EU citizens arriving in UK being locked up and expelled(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
EU citizens arriving in UK being locked up and expelled
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/13/eu-citizens-arriving-in-uk-being-locked-up-and-expelled
162 comments
It will be a lot less popular once British people arriving in the EU receive the same treatment and get told that this is what they voted for.
British people wanting to live and work in Europe will have to apply under Europe's rules. Seems fair. British people who have been evading existing rules and now have no basis to stay in Europe are being told to leave. Also fair.
Are they politely asked to leave? Or are they thrown into detention centers and humiliated, despite willing to pay for the ticket to leave?
The first one. The second Spanish police throws a British immigrant into a detention centre for staying illegally you will see every tabloid in the UK crying about it.
But yes, British visitors to the EU who cannot enter for whatever reason are just sent back on the same flight or wait at the airport for the next one.
But yes, British visitors to the EU who cannot enter for whatever reason are just sent back on the same flight or wait at the airport for the next one.
Even if that happens, the people with whom anti-immigration policies are popular and job solicitors in the EU are likely two non-overlapping groups.
There was a genre of Daily Mail comment where Brits who'd immigrated to Spain complained about the number of immigrants in the UK.
Why don't they already? Seems 100% unfair. It's almost impossible for non EU citizens to enter Europe and look for a job if they come from Africa for instance. Why should it be easier for UK citizens?
Because we/they decided it, probably based on the relative economies of different countries, chance of illegal overstaying etc.
I think EU and UK people can visit the USA for a job interview under the visa waiver programme. A Nigerian can't. It's the same difference.
I think EU and UK people can visit the USA for a job interview under the visa waiver programme. A Nigerian can't. It's the same difference.
Not all EU people. Some still need visas for the US.
Exactly, citizens demand a government that enforces laws.
Unlike the EU, where about 30% of illegal immigrants are expelled, while no one no one is interested in changing that legal status.
Unlike the EU, where about 30% of illegal immigrants are expelled, while no one no one is interested in changing that legal status.
Did you actually read the article?
People are offering to buy their own ticket, but no they're sent to detention for no reason, at taxpayer expense.
People are offering to stay private, but no they're sent to detention at taxpayer expense.
A Czech woman is being sent to Mexico instead of allowing her to pay herself to fly home to Prague.
All this spending of UK taxpayer funds for what? Out of spite?
People are offering to buy their own ticket, but no they're sent to detention for no reason, at taxpayer expense.
People are offering to stay private, but no they're sent to detention at taxpayer expense.
A Czech woman is being sent to Mexico instead of allowing her to pay herself to fly home to Prague.
All this spending of UK taxpayer funds for what? Out of spite?
> A Czech woman is being sent to Mexico instead of allowing her to pay herself to fly home to Prague.
It's annoying and slightly weird, but isn't that just how it works? You go 'back where you came from', not wherever you want or claim to live?
Say the woman in your example was refused by Czech customs, and sent back to the UK, then what? Dig through records (would they have them?) to find she came to the UK from Mexico, and then send her there?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I just don't think that would be different in any other country. (That particular aspect I mean, assuming they've decided you're not allowed in, and will be deported to somewhere.)
It's annoying and slightly weird, but isn't that just how it works? You go 'back where you came from', not wherever you want or claim to live?
Say the woman in your example was refused by Czech customs, and sent back to the UK, then what? Dig through records (would they have them?) to find she came to the UK from Mexico, and then send her there?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I just don't think that would be different in any other country. (That particular aspect I mean, assuming they've decided you're not allowed in, and will be deported to somewhere.)
Sure, there's always the tyrrany of the need to follow rules even when they make no sense, and if it were this in isolation then it would not raise eyebrows.
> Say the woman in your example was refused by Czech customs, and sent back to the UK, then what?
Considering she is Czech, she is far more likely to be rejected by Mexican customs rather than Czech customs.
Considering she is Czech, she is far more likely to be rejected by Mexican customs rather than Czech customs.
Bare in mind that eu citizens still don't need a visa to travel to the uk.
"Bear in mind". "Bare in mind" sounds like you're thinking about the people naked.
:-)
:-)
Depends on the purpose. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/visiting-the-uk-as-an-eu-eea-or-...
I know that, and it's of course a good point.
I was trying to convey the fact that citizens from eu countries are not at the level of other third countries yet. For example you can still travel using just a national id card until October.
I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your comment though.
I was trying to convey the fact that citizens from eu countries are not at the level of other third countries yet. For example you can still travel using just a national id card until October.
I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your comment though.
> This is government policy and it is popular
Be very careful with such a statement.
Regardless of where you sit on the issue, the Brexit referendum was roughly 50:50. The UK is fiercely split [1] and such issues are not going to be resolved anytime soon. It is incorrect to state such a policy is popular..... roughly half the population voted against it.
[1] And dare I say it... looks in danger of splitting up.
Be very careful with such a statement.
Regardless of where you sit on the issue, the Brexit referendum was roughly 50:50. The UK is fiercely split [1] and such issues are not going to be resolved anytime soon. It is incorrect to state such a policy is popular..... roughly half the population voted against it.
[1] And dare I say it... looks in danger of splitting up.
Brexit was, apparently, very popular with uniformed services such as armed forces, police etc, presumably border control too. I can imagine such disproportionate action is one way to feel good about your job and justify extra funding: just look at how many people we detained! Also, I’m not a paper pusher who waves people through, I regularly catch enemies of the state and put them where their place is.
In that respect, I suspect it is a popular policy among those who enforce it.
In that respect, I suspect it is a popular policy among those who enforce it.
OK then, it's fair to state that the policy is not unpopular. It commands a good deal of support from the electorate.
Populations usually split one third reactionary, one third progressive, and one third will-vote-how-they're told.
If the policy is "popular" - which it isn't, except among the reactionaries - it's in no small measure because the UK media have normalised this kind of abuse.
This kind of thing is almost a predictable syndrome associated with post-colonialism. Other countries have been through it, now it's the UK's turn.
When countries lose their empires/influence, racism and fascism provide a compensation that can temporarily restore childish fantasies of omnipotence.
It's associated with a death wish, so things generally get worse - sometimes much worse - before they get better.
If the policy is "popular" - which it isn't, except among the reactionaries - it's in no small measure because the UK media have normalised this kind of abuse.
This kind of thing is almost a predictable syndrome associated with post-colonialism. Other countries have been through it, now it's the UK's turn.
When countries lose their empires/influence, racism and fascism provide a compensation that can temporarily restore childish fantasies of omnipotence.
It's associated with a death wish, so things generally get worse - sometimes much worse - before they get better.
