UK immigration minister hit by pie

Mr. Tea said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7690324.stm

Is it necessarily "right-wing" to want to limit immigration? If you think of yourself as left-wing, are you therefore obliged to support unlimited immigration for ever and ever? Does a country like Britain - wealthy, highly developed, post-colonial (and extremely crowded and in recession with rising unemployment) have a moral obligation to the rest of the world to let anyone who wants to live here do so, regardless of the effects on those already living here, whether they were born here or not?

Discuss,.

Click to expand...

well someone obviously let your ancestors in at some point, so i can't see how you could possibly complain.

There is a moral duty to let people in who are seeking refuge, but I can't see the moral duty to let in those who wish to settle here merely because they wish to improve their already acceptable standard of living. In any case, they can already come here to study or holiday.

I remember chortling when ultra left-wing tutors at teacher training would preach absolute inclusivity whilst announcing that they had introduced special security systems for the library or laundry room, just because we had the occasional bloke off the street wander in to read or wash his kecks.

Mr. Tea said:

Yes, sure, if people are fleeing death and devastation then obviously there is obligation not to turn them away. But as far as I know most people settling here are economic migrants rather than refugees from war or natural disaster.

Click to expand...

Well, quite.

I don't see why wanting to limit immigration is necessarily right-wing, btw - I assume that there is no country with a completely open-borders policy, left or right-led (of those countries that can control their borders).

I suppose what would need to be done would be:

1) Find a country that practises an open-border immigration policy
2) If one exists, establish whether it is successful or not
3) Think about whether the same could be applied in a different context

Also, I imagine that if a country did exist with an open-border policy, it would not have been instituted on predominantly ethical grounds.

in some - or i think, probably, all - cases, it's easier for an asylum seeker in the UK (who may well hold extremely odious views, which may cross over from hateful speech into outright incitement of violence or whatever the distinctions are, which they have publicly outlined) who is here to fight the Home Office - rightly, because MoU assurances are not worth the paper they're written on - about their being returned to their country of origin and supposedly not being at risk of torture or other ill treatment from the state, than for an entirely morally impeccable lentil eating sort who is at risk of violence if they return, at risk from a non-state actor.

i just mention this as David Toube at Harry's Place was recently spotted with an anecdote about an Algerian asylum-seeker his mate knew, who was trumpeting this line. (the person had fled as they were being persecuted as they were gay and some Islamist cunt was not having any of that.)

no URL for the link, but i distinctly remember it being some time this year, i'm not making this up.

of course very, very few things surprise me about the UK Home Office - when it has its hare-brained hat on - on asylum and immigration, sadly.


an obvious thing to point out, maybe, but i'd never really thought of it in that way.
i can't remember the outcome in this particular instance: i suspect an unhappy one.