David Goodhart in The Guardian - attacking British Somalis?

[sihhi]

This is David Goodhart left-liberal editor of pro-Miliband Progress:

many of the largest groups, such as Somalis, applying to enter Britain and other rich countries as refugees are not facing individual persecution but rather are caught up in regional conflicts or civil wars or even natural disasters. They have usually been granted "exceptional leave to remain" or what is now called "humanitarian protection". There is no reason why the leave to remain should be permanent. Civil wars and natural disasters come to an end and countries need rebuilding. Rich countries should try to provide shelter from the storm for people badly affected but then ensure they return to help that rebuilding. As it is, refugees are often dumped in the poor parts of rich western cities where they sometimes live segregated and unhappy lives and can become a long-term welfare burden.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/27/why-left-wrong-mass-immigration

What exactly is Goodhart arguing here? Is he saying that more Somalis should be deported?
He is wrong in claiming that just any Somali can make a claim and get welcomed into Britain, you need to prove a severe repeat pattern of (usually clan-based or anti-minority) intimidation and violence before you are accepted on any terms.

 

[agricola]

I think what he is trying to say is that anyone with indefinite leave to remain should really be kicked out once the reasons for them coming over here cease to apply, though no doubt what he actually means is that G4S should be brought in to sort out the backlog.

 

[eatmorecheese]

Is there a time limit on "humanitarian protection" situations, such as with Somali or Eritrean refugees?

In Eritrea's case, the current situation of oppression looks like lasting many years. What if Eritrean asylum seekers settle and have children in UK schools, have jobs and possibly property? Or do we let these people stay and only lift "limited leave to remain" status for those who are single, on benefits, physically or mentally unwell, etc?

Back to the "welfare burden bullshit. Why is he couching the asylum issue in with the overall immigration argument?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

He's the editor of the liberal magazine Prospect not Progress

 

[JHE]

He was the editor. I think the editor is now Bronwen Maddox, who I remember from the time I used to read the Guardian.

Goodhart's very reasonable point will be anathema to some urban75 types. Really we should celebrate the kultrul enrichment brought by Somali Slamists.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Fuck off JHE you squalid little bigot

 

[JHE]

Yes, dear

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

He was the editor. I think the editor is now Bronwen Maddox, who I remember from the time I used to read the Guardian.

Goodhart's very reasonable point will be anathema to some urban75 types. Really we should celebrate the kultrul enrichment brought by Somali Slamists.

Serious question. Do you actually know anyone personally who has come to this country as an asylum seeker?

 

[Idris2002]

.

 

[Idris2002]

He was the editor. I think the editor is now Bronwen Maddox, who I remember from the time I used to read the Guardian.

Goodhart's very reasonable point will be anathema to some urban75 types. Really we should celebrate the kultrul enrichment brought by Somali Slamists.

Fuck you. I actually know - or I should say knew - a Somali guy in Ireland. He'd had asylum in Denmark, before getting solid enough papers to move to Ireland under EU residency laws. The last time I saw him, he was appalled and upset at the Taliban-style vandalism the Al-Shabab Islamists were committing against Somalia's cultural patrimony.

But according to you, he'd be a "Somali 'slamist".

 

[captainmission]

Is there a time limit on "humanitarian protection" situations, such as with Somali or Eritrean refugees?

In Eritrea's case, the current situation of oppression looks like lasting many years. What if Eritrean asylum seekers settle and have children in UK schools, have jobs and possibly property? Or do we let these people stay and only lift "limited leave to remain" status for those who are single, on benefits, physically or mentally unwell, etc?

Back to the "welfare burden bullshit. Why is he couching the asylum issue in with the overall immigration argument?

Since 2007 all people granted refugee or humanitarian status are given 5yrs limited leave to remain, the idea being that if the situation in their home country has improved they can return. In practice it never happens and everyone is granted indefinite or further limited leave.

He is wrong in claiming that just any Somali can make a claim and get welcomed into Britain, you need to prove a severe repeat pattern of (usually clan-based or anti-minority) intimidation and violence before you are accepted on any terms.

Does he make this claim anywhere?

 

[eatmorecheese]

He was the editor. I think the editor is now Bronwen Maddox, who I remember from the time I used to read the Guardian.

Goodhart's very reasonable point will be anathema to some urban75 types. Really we should celebrate the kultrul enrichment brought by Somali Slamists.

ffs.

Remember the Chandlers? Held as hostages in Somalia. They were released after a ransom was paid. The ransom was collected from the North London Somali community organised by a Somali minicab driver and others who felt "ashamed" about the situation, appreciated the freedoms they have found in the UK and wanted to contribute something back.

