When a Government...

[BillyStubbsTears]

Because I was slack in the precise meaning of my initial choice of word, as Pancho pointed out. So I corrected it to one which is more precisely correct. 

[normal rules]

Be careful around these two terms.

Xenophobia is “fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign.” Racism has a slightly broader range of meanings, including “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race,” and “a political or social system founded on racism.” It should be noted that the meanings of these two words are sufficiently different that a person (or thing, such as a policy) may very easily be both racist and xenophobic.

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's not hard to find similar but broader definitions of "xenophobic". For the avoidance of doubt, this is the sense in which I'm using it.

"an aversion or hostility to, disdain for, or fear of foreigners".


For what it's worth NR, my take is that the policies as written are xenophobic, as their effect is to cause serious harm to people's lives for no other reason than that they are foreigners. The policy making it impossible for a British citizen to have their foreign spouse live with them in Britain is impossible to judge in any other way. The one saying that foreigners may come to this country to do jobs we don't want to do ourselves, but if they do so, they are not allowed to live with their spouse and children is another.

Whether people who support those policies are doing so for "xenophobic" or "racist" reasons is up for debate.i suspect (I don't know, but I'd have thought it likely) there are many people in the country who wouldn't want those rules applied to Americans for example, but would want them applied to Nigerians.

[belton rover]

I don’t think anyone has said they are offended by the things you’ve said, Billy.
I certainly haven’t.
I just think you are very wrong to call everyone who agrees with tightening up border control by increasing income requirements as showing ‘fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign’.
Or any other definition you can find.

[tommy toes]

I would imagine that Nativism is the more appropriate term for the majority of people who are against immigration, rather than racism or xenophobia.

[belton rover]

I would imagine that Nativism is the more appropriate term for the majority of people who are against immigration, rather than racism or xenophobia.

I agree.

[Bentley Bullet]

Come and wipe the shitty arses of our racist old folk.
Come and wipe the shitty arses of our xenophobic old folk.
Come and wipe the shitty arses of our nativist old folk.

Any advance?

[BillyStubbsTears]

The POLICIES are xenophobic in their effect. People supporting them are supporting policies which clearly and unambiguously display a hostility to and a disdain for foreigners and are thereby, deliberately or not, supporting xenophobic policies.

Deliberately or not their support (because the policies would not have been introduced if certain politicians didn't think they would be supported) will have a severely detrimental effect on the lives of people who want to spend their lives with someone they love, and people who we want to come and provide essential services for us, for no reason other than that these people are foreigners.

[belton rover]

But you said earlier that the government were pandering to racist/xenophobic Kitsons.

[ncRover]

It’s not very conservative to implement policies that can stop people building families

[SydneyRover]

Illegal migration and Illegal Migration ministers should be on zero hours contracts, not sure they are going to be in position very long.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And yes, they certainly are.

What matters is not what people think about themselves. It's what effect they have on others. If people, whatever they think about themselves, are happy to support policies that have these effects on others, and refuse to consider those effects, then yes, that epithet is apt. Whatever argument they make about how they think they should be judged.

What would YOU call someone who accepts the need for an immigrant to perform intimate care for them, but also insists that immigrant cannot live with their spouse and kids?

[tommy toes]

BST. Yes the government are trying to whip up xenophobia, but I believe the immigration opposing man in the street would not have the view that you describe in your last paragraph.
Well I sincerely hope not.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yes, TT, I accept that. But that implies people not being prepared to think about what is being done in their names.

[belton rover]

And yes, they certainly are.

What matters is not what people think about themselves. It's what effect they have on others. If people, whatever they think about themselves, are happy to support policies that have these effects on others, and refuse to consider those effects, then yes, that epithet is apt. Whatever argument they make about how they think they should be judged.

What would YOU call someone who accepts the need for an immigrant to perform intimate care for them, but also insists that immigrant cannot live with their spouse and kids?

I’d call them ignorant hypocrites.
I don’t know of any of these people, though I am sure there are some. I’m also as certain as I possibly could be that they are a tiny, tiny fraction of the people you have lumped together as racists/xenophobes.

[Donnywolf]

Illegal migration and Illegal Migration ministers should be on zero hours contracts, not sure they are going to be in position very long.

If only .

They will have jumped up ( they will be jumped up anyway ) salary wise to 116 K probably

Then the whole thing will go pop and they will get severance pay to compensate them for their jobs disappearing

So they will probably work close to zero hours in the next few weeks then will win the jackpot

[tommy toes]

And yes, they certainly are.

What matters is not what people think about themselves. It's what effect they have on others. If people, whatever they think about themselves, are happy to support policies that have these effects on others, and refuse to consider those effects, then yes, that epithet is apt. Whatever argument they make about how they think they should be judged.

What would YOU call someone who accepts the need for an immigrant to perform intimate care for them, but also insists that immigrant cannot live with their spouse and kids?

I’d call them ignorant hypocrites.
I don’t know of any of these people, though I am sure there are some. I’m also as certain as I possibly could be that they are a tiny, tiny fraction of the people you have lumped together as racists/xenophobes.