The referendum vote is not the best point of reference. The Conservatives won comfortably in 2019, and recently won a by election, again comfortably, all on a platform of implementing brexit.
They had the biggest vote share but this was still under 50% in 2019. It's only due to FPTP that this translates to a majority of seats.
They had the biggest vote share. Just like Leave did in the referendum. It's fair enough if you want to campaign to change the electoral system, but both of these things legitimately came from the present one.
Sure, but that's irrelevant for the message you were replying to:
> The UK is fiercely split [1] and such issues are not going to be resolved anytime soon. It is incorrect to state such a policy is popular..... roughly half the population voted against it.
You tried to dispute that by pointing out that the Conservatives won comfortably in 2019. I don't think it does given that the vote share in 2019 still suggested a roughly 50:50 split of the population.
> The UK is fiercely split [1] and such issues are not going to be resolved anytime soon. It is incorrect to state such a policy is popular..... roughly half the population voted against it.
You tried to dispute that by pointing out that the Conservatives won comfortably in 2019. I don't think it does given that the vote share in 2019 still suggested a roughly 50:50 split of the population.
Won comfortably in the UK does not mean too much in the UK. Easily 30-40% of the votes get just disregarded in the UK system. (I did not check the actual figures for the recent elections.)
In the 2019 election, more people voted for the parties opposed to Brexit or advocating a second referendum than for pro Brexit parties.
CON, DUP: 44.4%
LAB, LIB, SNP, GRN, CYM: 50.7%
Brexit is now done so last week's local elections can't be used as a point of reference on that subject.
CON, DUP: 44.4%
LAB, LIB, SNP, GRN, CYM: 50.7%
Brexit is now done so last week's local elections can't be used as a point of reference on that subject.
Labour neither opposed Brexit nor advocated for a second referendum during the 2019 GE campaign though. We cannot be sure what their voters' position on Brexit was. My assumption is that the majority of them were opposed, but a significant minority were still in favour, and we do not know how big that significant minority was, we do not know whether it would have been enough for the outcome of a new referendum to be different from the previous one.
> Labour neither opposed Brexit nor advocated for a second referendum during the 2019 GE campaign though.
Yes they did. From their party manifesto[1]:
> Within three months of coming to power, a Labour government will secure a sensible deal. And within six months, we will put that deal to a public vote alongside the option to remain.
Large numbers of voters switched from Labour to Conservative because of Brexit. It's probably fair to count all Labour voters from that election as "not in favour of Brexit".
1. https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change...
Yes they did. From their party manifesto[1]:
> Within three months of coming to power, a Labour government will secure a sensible deal. And within six months, we will put that deal to a public vote alongside the option to remain.
Large numbers of voters switched from Labour to Conservative because of Brexit. It's probably fair to count all Labour voters from that election as "not in favour of Brexit".
1. https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change...
That "sensible deal" is still Brexit, it's just not a no-deal Brexit or hard Brexit. I had missed the bit about putting that new different deal to a public vote though.
> all on a platform of implementing brexit
Nope. They won exclusively due to targeted "hidden" campaigns via Facebook and other directed means, sending messages designed to sway the voters in a number of very narrowly decided constituencies. This is how they got 56.2% of the parliament seats despite winning only 43.6% of the votes.
Nope. They won exclusively due to targeted "hidden" campaigns via Facebook and other directed means, sending messages designed to sway the voters in a number of very narrowly decided constituencies. This is how they got 56.2% of the parliament seats despite winning only 43.6% of the votes.
The dawn raid in Glasgow looks a lot like a deliberate provocation from the Westminster government and the Home Office. It was in the First Minister's constituency; it was as the new MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament) were being sworn in; it's in the constituency that the leader of Scottish Labour, Anas Sarwar, contested in the May election; and it was the first day of Eid Al-Fitr.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-57100259
Europeans and the EU are the ideal scapegoat in the UK. I always felt that Europeans were blamed for immigration policies as it is politically correct to shame them. Shaming non european immigration is a social minefield, very few people would dare to say it aloud as they would categorised as racists.
You will find that non-European immigrants, especially from Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth countries, also have a negative opinion of the previous preferential EU immigration rules. I have met many South African and Nigerian immigrants who found the disparity between their right to immigrate and that of EU citizens deeply unfair, and many who were eligible to vote in the Brexit referrendum chose to leave the EU for precicely that reason. They can hardly be accused of racism.
Besides which, the conflation of a desire for immigration control with racism is a lazy canard.
Besides which, the conflation of a desire for immigration control with racism is a lazy canard.
What you say doesn't make any sense. As part of the EU, European citizens had the right to move to any countries of their choice. This was the very definition of being part of the EU. British nationals could move to any European countries, which they did in flock, and European nationals could also move to UK. South Africa was a third country, to which EU laws did not apply, hence their difference in treatment by the UK. The UK was part of a huge ensemble in which people could feely move from one place to another, it is no longer the case.
I agree that it doesn’t make a lot of sense, but its a real thing:
>One second generation immigrant I spoke to said some Pakistani people campaigned for Brexit because they wanted to “control immigration in a way that was favourable to the Indian subcontinent”.
>“One of their arguments was that, if we leave, we’d be better able to accept people from the Indian subcontinent, professionals such as doctors, rather than taking them from Europe,” he said. “There was that strand that we’d lost control of immigration, that lots of people from eastern Europe were coming over, but, therefore, people from the Indian subcontinent weren’t getting a fair crack at the whip and it was that disparity. They felt the immigration system was unfair.”
>While EU migrants generally benefit from freedom of movement, those from countries such as India and Pakistan are subject to visa and work restrictions – a distinction that was played on by Vote Leave’s Michael Gove during the referendum campaign when he suggested that Britain’s immigration system was “racist”.
https://bylinetimes.com/2019/04/08/the-story-of-brexit-is-th...
>One second generation immigrant I spoke to said some Pakistani people campaigned for Brexit because they wanted to “control immigration in a way that was favourable to the Indian subcontinent”.
>“One of their arguments was that, if we leave, we’d be better able to accept people from the Indian subcontinent, professionals such as doctors, rather than taking them from Europe,” he said. “There was that strand that we’d lost control of immigration, that lots of people from eastern Europe were coming over, but, therefore, people from the Indian subcontinent weren’t getting a fair crack at the whip and it was that disparity. They felt the immigration system was unfair.”
>While EU migrants generally benefit from freedom of movement, those from countries such as India and Pakistan are subject to visa and work restrictions – a distinction that was played on by Vote Leave’s Michael Gove during the referendum campaign when he suggested that Britain’s immigration system was “racist”.
https://bylinetimes.com/2019/04/08/the-story-of-brexit-is-th...
