1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

French immigration "The politically correct have caused too much havoc in this country."

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Lord-Jaffa, Jan 21, 2019.

  1. Lord-Jaffa

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 29, 2004

    Posts: 5,448

    Location: UK

    A mayor confronts Macron over immigration; she points out that apart from rising crime "unaccompanied minors" cost the taxpayer €5,000.00 a month to the tune of €2 billion a year. Also illegal migrants will receive state medical care amounting to a billion euros in 2019 on top of receiving preferential access to social housing. When you take into account all of the benefits going towards people who aren't French nationals compared to some pensioners who receive €400-€500 a month to live on then it's no wonder, she says, that people are angry. "The politically correct have caused too much havoc in this country." "There are no NGO's for the Yellow Vests and they would sometimes deserve such support, because they are in great distress."


    I thought it was an interesting speech, part of the issues surrounding the Yellow vests and their issues with Macron
     
  2. NickK

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jan 13, 2003

    Posts: 17,854

    This is mirroring Denmark too. New statesman has an article on Denmark.

    Denmark are shifting from tolerance to rejection after many, previously accepting rather than right wing, believe integrating immigration there has failed. So much that an island is being created to put immigrants on.
     
  3. robfosters

    Caporegime

    Joined: Dec 1, 2010

    Posts: 29,582

    Location: Welling, London

    Are illegal immigrants really given preferential access to social housing in France? If so, that’s disgusting.

    It’s not like that here is it?
     
  4. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 12,442

    Cause and effect.
     
  5. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,215

    I would suspect you would get accesses to housing if you are granted temporary asylum on humanitarian grounds i.e fleeing a war zone. Bar for being granted that in France is rather high, I think you now have to demonstrate visible proof of medical trauma to gain asylum.

    Medical care is certainly an issue. You can get treatment for serious illness and it certainly costs money. I think however you would have to look at the potential impact to public health more widely before pulling funding here.

    Would the cost be more or less if a section of the population has no health care develops more complex health conditions and you have the uncontrolled spread of conditions like h.i.v. hepatitis, t.b. etc?

    Endemic illness does not restrict itself to specific legal or ethnic status.

    You would want to carefully work out what the wider cost may be here to the health of the rest of the population.

    Its in our self interest to do so. I would imagine the cost of having to detain and deport people with complex medical conditions or have a population of detainees with a range of untreated and infectious illnesses would carry with it a higher cost and risk.

    The economic and health implications for the countries we were deporting illegal immigrants back to would have the potential to make the circumstances that lead to economic migration worse rather than better and pose a threat to global health and the political and economic stability of the countries these folks were returning to.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2019
  6. Scort

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 28, 2006

    Posts: 3,707

    Location: No longer riding an Italian

    My Mum used to work on the Capita-staffed call center for housing in Swindon, a few years back, and she said that immigrants (illegal or otherwise) used to get fast tracked for a lot of housing. She said it was horrible having to field calls from pensioners and the homeless, begging for housing, whilst this select few were apparently being fast tracked through the system.

    I always wondered how true this was, not really got a reason to doubt my own mother mind, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me if it was, at least in part true - I expect the council were far too worried about not being PC/offending people/breaching their human rights.
     
  7. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,215

    Surprisingly enough in order to get state housing in the U.K you have to be able to pay the rent which means you have to work or be entitled to benefit.

    Illegal immigrants are not entitled to benefit and are certainly not able to work legally.

    The answer to the question is no.

    Given the rise in public anxiety over immigration and the fact that we have a government that has taken a hard line on benefits for decades it should come as no surprise to discover that someone illegally residing in the country cannot accesses benefit or receive free housing when they have no ability to pay rent.

    Housing and health are serious issues getting the facts wrong here is certainly not going to help deal with the issues and will only make it worse for the elderly and the most vulnerable sections of our society.

    At the most basic level, commonsense would dictate that people who are defined and determined by the state as having no legal right to citizenship are not going to have enhanced rights in regard to housing, benefit or health care.

    The benefit system is under the control of a party which has taken a hard line on welfare for decades, the idea that it has somehow taken a soft line on illegal immigrants while cutting benefit and entitlement elsewhere is plain nonsense.

    Housing health and welfare have been effected by an austerity policy implemented by the government (regardless of what you're position is on this policy, its a fact) , the idea that somehow illegal immigrants have managed to be given preferential treatment in these circumstances defies common sense or any understanding of the political instincts of the Conservative party, which controls accesses to benefit and in turn the ability to access the social housing system.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2019
  8. inogen

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 19, 2009

    Posts: 3,201

    I'd talk to your mother again. There's a big difference between refugees who have been granted asylum, asylum seekers, economic migrants and illegal immigrants. Only refugees might get fast tracked for social housing and if they are, it's because the government (and we as a country) need to meet our obligations regarding them. Refugees granted asylum are NOT immigrants.

