manshimajin Posted April 25, 2009 Author Share Posted April 25, 2009 Getting a bit confused as to where the main justification for their immigration rests. TBH I am confused as to why there are any objections to them coming to the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 TBH I am confused as to why there are any objections to them coming to the UK. But why? Is it simply that they have fought in the British Army? (I personally have no issue with anyone moving anywhere, I would not give these Gurkhas primacy over any other person) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted April 25, 2009 Author Share Posted April 25, 2009 TBH I am confused as to why there are any objections to them coming to the UK. But why? Is it simply that they have fought in the British Army? (I personally have no issue with anyone moving anywhere, I would not give these Gurkhas primacy over any other person) LDV if you have no objection to anyone moving anywhere then logically primacy isn't an issue and you should be fully supportive of the Ghurkas moving anyhwhere if they want to. To object to this would be against your principles. PS: If your answer to my confusion at why people object to them coming to the UK is But why? it doesn't answer my comment. Is there a particular reason why people object? Is it because they were in the British Army? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 [LDV if you have no objection to anyone moving anywhere then logically primacy isn't an issue and you should be fully supportive of the Ghurkas moving anyhwhere if they want to. To object to this would be against your principles. I do think they should be allowed into the UK. However, my belief that there should be freedom of movement is not shared by all people, it is not a conventional view. Just a little confused as to why there is support for their cause. I can understand the conventional argument that because commonwealth citizens who fought in the British armed forces are allowed into the UK, then others who have fought should be allowed as well. But I am beginning to wonder whether those who support the Ghurkas simply do so because they 'fought for the country' and are owed something for that, or stuff to do with loyalty to Britain. I don't agree with that stance at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Our value system is completely warped I'm afraid. Gordon Brown should hang his head in shame. I don't know what you mean at all. It was a statement. I really could not care one jot whether you know what I mean or not because your personal viewpoint on life bores me to death. I have often considered whether you are a troll but settled on the idea that you are just some tedious irritating student with no life experience or grasp on reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 It was a statement. I really could not care one jot whether you know what I mean or not because your personal viewpoint on life bores me to death. I have often considered whether you are a troll but settled on the idea that you are just some tedious irritating student with no life experience or grasp on reality. I gathered it was a statement, and I questioned it. At least you care enough about to form an opinion on it, and I share that feeling of boredom (and distaste) at what seems to your viewpoint,. And I can only assume that your 'considerations' are simply the result of difficulty to think 'outside of the box'. Maybe you learnt the wrong lessons from your life experience, maybe you didn't learn much, but whose to say, I don't know you. Nobody is blocking the entry of Gurkhas to come to the UK through conventional means, immigrating in the same manner as others do. It is that it is not automatic as it is with Commonwealth citizens. Therefore, I don't see how comparisons with other immigrants to the UK can really be made. And I wondered why it is Gordon Brown who should feel shame. I know it is the Home Office who are blocking this, but what are the Prime Minister's powers in this case, is he blocking the possibility of automatic entry> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 And I wondered why it is Gordon Brown who should feel shame. I know it is the Home Office who are blocking this, but what are the Prime Minister's powers in this case, is he blocking the possibility of automatic entry> You tell me Citizen Smith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irwezsh Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 The Ghurka's should have that right, they also should have the right to settle over here too. Why is the idea that they fought for us, such a bad one to you? Many have lost there lives fighting for us. It's shameful before this time we haven't even attempted to support any of them. To send them back to a civil war (that fortuently has now ended) is sickening. They aren't mercenaries, who fight for simple money. For example one the greatest honour in some nepalese tribes is to serve as a Ghurka. What is wrong with having them? They are welcome her for these reasons. Just a little confused as to why there is support for their cause. I can understand the conventional argument that because commonwealth citizens who fought in the British armed forces are allowed into the UK, then others who have fought should be allowed as well. But I am beginning to wonder whether those who support the Ghurkas simply do so because they 'fought for the country' and are owed something for that, or stuff to do with loyalty to Britain. I don't agree with that stance at all You seem to sit on some strange fence LDV. You even managed to contradict your self. Just stand by what you belive in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Just trying to understand how others see it that's all. I don't object to them being in the UK at all. I am just trying to