Forum Topic

refugees

HalloJust to say, yes it is really heart-breaking to see what is happeningto the poor afghanis, but, please can we get our own homeless people into accommodation first?Of course we want to help but again, ex servicemen, those english-afghans who were in kabul, yes we need, and indeed, want, to help, but what about our homeless on the streets of london?

Carole Tanner ● 1614d48 Comments

Barbara: You can be staying somewhere and still be homeless.  There are a lot of people who sofa-surf relying on the good nature of friends and family.  I'm obviously not saying that is always the case but it is worth bearing in mind that what you see and think may not always be the truth of the situation. I have to say I had not really considered this until it was brought to my attention.

Philippa Bond ● 1605d

I've not seen this before. Interesting link. Thanks for posting it.

Michael Winstanley ● 1605d

Personal attacks? Like appearing on this forum for the first time accusimg someone's posts of being "drink related"? How pleasant is that "Pippa"? Do you have some useful and poignant contribution to the discussion to make - you know some well-argued points anchored in facts to which you can refer?Maybe you should sort this out before posting further.

Michael Winstanley ● 1605d

cf narcissstic know-nothing?

Michael Winstanley ● 1605d

Well if the cap fits Jo. I notice that your technique is to attack the player not the ball.

Michael Winstanley ● 1605d

Although we may all agree on the causes of the issue there seems to be few options what to do when they arrive.From what I can see it is either hold them in detention centres at the taxpayers expense for several years or try and process them quickly - perhaps a 3 or 5 year visa.There is no agreement to return them to a third country nor is it likely we could return them to countries that have collapsed.Other suggestions anyone??

Ed Robinson ● 1605d

@Matt 10.13"It's an oft repeated 'fact' on here that they had to claim asylum in France or any other country on their journey here.It's completely incorrect though, international law (that we helped write) states that you can claim asylum where you choose."Yes Matt the UK did agree to the Dublin Agreement but really it wasn't worth the paper it was written on because International Law cannot be enforced; which in effect meant it was only an agreement in principle and not actually binding. However we were compliant because of our EU membership but as that no longer applies to the UK our compliance is no longer necessary. However we need to make this crystal clear by Government legislation. Weaknesses Of International LawFollowing are the weakness of International Law1) It lacks effective law making authority.2) It lacks effective machinery or authority to enforce its rule.3) International court of justice has no compulsory jurisdiction.4) The sanction behind the International Law are very weak.5) It cannot intervene in the matters which are within the domestic jurisdiction and the states.6) Many rules of International Law are uncertain and vague.7) International Law has failed to maintain order and peace in the world

Sue Hammond ● 1606d

So why on EARTH do think I said that I would post it AGAIN!? Could it possibly be because our behaviour here impacts others elsewhere? It is more a case that the situation remains the same and that unless you change the heading as you go along you can never find a post that you want to re-read again.  Which is a shame because there are a lot of good posts from people with different knowledge of subjects.  That is what makes a discussion.Barbara:  You previously asked me what I was doing about the Climate Change Emergency - I gave you a reply of one action.  So, I'll reciprocate and ask you the same question - what constructive actions are YOU taking to reduce your impact on the planet?

Philippa Bond ● 1606d

I didnt realise you could only post on one forum, when was this rule introduced?

Matt Palmer ● 1606d

Philippa, how many times have you put on here The Angry Sea will Kill Us. Your on so many sites you don't know which one you have put what. As somebody else has said your so self-righteous.

Barbara Stevens ● 1606d

Perhaps not directly responsible for all dictators and tyrants but the western nations have deteriorated the political and economic environment they operate in. Of course Russia and China are now also operators in these fields and have different perspectives,  again often taking into account the way they've been treated in the past by the west.