This is something that actually really frustrated me about the Brexit referendum. I remember reading an opinion piece in the NZ herald from a women who explained why she was voting in favour of Brexit. What it basically boiled down to was that she was jealous that EU citizens had freedom of movement with the UK and she didn't.
But conversely during the time that she was allowed to be in the UK, she had the right to vote while EU citizens didn't.
Like you I don't think commonwealth citizens who voted for Brexit were being racist, I do think it was sometimes vindictive though which doesn't really make it much better.
But conversely during the time that she was allowed to be in the UK, she had the right to vote while EU citizens didn't.
Like you I don't think commonwealth citizens who voted for Brexit were being racist, I do think it was sometimes vindictive though which doesn't really make it much better.
i find such logic hard to understand: UK was part of the EU, hence the open labour market. That's the whole point of EU. What did they find unfair exactly -- that Nigeria was not part of the EU? Or that countries can agree to have an open labour market?
Long before the UK joined the EU it was a member of the Commonwealth of Nations and had close relationships to countries that once were part of the Empire. Before the EU, most UK immigration came from Commonwealth countries. Freedom of movement allowed easy immigration from Europe and greater restrictions on Commonwealth immigration. People from those countries believe that the UK has prior obligations to members of the Commonwealth, and that it should prioritize those obligations (and often that privileging EU immigration is racist.) You can see the post-Brexit shift to previous obligations with the easing of immigration rules for Hong Kong citizens.
how did joining the EU restrict Commonwealth immigration?
Voters felt levels of immigration in general were too high and leading to strained public services. EU law forbids restrictions on intra-EU immigration, so the only legal path to making voters happier was to heavily restrict immigration from everywhere else. It didn't work: the numbers from the EU were far too high to be offset via such a tactic, but it was at least something.
The numbers are still viewed as being too high though post-lockdowns who knows what will happen. But the limits can at least now be spread around all countries equally, and people can be prioritised based on e.g. demand for their skills. This was previously forbidden.
The numbers are still viewed as being too high though post-lockdowns who knows what will happen. But the limits can at least now be spread around all countries equally, and people can be prioritised based on e.g. demand for their skills. This was previously forbidden.
It doesn't. The policy of restricting Commonwealth immigration was brought in after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Asians_from_Ugand... in response to complaints that there were "too many" immigrants.
This has nothing to do with logic. It's a knee-jerk reaction, and the pro-Brexit propaganda played it hard (alongside other similar arguments).
My conclusion on this whole debacle is: Do not allow uncontrolled migration with countries that are much poorer with much lower wages than you.
This may or may not sound common sense but to me that is the root cause of it all.
Before 2004, when the first and main batch of Eastern European countries joined the EU no one really cared about free movement: It was all within Western Europe and did not create problems.
Then, literally millions of Eastern Europeans moved to the UK and that created social, cultural, and economical problems and the people impacted were shocked to be told that there was absolutely nothing the government could do. The rest, as they say, is history.
This may or may not sound common sense but to me that is the root cause of it all.
Before 2004, when the first and main batch of Eastern European countries joined the EU no one really cared about free movement: It was all within Western Europe and did not create problems.
Then, literally millions of Eastern Europeans moved to the UK and that created social, cultural, and economical problems and the people impacted were shocked to be told that there was absolutely nothing the government could do. The rest, as they say, is history.
Oh well I am an EU immigrant in the UK and I have always been treated better than at home in Spain. Fast administration, same legal treatment as UK citizens, I could get the passport if I needed. And UK people are fantastic.
Brutal and nasty are emotive terms. If someone has no lawful basis to be in a country, what is wrong with expecting them to leave?
In the press articles the Home Office is quoted as saying, "suspected offences". A dawn raid is completely abhorrent for anything other than serious crimes. Note that Immigration Enforcement isn't even the police, this is a Home Office unit.
A dawn raid is designed to catch someone who is expected to try to evade arrest. Would you prefer a chase through the streets?
Immigration Enforcement have power of arrest for this circumstance. The Information Commissioner has uniformed officers with limited police-type powers for their area of work too.
Immigration Enforcement have power of arrest for this circumstance. The Information Commissioner has uniformed officers with limited police-type powers for their area of work too.
"Power of arrest" for which circumstance, exactly? Someone visiting perfectly legally for an interview which may lead to a job offer?
And I'd prefer no speculative high-drama arrests of people who are following the rules and not breaking the law.
And I'd prefer no speculative high-drama arrests of people who are following the rules and not breaking the law.
Visiting for an interview means having a letter of invitation for an interview from a company, not this (from article):
> María, 25, from Valencia, said that like many of those detained, she thought she was free to explore the job market at least until October
This sounds like coming to the UK for work without a visa, in which case it is correct in law to be detained.
I think the practice of detention for up to 7 days before being deported is a way to inflict a punishment to deter people trying. Indeed, if the only thing you risk if caught is being turned away at the airport then people would just try and try, why not?
There are articles from sources a bit more balanced than The Guardian: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-citizens-detained-uk-work...
> María, 25, from Valencia, said that like many of those detained, she thought she was free to explore the job market at least until October
This sounds like coming to the UK for work without a visa, in which case it is correct in law to be detained.
I think the practice of detention for up to 7 days before being deported is a way to inflict a punishment to deter people trying. Indeed, if the only thing you risk if caught is being turned away at the airport then people would just try and try, why not?
There are articles from sources a bit more balanced than The Guardian: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-citizens-detained-uk-work...
The Scottish Government has asked the Westminster government to stop dawn raids. You are, perhaps, through mis-placed authoritarianism, missing the bigger picture.
The ways you are "expecting them to leave" is really interesting. Seems more like you hold them for random amount of time in detaintion centers.
They are not given ability to contact their embassy for held getting out of the country.
Some cases they say they could pay for a plane home again but got detained anyway.
Furthermore the reason they are detained are rather undefined. It says that they can go to UK for interview for example, but they are still detained. They tried to enter legally but the rules does not seem to be followed.
Some in the article were held for two days, which in my eyes are not a speedy return. This is waste of UK money and a bad system.
They are not given ability to contact their embassy for held getting out of the country.
Some cases they say they could pay for a plane home again but got detained anyway.
Furthermore the reason they are detained are rather undefined. It says that they can go to UK for interview for example, but they are still detained. They tried to enter legally but the rules does not seem to be followed.
Some in the article were held for two days, which in my eyes are not a speedy return. This is waste of UK money and a bad system.
People who want unrestricted immigration for "looking for work" are completely clueless. They only think they want it because they don't know how many people will come if it's open borders with the 3rd world and what the economic and social consequences of that will be. Those unemployed people can't be allowed to starve so they must be supported by social welfare. It's easy to feel sorry for a handful of rejected migrants but only by ignoring the millions who never even tried to enter, knowing they couldn't.
