You have no idea of whether you’d be inclined to rescue a child that was not your own from a shit upbringing.
I’ll mark you down as a “no”, then.
That’s not a knock, btw. Most people would say “no”, but then most people haven’t just made an argument that the country they live in should take in complete strangers because they were accidentally born in the wrong place.
I would like to know if your true politics, because so much of what you have said n this thread is in total contradiction too the values and ethics of those on the left, let alone full on socialists… ?
I asked you a simple question applicable to your statement about accidents of birth, enquiring as to whether you, personally, felt it your moral obligation to look after accidents with car crash parents.
The majority will honestly say no. The rest are foster parents, or thinking about becoming them.
The interesting thing about your question is that I think we should help foreigners on a basis of moral priority. Top priority would be refugees fleeing from war, perhaps especially if we’ve helped fuck things up. Unskilled workers seeking to earn 7x their domestic minimum wage would not be top of my list, yet that’s what our membership of the European Union, particularly after the absorption of former Warsaw Pact states, effectively did.
The fact that we could never predict our European Union immigration meant that we had to tightly restrict access to non-EU residents. Yet I’d argue that most people fleeing genuine prospects of death or torture have infinitely more moral right to be here than unskilled economic migrants from Eastern Europe.
Such restrictions have led to a brutal Home Office, detention centres where detainees are routinely abused and denied due process, and ever more desperate measures taken to get people into the country, too often with tragic and deadly consequences.
So I guess I’d throw your question back to you. Where do you stop caring? It is the edge of the EU? It seems to be, because preferential treatment based on an accident of birth prevents people with far more mortal concerns receiving the help and sympathy they might otherwise get from the UK.
BUT, why do you start mixing up economic migration with refugee and asylum status? Are you saying you would have 'done a Merkel and been happy with 900,000 fleeing war?
You cant mix an match here - we have a moral and ethical obligation to asylum seekers and I would also argue to refugees.
BUT that is not what we are debating. We are debating the economic migration of healthy folk across local European borders to seek work which will allow them to improve their lot… and CONTRIBUTE to their host nation as countless others did form our former colonies. THIS is a different thing Pap. Its only the Sun and the Mail that like us to confuse the two.
Interesting choice of words…
The EU restrictions on MIGRANT workers from out side the EU are not good… but PLEASE don’t suggest this has stopped us doing our moral duty re refugees and asylum seekers - we can take as many as we want, we chose to take 20k from Syria… how many di our European Neighbours take again?
I don’t really think any comment needed, except to say that asylum seekers would be closer to the top of my priority list than unskilled economic migrants from Eastern Europe.
It’s a needs thing, and I purposefully gave opposite ends of the scale as not to enumerate everything in between.
My advice to you would be to discontinue your implied charges of racism. I mightn’t have been to any home games this year, but I’ve rolled up to loads and have met much of this forum, and they’ve met many of my friends and family.
Do as you will, but I suspect further jaunts down that particular avenue will not be fruitful to your cause. I suspect they’ll make you look like a ridiculous person shouting from afar about things he knows nothing about. But it’s your call.
Fuck it - I have the right to reply - It was not an accusation of racism. It was a question to finally provoke an answer - something always thin on the ground with Pap.
He has stated that he does not feel any responsibility for those seeking to better there lot from foreign countries, and even went as far as to in effect, state that the children of those ‘car crash parents’ who need to better their lot are also not his concern.
Now maybe the definition of Socialism has changed, but from where I stand, that is not an attitude that one would expect form the self proclaimed social champion, so I have asked why this might be… after all any true socialist would not blame kids next door for having shitty parents, but seek to support them through a decent welfare system. The question asks at what point does he stop caring, how many miles , what language or something else? After all a true socialist would NOT see any difference between kids in need in UK vs those elsewhere - especially where their (car -crash) parents are seeking to improve their lives. Pap and maybe some others have chosen to view this as an accusation of racism… well in Pap’s often repeated own words ’ he is being hyper sensitive and seeing things that are not there…’
He then tries to derail the discussion so it becomes about prioritising asylum seekers and refugees… when we are NOT talking about either. The debate about asylum and refugees has nothing to do with EU/non EU economic migrants, yet right wing media outlets often do deliberately interchange the wording for the same reasons… He then tells me to lay off him has he has more mates…
… There is just a mass of contradiction in everything he posts in this regard.
If I wanted to accuse Pap of racism based on anything he said here, I would simply come out and say it, not offer it in veiled threats or innuendo. I have fuck all idea why Pap sees Children of car-crash parents from other EU countries as less deserving than kids from car-crash parents born here, so it remains a fair an honest question of the meaning of his brand of Socialism.