What would the Left call the Right, if the small boat people were white?

[Blondiebeachbabe]

I'll start by saying, I am very anti open boarders, and I am horrified that so many illegal immigrants are arriving every day. But for me, it has absolutely nothing to do with skin colour, it is more to do with :

ONE) They have no documentation, and we have no idea if they have criminal backgrounds

TWO) They tend to come from cultures where women are not respected

THREE) They often come from places where rape is not a crime

FOUR) They cannot work, and it is costing Millions to house, feed and clothe them

FIVE) We are granting asylum to some people who should never get it - like the Hamas bodyguard we heard of yesterday

Lots of valid reasons I feel, however, for me, it has nothing to do with skin colour. If I had to be locked in a room overnight with a white man from a backward culture, or a black man from the UK, I would choose the latter, every single time.

It isn't colour, it's culture

But I see that people on the Far Left just scream "Racist" to anyone who opposes illegal immigration. What would they scream, if all the small boats were full of white men? And would people still march for England?

I have said already, scroll back.

Can you repost. I can't go through 900 posts

The clue is the topic of the thread you’ve been on for 900 posts.

Why can't they just stay in France or elsewhere in safe nations and not make this crossing

Just summarise what change it is you want to see. A sentence will do.

Sorry that was to @EasternStandard

If I had to guess I’d say Spain, France and Brazil elections will move this debate on irregular migration on. Each year there’s more pressure to change the asylum system altogether from voters.

Mn has typically been where anyone bringing it up has been insulted etc and the usual deflections but it’ll move on. Finally.

But you didn’t. You responded to some straw man non-reasons entirely of your own invention.

Of course there needs to be a proper debate about the asylum system per se. There are no 'sides' about this?

What I and others object to is the lazy stereotyping of a specific 1% of total migrants. That's a very different matter.

It's not about immigrants. It's about not wanting undocumented men who may have committed crimes elsewhere. It's about not wanting Iranian terrorists who came in by small boats and were plotting an atrocity against Jews in Manchester.

Pure DARVO here. You must think we all button up the back.

On the question of vetting it is incredibly poor to non-existent. That’s why many women are asking for change.

I see Sanchez has just called a snap election. No surprises. A socialist who can't defend his own policies so (effectively) runs away, having fcked everything up. Remind you of anyone?

https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/working-paper/migration-household-employment-europes-public-finances

Research on exactly this topic.

Or to look at it another way, more and more people keep recognising this problem for what it is.

This country has taken in thousands of Hong Kongers and Ukrainians without any objection because we know they are people not likely to cause significant problems.

I've read that paper. Thanks for linking it. Everyone should read it.

It looks like mnhq are deleting the accusations. Perhaps the topic can be discussed without the usual insults.

It's not DARVO. 'Leftist' is used as an insult on here. I have been called 'Leftist' which I find quite interesting because I don't see myself as that at all. But apparently, on this thread, arguing that there is no empirical evidence that 1% of migrant men are more likely to sexually offend than other men already within our communities, means that I am 'leftist.' So I asked what leftist means. The only answer I got was 'queers for Palestine.' And something about 'infatada.' Which, to my mind, has nothing to do with the migrants in boats. I'm sure for those if you who spend a lot of time on certain other forums, this assumption about 'sides' and 'omnicausing' comes as second nature. But, to me, it's just odd. Nobody used to make sweeping assumptions and need everyone to take a 'side' as they do now. When did this happen? I notice it gets used to flatten nuance and silence disagreement - eg. if xenophobes are held a bit close to the fire, they will invariably go on some deflecting tangent about trans ideology or Palestine. Or they bring in Israel as a deflection (why?). Or they tell women they are 'rape apologists' - the other predictable tactic. We see it all in this thread, over and over. All these go-to tactics are used as gaslighting or 'straw men' because they ascribe people to a ' side, regardless of whether they identify with this side or not. Issues are used as proxies for an agenda to accelerate fear, misunderstanding or xenophobia (at best), or racism (at worst).

Can you stop resorting to the ‘other forum’ stuff. I’m not on X, Reddit or FB.

I’m interested in mn as it’s female dominated and I want to hear what other women think.

The issue for women nearly complete lack of vetting under the system we currently have.

Per capita studies don't mean anything to you do they?

Well nobody thinks undocumented migrants are desirable in any country. Because they're undocumented! But these undocumented ones are 1% - the ways the media carry on these days you would think they were 99% of all migrants. Of course it's stupid to put any group of men in a hotel in the edge of a small village or something. I don't care where they're from, that is obviously going to cause problems. But meanwhile, planes are landing every few minutes from all over the world - people are coming in from for all types of reasons and timescales. Having a passport doesn't mean you're any less likely to be a sex offender. I just think it's very naive to toe this latest propaganda line that if only we could 'stop the boats,' containing 'men of fighting age,' then 'our women' would somehow be safe. The furore seems disproportionate in the overall scheme of things. When certain elements of the media push an agenda this hard, or create a scapegoat demographic to this extent, you do have to ask what it is they are trying to distract people from.

You also post ‘everyone wants boats to stop’.

And that’s not just here. Across western countries we’re seeing major political shifts. It’s no small thing at all.

Every person on those boats is a human being like you.You talk about them as if they are different to you but they aren’t. They’re just people. My (white) grandfather came to this country as a refugee in the 1930s. A single man, a ‘foreigner’. You should look up the language used by the Daily Mail to describe those Jewish refugees back then. “Alien invasion, coming to this country with their foreign ways, not integrating.” It’s very similar to the language you use now. So yes, my white grandfather came here as a refugees and the exact same sort of dehumanising language was used back then. . So yes, we have a history of white people coming to this country and people finding a way to be racist about it. As it happens, my grandad would’ve preferred to stay in his home country. Ultimately he found the British to be more tolerant and welcoming than not, which is why he chose to stay. And I’m proud that the British people ultimately chose to believe in humanity and fight Fascism. Look at our history as a nation , the way we have been capable of welcoming and accepting people who are different to us, and aspire to that, because that is the best thing about Britain. The dehumanising language you are using around the boats is, frankly, racist and un British - but there was a certain Austrian who would really agree with your opinions.

Well why would any Western country or anyone want people dying at sea? Who was ever 'pro' the boats? Nobody, except the smuggling gangs.