Michael Ixer ● 1606d

You also don't have to invade or be involved in other countries' business or politics for people to be oppressed and want to flee their country.  I don't think you can say that we are responsible for all dictators and tyrants...  but climate change - yes.  And that is causing some movement of people now and fires, floods and storms will cause more if we don't do more to reduce our carbon footprint and prepare for it.Here's that little video made by a Unicef worker showing and explaining what is happening to a very small nation surrounded by sea:https://interactives.stuff.co.nz/2017/10/kiribati-the-angry-sea-will-kill-us-all/

Philippa Bond ● 1606d

I agree with you Michael.It always surprises me that our intelligence services are unable to identify these criminals, locate them and lock them up. The same applies to our European neighbours.All the migrants, be they from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, etc. are successful in contacting them yet the authorities cannot... ???????

Ivonne Holliday ● 1606d

Correct Matt.The first safe country was an EU agreement (Dublin agreement) which ceased when we left the EU.Perhaps if the UK followed international law we wouldn't have this issue.

Ed Robinson ● 1606d

Ed. I'd agree that governments over the past century or more have been the root cause of this problem but the current situation is being exploited by a number of ruthless criminals. 

Michael Ixer ● 1606d

"the people responsible for the flotilla of small boards from France to the UK aren't Muslim or Christian - they're people traffickers whose only religion is Mammon"I disagree Michael they are members of parliament and PM's and advisors. People we see every day on TV!People that's supported invading and destabilising other countries while at the same time misusing secrecy laws to suppress the truth.And of course theses are the ones which we can influence by voting!

Ed Robinson ● 1606d

It's an oft repeated 'fact' on here that they had to claim asylum in France or any other country on their journey here.It's completely incorrect though, international law (that we helped write) states that you can claim asylum where you choose.

Matt Palmer ● 1606d

We shouldn't lose sight of thee fact that the people responsible for the flotilla of small boards from France to the UK aren't Muslim or Christian - they're people traffickers whose only religion is Mammon, making as much money as possible without a care for the suffering or disruption they cause. I also suspect that if France considers the turn back policy to be in breach of international law that policy will fail. It's interesting that with the amount of surveillance we currently have it's not possible to track down the criminals controlling this trade? 

Michael Ixer ● 1606d

Perhaps another late Friday night drink related post from MW?Some of his comments are very unpleasant. I know people have called for him to stop posting for a while until he sorts himself out. With all these personal attacks, I agree he should take a breather.

Pippa Jones ● 1606d

It's his usual method of posting Jo.  Narcissistic know-all trait.

Sue Hammond ● 1606d

I notice that Michael's technique of participating in this discussion is largely implying someone is stupid because they hold a different opinion to him.

Jo Amadi ● 1606d

Interesting video by the NYT.‘Imminent Threat’ or Aid Worker: Did a U.S. Drone Strike in Afghanistan Kill the Wrong Person?https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/asia/100000007963596/us-drone-attack-kabul-investigation.htmlWho knows? They were trying obviously to protect the airport and mistakes like this do happen. It took some time for the truth about Jean Charles de Menezes to come out.If the airport deadline was extended I wonder how many more drone strikes would have happened?

Ed Robinson ● 1606d

There are 2 things you are missing.The first is that the thread is about Afghan refugees who were being airlifted by us from Kabul, not coming in dinghies from France. Most  of those people are Iranians and Syrians.The second is the practicality of legally "turning back" dinghies in the English Channel. Greater minds than yours (this may not be much of a stretch) have grappled with this problem for some years.One does wonder, if someone is "just an economic migrant" - why do they immediately claim asylum upon landing and subject themelves to the opinion of British courts, thereby depriving themselves of any ability of earning a living?An economic migrant with any sense (difficult concept I know, but stay with me on this), would slip in quietly, not attract attention and then work illegally from the off. There are plenty of people - amongst those with neither morals nor scruples nor concern for human beings (maybe you know some) willing to give work to such people.

Michael Winstanley ● 1606d

*dinghy*

James Cole ● 1606d

I agree, the ex servicemen should be looked after as well as the Afghan interpreters.The Muslim dingy specials popping into Dover which are over over 92% male aged between 20-30 should be turned back as they have come from a safe country and they are just economic migrants. Unless I'm missing something and France is at war?