    Illegal immigrants are not fast tracked to anything other than detention and deportation if discovered. They're certainly not putting themselves on the housing list!
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2019
  9. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,215

    Country is run by a right wing conservative government. Which policy seems the most obvious one for the Conservatives to preside over?

    A. No accesses to the benefit system.

    B. Enhanced accesses to benefit entitlement and housing.

    b. does not look to me to be the obvious Conservative policy in regard to the legal entitlement of illegal immigrants.
     
  10. inogen

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 19, 2009

    Posts: 3,201

    Any government will detain and if applicable deport illegals. Clue is in the name.

    I have a mate who's a barrister who deals with illegals. Some of the stories he tells are horrific.
     
  11. BowdonUK

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 17, 2016

    Posts: 2,280

    It amazes me that people come on here and are telling what they have heard, experienced or relaying experiences from trusted people and instead of accepting to some degree the information and suggesting solutions, we have an immediate bottom clench by some who go in to defensive mode. No wonder the country is going downhill.
     
  12. Freakbro

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 29, 2010

    Posts: 14,913

    Location: Lincs

    I think it's more like the country is going downhill because of people just accepting unverified anecdotal stories from random people off the internet with little to no critical thought because it fits their own bias and equally dismissing out of hand any easily verifiable rebuttal. Just look at that preposterous FB post doing the rounds about the Lisbon Treaty for another example.

    Illegal immigrants aren't 'fast tracked' into social housing, that is just demonstrably untrue and doesn't really take much thinking about to work out why. But, if you don't want to take the word of some random on the Internet (which you shouldn't) you can read it in black and white

    https://england.shelter.org.uk/hous.../who_is_eligible_to_apply_for_council_housing

    No defensive bottom clenching required.

    What has happened is due to his natural bias Scort has misremembered, misunderstood or intentionally exaggerated the fact that legal immigrants can have a greater weighting when being assessed by local authorities for housing, due to the lack of family connections and extended support in the area. I know this, anectodotally, as my friends wife (ironically a Romanian immigrant) worked as a local housing officer and unfortunately due to limited supply, criteria are used to assess those most in need. This doesn't mean they are 'fast tracked' either due to being an immigrant, just they can have a greater weighting, but it's not the only criteria used and locals in just as much need get housed too.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2019
  13. Scort

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 28, 2006

    Posts: 3,707

    Location: No longer riding an Italian

    It was something she remarked on years ago, from her firsthand experience, and as I said - I wondered how true it was; but not enough to actually care.
     
  14. GordyR

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 4,737

    Location: Essex

    This...
     
  15. jsmoke

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 17, 2012

    Posts: 7,179

    All depends, the people that started and nurtured this movement will tell you that it needed to be done to 'progress' and to fight inequality. What do I mean by that?

    Well there were two world wars, women's rights issues, wealth inequality, child poverty and plenty more major stuff however simply put, PEOPLE FORGET how things were. They forget about sexism in the work place, children living in poverty partially starving, going to school in rag tag clothes, drug and alcohol issues, unemployment, lack of education, trade unions, picketers and on and on.

    So there were movements that probably started in the 1960's, all the civil rights marches and protests, look at NI for example they took their ideas from the Black civil rights movements in the US. Feminism, voting rights, work place conditions, unfairness in job positions and salaries. So all rooted in inequality however as I said, people forget the root of the movements.

    Political correctness was very deliberately started they say in the 90's to change the landscape of the country, TB signed around 26k new laws during his time as PM for example. The smoking ban is kind of like PC in the sense that it's for your own good to ban smoking in public places yet there would have been some kind of uproar at the time, people get used to it over time and then, FORGET.

    New Labour had a lot to do with this, they wanted a completely new country, away with the ruling rich posh boy elites and toward a more fair and richer country. Well GB was the true Christian Socialist who was the driving force behind the weelth redistribution whereas TB was the front man who's now living in some kind of fouth dimension and has transcended beyond us and now wants some kind of EU superstate, he essentially wants to take over the world now. What did they say, 'power corrupts and absolute......'

    The results have been successful overall and things like the migrant favouritism are just a continuation of the movements started decades ago. More people in university, less people in poverty and a healthier society.

    So overall, the root of it all started decades ago and revolved around inequality and human rights issues, the use of laws to shape peoples behaviour accordingly, the fruits of it all have been successful overall depending on who you ask.

    The use of laws primarily looks like censorship because that's what it is however Martin Luther once said something like, 'Christ sends you to the law and the law sends you back to Christ'. The only problem is that some people don't get sent back, or were only ever sent to by their own accord in the first place and just get left in some legalistic or fantastical delsusion of power and total world dictatorship.

