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?

Correct. In fact, in the years that led to the disaster of the Brexit vote, it was the immigration from the EU (people ranting on about Polish builders and plumbers, etc) that exercised the Farage supporters most.

Now, whilst complaining that they can't find a plumber, they're targeting anyone brown, regardless of how long they have lived here or how long their ancestry here. They feel empowered now to say it out loud - they want rid of all people they don't perceive as white British.

Again, not sure why I'm bothering to explain the obvious, but -

If option 1 is dangerous but can be mitigated, by say, travelling to a rural area and being looked after by extended family and not leaving the house - but then coming over in a safe way
And option 2 is likely death at sea, murder, or sex ual exploitation at the hands of smugglers,

You can see why people might pick option 1.

And in terms of 'why they're allowed' it's because they're using the only legal options that we put in place. If there were no grounds for the family to join, eg if things were good enough back home, they wouldn't be allowed to come.

If we bothered to provide better legal routes to claim asylum, people would use them. As it stands they have to deal with the system we've provided.

If they weren’t brown people with a religion like islam, chances are there wouldn’t be the outrage from the right for the left to call them anything. but let’s pretend there was.
I’d call them xenophobes. becuase that’s exactly what you’re describing.

1. neither do many ukrainians, no one seemed to mind them coming here.

2. our culture doesn’t respect women. 90+-% of women have been sexual assaulted or harassed.

3. Our culture may not say rape is legal, but when less than 2% of rape victims get a guilty verdict in court…it’s essentially legal.

4. so allow them to work.

5. No system is perfect, but the vast majority of asylum seekers are just normal people. stopping all immigration in or out of the country wouldn’t solve all the problems.

so yeah, xenophobia is what you’re looking for.

You're coming up with imaginary scenarios to moan about what imaginary left wing people might do in an imaginary situation, now?
Seems to me left wing people can't be 'screeching' at you that much if you have to ask MN for the insults they might possibly come up with in a fictitious scenario in order to play the victim.

Are you trying to parody the Left? It's hard to tell these days.

It shouldnt be allowed to import loads of family members. Unless of course the original person can fully support them with no recourse to public funds

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

There are white asylum seekers that come without documentation and have horrific criminal backgrounds. You wouldn't know this based on regular reporting though.

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

The white asylum seekers mentioned above come from deeply patriarchal societies where women are socially and economically disadvantaged. They are also largely Muslims- again, not widely reported.

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

Despite rape being considered serious crimes in these countries, prosecution rates are extremely low and there is severe under reporting

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

This depends on the route they enter via, so...

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

This has been happening for decades, including former Nazi personnel. Minimal screening has been a historical problem, and there's no system that is entirely immune to subterfuge.

Now, if we can discuss all these matters openly and honestly; that is perfectly acceptable.
What is racist is the focus on black and brown asylum seekers, the vitriol levied against persons who have been settled in the country forever, but are targeted/legislated against/ the implied criminality ... The threats and incitement of violence. The support for those who perpetrate violence against black and brown immigrants/non-immigrants... the dehumanising language often used...
This sort of discourse just isn't as prevalent around white asylum seekers, who at some point far outnumbered their black/brown counterparts.

Where would someone rather be a woman in the UK or in the places these men are coming from? Do you not think at all things are worse there

1. our culture doesn’t respect women. 90+-% of women have been sexual assaulted or harassed.
2. Our culture may not say rape is legal, but when less than 2% of rape victims get a guilty verdict in court…it’s essentially legal.

Sometimes I wonder whether people like you understand why Reform are gaining ground. Hint: it's because you care more about virtue signalling than protecting values.

All of them know this full well. They would never actually vote with their feet.

@moderate what values are you protecting. Burning down houses, committing arson, beating their wives, attacking refugees?

Reform are gaining ground because hate is an easy sell, and it's much easier to think your problems are caused by a few brown people than your real enemies. Why do you think every bad thing done by an asylum seeker is on the front page while Danny Tommos' conviction for kidnapping and drug taking isn't?

Do you really think that of the culture here, where do you see as better? Or is everywhere on the same level wrt women and girls in your view

Why not emigrate to these countries whose values are so far superior to British ones, @Mouldemort?

We all know the answer to this, and we all know that you know that we know it.

Your virtue signalling holds no power over those of us who refuse to play along.

They're not 'being imported', they're not cattle, they're human beings, coming here as refugees. From countries that our country has made unsafe, in the majority of cases if you look at the top ten countries they come from.
So yes, the absolutely are allowed, and I'm glad you're not the one making the laws on this.

If they didn't have cause to come here as refugees, eg if it was economic migration, they have to pass very stringent checks about finances. But they're not, they're refugees. HTH.

I am already in a country and in a place where people support the best of British values.

To be clear, do you support Danny Tommo and his protestors?

Protecting values like beating up women? As that's what reform and restore stand for, going by their leadership. Or do you prefer their values of wanting the extremely rich to be richer? What values of theirs do you go for, out of interest?

Do people not think women are happier and safer in the UK compared to Tehran?

Agree. Surely most can accept differences between countries.

Yes, of course! Asylum seekers are leaving horrible regimes, war-torn lands and persecution - otherwise they wouldn't be leaving. That said, refugees do not commit more crime than anyone else.

Based on your argument, could the asylum seekers be doing exactly what you advise - fleeing their countries as they are opposed to the ideology and outdated value systems there?

There are bad things happening in the UK but no where does it match what women go through in other parts of the world. Sounds to me the men there aren't very nice.

I really don’t understand the it’s all the same comments. It isn’t, we’re lucky.

From countries that our country has made unsafe, in the majority of cases if you look at the top ten countries they come from.

You could potentially make a case for Afghanistan, thanks to Labour and Tony Blair. Although they were under Taliban rule before the war and they're under Taliban rule again now so even that is debatable. You're on very shaky ground with that claim for the remainder of the top ten in the present day, a period of colonial rule in the past absolutely does not mean that people from those countries have an automatic right to come here forevermore.

Did you not remember what happened in Cologne?

Edit