BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
I definitely reduced my single use plastic when I bought a soda stream.0
-
The rest is true, it's similar to solving the issue with truck drivers as if that's the only sector that's going to have similar problems.0
-
You suggested people should apply in their country of origin. That is not France. They are not French.john80 said:
Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.rjsterry said:
No.john80 said:
They are mainly in France are they not.rjsterry said:
The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.Jezyboy said:
Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?tailwindhome said:
Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?john80 said:
We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.tailwindhome said:
When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?john80 said:The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.
I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.
I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.
You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Still... https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1489841/brexit-news-european-commission-pint-glasses-eu-latest
"Brexit triumph"0 -
1) Most of us aren't disputing that
2) Eh? I just mentioned I thought it would be a benefit if it weaned people off an unnecessary environmental burden.
3) Saying you prefer something doesn't mitigate the environmental cost or absolve anyone of the impact of their choices. 3) isn't unlike 1), in that it's indicative of a general problem in dealing with environmental costs.0 -
Everything we do has an environmental impact. Hell, even each post on the forum spits out some CO2. There was plenty of chat on here about the car industry but no-one seemed concerned about the environmental cost of that. It's an irrelevance to the discussion about shortages.briantrumpet said:1) Most of us aren't disputing that
2) Eh? I just mentioned I thought it would be a benefit if it weaned people off an unnecessary environmental burden.
3) Saying you prefer something doesn't mitigate the environmental cost or absolve anyone of the impact of their choices. 3) isn't unlike 1), in that it's indicative of a general problem in dealing with environmental costs.
Are you only going to mind about shortages of things that you think are worth their environmental cost trade off?0 -
rick_chasey said:
Everything we do has an environmental impact. Hell, even each post on the forum spits out some CO2. There was plenty of chat on here about the car industry but no-one seemed concerned about the environmental cost of that. It's an irrelevance to the discussion about shortages.briantrumpet said:1) Most of us aren't disputing that
2) Eh? I just mentioned I thought it would be a benefit if it weaned people off an unnecessary environmental burden.
3) Saying you prefer something doesn't mitigate the environmental cost or absolve anyone of the impact of their choices. 3) isn't unlike 1), in that it's indicative of a general problem in dealing with environmental costs.
Are you only going to mind about shortages of things that you think are worth their environmental cost trade off?
Probably not, it's just the ease of switching from bottled water to tap water that (to me) makes it a no-brainer. I can't get beer out of a tap at virtually zero cost at home, but I can water.0 -
I have a feeling that, for the most part, if everyone made things like beer or carbonated drinks at home, it would not actually be any environmentally friendlier. It's deeply inefficient to do stuff at home that can be done en masse.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
Everything we do has an environmental impact. Hell, even each post on the forum spits out some CO2. There was plenty of chat on here about the car industry but no-one seemed concerned about the environmental cost of that. It's an irrelevance to the discussion about shortages.briantrumpet said:1) Most of us aren't disputing that
2) Eh? I just mentioned I thought it would be a benefit if it weaned people off an unnecessary environmental burden.
3) Saying you prefer something doesn't mitigate the environmental cost or absolve anyone of the impact of their choices. 3) isn't unlike 1), in that it's indicative of a general problem in dealing with environmental costs.
Are you only going to mind about shortages of things that you think are worth their environmental cost trade off?
Probably not, it's just the ease of switching from bottled water to tap water that (to me) makes it a no-brainer. I can't get beer out of a tap at virtually zero cost at home, but I can water.0 -
RIP Rick on that hill.rick_chasey said:
I have a feeling that, for the most part, if everyone made things like beer or carbonated drinks at home, it would not actually be any environmentally friendlier. It's deeply inefficient to do stuff at home that can be done en masse.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
Everything we do has an environmental impact. Hell, even each post on the forum spits out some CO2. There was plenty of chat on here about the car industry but no-one seemed concerned about the environmental cost of that. It's an irrelevance to the discussion about shortages.briantrumpet said:1) Most of us aren't disputing that
2) Eh? I just mentioned I thought it would be a benefit if it weaned people off an unnecessary environmental burden.