James Cole ● 1606d

https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/diary-afghan-refugee-uk-government-support-b954064.html

Philippa Bond ● 1607d

It probably would not have happened. The sequence of events in the history of the UK's involvement in Iran is unknown/forgotten to most.Basicly in the 1950's, the democratically elected government of Iran wanted us and the US to pay more for its oil. Rather than respect the democratic expressed will of the Iranian people, we did indeed sponsor a coup and installed a despot (the Shah) as ruler, who was sympathetic to our interests.His increasingly repressive treatment of his own people led to his overthrow in the Iranian revolution of 1979. Many groups were active in bringing this about, including Iranian women's rights groups. Religious groups took advantage of the state of flux which had been created and turned Iran into an Islamic theocracy (the women's rights faction rather missed the boat).Having displaced our pet leader, Iran was now an unfriendly power (to us and particularly to our US allies). It wasn't that popular with Iraq either - it's religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini encouraged Iraquis to stage their own Islamic revolution just like the one which Iran had just had; this did not go down to well with Saddam Hussein. We had supplied Iraq with arms and were only too happy to continue to do so for the 8 years which the war lasted.Whilst we are by no means the only party to blame, every single conflict in the Middle East can be traced back one way or another to British and US influence on the various countries therein.

Michael Winstanley ● 1608d

Michael W, would the Iran-Iraq war even had happened if it was not for the 1953 Iranian UK/US sponsored coup?Apparently a lot of the Thatcher documents on Afghanistan are still censored, but you can already see that the black and white picture is very grey.Unless we have complete transparency from our government then surely the default should be not to get involved except for our defence? An interesting article by the New Yorker "The Other Afghan Women" gives a horrific account of the 75% that are not urban.I didn't know that the Taliban were formed to resist young boys being taken for Bacha bazi. A practice that seemed to be largely ignored by Nato forces but some individuals took a stand.https://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/green-beret-afghan-police-confrontation/index.htmlhttps://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/the-other-afghan-womenhttps://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C17071657https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_aq=%22title%20withheld%22%20afghanistan&_dss=range&_ro=any&_st=advhttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/world/asia/afghanistan-military-abuse.html

Ed Robinson ● 1608d

That is a good point. Selling UK-manufactured arms to Saddam Hussein in order for him to wage a war against Iran is a similar example of this kind of behaviour - that one a double whammy as it built up future problems for us in both countries.

Michael Winstanley ● 1609d

Michael surely discussing Afghanistan without mentioning the UK & US funding of such groups during the Soviet occupation is a major omission?Many children's lives were cut short during this war. They never got a chance to live never mind university.Killing civilians is a sure way to boost any cause against a foreign power!By taking out a couple of high level targets and blow up children in the process you expendentially increase the size of your enemy even if you do pay a few hundred quid compensation.The horrors of war are well known only fools believe there has been a war without rapes, torture and murder. You can try and minimise it but it is part of the package and always has been. Saints are few are far between on this earth!

Ed Robinson ● 1611d

You show  remarkably simplistic understanding of this situation by describing "the Afghan people". They aren't all the same. They range from the 1990's Taliban regime who gave refuge to Al Qaeda from which it was able to launch terrorist attacks against the west to women born since the US invasion whose university degree courses have been cut short by the recent regime change. I guess understanding these distinctions is beyond your attention span.20 years ago, terrorists resident in Afghanistan murdered 3000+ people in New York - I guess you could argue that wasn't "us" - unless you are personally murdered, it will always be possible to claim no involvement. In 2007 many Londoners were murdered by Al Qaeda inspired terrorists - I expect you have some take on this whereby the threat to our safety is simply down to our foreign aid budget and if we only reduce it to zero, we will be fine.Once again "virtue signalling" is expressing a view that something virtuous be done whilst not actually being oneself committed to it. Putting up real cash to accommodate Afghans who have helped our troops and are now at personal risk is not "virtue signalling", it is making a difference. FGS, it it is not that they "chose the wrong side in their civil war", the reason they are at risk is that they chose OUR side, they helped our troops.