> People who want unrestricted immigration for "looking for work"
sounds like a weird strawman. Do you know of any larger group seriously fighting for that at the moment?
(People coming for a scheduled interview are not "unrestricted immigration for looking for work")
sounds like a weird strawman. Do you know of any larger group seriously fighting for that at the moment?
(People coming for a scheduled interview are not "unrestricted immigration for looking for work")
The article mentions a person coming "looking for work" being detained.
The article also mentions a French woman who was detained for attending an interview for an internship, so I think there's that too.
Imo, it's obviously very unclear as to why they're being detained, but in the case of Eugenia (Spanish woman arriving to "look for work"), it was clearly illegal per the new law.
The article also mentions a French woman who was detained for attending an interview for an internship, so I think there's that too.
Imo, it's obviously very unclear as to why they're being detained, but in the case of Eugenia (Spanish woman arriving to "look for work"), it was clearly illegal per the new law.
Very very few people want unrestricted immigration, however ~50% of people want unrestricted immigration from the EU on a reciprocal basis. We had that for years, with the economic and social consequences being largely positive.
That said, I don't take it as a given that unrestricted immigration would cause problems; it has never been tried, there is no data to go on.
That said, I don't take it as a given that unrestricted immigration would cause problems; it has never been tried, there is no data to go on.
Support for unlimited EU immigration is not 50%, it's much lower. You're thinking of people who voted to Remain, but a significant fraction of those people were motivated by the fear of "punishment" either from Cameron/Osborne's huge tax rises or the supposed EU allies, not actual firm support of EU policies.
A breakdown is available here:
https://dominiccummings.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/screensh...
A breakdown is available here:
https://dominiccummings.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/screensh...
You are not entitled to any welfare as merely an immigrant. If you are a visa holder, it will usually be stamped with "no recourse to public funds". If you are undocumented, obviously you have no means to claim anything.
Asylum seekers get £40 a week. https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get
People complaining about immigrants claiming welfare have usually been lied to by the press about the applicable situation.
Asylum seekers get £40 a week. https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get
People complaining about immigrants claiming welfare have usually been lied to by the press about the applicable situation.
Migrants won't be allowed to die in the streets from starvation in large numbers. People just won't tolerate it and will insist on either keeping them out or paying to support them.
>>People who want unrestricted immigration for "looking for work" are completely clueless
You're entitled to feel this way, but it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. It's a matter of fact that the Home Office says it's legal to enter without a visa to look for a job, and yet that's not what's enforced at the border.
You're entitled to feel this way, but it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. It's a matter of fact that the Home Office says it's legal to enter without a visa to look for a job, and yet that's not what's enforced at the border.
> unrestricted immigration
I'm in the USA and this polemical strawman is standard fare on Murdoch's Fox News. It's just a lazy way of dismissing the issue without real discussion.
I'm in the USA and this polemical strawman is standard fare on Murdoch's Fox News. It's just a lazy way of dismissing the issue without real discussion.
I was referring to the GP's statement "The brutal policy that was applied to non-Europeans".
> This nastiness is what the public demands.
So you're saying democracy is bad?
So you're saying democracy is bad?
Brutal? It's not brutal - it's positively tame. Take a look at the Australian system under Abott if you want 'brutal'. This is simply a Sovereign State softly removing those with zero right to remain.
>>This is simply a Sovereign State softly removing those with zero right to remain.
Except that the official guidance by the Home Office clearly states that EU citizens can still enter visa-free to look for jobs. But of course as it always happens border force knows better than the Home Office. The fact that people are being actually sent to detention centres is beyond idiotic.
Except that the official guidance by the Home Office clearly states that EU citizens can still enter visa-free to look for jobs. But of course as it always happens border force knows better than the Home Office. The fact that people are being actually sent to detention centres is beyond idiotic.
They can't enter visa free to "look for jobs" though. Per the guidelines, unless I'm missing something, they are allowed "to attend meetings, conferences and interviews". Interviewing is a very different status from looking for employment, and one that is documented too.
>This is simply a Sovereign State softly removing those with zero right to remain.
Nothing simple about that given that merely a year or two ago there effectively was no border, and now ordinary people who want to go look for a job sit in detention cells? Who does this help and how is it tame?
The UK more than any other European country should know the devastation borders can wreak.
Nothing simple about that given that merely a year or two ago there effectively was no border, and now ordinary people who want to go look for a job sit in detention cells? Who does this help and how is it tame?
The UK more than any other European country should know the devastation borders can wreak.
Why do you resort to emotive language? This is a very simple policy. If the law changes, and you break the new law, you are still breaking the law.
Borders are determined by the desires of those within them. The right to self-determination is a key principle of international law (unless you're Spain, apparently).
Borders are determined by the desires of those within them. The right to self-determination is a key principle of international law (unless you're Spain, apparently).
It might be a simple policy but your border guards seem to have misunderstood it. It says EU citizens are allowed to enter UK for interviews but they are still being detained.
It is perfectly OK if you want to have inefficient system (wasting UK money on holding people who does not need to be held) but we as EU countries just ask that you give our citizens the possibility to call our embassies before you detain them to let us help them out of your country. Until then we will continue to calling you douchebags for how you treat our citizens that are trying to enter your country legally, sorry for the emotionally loaded words.
It is perfectly OK if you want to have inefficient system (wasting UK money on holding people who does not need to be held) but we as EU countries just ask that you give our citizens the possibility to call our embassies before you detain them to let us help them out of your country. Until then we will continue to calling you douchebags for how you treat our citizens that are trying to enter your country legally, sorry for the emotionally loaded words.
> It says EU citizens are allowed to enter UK for interviews but they are still being detained.
They are being detained because they do not enter the UK to attend interviews: The 2 women used as examples in the article did not have an interview scheduled and, as a consequence, did not have an invitation letter. They wanted to enter the UK to look for work. That's very different and, I expect, the reason they were detained as that is indeed illegal without a visa.
If it is allowed to enter visa-free to attend an interview and you have the necessary evidence (i.e. I expect, invitation letter and return ticket within 24-48 hours) I highly doubt that you will be detained.
There are always people who try to break the rules or who do not do their homework. This sort of thing happens everyday. The difference is that EU citizens are not used to this happening to them.
For instance, even before Brexit the UK was not in Schengen and I witnessed several times, both in UK and France, non-EU citizens being stopped on arrival despite being residents in UK/EU because they thought they didn't need a visa to visit Paris from London or London from Paris.
