It's never been about the boats

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

‘Not like that!’ scream racists as Keir Starmer suggests alternative way to stop small boats​

In news that will shock absolutely no one, it appears racists don’t actually care about small boats or the people smugglers encouraging vulnerable people to make dangerous journeys, after Keir Starmer suggested an alternative way of stopping the risky journeys, but not the asylum claims themselves.

Twitter is awash with red-faced simpletons currently furious that the Labour leader has seen right through their transparent calls for the end of small boats and illegal people smuggling operations.

Twitter user Si Willis told us, “It’s almost as if the whole ‘small boats’ thing was cover for some other sentiment lurking just beneath the surface. I mean, if they really cared about stopping people smugglers, and about vulnerable asylum seekers being forced to cross the channel in small boats, then surely they’d welcome any deal with the EU that made people smugglers redundant?

“I guess what they really meant when they said ‘no more small boats’ was ‘no more asylum seekers’ – but they preferred talking about small boats rather than the migrants themselves because that always sounded a bit racist – which, you know, it is.

“Non-morons have always known the government could stop the small boats tomorrow, if they wanted to, just by simply providing a safe way for people to claim asylum in the UK. But they don’t, because they don’t want any migrants. It’s never been about the boats; that’s just a convenient cover for all the racist dog whistles.

“If you’re wondering whether you are one of the racists, or not, then ask yourself this simple question: if the UK took in exactly the same number of asylum seekers next year as this year, but there wasn’t a single small boat or people smuggler involved, and they all applied through approved routes, would you be happy?

“If you wouldn’t, then you don’t actually care about boat crossings and people smuggling; you care about stopping lots of brown people coming into the country.

“You big f.ucking racist.”

TY@NT

 

[Moriarty]

Always makes me chuckle.

There are laws in place and lots of reason to accept immigration into this country.
We need immigrants because the native population is dropping.

The question should be why?

Theres a long diatribe about womens equality, women in the workplace being needed to make ends meet for families.
Thats an economic reality brought on by political choices.

So if women are working, they arent having kids, hence we need immigration to have tax payers to pay for pensions.

It's economics 101.

There are enough legal migrants who are happy to come here and work hard in professions we need them to work in.
Which there are, they are just stuck in the backlog of cases dues to illegals.
Why not prioritise those who wish to come here legally.
They have qualifications, something to give to society.

Illegal immigrants, what do we know about them?
Apart from the fact they had enough money to get on a boat?
That they went through at least 4 or 5 countries where they could legally and safely settle before coming here?
Should that not mean something?

Then you have the real big question that no one seems to ask.
If all these qualified people are emigrating, doesn't that detract from the country they are from being able to educate itself out of poverty.

If you look at immigration as stealing bright young minds from countries who really need them.
Is that not keeping those countries down?

The UK's foriegn policy has always been to keep the Sahel part of Africa and many other places in a state of turmoil.
That way they can get mining and drilling rights by paying off whichever dictator is in power at the time.
The last thing they, or any of the so called "Civilised" western nations want is an Africa which is marketable in it's own right.
They dont want democracy, they need tyrants which they can buy.

Thats why China and Russia are getting into trade deals with Africa and supporting thier infrastructure.
They know if the West loses access to the riches of Africa our economy will slowly degrade to a point where the inflation one see's today will be a joke.

Hard to market a new iPhone when you can't make the batteries anymore because you lost the market on lithium and cobalt.

By us accepting immigrants we are allowing China and Russia to move in and build because they offer the expertise we have stolen.

When you think about it that way, does it make you ponder why immigration is a bad thing?

 

[Raining_Roses]

The question should be why?

Theres a long diatribe about womens equality, women in the workplace being needed to make ends meet for families.
Thats an economic reality brought on by political choices.

So if women are working, they arent having kids, hence we need immigration to have tax payers to pay for pensions.

It's economics 101.

I'm not slicing and dicing to argue anyone's point- just want to state that before I go on. I just had a couple of things to add in here. You missed out something that may/may not be relevant. You point out that women are working, so they're not having kids. But what happens....say....if the children that are being born are being indoctrinated to...(how do I say this?).... practice body modifications in pre-teen and early teen years that make them infertile in later life? How could this possibly effect the birth rates in the future?

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

​

 

[Moriarty]

I'm not slicing and dicing to argue anyone's point- just want to state that before I go on. I just had a couple of things to add in here. You missed out something that may/may not be relevant. You point out that women are working, so they're not having kids. But what happens....say....if the children that are being born are being indoctrinated to...(how do I say this?).... practice body modifications in pre-teen and early teen years that make them infertile in later life? How could this possibly effect the birth rates in the future?

It will be a factor in demographic change yes.
A small one, but one which has many, many headlines.

It's something that needs to be addressed as most, not all, surgeries do tend toward infertility in the patient, which has been not given as information toward informed consent for many years, now corrected in most places.

To be honest most people are fearful of talking about it as they are then labelled by some perjorative.
As you said yourself :-

if the children that are being born are being indoctrinated to...(how do I say this?)

Personally I think, it's a social, media and mental health problem.
All gender reassignment diagnosis, prognosis, surgery or treatment is experimental.
We simply don't know enough to definitively say if it works or not "at scale".

It's difficult to look at single cases as helping someone become what they identify as improving thier life as the suicide rate of both those reassigned and those not tends to be roughly equal, but that can never be the whole story.

There isn't enough large scale data on the subject.
Hell even Tavistock's research was only based on 44 patients, hardly conclusive.
Recently the BBC posted a story saying that actually more kids suffered worsening mental health on puberty blockers than it helped.
However you can't take that as evidence because there are many ways peoples mental health can improve or decline over a several year period.
It was simple headline grabbing without thought.

Add to that the political aspect, research tends to go where the funding is.
Then you have a situation where perhaps someone was to fund a purely impartial study, there would still be personal bias in those who collated the results so can the results be trusted either way?

It's a minefield, especially for the people who truly do have some kind of gender dysphoria as it is becoming a much more tribalised and intolerant society against anything that isn't "Normal".

There has been an increase in violence against LGB (and perhaps A) identifying people who have nothing to do with the T+ part of the association.
You have known lesbian meeting places being innundated with people who claim to be women yet are not accepted as such by women causing fear and sometimes violence.

Some Womens sports dominated by those who identify as women are obviosly physically more able to compete at the top ranks those sports based on biological not subjective sex.
It's hardly fair for them to enter competitions which can make or break a someones career knowing they have an advantage they didn't work for.
Yet they do, winning competitions and breaking world records based purely on thier physical characteristic benefits against the other entrants.

As a slight aside..
The USSR did that back in the 70's with "Legal" hormone and drug cocktail injections for female Olympic athletes, almost all of which developed infertility and various problems which shortened thier lives or brought them great physical pain in later life.

Check out some of the reports on Manfred Ewald in East Germany when in 1978 the East Germans won 11 out of 13 golds in swimming.
It's not like this wasn't common knowledge even then.

As I see it, just my opinion, it's mainly because the media and thus politicains pushing ideas they know very little about onto people who don't understand.
Without anyone attempting to study large scale data to formulate a scientific answer which can then be used to explain to the general public what is really happening and more importantly guide policy and treatment.

Further pushing of the subjective identity as fact will continue to propogate both the acceptence and the opposition to such ideas.
Especially when they are brought into schools.

Everyones perception of reality is subjective, it's the only view we have, however, we do also abide by objective reality in that what I see as red meaning hot may not be the same red someone else see's, but we will both get burn't if we ignore the warning signs.