3 ms·
And you're arguing for zero, which is frankly ridiculous.
by regularfry 5y ago
And you're arguing for zero, which is frankly ridiculous.
- Veen 5y agoNo one is arguing for zero immigration. That's a fiction you've invented. I'm arguing for controlled legal immigration: i.e, the UK gets to decide who comes to live here. I was entirely supportive of the recent scheme for Ukrainians and the earlier BNO visa scheme for Hong Kong residents.
- madaxe_again 5y agoOn what basis have you earned the right to reside in the U.K.? Don’t say “I was born here” - you didn’t earn that. How would you fare on the points based visa scheme? Would you support an initiative to strip undesirable people (i.e. all those who have inadequate points) of their citizenship, so “better” people with more points can replace them?
- zmgsabst 5y agoYes — a society should preference it’s own children over outsiders. That’s essential to its continued existence. You’re simply arguing that you have a right to loot UK families, destroying their society in the process, to give their money to people you feel are “more deserving”. I think that’s borderline genocidal.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- lotsofpulp 5y agoFunnily enough, that describes UK’s policy towards others for the past few hundred years.
- tfgg 5y agoThere's a responsibility under refugee conventions to take on people needing asylum. The conflation of them with illegal immigration is quite ridiculous. The UK is a rich country (~6th highest in the world), we should shoulder some of the (small) burden that we're asked to - many other, poorer, countries take on much higher refugee burdens.
- ballenf 5y agoAs in not feasible or ridiculous as a matter of principle? Would it be ridiculous for any other country or is the UK specially situated?