I've supported people of Somali origin and have worked alongside them as colleagues. Bollocks to your stereotypes.

 

[sihhi]

Since 2007 all people granted refugee or humanitarian status are given 5yrs limited leave to remain, the idea being that if the situation in their home country has improved they can return. In practice it never happens and everyone is granted indefinite or further limited leave.

That's not true from my experience a minority Ethiopian associate was returned.

Does he make this claim anywhere?

What do you think the purpose is of him quoting and "As Charles Clarke, the former Labour home secretary, has observed: "These are wide-ranging categories which, depending on your definition of persecution, probably cover hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people living in a world where international communications means that more and more people are aware of their 'rights' and seek to take them up." And human rights case law is gradually widening the definitions."

He's making the claim via someone else's quote.

 

[sihhi]

Back to the "welfare burden bullshit. Why is he couching the asylum issue in with the overall immigration argument?

Because he believes "Britain" is a "rich, stable, liberal country" and too many asylum seekers will stop it becoming so - hence his comparison between Uganda and Britain.

"people in poor countries who, understandably enough, do not want to wait the several generations it might take for, say, Uganda to become a rich, stable, liberal country such as Britain."

 

[eatmorecheese]

Because he believes "Britain" is a "rich, stable, liberal country" and too many asylum seekers will stop it becoming so - hence his comparison between Uganda and Britain.

"people in poor countries who, understandably enough, do not want to wait the several generations it might take for, say, Uganda to become a rich, stable, liberal country such as Britain."

Ok, so people who have fled their countries of origin should return when things improve in order to develop their societies into "rich, stable, liberal" countries. These are the same asylum seekers who will stop the UK being a "rich, stable, liberal country"?

Seems a fairly weak argument to me.

 

[sihhi]

Ok, so people who have fled their countries of origin should return when things improve in order to develop their societies into "rich, stable, liberal" countries. These are the same asylum seekers who will stop the UK being a "rich, stable, liberal country"?

Seems a fairly weak argument to me.

Yes, It's very weak.
I detected something more sinister like offering a new left-wing anti-immigrant option for Miliband, which might not be there.

 

[eatmorecheese]

Yes, It's very weak.
I detected something more sinister like offering a new left-wing anti-immigrant option for Miliband, which might not be there.

I really hope not, but Milliband's party political broadcast (was it yesterday?) on immigration looked like they were preparing to make "tough choices". I hate the way immigration and asylum are conflated.

 

[likesfish]

possibly if the country starts turning the corner such as liberia or sierria leone and they could go back and contribute.
not sure a poor marginlised person in london is suddenly going to become useful if they go "home"
One somali needs to be fucked off Mustafa Abdi.
Child raping scumbag send him to one of the royal navy ships off shore load in dinghy good bye

 

[SpineyNorman]

Yes, dear

Go play with the traffic.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I think what he is trying to say is that anyone with indefinite leave to remain should really be kicked out once the reasons for them coming over here cease to apply.

I think this is it. He wrote a long article on immigration and 'how the left got it wrong' for the Daily Mail a few weeks ago (don't know if this has been discussed on another thread on here).

Presumably part of the motive is to help Labour to shore up what it sees as the growing threat from UKIP hoovering up votes in its ex- core constituency, the working class?

 

[Streathamite]

Ok, so people who have fled their countries of origin should return when things improve in order to develop their societies into "rich, stable, liberal" countries. These are the same asylum seekers who will stop the UK being a "rich, stable, liberal country"?

Seems a fairly weak argument to me.

To me, it's riddled with a racist subtext; "these people aren't good enough to do anything but drag this country down, but their country is so much the lesser of ours - because those people are - that their return, together with all the blessings they bring back from mighty Britain, can do nothing but improve their country"

 

[eatmorecheese]

To me, it's riddled with a racist subtext; "these people aren't good enough to do anything but drag this country down, but their country is so much the lesser of ours - because those people are - that their return, together with all the blessings they bring back from mighty Britain, can do nothing but improve their country"

Quite.

 

[captainmission]

That's not true from my experience a minority Ethiopian associate was returned.

So this person was granted limited leave as a refugee or under humanitarian protection post august 2007 and was then refused settlement and removed?

What do you think the purpose is of him quoting and "As Charles Clarke, the former Labour home secretary, has observed: "These are wide-ranging categories which, depending on your definition of persecution, probably cover hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people living in a world where international communications means that more and more people are aware of their 'rights' and seek to take them up." And human rights case law is gradually widening the definitions."