What BST is trying to say, and he'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that by supporting the governments xenophobic policies by proxy, though not having the same extreme stance, the Nativist in the street becomes as culpable as Braverman et al.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Partly TT. I'd suggest there are many people who would be horrified to be labelled racist/xenophobic Kitsons, but who, let's say, have an aversion to people from different cultures and are prepared not to think about them as people with lives and emotions and aspirations. Belton would call them ignorant hypocrites. I'm less forgiving. I don't accept wilful ignorance as an excuse for supporting these sorts of policies. History tells you where wilful ignorance leads on the issue of The Other. But I think we all think it's not an admirable human trait, however we describe it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Back to the original theme of this thread. When a Government runs out of anything tangible to offer, it's not a pretty sight. But I'm sure the Governments of Ted Heath and Alec Douglas Home and John Major would have done better than this.

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1732781753448726918

[Bentley Bullet]

And yes, they certainly are.

What matters is not what people think about themselves. It's what effect they have on others. If people, whatever they think about themselves, are happy to support policies that have these effects on others, and refuse to consider those effects, then yes, that epithet is apt. Whatever argument they make about how they think they should be judged.

What would YOU call someone who accepts the need for an immigrant to perform intimate care for them, but also insists that immigrant cannot live with their spouse and kids?

I’d call them ignorant hypocrites.
I don’t know of any of these people, though I am sure there are some. I’m also as certain as I possibly could be that they are a tiny, tiny fraction of the people you have lumped together as racists/xenophobes.

Not being racist/xenophobic, and therefore lacking somewhat in the capability of thinking like one, I don't feel qualified to comment on how such a hypocrite would feel. I can only imagine that such a person would object to having an immigrant performing intimate care on them.

[BillyStubbsTears]

It appears they think Cold War Steve is an official portraitist.

https://twitter.com/coldwarsteve/status/1732831571864961414

[Bentley Bullet]

Because I was slack in the precise meaning of my initial choice of word, as Pancho pointed out. So I corrected it to one which is more precisely correct. 

I can only empathise with you. Hopefully, Filo or NNK won't see it.

[Filo]

Because I was slack in the precise meaning of my initial choice of word, as Pancho pointed out. So I corrected it to one which is more precisely correct. 

I can only empathise with you. Hopefully, Filo or NNK won't see it.

You do like a confrontation, when the is no confrontation there don’t you?

BST will correct his “mistakes” when he has been pointed out to him, he has the balls to admit them, unlike your good self

[tommy toes]

Was going to post summat similar Filo.
But then again the misfiring Bullet is never wrong, it wouldn't fit with the mountain high opinion he has of himself.

[Bentley Bullet]

Because I was slack in the precise meaning of my initial choice of word, as Pancho pointed out. So I corrected it to one which is more precisely correct. 

I can only empathise with you. Hopefully, Filo or NNK won't see it.

You do like a confrontation, when the is no confrontation there don’t you?

BST will correct his “mistakes” when he has been pointed out to him, he has the balls to admit them, unlike your good self

There is a difference though. The poster who pointed out BST's "mistake" then went on to give his opinion of the subject using the corrected word.

You didn't, because you were only interested in confrontation, even after I conceded the "mistake."

[Filo]

Because I was slack in the precise meaning of my initial choice of word, as Pancho pointed out. So I corrected it to one which is more precisely correct. 

I can only empathise with you. Hopefully, Filo or NNK won't see it.

You do like a confrontation, when the is no confrontation there don’t you?

BST will correct his “mistakes” when he has been pointed out to him, he has the balls to admit them, unlike your good self

There is a difference though. The poster who pointed out BST's "mistake" then went on to give his opinion of the subject using the corrected word.

You didn't, because you were only interested in confrontation, even after I conceded the "mistake."

You’re full of shit!

[Bentley Bullet]

Because I was slack in the precise meaning of my initial choice of word, as Pancho pointed out. So I corrected it to one which is more precisely correct. 

I can only empathise with you. Hopefully, Filo or NNK won't see it.

You do like a confrontation, when the is no confrontation there don’t you?

BST will correct his “mistakes” when he has been pointed out to him, he has the balls to admit them, unlike your good self

There is a difference though. The poster who pointed out BST's "mistake" then went on to give his opinion of the subject using the corrected word.

You didn't, because you were only interested in confrontation, even after I conceded the "mistake."

You’re full of shit!

You're right intelligent!

[tyke1962]

I mean you've got to hand it to the government of Rwanda haven't you ?

To be able to trouser £290m quid from a Tory government in exchange for doing absolutely the square root of feck all is quite remarkable .

[SydneyRover]

As I say, Oz politics and political ideas and outcomes are very similar to events in the UK.

''$55m Cambodia deal that resettled two refugees a 'good outcome', says Dutton

This article is more than 7 years old

The minister brushes off criticism that the resettlement scheme represents a waste of taxpayers’ money''

............. ''That leaves one person left in Cambodia from the original group of four resettled under the Australian program'' ..........


https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/mar/09/55m-cambodia-deal-that-resettled-two-refugees-a-good-outcome-says-dutton

[Not Now Kato]

I mean you've got to hand it to the government of Rwanda haven't you ?

To be able to trouser £290m quid from a Tory government in exchange for doing absolutely the square root of feck all is quite remarkable .

To be fair, they did put the UK in its place regarding compliance with international law. That's got to be worth something.