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?

Or would we be wanting countries in continental Europe to share the burden?
Exactly . Why should Italy and Greece have to accommodate everyone? Also if you look at Syrian refugees, most of them ARE in adjoining countries yet there are plenty of British people who feel overwhelmed by refugees.

But again, I don't think many people are arguing for completely open borders. Even under EU freedom of movement the UK chose not to enforce restrictions that are imposed in other parts of the EU.

But it is not women and children first. The displaced women, children, old and disabled are stuck in long term refugee camps on the borders of Jordan. Whilst the fit young men make their way across Europe.
Around 17 % of asylum applications from Syria are women and these are probably the lucky ones who’s husbands and sons have not abandoned them.

Yes we have a duty to take our share of the displaced but we should be taking from the camps of Jordan not taking the young males who arrive in the backs of lorries from Calais or picked out of the channel.

And again the assumption is that migrants are a drain on the economy. They are not.

Migrant groups differ but as a general rule they contribute more to the economy than take out over the course of their lives.

We have an ageing population we can not support we need young people who will contribute financially.

The basic premise of this thread that migrants take money out of the economy and we can't afford them is wrong.

As I said previously migrant groups are different but the majority contribute more than they take out. Migrant workers contribute to the economy and support the less well off. People who don't contribute to the economy and are poor, the elderly poor, single parents, the sick need migrants more than the middle classes.

I can get on board with people wanting reform to immigration because they have different views to me.

I can't get on board with anyone using 'immigration' as a vehicle for racist and / or intolerant views.
E.g. well we should help our own our before helping people in Syria. Let's ignore that many refugee are coming from countries we helped destabilise through poor foreign policy, just wash our hands of them because using a food bank in England is totally as bad as fleeing a war zone caused by UK foreign policy in recent years.

All poverty and refugee situations are awful whether it's UK or overseas. The thing is people I know who spend their time bleeting on abiut Jonny Foreigner and how we are too full to have refugees never seem to spend much time at all considering how and why these situations arise, and they almost never comment on the link between UK foreign policy and refugees and conflict. It's always poor me, mean foreigners stealing our jobs and our benefits. They're looking for someone to blame and it's nice and easy to blame the immigrant boogieman than it is to become politically aware.

Let's just imagine that there was a civil war in Ireland and 3 million Irish refugees started turning up on the West coast of Britain in tiny boats.

Do you think the British people would be happy to take on all 3 million because we were the first safe country they reached?

Or would we be wanting countries in continental Europe to share the burden?

Yes, legally the way it is supposed to work is that they would stay in the UK. The hope being that this would mean that whenever what drove them away was dealt with, it would be easier for them to return home and they would not have lost the fittest and most skilled members of their societies needed to rebuild.

Europe is slightly different from many other countries in that our countries are so small it would not be prohibitive for people in France, Belgium and the Netherlands to return to England. And of course we speak the same language and have similar culture so socially it would be better than them going to, say Morocco or Indonesia. And we could apply for financial assistance from other countries.

But yeah, that’s exactly how it should work. I doubt Muslim countries would be queuing up to take in thousands of Catholics, which is much more comparable to the current situation of asylum in Britain than Irish people seeking asylum in the UK.

Wayward Not really, its a hard difficult journey for refugees and the elderly/children might not survive and for women there is the threat of sexual violence. So they send fit young men over in the hopes that the can send money back and hopefully eventually become legal and bring the rest of the family over.

I think what people always forget is that immigration works both ways. I'll be very sad if we lose FOM to Europe - educated professionals will still be able to immigrate but ATM nothing is stopping WC youths from being holiday reps in Spain etc. (Or Erasmus years etc because WC/underprivileged kids do end up at uni sometimes!)

I live in Scotland. We need more people here so that the country can grow and prosper, it’s as simple as that.

We are not allowed to have the immigration policy which suits our needs because that doesn’t fit with Westminster sensibilities.

I don’t understand fear and loathing of immigrant. They are statistically more likely to work, pay tax and contribute to society than someone who is born in the UK.

I agree with you.

that’s exactly how it should work

I didn't ask how it should work - I asked what the reaction of the British public would be.

Migrant groups differ but as a general rule they contribute more to the economy than take out over the course of their lives.

That’s not necessarily a good thing. The main reason they cost less is because they don’t grow up here and don’t have those tedious 18 years where they take many resources but give nothing back.

The danger is, as you yourself have just done, wealthier and more powerful people see migrants as more valuable because they avoid the cost of raising them. So migration is seen as preferable to supporting families. Which is what is happening here. The UN recently condemned the UK saying that our social structures amounted to an unwritten one child policy.

So no, that contribution is not necessarily one to be celebrated when it comes at the cost of the state not needing to invest in its young. Again, youth unemployment on the continent is an example of this. Untrained, unskilled young people out of work while migrants are employed.

It also exploits poorer countries because they invest in their young people, train them and educate them - then their brightest and best leave and the West benefits from that investment and not the country who paid for it. It’s a great big con ripping off the poorest countries for the benefit of wealthy Westerners. Of course those countries are poor and will remain poor when that’s the status quo.

Migration is not the nice lovely cosy kindness its advocates pretend it is. It makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

she called me a racist!

As has been said this is the standard catch-phrase when you have the temerity to hold a contrary opinion or you treat everyone the same. I was called this when I insisted that an Asian pupil got his already late coursework in or he wouldn't be entered for the exam. The rest of the class, mainly Asian too, shouted him down.
A good response that shocks people is 'You say that like it's a bad thing!', they're so taken aback that it really does shut them up.