They are being detained because they do not enter the UK to attend interviews: The 2 women used as examples in the article did not have an interview scheduled and, as a consequence, did not have an invitation letter. They wanted to enter the UK to look for work. That's very different and, I expect, the reason they were detained as that is indeed illegal without a visa.
If it is allowed to enter visa-free to attend an interview and you have the necessary evidence (i.e. I expect, invitation letter and return ticket within 24-48 hours) I highly doubt that you will be detained.
There are always people who try to break the rules or who do not do their homework. This sort of thing happens everyday. The difference is that EU citizens are not used to this happening to them.
For instance, even before Brexit the UK was not in Schengen and I witnessed several times, both in UK and France, non-EU citizens being stopped on arrival despite being residents in UK/EU because they thought they didn't need a visa to visit Paris from London or London from Paris.
The person in the article was planning to spend months looking for work. That's not entering for an interview. Interviews last hours, not months.
Please target your anger to at most half of the British people. (I will gladly join in.)
With the UK's horrifically undemocratic voting system, the leading party often wins a strong majority of the power in Parliament with significantly less than half the national vote.
In the 2019 election, the Conservative party won 56.2% of the seats in Parliament with 43.6% of the vote.[0]
In 2017, 48.8% of seats came from 42.4% of the vote.
In 2015, 50.8% of seats came from 36.8% of the vote.
In 2010, 47.1% of seats came from 36.1% of the vote.
In 2005, 55.2% of seats came from 35.2% of the vote.
In 2001, 62.5% of seats came from 40.7% of the vote.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_el... and links to other elections at the bottom.
With the UK's horrifically undemocratic voting system, the leading party often wins a strong majority of the power in Parliament with significantly less than half the national vote.
In the 2019 election, the Conservative party won 56.2% of the seats in Parliament with 43.6% of the vote.[0]
In 2017, 48.8% of seats came from 42.4% of the vote.
In 2015, 50.8% of seats came from 36.8% of the vote.
In 2010, 47.1% of seats came from 36.1% of the vote.
In 2005, 55.2% of seats came from 35.2% of the vote.
In 2001, 62.5% of seats came from 40.7% of the vote.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_el... and links to other elections at the bottom.
Yes, once the European Union stop ruining the Oceans and screwing over the third world, I promise to stop calling you all douchebags too.
>Why do you resort to emotive language?
because this border issue is an emotional and symbolic issue at heart and it's important to recognize that, there is no rational case here why there should be any restriction to freedom of movement. Are you going to be that calm if Scotland attempts to exercise it or if Irish violence flares up again? Erecting borders after decades of freedom of movement is no 'simple policy'. Detaining neighbors just because you can is a sort of behavior that indicates there's something going deeply wrong in the UK.
because this border issue is an emotional and symbolic issue at heart and it's important to recognize that, there is no rational case here why there should be any restriction to freedom of movement. Are you going to be that calm if Scotland attempts to exercise it or if Irish violence flares up again? Erecting borders after decades of freedom of movement is no 'simple policy'. Detaining neighbors just because you can is a sort of behavior that indicates there's something going deeply wrong in the UK.
Tens of thousands of migrants have died trying to cross the Mediterranean to reach Europe. How many have died trying to reach Australia since their strict immigration policies were put in place? It might seem counterintuitive, but that "brutal" system saves thousands of lives each year.
The Home Office said, "suspected offences". Funny that the "Sovreign State" tried this in Scotland, isn't it?
What's the fact that it was in Scotland got to do with it?
It's baseless to believe that the home office would target something in Sturgeons constituency on some particular day, especially when there's no political advantage to be drawn by said act.
Immigration law applies to Scotland too; until there's a nice border there (but that's another topic).
It's baseless to believe that the home office would target something in Sturgeons constituency on some particular day, especially when there's no political advantage to be drawn by said act.
Immigration law applies to Scotland too; until there's a nice border there (but that's another topic).
I see your jingoistic sensibilities are clouding your thinking. Your political nous is also somewhat lacking, perhaps, if you can't see the power play here.
So instead of making your point, my thinking is too clouded to come to the same unexplained conclusion as you?
this is a bad-faith argument:
> It's baseless to believe that the home office would target something in Sturgeons constituency on some particular day, especially when there's no political advantage to be drawn by said act.
Judging by #10's behavior as a predictor for future behavior there is every reason to believe it was very much on purpose (and far from "baseless"). And even it wasn't on purpose it would now be on them to apologize and try to straighten things out - which ofc they don't.
> It's baseless to believe that the home office would target something in Sturgeons constituency on some particular day, especially when there's no political advantage to be drawn by said act.
Judging by #10's behavior as a predictor for future behavior there is every reason to believe it was very much on purpose (and far from "baseless"). And even it wasn't on purpose it would now be on them to apologize and try to straighten things out - which ofc they don't.
If you were trying to argue your point in good faith you would have provided some examples of the behaviour you are talking about, of which I know of no examples.
To be specific I can't think of a time that #10 have gone out of their way to do something like this, or anything else to directly antagonise Sturgeon.
To be specific I can't think of a time that #10 have gone out of their way to do something like this, or anything else to directly antagonise Sturgeon.
That the sign in the photo says "Welcome to the UK Border" and not "Welcome to the UK" sums it up for me.
Ha, I noticed that too. More than a whiff of a lawyer's touch!
Reminds me of that Parks & Recreation scene where Andy's in the hospital having (for the second time) fallen in the pit, and Leslie visits chased by 'the city's lawyer' who has a long increasingly ridiculous list of interjections for things she 'can't say because it implies X'.
i.e. 'you can't say Welcome to the UK, because it implies you have been allowed in to the UK'.
Personally I think, fine, but maybe a subtler and nicer way to do it would be to position the sign on the other side of customs, visibly perhaps, and just have nothing or simply 'UK customs & border control' or whatever on the other.
Reminds me of that Parks & Recreation scene where Andy's in the hospital having (for the second time) fallen in the pit, and Leslie visits chased by 'the city's lawyer' who has a long increasingly ridiculous list of interjections for things she 'can't say because it implies X'.
i.e. 'you can't say Welcome to the UK, because it implies you have been allowed in to the UK'.
Personally I think, fine, but maybe a subtler and nicer way to do it would be to position the sign on the other side of customs, visibly perhaps, and just have nothing or simply 'UK customs & border control' or whatever on the other.
One is allowed to attend a job interview, but this needs to be arranged before landing in the UK. Better carry an invitation letter when the friendly border agent asks for it.
What’s worrying though is the apparent bias towards detaining young women from southern/eastern Europe. Racial/national profiling?
What’s worrying though is the apparent bias towards detaining young women from southern/eastern Europe. Racial/national profiling?
