The Off Topic Topic

[Josquius]

Upon reading of Gary Linekers recent decision to offer up his spare room to a refugee this old point of confusion came to mind for me.

The exchange typically goes something like this -

Somebody : refugees deserve to be treat with respect

Far right guy: I suppose you've invited a refugee to live with you?

Just what is the thinking here? Is there a genuine belief in conspiracy circles that refugees are being put into unwilling people's spare rooms?

Personally I wouldn't want anyone living with me no matter who they are so the question makes no sense. A more logical attack would be "would you want a refugee living next door to you" but they always jump to living WITH you.

Can anyone offer any insights into just what the thought process behind this thinking is?

[Sheilbh]

There was a really interesting piece in the Guardian in the success of Germany with refugees. In Germany they were placed in small pockets across the country - there's an amazing stat that about half the German population have personal experience of knowing or working with a refugee.

This is not how we do it in the UK and there are a lot of long-running policy choices that make that happen I think. My understanding is Labour in the late 90s changed the rules so refugees were not allowed to work because (especially with a lack of a national ID system) there was a higher risk of refugees basically "disappearing" into the system, so even if their claim of asylum was rejected the state had "lost" them. Before then refugees basically worked in the economy and tended to do what all migrant communities which is move to where there is a diaspora community already.

The consequence of that shift is that refugees - unlike other immigrants - generally had to absolutely rely on benefits, including housing benefit. Obviously you get more housing benefit in London than you do in other areas because housing costs more, but most diaspora communities where in London. So I think the government then basically decided to, as Germany does, distribute refugees. Except their focus was on doing it on the cheap which means they basically put refugees in areas that are already poor and already struggling - I think one of the highest rates of refugees in the UK is Middlesbrough. In addition to that they outsourced providing the housing to G4 who would basically paint all of the doors the same colour making them identifiable etc.

I think the German approach is right and we were basically maybe too liberal in the 90s but then went far too far the opposite direction. Refugees should be able (and encouraged) to work, but we should sort of initially place them throughout the country which is not a liberal measure but probably helps for integration and our national politics.

I don't know how much that drives it but a big part of right-discourse, I think especially in the traditional Labour areas (which include areas where there are a lot of refugees) is: we deal with the effect of your policies and you don't and you wouldn't implement those policies in your community which is plush and middle class (and it doesn't count if you actually live in London because you're a metropolitan liberal elite).

[Caliga]

That road trip sounds like really great fun, but foreigners driving around the South...

One of my neighbors is Indian, and the guy who lives behind me is an imam from Syria.  Maybe qualify that with the 'rural South'.

[The Larch]

That road trip sounds like really great fun, but foreigners driving around the South...

One of my neighbors is Indian, and the guy who lives behind me is an imam from Syria.  Maybe qualify that with the 'rural South'.

Since when do you live in the South?

[Duque de Bragança]

There was a really interesting piece in the Guardian in the success of Germany with refugees. In Germany they were placed in small pockets across the country - there's an amazing stat that about half the German population have personal experience of knowing or working with a refugee.

Early on a least, success included the brilliant ideas of sending "refugees" into rural and small-town, poor Eastern Germany whereas the people who claimed to be welcoming them were actually mostly in big city Western Germany. Seems unfair to me.

[Sheilbh]

There was a really interesting piece in the Guardian in the success of Germany with refugees. In Germany they were placed in small pockets across the country - there's an amazing stat that about half the German population have personal experience of knowing or working with a refugee.

Early on a least, success included the brilliant ideas of sending "refugees" into rural and small-town, poor Eastern Germany whereas the people who claimed to be welcoming them were actually mostly in big city Western Germany. Seems unfair to me.

That's exactly the idea I'm praising - and it worked. There's more successful integration of the refugees and German society because of that.

[Josquius]

But you just know if a refugee was given a nice house iman upmarket area in London there'd be hell on with the same people getting just as upset.
Pretty sure the mail et al have had lots of stories about this.

Anyway. This isn't the part I don't get. It's the specific focus on having a refugee in your house. If they just said having a refugee as your neighbour it'd be more logical.

I suspect it's intentionally using more disagreeable wording as they know if they just asked would you want a refugee for a neighbour most people who aren't already a fellow traveller would have no complaints.

[Sheilbh]

But you just know if a refugee was given a nice house iman upmarket area in London there'd be hell on with the same people getting just as upset.
Pretty sure the mail et al have had lots of stories about this.

Yeah. In part that's probably what drove the move to placing refugees in poor communities. There can't be bad press if they're in a terrace in Middlesbrough (and it saves the government money).

And to be clear there is no way on housing benefit that you get a nice house in an upmarket part of London

[Eddie Teach]

That road trip sounds like really great fun, but foreigners driving around the South...

One of my neighbors is Indian, and the guy who lives behind me is an imam from Syria.  Maybe qualify that with the 'rural South'.

Since when do you live in the South?

Poor Kentucky. Neither the South nor the Midwest will claim them.

[Duque de Bragança]

There was a really interesting piece in the Guardian in the success of Germany with refugees. In Germany they were placed in small pockets across the country - there's an amazing stat that about half the German population have personal experience of knowing or working with a refugee.

Early on a least, success included the brilliant ideas of sending "refugees" into rural and small-town, poor Eastern Germany whereas the people who claimed to be welcoming them were actually mostly in big city Western Germany. Seems unfair to me.

That's exactly the idea I'm praising - and it worked. There's more successful integration of the refugees and German society because of that.

Alternative for Deutschland switched from an anti-Euro monetary union party stance, led by professors, to an anti-immigration "populist" party because of that policy so I am afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. But then integrating people of which only 8% had some kind of post high-school degree, lots of illiterate in their own language, has always been unrealistic. And let us not mention assimilation...

[Saladin]

That road trip sounds like really great fun, but foreigners driving around the South...

One of my neighbors is Indian, and the guy who lives behind me is an imam from Syria.  Maybe qualify that with the 'rural South'.

Since when do you live in the South?

Poor Kentucky. Neither the South nor the Midwest will claim them.

[derspiess]

Poor Kentucky. Neither the South nor the Midwest will claim them.

Border states are like that.  I would say part of Kentucky is solidly North/Midwest, and part of it definitely South.

[Saladin]

BTW.

Anyone have a suggestion for the "best" route between New Orelans and Richmond?

[Valmy]

BTW.

Anyone have a suggestion for the "best" route between New Orelans and Richmond?

I mean those cities are 900 miles apart

But it looks like I-85 is your best bet.

[The Larch]

BTW.

Anyone have a suggestion for the "best" route between New Orelans and Richmond?

Quick or scenic?