    The Tories will hate it though as it takes away their platform to lord it over the mere minions out there, but that's largely been eradicated now due to massive wealth redistribution and more and more going to university, teaching people to think for themselves, be creative and start their own businesses.

    And ofc I almost forgot about the internet, which has been without a doubt the most significant development in human history, it's left the politicians and powers that be scratching their heads as to the new world we live in, much less room for secrecy, private power groups and wealth hording. 'knowledge is power' no longer only belongs to the elites, it's there for all too see. An information overload, an information miracle or an information war.

    Bring in migrants, keep everything fresh and mixed up, create cultural competition, don't allow people or groups to nurture hate, control over others, keep people on their toes, which should ultimately create economic competition, grow the economy, WIN.

    To sum it up, what goes up must come down!
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2019
  16. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 12,442

    Blair is like a human shaped cockroach.

    He is mates with dictators. He attends/speaks at political seminars in Russia and even tipped off Gaddafi that western forces were coming after him. Which kinda makes him a traitor (not that it saved him, he still got shoed to death by his own people).
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2019
  17. BowdonUK

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 17, 2016

    Posts: 2,280

    There is a wider question about being a refugee and getting a house, even that link you posted said they are entitled to a house. When council housing stock is in short supply then of course the effect of your friends wife talking about the criteria would be a refugee gets the house as they have nobody else in the country. So this will obviously cause resentment amongst the local community.

    As for your first line, I find it curious you're dismissive of anecdotal evidence, which is a good thing to keep an open mind. But when anecdotal evidence is provided that backs your bias up you add it in to the conversation.

    People need to start taking the issue of immigration more seriously and not look down or be dismissive of the local people with genuine concerns.

    It is amazing how we have so many refugees coming from the countries that surround us. I didn't think they were war torn countries.. oh wait, they aren't.
     
  18. Freakbro

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 29, 2010

    Posts: 14,913

    Location: Lincs

    Well, of course they are, what else are you going to do with them.

    And anyway, that's getting off the point, Scort said illegal immigrants were fast tracked to get houses and when others pointed out the nonsense of that is when you jumped in with your silly comments, that is what was being discussed.

    It doesn't cause any resentment with me or anyone I know, so why does it 'obviously' cause resentment in the community?

    Not sure I need to explain the difference between anecdotal evidence compared to actual national statistics and their relevance when discussing policies, do I?

    I live in one of the areas of highest Eastern European immigration and know and have discussed on here many times the issues it causes. All of which are the fault of and could have been alleviated by our Govt. So I find the ire of people who have issues with the immigrants themselves misplaced.

    Or you could actually read the Geneva convention on refugees and see there is no stipulation they have to apply in the first safe country they arrive at, or you could keep believing the fake news you get told by random people on the Internet that fit your bias.

    I hope you see a theme appearing here when you keep believing anecdotal evidence and fake news that fits your bias rather than source the actual information.
     
  19. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 29,976

    The ironic thing is the Geneva convention doesn't stipulate that refugees have to apply for asylum in the first country, however, the EU has specific rules that allow any EU member state to deport a refugee to the country of first entry in to the EU. This is partly why the French worked hard to control the refugees at Calais. If Brexit happens then the UK has less power to deport refugees.
     
  20. BowdonUK

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 17, 2016

    Posts: 2,280

    I read between the lines of what he was talking about i.e. people from outside the country appearing to get housing as a higher priority than the people who already live in the local area. I don't try to trip people up on their words.

    You've just watched a video in the OP post were people do resent it and is being expressed by the Mayor. Just because you and your friends don't feel resentment it doesnt mean it don't exist. If you've been waiting for a place to live for a while and are on a waiting list, then a refugee appears at the council office then the refugee is going to get priority. You seriously don't see how some people could resent that situation?

    We're talking about the anecdotal evidence that you introduced to your post and even said it was anecdotal evidence;
    I agree with most of what you've said here. I can understand why the people on the ground living in these areas and being on the waiting list for a long time would have resentment. I would say the resentment is directed at mostly the local councils and in some cases towards the immigrants themselves. But I agree thats down to a broken system that appears to be unfair. From your post it seemed you were quick to dismiss the concerns of the local people.

    I have a brain that can think, and one of the things I do when I read this kind of story is 'what would I do?'. If tomorrow this country become a warzone, where would you flee too? A european country, or Australia (risking your life to get there)?

    The point I was making about anecdotal evidence is you called it out when it didnt fit your bias, and then even added your own anecdotal evidence when it did fit your bias. I would respect the point more if you weren't being hypocrital and using anecdotal evidence yourself.