So who is going to be brave enough to ask whether Shabana Mahmood's proposed reforms are right/sensible/racist?

[Papyrophile]

Is Shabana Mahmood right or wrong to restrict asylum seeker's rights? In general?

I am not saying it wasn't terrible, everything to do with that is terrible, but it was dealt with finally and the men punished. There are many immigrants in the UK, they don't all go around raping and pretending to marry girls. Is it only the Muslim ones you have an issue with?

Sigh.

Yes please. The ones who also treat women really badly especially... you know, just keeping up with the tone of the thread!

Don’t be daft who’s going to report it.
Just because you don’t like to hear something that is uncomfortable, claiming it’s “ nonsense “ except by someone like yourself who likes to cover up things.

Yes, imagine.
That man would've drowned too, and as pointed out, the train driver wouldn't have saved lives.

Stop generalising Muslim (and you've not mentioned any other asylum seekers) men.

Marrying a child at 13 is illegal FFS. It's not covering it up, it's the flipping law. It was not legal, therefore not married.

I assume it wasn't a legal marriage. She gave birth aged 14, and I have wondered whether she had medical support or was hidden at home, and if she had NHS support why no-one reported it/intervened.

I know her history because we worked a long shift together, just the two of us, and chatted about our lives/got to know each other. I was internally so appalled by what had happened to her and found the whole thing so deeply upsetting and disturbing. Obviously you hear about these things but it seems so distant, maybe not even true, and then to meet someone who has lived it. She wasn't even complaining, just matter of factly mentioned coming to the UK etc. It's a big part of what's brought home the concerns about migration to me.

It's frightening that you think I'm making it up. I only hope that those so deeply in denial as yourself see what is happening before it's too late to stop wider cultural change.

A what?

Afraid to say it because you think you might get deleted? Don't worry, I can't be arsed to report you.

Your playground bullying is of little interest to me. It says far more about you than it does about me.

I don't think you were making it up, you said they were married. They were not.

…and yet there are many countries out in the big, wide world that have functioning immigration policies. As did Britain at one time.

There are precedents, both historical and further afield, to follow, no?

So why the angst?

Not all marriages are registered. I think it would be sensible to require all marriages to be registered as it would protect the rights of women and girls.

Could they not be referring to an Islamic ( not legally binding) marriage?

There is no angst about us implementing functional immigration policies. There will inevitably be debates about exactly what those should look like.

The "angst" has nothing to do with the idea of having immigration controls, or indeed the debate about what those controls should look like. The "angst" arises from the toxic rhetoric that is unnecessarily brought into that debate.

I appreciate that some people seem to find it difficult to understand that distinction, but it is a very important one.

I'm relieved to hear that.
I should have written "married".

How do you know it was Islamic? A few cultures believe in arranged marriages.

I’d go further and say I don’t think we should give settled status to people who would not accept their children assimilating into British culture. If people move here and bring their kids up here then they have to accept that their children may choose to marry a local, become an atheist or a Christian, consume foods prohibited in their religion or culture etc. otherwise we end up with parallel societies.

All marriage in the UK are required to be registered. They are not valid if not registered afaik. Therefore it was a ceremony, not a marriage legally.

Edited. To 'marry' a child is called a forced marriage, also illegal.

Why the outrage? If the bride was under the legal age, I would imagine it to be a religious marriage.

@Happyjoe you seem to be making a lot of generalisations about white British men though, no?

Not outrage, pointing out something incorrect.

They are legally invalid if not registered, but unregistered marriages are not illegal. There was a case a couple of years ago of a Muslim woman who came here to marry her husband. She didn’t know the nikkah was just a religious ceremony and not a legally redo gilded wedding, so when her husband was adulterous and they divorced she did not have the rights that a legally married woman would have. She tried to sue for half their marital assets, but failed. It was really sad. We shouldn’t allow this to happen to women in our country.

*recognised

Hmm. You seem to have a reasonable command of rhetoric yourself. Just try not to lean into the pathos so much.

In my opinion, the process of government policy making should be anything from dry to tedious. That immigration debates elicit excited responses is a failure in and of itself.