3) Saying you prefer something doesn't mitigate the environmental cost or absolve anyone of the impact of their choices. 3) isn't unlike 1), in that it's indicative of a general problem in dealing with environmental costs.
Are you only going to mind about shortages of things that you think are worth their environmental cost trade off?
Probably not, it's just the ease of switching from bottled water to tap water that (to me) makes it a no-brainer. I can't get beer out of a tap at virtually zero cost at home, but I can water.0 -
-
No what I was suggesting was that every embassy should have an ability to give out paperwork and then process the completed information from people who wish to claim asylum. There will always be cases where people have to leave a country because they want to claim asylum as there is not an embassy in country. The reality is though Brits are not overly interested in the main in giving people asylum who cannot abide by the rules of their own country or are applying for asylum from a western and safe country. At this point they are exercising a preference and not a need. Unless others want to make the case that France is an unsafe country for these individuals then crack on.rjsterry said:
You suggested people should apply in their country of origin. That is not France. They are not French.john80 said:
Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.rjsterry said:
No.john80 said:
They are mainly in France are they not.rjsterry said:
The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.Jezyboy said:
Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?tailwindhome said:
Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?john80 said:
We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.tailwindhome said:
When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?john80 said:The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.
I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.
I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.
You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...0 -
How did they get to France?john80 said:
No what I was suggesting was that every embassy should have an ability to give out paperwork and then process the completed information from people who wish to claim asylum. There will always be cases where people have to leave a country because they want to claim asylum as there is not an embassy in country. The reality is though Brits are not overly interested in the main in giving people asylum who cannot abide by the rules of their own country or are applying for asylum from a western and safe country. At this point they are exercising a preference and not a need. Unless others want to make the case that France is an unsafe country for these individuals then crack on.rjsterry said:
You suggested people should apply in their country of origin. That is not France. They are not French.john80 said:
Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.rjsterry said:
No.john80 said:
They are mainly in France are they not.rjsterry said:
The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.Jezyboy said:
Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?tailwindhome said:
Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?john80 said:
We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.tailwindhome said:
When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?john80 said:The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.
I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.
I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.
You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...
0 -
I would hazard a guess that most of them travelled overland across a number of other safe countries prior to get to France. Maybe take this one up with the EU master project.kingstongraham said:
How did they get to France?john80 said:
No what I was suggesting was that every embassy should have an ability to give out paperwork and then process the completed information from people who wish to claim asylum. There will always be cases where people have to leave a country because they want to claim asylum as there is not an embassy in country. The reality is though Brits are not overly interested in the main in giving people asylum who cannot abide by the rules of their own country or are applying for asylum from a western and safe country. At this point they are exercising a preference and not a need. Unless others want to make the case that France is an unsafe country for these individuals then crack on.rjsterry said:
You suggested people should apply in their country of origin. That is not France. They are not French.john80 said:
Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.rjsterry said:
No.john80 said:
They are mainly in France are they not.rjsterry said:
The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.Jezyboy said:
Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?tailwindhome said:
Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?john80 said:
We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.tailwindhome said:
When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?john80 said:The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.
I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.
I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.
You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...0 -
You're the one who wants the fourth or fifth country to take all the responsibility.john80 said:
I would hazard a guess that most of them travelled overland across a number of other safe countries prior to get to France. Maybe take this one up with the EU master project.kingstongraham said:
How did they get to France?john80 said:
No what I was suggesting was that every embassy should have an ability to give out paperwork and then process the completed information from people who wish to claim asylum. There will always be cases where people have to leave a country because they want to claim asylum as there is not an embassy in country. The reality is though Brits are not overly interested in the main in giving people asylum who cannot abide by the rules of their own country or are applying for asylum from a western and safe country. At this point they are exercising a preference and not a need. Unless others want to make the case that France is an unsafe country for these individuals then crack on.rjsterry said:
You suggested people should apply in their country of origin. That is not France. They are not French.john80 said:
Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.rjsterry said:
No.john80 said:
They are mainly in France are they not.rjsterry said:
The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.Jezyboy said:
Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?tailwindhome said:
Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?john80 said:
We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.tailwindhome said:
When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?john80 said:The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.
I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.
I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.
You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...
0 -
I feel that we need to understand why John does not want asylum seekers and am wondering if it is the policy of scattering them around the country.
