I worry about it. Without hopefully not getting a thread lock, I want you to just think about something.
If random people enter the UK via the Engilsh Channel on a dinghy, they get rewarded with a house and money.
What if they are criminals fleeing persecution?
Should they be allowed to roam free amongst our children without documentation?
If you go back far enough a sizeable proportion of the population of England were theowas, chattel slaves.
William I changed this, he banned the export of slaves from England and gradually slaves became part of the serf class. The slave and serf class certainly did not own land or rent it. Renters were called gafolgelda.
Ok, I think I get what you are saying.
did you miss the bit where i said stolen hundreds of years ag
Nope.
The Saxons, the Romans (What did the Romans ever do for us).
did you miss the bit where i said stolen hundreds of years ago?
core issue is competition for resources: poor people of whatever colour skin competing with each other for essential resources, wouldn't have to if rich people hadn't stolen most essential resource hundreds of years ago
enclosures is one, the norman yolk is another, dissolution of monasteries etc etc
But migrants aren't taking land so I am failing to understand the relevance?
Stolen land is very objective too depending on how far back you want to go. But it has the same negative affects on me as everyone else with regard to competition for resources. My point is that over the centuries the Irish were the scourge, the West Indians, then the Indians and Pakistanis and now the latest wave. Some of these were before the NHS or the welfare state existed so earlier waves of immigrants can't be blamed for competing for those resources. It is a long running issue that governments and leaders could have dealt with if they had the will to but they didn't because immigrants were for them a resource to be exploited. The hostility always seems to directed at the result instead of the cause
What/when are you referring to here?
land is the most important resource that was stolen from the English people hundreds of years ago.
All very objective but can you say how the issue affects you? For me it's about competition for resources: housing, jobs, public services. Always remembering of course that land is the most important resource that was stolen from the English people hundreds of years ago.
I think there is a wider picture. Immigration has always been exploited by the wealthy. Immigrants have always been a source of cheap labour and can also be weaponized to push down the wages of the indigenous workforce. Cheap labour in the form of migrant workers has always been encouraged in an unmanaged fashion leading to resentment between indigenous communities and the immigrant community. When immigration then becomes a problem the people who encouraged mass immigration then hold up their hands and say not our fault, blame the government (even though they are sometimes the same people). For those who exploit immigrant labour there is always a fear that tightening up controls may cut off the source of cheap labour so they are wary and unsupportive of such measures.
I don't think you quite understand. They're not just "random people". They're fleeing from awful, hellish conditions that people who take their lives in the UK for granted wouldn't even be able to stand for 5 minutes. And they do not get "rewarded" with a house and money. They go to an asylum center, much like our own homeless. IF THEY'RE LUCKY. Some even end up dying BEFORE they make it to UK shores!
Instead of finding someone to blame for the problems the UK is facing, try putting yourself in their shoes first. Or doing some research into the topic.
This isn't a clear cut issue, there's a lot of nuances that need to be considered. Viewing this through a black and white lens of what's "good" or "bad" doesn't work for something like this. What's most important here is that we deal with this issue with empathy, remembering these are human beings who came here not because they wanted to, but simply because the alternative would be hell on Earth.
I'm not saying we should just hand them over a house and money, that would also be wrong. But again, there's a lot of nuances to consider. Giving them at least basic temporary shelter would be a good start though.
I agree more enquiry and action on the source of the things creating refugees would be good.
From my understanding they don't que jump though. Once they have refugee status they have to apply and be part of the same waiting lists for housing they're not given a priority I'm pretty sure.
That's the thing though xD, some of the places are dangerous but it's a sweeping generalisation. There are a lot of refugees from North Africa, middle east, I'm not sure all of the places but yes maybe the government in some countries are more authoritarian or anti LGBT and such there can be cultural differences like that it depends where you're talking about, but it's not all the people and they're not feral lol.
It's usually considered racialising when you make the comparison of orcs. I'm not being silly here, it's an old trope of saying purity is dirtied in the country by barbaric hords, or orcs. Something to bear in mind.
A quarter of a million entered the UK in small boats over the last 7 years. Yes, their situation is dire; yes, we need to do something; yes we have a moral due to fellow humans. BUT there are practicalities. The NHS is vastly over-subscribed. Some kids have never seen a dentist. Homeless families in temporary accommodation or sofa-surfing have little hope of housing because there are 1.34 million on council waiting lists. Many young people who've never worked face a difficult future. The benefits kitty is not endlesse and will become unsupportable.
Who is prepared to give up their benefits to a needy person? Or tell someone else they must give up theirs? Give up a long-standing place in the NHS queue for operations - or tell someone else they must give up theirs? Who will offer a place in their home, free of charge, to a stranger in need? Who will sponsor and take responsibility for an asylum seeker? Who is happy to have unknown young men with dire psychological hurts living next to their family? Who is happy to accept tax increases to support a larger civil service to deal with applications, criminality, riots, damaged infrastructure - triggered by opposition to asylum seekers?
The answer is not a catalogue of dreams and pontification but real solutions to the core problems. This is a vast, world-wide problem growing year by year to which there are no easy answers. It's no use trying to prop up the effects, without dealing with the core problems, is it?
Dude, I will be awake for an hour or so. We can go to private message if you want to chat a little 