Unless you have information to the contrary, some of the described people did arrive for scheduled interviews. I would assume that they either had a letter, or that a single call to the company would save everyone a lot of problems.
If the border agent sends someone for detention who has an invitation for a job interview (and notably, for a job that will qualify for a work visa) then they break UK law.
Second paragraph: "Europeans with job interviews are among those being denied entry and locked up."
For the interview visit, there's no restrictions based on the job qualifications as far as I can tell. (unless you can find something specific?)
So yes, that's pretty much why this article exists - they should not have been detained.
For the interview visit, there's no restrictions based on the job qualifications as far as I can tell. (unless you can find something specific?)
So yes, that's pretty much why this article exists - they should not have been detained.
And we all know what happens when the police break the law, right? Nearly always nothing.
Unfortunately the article doesn’t say anything about the qualifications of those detained. If these were “unskilled workers” looking to work in the UK then they have no right of entry. If they were “skilled workers” with a job interview lined up and confirmed in writing, then the border force violated the law and the ones detained can sue for compensation.
No matter what one may think/feel of this policy, if immigration detained these people and denied them contact with their embassy, than that is a very serious violation.
Not that I'm really surprised though. This kind of lawless (and borderline fascist) "might makes right" behavior appears increasingly popular/prolific within the UK government.
I'd suggest UK tourists spend their holidays within country borders from now on, for any of the involved countries (assuming there is indeed a pattern here, as suggested in the article) may decide to reciprocally harass or shake down UK tourist on their next visit to a warm beach. What comes around goes around.
Not that I'm really surprised though. This kind of lawless (and borderline fascist) "might makes right" behavior appears increasingly popular/prolific within the UK government.
I'd suggest UK tourists spend their holidays within country borders from now on, for any of the involved countries (assuming there is indeed a pattern here, as suggested in the article) may decide to reciprocally harass or shake down UK tourist on their next visit to a warm beach. What comes around goes around.
This week's Brexit & Beyond [1] mentioned this and I forgot to follow up on the link, so thank you. Performative cruelty for the masses while the Government talks up the great and wonderful success that is Brexit is only to be expected, I guess.
[1] https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2021/05/parallel-un...
[1] https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2021/05/parallel-un...
I have been helping people with immigration questions the last few years online. It’s crazy how many British people currently ask how to immigrate and that their options are severely limited now. No American, Russian or Indian person would even ask if they can immigrate without a degree whereas for most Brits who asked they have absolutely no qualifications.
I wonder if we will see some more public realizations that freedom of movement is something British citizens will miss.
I wonder if we will see some more public realizations that freedom of movement is something British citizens will miss.
What are you implying, that people can't immigrate without a degree? Of course they can; I'm an American without a degree that came to work in the EU.
Every EU country is different. Immigration to Austria requires a degree or a profession on a shortlist.
The UK government has been quite repressive against its own citizens lately, so I would not expect them to treat foreigners any better. I had been planning to move to the UK before last December's deadline for getting the pre-settled status, but the "snitch on your neighbour" campaign during lockdowns convinced me otherwise.
You should be very glad you did not move to the UK. The Home Office has a backlog of 320,000 unprocessed applications for residency status, according to a recent Guardian article. [1] These people will be in legal limbo with no right to remain in the UK after June 30th if the backlog is not cleared.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/10/eu-citizens...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/10/eu-citizens...
With worldwide population growth curves flattening and population pyramids inverting, countries of tomorrow will be positively clamouring for immigrants.
A good book to read on the topic is Empty Planet by Bricker & Ibbitson[1]. One of their observations is that the country best placed to weather the coming demographic storm is the US, as they have a ready supply of immigrants south of their border. Every other country will have to compete, and some such as China will be in dire straits due to past misguided policies.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37585564-empty-planet
A good book to read on the topic is Empty Planet by Bricker & Ibbitson[1]. One of their observations is that the country best placed to weather the coming demographic storm is the US, as they have a ready supply of immigrants south of their border. Every other country will have to compete, and some such as China will be in dire straits due to past misguided policies.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37585564-empty-planet
Sorry, but no. The solution to inverting population pyramids is not immigration. It's having more children where they are lacking, while having less where there's an excess.
After millions and millions of new europeans, the public finances issues haven't got a tad better.
After millions and millions of new europeans, the public finances issues haven't got a tad better.
Is this the fault of the "new europeans" which mostly came to the UK for a job, earn money and pay taxes, or the fault of those in charge of the public finances?
Not speaking about UK, but about Europe and the waves of "pension-paying" immigration.
And yeah I won't bite the bait about supposed mismanagement in tory governments which I have no interest at all in debating in this website.
And yeah I won't bite the bait about supposed mismanagement in tory governments which I have no interest at all in debating in this website.
Well as a European from the Netherlands this means I won't even risk a city trip or holiday to the UK. Can you imagine being imprisoned rather than just being refused?
Have they gone mental? This is war.
Living in Amsterdam in tempted to report any british tourist now.
Enough with the tolerance.
Have they gone mental? This is war.
Living in Amsterdam in tempted to report any british tourist now.
Enough with the tolerance.
Perfectly fine to travel to the UK as a tourist. Just don’t tell the border agent you’re coming to look for work without having an interview lined up for a job that would actually entitle you for a work visa.
I think the commenters here have forgotten that we are in the middle of a pandemic, that the government has implemented a strict travel ban which also applies to British citizens, and that this policy was vigorously supported by the Guardian just a few weeks ago.
Visa-free travel between the EU and UK is allowed for up to 30 days (for holidays, etc). This is pandemic policy, nothing to do with immigration or Brexit, no need to air all your pro-immigration views here.
Visa-free travel between the EU and UK is allowed for up to 30 days (for holidays, etc). This is pandemic policy, nothing to do with immigration or Brexit, no need to air all your pro-immigration views here.
Yes, it has always been illegal to travel to the UK on a tourist visa and then look for work.
However, when the UK was an EU member this was perfectly legal for EU citizens to do. Now it is not. So it does have to do with Brexit.
However, when the UK was an EU member this was perfectly legal for EU citizens to do. Now it is not. So it does have to do with Brexit.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Notably this is happening before the 30 June deadline when strict enforcement of EU settled scheme is supposed to kick in.
I appreciate that the people whose stories are shown are mostly western Europeans, so that any notion of brushing this off as "oh, it's just something that happens to new EU member citizens - or in other words - poor people" is dead on arrival.
Why the hell is anyone travelling for a job interview in the middle of a pandemic? I thought we all knew how to use Zoom now?
Can't work it out with the Guardian, last month they were calling for travel bans, now they are supporting frivolous travel.
Can't work it out with the Guardian, last month they were calling for travel bans, now they are supporting frivolous travel.