14,000 could siappear into London without anybody noticing but I am guessing that 5 families turning up in a monocultural Cumbrian market town would be a big issue.
Even Rick has suggested we need a grown up discussion about assimilation but do we know if we split them up and risk isolating them or whether we group them together so they can build their own support networks?0 -
I am second generation immigrant, so I am always likely to be a little harsher.surrey_commuter said:I feel that we need to understand why John does not want asylum seekers and am wondering if it is the policy of scattering them around the country.
14,000 could siappear into London without anybody noticing but I am guessing that 5 families turning up in a monocultural Cumbrian market town would be a big issue.
Even Rick has suggested we need a grown up discussion about assimilation but do we know if we split them up and risk isolating them or whether we group them together so they can build their own support networks?
FWIW I would absolutely avoid creating 'ghettos' of asylum seekers. Ghettoization is a real problem and reduces the incentives to get involved in the local community. So yes, spread them around. To all corners of the country. At least for a period until they can chose their own home.
I don't think many people would disagree with the above, but I would add something more controversial which is a requirement to speak and read English to a certain standard after a certain time.
I think if you do the first, the second bit becomes easier, but I am fundamentally of the view that you cannot integrate yourself in a society without speaking the language and I think a lot (though not all) of the resistance locals have of immigrants disappear when they speak the local language to a high standard.0 -
rick_chasey said:
I am second generation immigrant, so I am always likely to be a little harsher.surrey_commuter said:I feel that we need to understand why John does not want asylum seekers and am wondering if it is the policy of scattering them around the country.
14,000 could siappear into London without anybody noticing but I am guessing that 5 families turning up in a monocultural Cumbrian market town would be a big issue.
Even Rick has suggested we need a grown up discussion about assimilation but do we know if we split them up and risk isolating them or whether we group them together so they can build their own support networks?
FWIW I would absolutely avoid creating 'ghettos' of asylum seekers. Ghettoization is a real problem and reduces the incentives to get involved in the local community. So yes, spread them around. To all corners of the country. At least for a period until they can chose their own home.
I don't think many people would disagree with the above, but I would add something more controversial which is a requirement to speak and read English to a certain standard after a certain time.
I think if you do the first, the second bit becomes easier, but I am fundamentally of the view that you cannot integrate yourself in a society without speaking the language and I think a lot (though not all) of the resistance locals have of immigrants disappear when they speak the local language to a high standard.
I think they should start with a test to see if they can name all the kings and queens of England since 1066. You know, the important stuff.0 -
how would you enforce learning English?rick_chasey said:
I am second generation immigrant, so I am always likely to be a little harsher.surrey_commuter said:I feel that we need to understand why John does not want asylum seekers and am wondering if it is the policy of scattering them around the country.
14,000 could siappear into London without anybody noticing but I am guessing that 5 families turning up in a monocultural Cumbrian market town would be a big issue.
Even Rick has suggested we need a grown up discussion about assimilation but do we know if we split them up and risk isolating them or whether we group them together so they can build their own support networks?
FWIW I would absolutely avoid creating 'ghettos' of asylum seekers. Ghettoization is a real problem and reduces the incentives to get involved in the local community. So yes, spread them around. To all corners of the country. At least for a period until they can chose their own home.
I don't think many people would disagree with the above, but I would add something more controversial which is a requirement to speak and read English to a certain standard after a certain time.
I think if you do the first, the second bit becomes easier, but I am fundamentally of the view that you cannot integrate yourself in a society without speaking the language and I think a lot (though not all) of the resistance locals have of immigrants disappear when they speak the local language to a high standard.0 -
Ask them what colour the British Passport is and why that is important.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
I am second generation immigrant, so I am always likely to be a little harsher.surrey_commuter said:I feel that we need to understand why John does not want asylum seekers and am wondering if it is the policy of scattering them around the country.
14,000 could siappear into London without anybody noticing but I am guessing that 5 families turning up in a monocultural Cumbrian market town would be a big issue.
Even Rick has suggested we need a grown up discussion about assimilation but do we know if we split them up and risk isolating them or whether we group them together so they can build their own support networks?