He's making the claim via someone else's quote.

Both of the things that charles clarke says are true. He's wrong about more and more people taking up these rights; due to it being made harder to claim asylum it's less and less. But hundreds of millions across the world would have the right to seek protection in another country and human rights law has increased the grounds for asylum seekers to get leave in the UK. Clarke's certainly engaging in dog whistle politics, but i'm not sure how you conclude Goodhart is saying "that just any Somali can make a claim and get welcomed into Britain".

Just as agricola says the point he's making is that "anyone with indefinite leave to remain should really be kicked out once the reasons for them coming over here cease to apply."


Nominally that is already UK policy for post 2007 asylum seekers. Its totally impractical to apply so doesn't happen. But a lot of people would find that statement entirely reasonable and the left does itself no favours by being so defensive and always having racist on the tip of its tongue

 

[sihhi]

So this person was granted limited leave as a refugee or under humanitarian protection post august 2007 and was then refused settlement and removed?

pre-Aug 2007, but then removed - wife and small child in tow.

Both of the things that charles clarke says are true. He's wrong about more and more people taking up these rights; due to it being made harder to claim asylum it's less and less. But hundreds of millions across the world would have the right to seek protection in another country and human rights law has increased the grounds for asylum seekers to get leave in the UK. Clarke's certainly engaging in dog whistle politics, but i'm not sure how you conclude Goodhart is saying "that just any Somali can make a claim and get welcomed into Britain".

That's the whole thrust of his piece - if there isn't this threat of extreme numbers of Somalis entering, why the focus on deportation

Just as agricola says the point he's making is that "anyone with indefinite leave to remain should really be kicked out once the reasons for them coming over here cease to apply."

The point is: who judges this, under what considerations?
There have been cases of Congo deportations to areas where the minority in that part of Congo have been targeted, or else immediately arrested.

Nominally that is already UK policy for post 2007 asylum seekers. Its totally impractical to apply so doesn't happen. But a lot of people would find that statement entirely reasonable and the left does itself no favours by being so defensive and always having racist on the tip of its tongue

I didn't use the word, not sure how you know what is on the tip of people's tongues. I do think this liberal lot are total hypocrites though.

Here's their latest effort:

http://www.demos.co.uk/press_releas...oritypopulationnowliveinmajoritynonwhiteareas

David Goodhart, Director of Demos, said:
“The greater concentration of the ethnic minority population means there is less opportunity for interaction with the white mainstream. One problem with this relates to employment. Most jobs come through knowing someone, and most of those hiring for good jobs are from the white majority.
“A growing population which is geographically separate and has limited familiarity with majority cultural codes or connection to majority networks may find its occupational mobility reduced. Canadian studies, for example, show that immigrants in cities with larger immigrant shares of the population (i.e. Toronto, Vancouver) perform less well against the national average than immigrants in smaller, less diverse cities.”

with spurious social science to match "studies, for example, show that immigrants in cities with larger immigrant shares of the population (i.e. Toronto, Vancouver) perform less well against the national average than immigrants in smaller, less diverse cities"

 

[DownwardDog]

He is wrong in claiming that just any Somali can make a claim and get welcomed into Britain, you need to prove a severe repeat pattern of (usually clan-based or anti-minority) intimidation and violence before you are accepted on any terms.

There's 100,000+ Somali asylum seekers in the UK so it can't be that hard.

 

[treelover]

Imo, DEMOS aren't liberals, they are Blairites/crypto-tories.

 

[JimW]

There's 100,000+ Somali asylum seekers in the UK so it can't be that hard.

What could those factors in war-torn Somalia be that meant so many people meet the initial criteria, I wonder?

 

[YouSir]

There's 100,000+ Somali asylum seekers in the UK so it can't be that hard.

Are there? I very much doubt that.

 

[JimW]

Are there? I very much doubt that.

Good point too - adding up the applications received (i.e. even included those rejected right off) over the last decade here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalis_in_the_United_Kingdom#Refugees_and_asylum_seekers you get nowhere near half that figure.

 

[YouSir]

Good point too - adding up the applications received (i.e. even included those rejected right off) over the last decade here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalis_in_the_United_Kingdom#Refugees_and_asylum_seekers you get nowhere near half that figure.

Not specifically related to anyone here but it does seem that most people have very little idea what being an Asylum seeker actually entails - there really aren't many of them. Looked it up a while back and it was something like 0.04% of the population. Immigration of other sorts is completely different.