StreetwiseHercules

Yeah there's a lot of places in the North of Scotland where the Scottish refuse to work because its 'beneath them' , and then complain that immigrants take their jobs. Not even joking which is sad. They actually say it like that.

I just wish our government was as willing to help our own people as much as they are for refugees. If they prioritised better like someone else said, they could help both. But they won't bother.

E.g. well we should help our own our before helping people in Syria. Let's ignore that many refugee are coming from countries we helped destabilise through poor foreign policy, just wash our hands of them because using a food bank in England is totally as bad as fleeing a war zone caused by UK foreign policy in recent years.

This. Thank you for expressing your view so well, I can't do it nearly as good as you

EU migrants contribute £2,300 more each year than they take out. Fact.

Refugees are a more complex group but as a general rule they bring in more money.

The country will be poorer without migrants. The poor will suffer.

I didn't ask how it should work - I asked what the reaction of the British public would be.

Well that’s absolutely irrelevant because we would be expected to fulfill our legal and moral obligation to support them here. We certainly wouldn’t be allowed to parachute them into KSA or Indonesia or the Philippines unless they actually wanted them. They could go to Europe anyway if they wanted to, they have free movement. But we would be legally obliged to support the ones who didn’t want to move on, regardless of public opinion.

I’m sure plenty of Jordanian and Turkish people aren’t very happy about their Syrian guests. That makes zero difference to their country’s legal obligation to support them and give them refuge.

How is providing assistance to refugees Open Borders. It's an international obligation that some comply with and others less so. If you mean Freedom of Movement, that's a different question. The first safe country a refugee lands in should give shelter. That's the obligation. And if he/she tries to get from one safe country to another there are grounds for sending him her back to that first country. Which, ironically, may be harder to do post Brexit.

I get the argument that UK people using food banks and Syrians being bombed is not comparable but sometimes don’t you think you do need to be selfish?
If you were down to your last £10 for the month and your kids school shoes had holes in them, but your neighbour down the street had no money for food, obviously they need it more than you, but wouldn’t your reaction be to look out for your own child first before buying your neighbours dinner? If you have lots of money, you’d probably think you’d help your neighbour but that’s most likely because you’ve never been in that situation.

You are mixing up immigrants with refugees. Refugees are in crisis and whatever possible can be done to help should be done.

Refugees are in crisis but refugees ARE immigrants.

What always annoys/shocks me is the amount of people who don't understand the difference between an immigrant and a refugee.

The problem is it’s difficult to distinguish. Immigrants know that refugees are allowed in, so they pretend to be refugees and even throw away their passports so nobody knows where they came from. Or they pretend to be minors when they’re actually 25 years old. These scam artist immigrants are ruining it for the genuine refugees, who should of course be accommodated.

@BejamNostalgia. 100% agree with everything you say.

Even under EU freedom of movement the UK chose not to enforce restrictions that are imposed in other parts of the EU.
This is an important point - we have a VERY minimal enforcement regime here. There are areas of the country that would be very much emptier if all the people who shouldn't strictly speaking be here were removed. NB - I am not saying that's a good or bad thing, just that it is a thing.

I understand what you are saying and can see why people think both ways, however I think most people coming in are those in serious need, living in places of extreme poverty or in danger. Remember that open borders works both ways too, I enjoy the freedom that gives.

Let's ignore that many refugee are coming from countries we helped destabilise through poor foreign policy

Yes, and who does that policy benefit? Rich people who want power and resources. It doesn’t benefit poor people who would rather spend money on schools or hospitals.

And who does migration benefit? Rich people! And who does it hurt. Poor people!

You see the pattern here?

I remember the old MN census surveys which showed a high percentage of posters here are the richest AB social classes.

Like it or not, many of you are some of the richest people in the world and it’s you who profit from migration, cheap labour, expensive housing and the lucrative was of the BTL market via the pressure on housing. Even if you think you’re just being nice and cuddly and kind you’ll also be lining your pockets somewhere down the line, albeit maybe indirectly through bloated housing market or overpaid public sector jobs or private sector companies who have additions to their company base.

Single mothers spending years and years in a B&B because there is no housing, or being sent hundreds of miles from their friends, family and everything they’ve ever known for housing? Low paid worker who see their conditions continually deteriorate as they’re pushed into self employment, zero hour contracts and the gig economy. People who hand over most of their pay every month to live in substandard overcrowded accommodation which is basically a payment into someone else’s pension when they can’t afford to pay into a pension themselves. Do you think they will benefit in any way by migration that would outweigh the negative effects it has on them?

I certainly don’t.

Yes, it is, and it's called being a champagne socialist lol. Open borders is an unbelievably stupid idea. Our country has lots of free services that are already struggling and spread too thin, so how the hell would that work? is she saying that we should stop all of our free services and government help and start forcing poor people and retired people onto the streets to starve? Shall we shut down the NHS and let people die outside the hospital because they can't afford healthcare? Or shall we raise taxes to an insane level and become a communist nation? Everyone wjo had any money would then leave anyway and there would be no one to pay for all these new people's free stuff. Honestly, anyone who sits down and thinks about that for even 10 minutes would realise that it's not possible and would end in mass poverty country wide. People would literally be dying in the streets. (Just to be clear I'm not saying no refugees - I'm saying no open borders, it's a completely different thing to letting some refugees in)

It's just virtue signalling to make themselves feel better about the fact that they have things and other people don't. It plays well with their rich friends and makes them sound worldly and kind. Easy brownie points.