FWIW I would absolutely avoid creating 'ghettos' of asylum seekers. Ghettoization is a real problem and reduces the incentives to get involved in the local community. So yes, spread them around. To all corners of the country. At least for a period until they can chose their own home.
I don't think many people would disagree with the above, but I would add something more controversial which is a requirement to speak and read English to a certain standard after a certain time.
I think if you do the first, the second bit becomes easier, but I am fundamentally of the view that you cannot integrate yourself in a society without speaking the language and I think a lot (though not all) of the resistance locals have of immigrants disappear when they speak the local language to a high standard.
I think they should start with a test to see if they can name all the kings and queens of England since 1066. You know, the important stuff.
0 -
I am sympathetic to the premise of the citizenship tests, even if the execution is woeful.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
I am second generation immigrant, so I am always likely to be a little harsher.surrey_commuter said:I feel that we need to understand why John does not want asylum seekers and am wondering if it is the policy of scattering them around the country.
14,000 could siappear into London without anybody noticing but I am guessing that 5 families turning up in a monocultural Cumbrian market town would be a big issue.
Even Rick has suggested we need a grown up discussion about assimilation but do we know if we split them up and risk isolating them or whether we group them together so they can build their own support networks?
FWIW I would absolutely avoid creating 'ghettos' of asylum seekers. Ghettoization is a real problem and reduces the incentives to get involved in the local community. So yes, spread them around. To all corners of the country. At least for a period until they can chose their own home.
I don't think many people would disagree with the above, but I would add something more controversial which is a requirement to speak and read English to a certain standard after a certain time.
I think if you do the first, the second bit becomes easier, but I am fundamentally of the view that you cannot integrate yourself in a society without speaking the language and I think a lot (though not all) of the resistance locals have of immigrants disappear when they speak the local language to a high standard.
I think they should start with a test to see if they can name all the kings and queens of England since 1066. You know, the important stuff.0 -
So I am no civil servant and I have not given this a vast amount of thought, so feel free to say it's rubbish, but if I was king today and I had to solve it, I would basically do the following:surrey_commuter said:
how would you enforce learning English?rick_chasey said:
I am second generation immigrant, so I am always likely to be a little harsher.surrey_commuter said:I feel that we need to understand why John does not want asylum seekers and am wondering if it is the policy of scattering them around the country.
14,000 could siappear into London without anybody noticing but I am guessing that 5 families turning up in a monocultural Cumbrian market town would be a big issue.
Even Rick has suggested we need a grown up discussion about assimilation but do we know if we split them up and risk isolating them or whether we group them together so they can build their own support networks?
FWIW I would absolutely avoid creating 'ghettos' of asylum seekers. Ghettoization is a real problem and reduces the incentives to get involved in the local community. So yes, spread them around. To all corners of the country. At least for a period until they can chose their own home.
I don't think many people would disagree with the above, but I would add something more controversial which is a requirement to speak and read English to a certain standard after a certain time.
I think if you do the first, the second bit becomes easier, but I am fundamentally of the view that you cannot integrate yourself in a society without speaking the language and I think a lot (though not all) of the resistance locals have of immigrants disappear when they speak the local language to a high standard.
I'd make residency after a certain length of time (2 years? 3 years?) contingent on passing exams/tests.
You could optimise it so that you can spend longer in the country without passing the test if you're attending classes etc etc. You may have to get some of the teachers to enforce behaviour in the classes - no point having people turn up to doss and tick the box and not learn for example - but you get the idea.
FWIW they do this in the Netherlands - not entirely sure if it's compulsory or not but a family friend teaches the immigrant children and sometimes their families how to read and write in Dutch, and they are pretty full.
I think this is a reasonable trade off. If I were in charge i'd say "you want to live here? Go for it. But you have to be really competent in the local lingo, speaking, reading and writing else you can't." I wouldn't have rules about minimum earnings (though I would perhaps make some exceptions for 'benefit tourists' but I really think that is a tiny minority so the legislation would be there if needed - haven't really thought about it) or the amount, of anything like that. Everyone's welcome, as long as they speak the lingo.0 -
We're not talking about refugees any more then?0
-
Sure, why not? I'm OK with making refugees learn the lingo if they want to live here.kingstongraham said:We're not talking about refugees any more then?