I don't see how they are supporting frivolous travel by reporting: "This is happening to travelers at the border."
I would encourage you to use more critical thinking when reading news in the future.
Another newspaper would phrase the same events as "EU jobseekers try to sneak into the UK, are we doing enough?".
The Guardian is not secret about its views. And that's fine. You as the reader have a responsibility.
Another newspaper would phrase the same events as "EU jobseekers try to sneak into the UK, are we doing enough?".
The Guardian is not secret about its views. And that's fine. You as the reader have a responsibility.
Yes, the article is a bit misleading. One is allowed to travel to the UK for a job interview if the interview has already been lined up before landing.
It is illegal to enter on a tourist visa and look for work. Always has been.
It is illegal to enter on a tourist visa and look for work. Always has been.
I am generally against vindictiveness, but I am looking forward to English officials getting a horrific treatment for how their government treated or treats people. Sorry for all the Scots that are caught in the middle, we hope you find a way through and away from the torries.
Finally, to the English, your politicians and your law enforcement deserve nothing less than cruelty for how they act.
No apologies.
Finally, to the English, your politicians and your law enforcement deserve nothing less than cruelty for how they act.
No apologies.
Nationalistic flamewar is seriously not ok here, regardless of how right you are (or feel) or how wrong others are (or feel), and regardless of which $nation is or isn't the issue. Please don't take HN threads into flamewar hell. Your comment was fine up until the "but".
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's not about nationalism, it's about human rights and proper behavior towards other people. If the UK can not behave themselves, I see no reason for them to not receive equal treatment, perhaps even sactions and mass deportation of their citizens.
The EU, and all the members have a responsibility first and foremost to their constituents, and their constituents are getting thrown in jails, for no fault of their own, just the vindictiveness of the Brits. There is no flame war, I am literally asking for our Governments to take action.
The EU, and all the members have a responsibility first and foremost to their constituents, and their constituents are getting thrown in jails, for no fault of their own, just the vindictiveness of the Brits. There is no flame war, I am literally asking for our Governments to take action.
Sorry, but this is squarely in the middle of what counts as nationalistic flamewar. I don't mean you're arguing from a nationalistic political position. I just mean you're posting flamewar comments about nations. Please stop posting flamewar comments about anything on HN. We don't want that sort of discussion here.
By flamewar I mean things like indignant provocation and denunciatory rhetoric (especially on divisive topics). You made numerous such posts in this thread—that's really bad, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. It goes against what we're trying to achieve here (thoughtful, curious conversation on intellectually interesting topics) and it does so by doing the equivalent of setting the commons on fire.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it. Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
From a quick look at your account history it seems that your comments have traditionally been excellent, so this should be pretty easy to fix.
By flamewar I mean things like indignant provocation and denunciatory rhetoric (especially on divisive topics). You made numerous such posts in this thread—that's really bad, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. It goes against what we're trying to achieve here (thoughtful, curious conversation on intellectually interesting topics) and it does so by doing the equivalent of setting the commons on fire.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it. Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
From a quick look at your account history it seems that your comments have traditionally been excellent, so this should be pretty easy to fix.
I would like to apologise for my behavior, I understand that I should have behaved better. I didn't mean to cause a flamewar, after reading the article I was infuriated but I understand that we should strive to uphold high standards on everyone, especially ourselves.
> I am looking forward to the English getting the same treatment
What a truly vile statement, unworthy of HN.
Roughly half the English population (including myself) voted to remain. We are not gloating, but working hard to ensure cooperation with the EU continues.....
..... and no doubt, preparing for the next referendum to return to the EU in 10 years time (after all, a second independence referendum is now on the cards for Scotland, the precedent has been set).
What a truly vile statement, unworthy of HN.
Roughly half the English population (including myself) voted to remain. We are not gloating, but working hard to ensure cooperation with the EU continues.....
..... and no doubt, preparing for the next referendum to return to the EU in 10 years time (after all, a second independence referendum is now on the cards for Scotland, the precedent has been set).
Perhaps. I rephrased it to be reflective that I would like the English officials to be treated like trash because, if you actually read the article, the treatment is inhumane.
I have a lot of gripe with the English for how they treat other people, perhaps if they get a taste of their own medicine they may snap back to reality and forget the greatness that was their empire (obviously /s).
I have a lot of gripe with the English for how they treat other people, perhaps if they get a taste of their own medicine they may snap back to reality and forget the greatness that was their empire (obviously /s).
biggest issue in the UK unlike many other EU countries is how deeply polarized their media is. Very difficult to reason and bring the camps together which means the only way to get better is if it first gets worse. A complete shame considering the UK joined the EU because it was the sick man of Europe back in the 70ies and it was welcomed especially by other partners who felt it provided a much needed liberal balance to the power duality of France & Germany. We're all at a loss that they left IMO.
As for vindication the people certainly deserve not what's coming and happening to them, the true villains sit in the news rooms pumping out racist and dividing shit calling itself "free media" but the truth is it's run by a bunch of oligarchs. Eat the rich and bring guillotines to these places so that the poor and brainwashed people who've been fed on a steady diet of divisive garbage and are the real victims in this sham won't get hurt. It's a really easy trolley problem this one. Sadly history shows that the trolley company is the one that tends to win.
As for vindication the people certainly deserve not what's coming and happening to them, the true villains sit in the news rooms pumping out racist and dividing shit calling itself "free media" but the truth is it's run by a bunch of oligarchs. Eat the rich and bring guillotines to these places so that the poor and brainwashed people who've been fed on a steady diet of divisive garbage and are the real victims in this sham won't get hurt. It's a really easy trolley problem this one. Sadly history shows that the trolley company is the one that tends to win.
I agree. That comment is a sad but common result of people who seek vengeance under the facade of justice.
Veen(3)
I really cant blame you for this. Please just keep in mind that, as mentioned in another post, the population is almost 50/50 split on this. It is not just the Scots that are caught in the middle. There is a large amount of English also opposed to this.
A lot of us have spouses from EU countries and we watch in horror as people like Priti Patel turns the UK into her version of 1984.
Chances are very high that those brits that travel to the EU, who might get this vindictive treatment, are not the ones that voted for Brexit.
A lot of us have spouses from EU countries and we watch in horror as people like Priti Patel turns the UK into her version of 1984.
Chances are very high that those brits that travel to the EU, who might get this vindictive treatment, are not the ones that voted for Brexit.
[flagged]
Nationalistic flamewar is not welcome here. Please don't post like this, regardless of which country you have an issue with. It only leads threads into hell.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
With all due respect, I think you're blowing that comment on the skewed power dynamic of the U.K. with the E.U., public miss-information campaigns, and inappropriate policies of political leadership, vastly out of proportion.
