user104658 |
22-01-2019 06:07 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherie
(Post 10415950)
Tbf that is not mooted at all, for instance the Dover crossing where people are coming across from a safe country, and people highlight that this is not a safe way to accept immigrants, the argument is 'wouldn't you do the same in their shoes', etc etc etc
|
They're entirely separate arguments but I understand that not everyone gets that. You WOULD do the same in their shoes. It IS tragic that they have to undertake such dangers for the hope of a better life. Nothing in that is even suggesting that it's possible for us to accept unlimited immigrants; it's the difference between;
"Sorry, we sympathise with your situation, we know how hard life is for so many people, but unfortunately we can't take everyone in"
and
"Bleeeergh yuck! Immigrants! Trash! Turn them round!"
To clarify I suppose... it's the difference between saying that it's not logistically possible for US to take in huge numbers of migrants, and the suggestion that it's somehow immoral or wrong for THEM to try to get in... and that they deserve to be vilified or dehumanized for "daring to try" because they "should have been happy that they got to a safe country". Essentially suggesting that it's immoral for individuals to put the UK's economic concerns above the health and wellbeing of themselves and their own families... at a time when they are effectively living out of cardboard boxes. And even more bizarrely - the implication that any one of us in their situation would do the same. That if Europe was a bombed out shell and we somehow made it to a shanty town in eastern Russia, that we would just accept that as our new life, and wouldn't be trying to get to Canada, the US or Australia. That's NOT the same as saying that Canada, the US or Australia have a duty to take us in.
|