0 -
What do you do at the end of the time if they haven't learned it and their home country is a warzone?rick_chasey said:
Sure, why not? I'm OK with making refugees learn the lingo if they want to live here.kingstongraham said:We're not talking about refugees any more then?
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
You could go down the Quebec road. We will only speak to you in French (English in this case) and if you don't understand then it is your problem.surrey_commuter said:
how would you enforce learning English?rick_chasey said:
I am second generation immigrant, so I am always likely to be a little harsher.surrey_commuter said:I feel that we need to understand why John does not want asylum seekers and am wondering if it is the policy of scattering them around the country.
14,000 could siappear into London without anybody noticing but I am guessing that 5 families turning up in a monocultural Cumbrian market town would be a big issue.
Even Rick has suggested we need a grown up discussion about assimilation but do we know if we split them up and risk isolating them or whether we group them together so they can build their own support networks?
FWIW I would absolutely avoid creating 'ghettos' of asylum seekers. Ghettoization is a real problem and reduces the incentives to get involved in the local community. So yes, spread them around. To all corners of the country. At least for a period until they can chose their own home.
I don't think many people would disagree with the above, but I would add something more controversial which is a requirement to speak and read English to a certain standard after a certain time.
I think if you do the first, the second bit becomes easier, but I am fundamentally of the view that you cannot integrate yourself in a society without speaking the language and I think a lot (though not all) of the resistance locals have of immigrants disappear when they speak the local language to a high standard.
Not necessarily the best method, but it is a method.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I'd just like to reiterate that there are a lot of people that can't be deported, because the country they are from, or say they are from, will not accept them. That includes failed asylum seekers, but would also include those that have failed an English test.0
-
I'd hazard a guess that very very few people who have walked across half the world are not going to struggle with a language class...pangolin said:
What do you do at the end of the time if they haven't learned it and their home country is a warzone?rick_chasey said:
Sure, why not? I'm OK with making refugees learn the lingo if they want to live here.kingstongraham said:We're not talking about refugees any more then?
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
What's wrong with the Life in the UK test? I mean obviously some questions are bit weird, but most people seem to actually appreciate what they learn.rick_chasey said:
I am sympathetic to the premise of the citizenship tests, even if the execution is woeful.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
I am second generation immigrant, so I am always likely to be a little harsher.surrey_commuter said:I feel that we need to understand why John does not want asylum seekers and am wondering if it is the policy of scattering them around the country.
14,000 could siappear into London without anybody noticing but I am guessing that 5 families turning up in a monocultural Cumbrian market town would be a big issue.
Even Rick has suggested we need a grown up discussion about assimilation but do we know if we split them up and risk isolating them or whether we group them together so they can build their own support networks?
FWIW I would absolutely avoid creating 'ghettos' of asylum seekers. Ghettoization is a real problem and reduces the incentives to get involved in the local community. So yes, spread them around. To all corners of the country. At least for a period until they can chose their own home.
I don't think many people would disagree with the above, but I would add something more controversial which is a requirement to speak and read English to a certain standard after a certain time.
I think if you do the first, the second bit becomes easier, but I am fundamentally of the view that you cannot integrate yourself in a society without speaking the language and I think a lot (though not all) of the resistance locals have of immigrants disappear when they speak the local language to a high standard.
I think they should start with a test to see if they can name all the kings and queens of England since 1066. You know, the important stuff.0 -
Is the double negative intentional? You think they would struggle?ddraver said:
I'd hazard a guess that very very few people who have walked across half the world are not going to struggle with a language class...pangolin said:
What do you do at the end of the time if they haven't learned it and their home country is a warzone?rick_chasey said:
Sure, why not? I'm OK with making refugees learn the lingo if they want to live here.kingstongraham said:We're not talking about refugees any more then?
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Yeah this is true and maybe therefore my system wouldn't be watertight like that.TheBigBean said:I'd just like to reiterate that there are a lot of people that can't be deported, because the country they are from, or say they are from, will not accept them. That includes failed asylum seekers, but would also include those that have failed an English test.
I still think there is a way to make learning the local lingo obligatory, even if the enforcing it is quite difficult. I think having some system to spread asylum seekers across the country for a period of time would help incentivise it.0
