Donate SIGN UP

Justify This Rwanda Thing From A Non-Religious Angle

Avatar Image
fiveleaves | 17:15 Mon 18th Apr 2022 | Religion & Spirituality
52 Answers
Not interested in party politics, but want to hear want the non religious think. Is there any ethical argument or morality in secularism or humanism that could justify this proposal?
I know what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks and for the record I agree with him. Dont bring God into it I want to hear the secular and humanist arguments


41 to 52 of 52rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by fiveleaves. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Fiveleaves, my posts tell you nothing about me except that I prefer to acknowledge reality. Frankly I never set much store by people who advertise their superior morality. They assume far more than they ought… but back to the topic. If these people aren’t economic migrants why are they leaving France? They’re not fleeing danger or persecution or war….so why?
Naomi; the logic of your argument seems to be that no-one can flee to the UK unless they are French or perhaps Belgium or Dutch people. No-one from beyond France or Belgium or Holland can come here because they should have stopped before they approached our shores. I suppose if they had left Syria (for example) and travelled by sea to England then we might consider them as valid refugees?
They are supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach & then be dealt with according to validity, need and which countries might be prepared to take them. It's not entirely THEIR choice where they think they should be allowed to go!
Davebro, I realise that. And it's very convenient that we live on an island at the far end of a big continent and can therefore easily claim that we are not the nearest haven for refugees. I see why Brexit was so popular.
//…maybe because they've been spun a tale of free accomadation and jobs or money.//

But it’s not a tale, bob. Those arriving here are provided with free accommodation; they are provided with money (not that they need much because they are fed and watered) and (if they want to) they may find jobs. Not to suit their qualifications which we’re asked to believe they have such as in medicine, law or in civil engineering. More usually washing cars or delivering McDonalds breakfast to people too lazy to get out of bed. But jobs nonetheless and obviously in better conditions than they have at “home.”

Just to be clear, my plan is not to kill them (as in the suggestion that we should put a bullet in their heads). My plan simply involves making the Channel unnavigable in small, overcrowded boats. Once a few of them are capsized word will soon get round.

//And it's very convenient that we live on an island at the far end of a big continent and can therefore easily claim that we are not the nearest haven for refugees.//

As far as the UK’s isolation is concerned, it is fortuitous but it is not entirely courtesy of the English Channel. The EU introduced its ridiculous Schengen arrangements. But for that, transit from (say) Greece to Bulgaria or Italy to France should have been equally subject to the same restrictions as from France to England. But the EU saw fit to allow free movement across its internal borders so once in, whether there legally or not, everybody has free rein. (as an aside, this very prospect was adequately forewarned when Schengen was introduced). Had the UK joined Schengen (and remained an EU member) it would not have been permitted to demand documentation from any arrivals within the Schengen area and the illegals that had entered the EU in say, Greece, would have been able simply to board a ferry at Calais and arrive in Dover unhindered.

This situation needs resolution. There is no reason why the people of this country should have to fund the upkeep of hundreds of thousands of people seeking to settle here. It is costing literally many billions of pounds and is completely unsustainable. The alternative is for illegal migration to eventually jeopardise all the public services the government provides. In many aspects this jeopardy is already occurring. To those who ask what I would do, I’ve already explained. These people need to be physically prevented from landing here. I would like to ask those who advocate that unfettered migration continues, where will this country source the accommodation and the funds to sustain these people? If it involves further jeopardising the already very fragile public services which people pay for and are entitled to see provided, that is not acceptable and this country treads a very dangerous path if it continues to let that happen.
19.17. You’re mistaken. People may seek refuge in the Uk through legitimate means - and many do. Those people have no reason to destroy their papers, to lie about their identity or their country of birth - or to pay traffickers thousands of pounds.
//Those people have no reason to destroy their papers, to lie about their identity or their country of birth - or to pay traffickers thousands of pounds.//

Unless, of course, they have every reason to believe that, should they apply via the official channels, their applications would be refused. And thereby hangs the rub - they are jumping the queue and failing to undergo the checks that people arriving legitimately have to.
I don't put a great deal of faith in the official check to be honest.
I can't remember the case I was watching on TV some weeks back, but a young girl got murdered here in the UK by someone that was let in by the official route.
It turned out that he had served time for murder within his own country. Official checks??

So god knows whats coming in by any other means.
The Golden Law has no inherent link with Christianity. It's a deep human instinct, and so many religions share it because religions are human constructs. There is no need for a rational argument proving that decent behaviour is decent; there's no rational religious argument either - it's just what being human is about. And of course humans come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and psyches. And so we get the rich tapestry of AB.
....Let 'em in, the poor souls. Machine-gun them in the channel. Choose your favourite stance and stick to it, especially if you're challenged.
The non-religious ABers who bother to post nowadays don't usually accept moral arguments, unless the morals in question affect their own personal wealth or welfare. Unselfish morals are seen as 'virtue-signalling' or some kind of showing-off, or Leftie weakness. All a bit sad, really. I perused some old posts (maybe 5-10 years ago) and there seemed to be a much more interesting and less selfish attitude around at that time - less jeering, name-calling and abuse, and more tolerant and rational communication. All a bit sad, really.

41 to 52 of 52rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Do you know the answer?

Justify This Rwanda Thing From A Non-Religious Angle

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.