This has nothing to do with nationalism, but with a sombre sadness about the unnecessary damage caused by brexit.
Pejorative putdowns of countries are easily enough to start flamewars on the internet. Since the flamewars would be about/between nations, I use the term nationalistic flamewar to describe that. It isn't meant to imply that you're somehow a nationalist yourself—just that this sort of flamewar is what we end up with when people post careless comments like that, which is why we ask everyone not to.
Of course I apologise if anybody has felt offended.
The UK as a whole isn't. The UK is a very interesting country trying to get out of its cocoon at the moment. This is going to be more of a struggle than most people expect, but the results could be surprising.
The UK's government and media certainly are.
The UK's government and media certainly are.
Of course this doesn't apply to individuals.
It's an effect of the cultural feeling of supremacy originating from it's former colonial might, combined with a fairytale like ethos originating from the monarchy.
In a sense it is only natural to become a bit megalomanic if you're called "the united kingdom", a name so full of grandeur and dreamlike romance that even tolkien would be a bit envious.
Combine that with 40 years of anti E.U. media and you get a situation where people vote against their own self interest because they think they are better off alone.
I for one can't wait for our scrottish brethren and sisters to rejoin us. They may take your passport but they will never take our article 49.
In a sense it is only natural to become a bit megalomanic if you're called "the united kingdom", a name so full of grandeur and dreamlike romance that even tolkien would be a bit envious.
Combine that with 40 years of anti E.U. media and you get a situation where people vote against their own self interest because they think they are better off alone.
I for one can't wait for our scrottish brethren and sisters to rejoin us. They may take your passport but they will never take our article 49.
I just can't understand why anti-immigration policies are so very popular. I'm absolutely certain that this is what a proportion of brexshit-voters want -- the cruel and degrading treatment of those who frankly better the country they come to work in. I just don't understand the reasons behind it and why governments, which privately acknowledge that immigration is good for the economy, remain so keen to be seen as tough on it in the eyes of the tabloid media.
Don't say "I can't understand".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chALQCm9VgE
> the cruel and degrading treatment
I don't think this part has as wide support as the part where people see entire towns lose their jobs, while from their point of view foreigners are being let in left and right. Those foreigners didn't literally take their jobs, but someone's gaining jobs and someone's losing jobs.
It may be good for the economy, but you know that saying "taxation without representation"? Yeah, the government is supposed to represent the voters. And from these local's point of view they are not being represented. It's taxation without representation. And some people get upset about that.
These people didn't get elected to represent the economy as a whole or even humanity as a whole, but to represent the voting population and their interests.
Don't say "I can't understand".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chALQCm9VgE
> the cruel and degrading treatment
I don't think this part has as wide support as the part where people see entire towns lose their jobs, while from their point of view foreigners are being let in left and right. Those foreigners didn't literally take their jobs, but someone's gaining jobs and someone's losing jobs.
It may be good for the economy, but you know that saying "taxation without representation"? Yeah, the government is supposed to represent the voters. And from these local's point of view they are not being represented. It's taxation without representation. And some people get upset about that.
These people didn't get elected to represent the economy as a whole or even humanity as a whole, but to represent the voting population and their interests.
Don't say "I can't understand".
By "I can't understand" I mean, "please explain to me" -- I am sure that political scientists will write at great length about the reasons behind brexit and xenophobia. I am not a political scientist and I have recently accepted a job in a country other than that which I was born in. What is the pracie of the argument as to why saying "I can't understand" is a bad turn of phrase?
Some ways of phrasing things are conversation enders, not inviting anyone to talk at all.
This is one of those.
It's telling people there's no point in engaging, there's nowhere to go from here.
This is one of those.
It's telling people there's no point in engaging, there's nowhere to go from here.
"someone's gaining jobs and someone's losing jobs"
More jobs = more jobs for everyone. If I immigrate to your country nobody looses a job; I get given a job that a native was unwilling or unable to take. My economic contribution to the society will also increase the total number of available jobs, meaning more jobs for everyone.
More jobs = more jobs for everyone. If I immigrate to your country nobody looses a job; I get given a job that a native was unwilling or unable to take. My economic contribution to the society will also increase the total number of available jobs, meaning more jobs for everyone.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
Well, except for the spelling of "lose".
Well, except for the spelling of "lose".
Indeed. It's my understanding that in economics wealth can be created (and destroyed!) and isn't necessarily a zero-sum game. The UK had huge problems with the combined effects of the pandemic and brexit in getting its vegetables harvested. The most convincing explanation I've had as to why migration ends up being hated so much come from The Simpsons, in which Mayer Quimby [sic] blames migrants for other political problems...
[deleted]
It's basic tribe psychology.
At times of stress we seek out the enemy. And external imaginary enemy is always easier to accept than internal or god forbid a bad habit that we are all guilty of.
At times of stress we seek out the enemy. And external imaginary enemy is always easier to accept than internal or god forbid a bad habit that we are all guilty of.
Because what's good for the country's balance sheet and for businesses may not be good for certain segments of the population.
I don't see the problem here. These people don't seem to have valid visas or right to work in the UK and therefore are breaking the law. The UK has a big issue with people coming on the wrong visa and then working in the informal economy illegally, they just need to sort their visas and everything is fine.
> EU citizens arriving in UK being _locked up_ and expelled
I think you missed the point. The problem is not only controlling entry depending on their migration status (fair enough), but the process itself, which is meant to humiliate and scare people (hostile environment).
The conditions in these detention places are degrading and people have to stay there for several days even when they say they will voluntarily go back in the first flight.
If you found some mistake with your paperwork when landing in another country I think you would appreciate being given the choice of going back immediately instead of being locked up for a few days.
I think you missed the point. The problem is not only controlling entry depending on their migration status (fair enough), but the process itself, which is meant to humiliate and scare people (hostile environment).
The conditions in these detention places are degrading and people have to stay there for several days even when they say they will voluntarily go back in the first flight.
If you found some mistake with your paperwork when landing in another country I think you would appreciate being given the choice of going back immediately instead of being locked up for a few days.
Read the article, in a lot of cases they are not doing anything illegal. But we deport them anyway.
>I don't see the problem here. These people don't seem to have valid visas
Yup, but the whole notion of sovereignty has become so remote an bizarre to folks living in Europe that this is shocking news to most.
Yup, but the whole notion of sovereignty has become so remote an bizarre to folks living in Europe that this is shocking news to most.
This nastiness is what the public demands.
Well, not all the public. Immigration enforcement got a rather different reception in Glasgow: https://twitter.com/david_millar/status/1392969258989150208