Michael Winstanley ● 1611d

The Afghan people have not attacked us. There was never a threat to our safety, but we went in & attacked them in any case. I suppose it made us seem to be doing something, although god knows what. Still to claim to be rescuing some Afghans who chose the wrong side in their civil war makes us look better. Oh & if you are looking for virtue signalling Wandsworth & Richmond Councils are offering £2 to £3.5 thousand to landlords as a reward for housing them.

Paul Rolink ● 1611d

Michael,What we think about people trying to come here is irrelevant with regards to those already here.It is now clear that they can not be sent back to Afghanistan - the Home Office has changed it guidance apparently to say so.They can't be sent back to other EU countries. There is no legal framework to do so. It makes no practical, economical or ethical sense to lock up those who it has been confirmed are not a danger to society.A short visa seems a good compromise.Give them an opportunity to work and contribute during that time.Irrespective of views on refugees this seems the only practical positive action."Home Office freezes processing of applications after deleting key guidance following Taliban takeover"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/afghanistan-asylum-seekers-uk-amnesty-b1913971.html

Ed Robinson ● 1612d

Ed, just to clarify I wasn't condoning the government's treatment of refugees. I'm not sure about the public view on the decision. Recent voting records might suggest the public wouldn't want refugees coming to the UK in the first place? Or, it's perhaps low down on their priority list of issues? (OK, that's me making an extrapolation based in the last general election and the Brexit  vote, I can't back that up with hard facts!)Yes, I'd agree decisions should be made quickly, efficiently and, I'd add, fairly. Speed is important but I think when dealing with refugees making the correct decisions is important - in some cases it can be literally a matter of life and death; and, yes, that does require adequate and appropriate resources. For example, outsourcing of detention centres to private security companies might be considered inappropriate by many?Of course looking at and addressing the root cause - why do so many want to leave their home countries and come to the UK and other wealthy, stable and democratic (well, relatively speaking) countries - might also be sensible?

Michael Ixer ● 1613d

Michael, "more desirable option?" let's hope that the report from the US are few or inaccurate (link below). But there have also been reports of sexual harassment in UK detention centres too! Probably not the view they had of the UK.Prolonged drawn out processing of these cases servers no one apart from government policy by stealth!Hard or soft on asylum seekers I think the public would agree a decision should be made quickly and efficiently."Afghan women report forced marriages to flee country amid Taliban takeover"https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/02/politics/afghan-women-trafficking-taliban-escape/index.html

Ed Robinson ● 1613d

Ed. Yes, that was my point on another thread:  that most of these Afghans aren't technically refugees as they arrive in the UK already "processed" with a promise of visas or residency. I was just trying to pull some rationality into some of the more vague posts; it wasn't aimed at yours which, even if I disagree with points, are precise, well referenced and knowledgeable.I suspect you're right, the current government is trying to make the refugee processing difficult as a discouragement ... but while there's such discrepancies in living standards, and disruption from military and political actions the UK, EU, USA, etc are still more attractive propositions. If the government's going to imprison refugees for illegal entry it's likely that if one's coming from a war zone then food and board at her Majesty's pleasure might be a more desirable option?

Michael Ixer ● 1613d

This is utter and shameful nonsense. We are accommodating Afghans who worked for us in order to promote our own safety. They would be killed by the Taliban if they stayed. Again and again this was government policy and each government was voted in by a majority. The majority of the British public agree that we owe these people a debt - don't you dare say we never asked- ask the majority of people and they will acknowledge our debt. Don't be ridiculous and claim that we should leave behind interpreters to somehow find weapons and die defending themselves after we have left. It is utterly shameful. And learn what "virtue signaling" actualy means.