understand whether the argument is about equality with other Commonwealth citizens or ideas that these people deserve it. And it seems you and OldManxFella follows the latter. Did they join with specific intentions of fighting on behalf or in the interests of the British people? I don't think they did. That is what I meant by not agreeing with the 'loyalty' argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irwezsh Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 I see them as almost identical to Commonwealth and Irish soldiers, who serve in the British armed forces. All have the right to settle in Britain, her dependencies or her overseas territories, as I see it. For that matter would people make complaint if it was Irish soldiers? They apparently have no loyality to Britain yet they still fight for her. (Just so you know LDV on the two articles where we have locked horns, it has been fun ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 I see them as almost identical to Commonwealth and Irish soldiers, who serve in the British armed forces. All have the right to settle in Britain, her dependencies or her overseas territories, as I see it. And I think this stance makes sense. Though I might need to know more about why Commonwealth citizens do have automatic entry, is it simply because the British government deems them to have served the British nation therefore meaning they have the privilege to be in the UK or something else, possibly because of some compensation for conscripting men from other nations to fight in the government's interests. If it is the former reason then yes, I see how equality for the Ghurkas makes sense. For that matter would people make complaint if it was Irish soldiers? They apparently have no loyality to Britain yet they still fight for her. But soldiers do not fight for a 'her' and don't fight directly for the people, on their behalf, or in their interests. If that is where this suppose for the Ghurkas originates then it is an idea of loyalty and deservedness of privileges that is built upon falsehood. But even if this falsehood is recognised and ignored, if you allow all Commonwealth citizens automatic entry for just the fact that the fought for the British government, then let the Ghurkas in too. (Just so you know LDV on the two articles where we have locked horns, it has been fun ) Same here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irwezsh Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 I see them as almost identical to Commonwealth and Irish soldiers, who serve in the British armed forces. All have the right to settle in Britain, her dependencies or her overseas territories, as I see it. And I think this stance makes sense. Though I might need to know more about why Commonwealth citizens do have automatic entry, is it simply because the British government deems them to have served the British nation therefore meaning they have the privilege to be in the UK or something else, possibly because of some compensation for conscripting men from other nations to fight in the government's interests. If it is the former reason then yes, I see how equality for the Ghurkas makes sense. For that matter would people make complaint if it was Irish soldiers? They apparently have no loyality to Britain yet they still fight for her. But soldiers do not fight for a 'her' and don't fight directly for the people, on their behalf, or in their interests. If that is where this suppose for the Ghurkas originates then it is an idea of loyalty and deservedness of privileges that is built upon falsehood. But even if this falsehood is recognised and ignored, if you allow all Commonwealth citizens automatic entry for just the fact that the fought for the British government, then let the Ghurkas in too. (Just so you know LDV on the two articles where we have locked horns, it has been fun ) Same here Perhaps instead of the tick box system they have put in place, a select comitee in the Imigration ministry of the UK would be sensible. Then soldiers of Commonwealth, Irish or Nepalese orgin make there actual case, instead of looking at people as a group of figures. An idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Perhaps instead of the tick box system they have put in place, a select comitee in the Imigration ministry of the UK would be sensible. Then soldiers of Commonwealth, Irish or Nepalese orgin make there actual case, instead of looking at people as a group of figures. An idea. You mean ending autocratic entry and making it a merit based criteria? The only problem I could see is that such people would have nothing present that would be any different from a normal immigrants. Which would be a good thing as service in the British armed forces should be seen to make a person more worthy of entry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irwezsh Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Perhaps instead of the tick box system they have put in place, a select comitee in the Imigration ministry of the UK would be sensible. Then soldiers of Commonwealth, Irish or Nepalese orgin make there actual case, instead of looking at people as a group of figures. An idea. You mean ending autocratic entry and making it a merit based criteria? The only problem I could see is that such people would have nothing present that would be any different from a normal immigrants. Which would be a good thing as service in the British armed forces should be seen to make a person more worthy of entry. Why should defense of a country not be merit for preference in immagration to that country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Why should defense of a country not be merit for preference in immagration to that country? Why should it? What is this idea of defending a country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.