeating that it’s ‘our’ fault. No, it is not. It’s not the fault of the everyday person who’s just trying to get by in life, row their own little boat and keep a roof over their head! Why do you insist on apportioning blame to the ordinary British people who are suffering, instead of blaming the corrupt, low-rent politicians who make these decisions? The average person has so little bearing on politics. Wars are demonstrated against but fought even if we don’t want them to be. Those in the higher echelons are insulated from the resulting problems by their wealth - you’ll only be penalising those at the bottom of the social scale who are already suffering.

Virtue signalling of the highest order. So much sympathy for everyone else in the world and none for our own.

No. Wealthy people live of the money they stole from their countries.

Poor people haven’t benefited from the money stolen from their countries. Yet they are told they must suffer to atone for the sins of the wealthy. Who meanwhile are benefiting yet again from all the cheap labour that lines their pockets with lots of filthy lucre.

^This.