Michael Winstanley ● 1613d

Michael, I was just trying to clarity the debt statement made in the thread. Although "debt" and "we wanted" seem opposites tpo me?Leaving that aside - the airlifted apparently are going to be fast tracked (fast and 20 years?) with some getting residency and others a 5 year visa.This will mean that the employment ban applied to asylum seekers is not relevant. Perhaps this will be taken into account when deciding location.Wouldn't it be a good idea to give more resources to the 70,000 backlog of asylum seekers? Or is the limbo status being used as a deterrent?

Ed Robinson ● 1613d

I suppose one needs to define whether we're discussing Afghan's who've been given right of entry because of service to the UK government or refugees in general, including Afghans, because of action taken by the UK and other wealthy countries, whether that action be military , political or economic? Agreed, there is an inconsistency in approach.

Michael Ixer ● 1614d

It doesn't necessarily take much for someone's life to spiral out of control and into homelessness.  The reduction in Universal Credit is also bound to cause more stress in already stressed conditions.  Giving and getting the right support at the right time is important but services are limited.  Look out for your friends and family you never know how close this may be.It is a pity that there doesn't seem to be enough thought put into leaving countries where we have intervened.  People don't only flee from countries that we intervene in.  They could be persecuted by oppressive regimes elsewhere.  People have always moved.  Perhaps those with any Scottish heritage will remember talk of "the clearings"?

Philippa Bond ● 1614d

well it cant be just to the ones that were airlifted as we didnt manage to get everyone out that we wanted?The UK's position on migration and refugees hasnt been consistent or coherant for many years.

Matt Palmer ● 1614d

Matt what about the ones arriving by sea?Or is the debt you mention just to those who are airlifted?The UK's position does seem consistent when you look at this. Most refugees will flees to neighbouring countries. Iran has a million I believe and they are under sanctions.

Ed Robinson ● 1614d

I do not think a lot that sit in the High Street are homeless. One who was sitting near McDonald's a couple of weeks ago sat there looking like he was crying, then in the afternoon I was cutting the hedge and he ran past laughing his head of with another man,  must have had a good day. You then had the one from Fulham who used to sit near the station with his dog who was arrested. There was one I gave a couple of pound to in Sainsbury's road, one of the Black Cab drivers laughed who I new new, he said he lives such and such he gets a lift home. Then there are the foreign ones who get dropped off in a van to sit and beg. There is also the man in the long mac who has been around for years, if he asked for money for a coffee I would give him the money. But when do you stop and who really needs help.

Barbara Stevens ● 1614d

It's not like we are airlifting the entire Afghan army Paul, just the people that worked with us like translators and their families.I'm struggling to see how that is virtue signalling

Matt Palmer ● 1614d

"The things politicians get us into."The 20 year war did have wide cross party support including all governments since. Our previous MP voted for it, the current mayor was absent from the Afghan vote. Could there be an more important vote to miss?The worrying thing apart from there being less transparency now than there was 20 years ago, is the current and previous HoC would probably vote exactly the same today!

Ed Robinson ● 1614d

No. It's all about virtue signalling. Always has been.It makes them seeing to be doing something. Their message is always the same. The British people have to pay up & if they don't like it then just ignore them. The fact that we never asked for any of it is never mentioned. This case is all about some Afghans who ran away from their country because they wouldn't fight for it. Unbelievable but there you are. The things politicians get us into.

Paul Rolink ● 1614d

It's a complicated mess for sure, but surely we owe these people from Afghanistan a debt? We can't just leave them to die out there and if we bring them here we can't just put them on the streets.

Matt Palmer ● 1614d

A significant number of the homeless on the streets of London (and other cities) are non British.So do they come before or after the Afghan refugees?? Or is it just 'our' homeless you want to be housed first?It's a complicated area, first off you dont know why they are homeless in the first place. Rent arrears, family breakdown, illegals, unable to cope, bad neighbours etc etc

Andy Pike ● 1614d