I think the way western countries, specifically the US and UK treated the native people who helped them, hoping they would not be left behind in case the Taliban took over will be a good warning to any other countries’ people not to be so helpful should the US and UK decide to ~~invade them~~ restore peace in other places.
What’s the new criteria? Article wasn’t super clear.
Is it ‘must pass a COVID test’ kind of thin or ‘must have a skill set we can use and abuse’?
assuming that anyone who has ever aided the UK falls under the category of being at risk then i don’t think there’s anything wrong here – though even if it goes over the 20k cap anyone who helped the UK government really should be allowed to come here without any extra hoops to jump through, it’s just the reality of the mistake that was entering afgahnistan.
this was a really poorly written article though with grammatical errors and very little information, just quotes from people who are naturally against any form of ‘lag’ when it comes to immigration
I’m going to end up repeating myself a bit when this topic comes up but I don’t care.
This sounds a lot like HMG going back to the old system of investigating ‘intimidation’ from a few years back when the onus was completely on the ‘claimant’ (their words not mine) to prove that they were being threatened. I had the misfortune to work with that unit for a while in Kabul in 2017. Even the parliament defence committee found that the whole system at the time wasn’t fit for purpose. The next I heard it had been been merged with the old Ex-Gratia Scheme for former employees and rebadged as ARAP.
Imagine getting attacked in the street or receiving death threats and then trying to prove it took place when the people ‘investigating’ aren’t even in the bloody country where it happened. Even when we had investigators in the country they’d be asking potential victims why they didn’t bother to make a list of witnesses or why they didn’t report the incidents to the Afghan national police while at the same time warning the same ‘claimants’ that the police were corrupt. The whole system seemed to be set up to say no.
When one Afghan MOD employee (who actually worked with me on this stuff daily, he’s here in the UK now thankfully) actually spoke up and told the civil servants in charge that he thought the system was flawed, instead of listening to him they tried (and thankfully failed due to my boss out there at the time) to designate him as an ‘insider threat’ and take away his right for him and his family to relocate to the UK.
We should welcome 100% of these immigrants. Anybody who says otherwise is racist.
Afghanistan is extremely high risk and there are some deeply dangerous and questionable people out there who might try to exploit ‘refugee’ status to get into the UK, then what?
We are right to be cautious. It is possible to extend a ‘warm welcome’ without lifting the doors off their hinges.
6 comments
I think the way western countries, specifically the US and UK treated the native people who helped them, hoping they would not be left behind in case the Taliban took over will be a good warning to any other countries’ people not to be so helpful should the US and UK decide to ~~invade them~~ restore peace in other places.
What’s the new criteria? Article wasn’t super clear.
Is it ‘must pass a COVID test’ kind of thin or ‘must have a skill set we can use and abuse’?
assuming that anyone who has ever aided the UK falls under the category of being at risk then i don’t think there’s anything wrong here – though even if it goes over the 20k cap anyone who helped the UK government really should be allowed to come here without any extra hoops to jump through, it’s just the reality of the mistake that was entering afgahnistan.
this was a really poorly written article though with grammatical errors and very little information, just quotes from people who are naturally against any form of ‘lag’ when it comes to immigration
I’m going to end up repeating myself a bit when this topic comes up but I don’t care.
This sounds a lot like HMG going back to the old system of investigating ‘intimidation’ from a few years back when the onus was completely on the ‘claimant’ (their words not mine) to prove that they were being threatened. I had the misfortune to work with that unit for a while in Kabul in 2017. Even the parliament defence committee found that the whole system at the time wasn’t fit for purpose. The next I heard it had been been merged with the old Ex-Gratia Scheme for former employees and rebadged as ARAP.
Imagine getting attacked in the street or receiving death threats and then trying to prove it took place when the people ‘investigating’ aren’t even in the bloody country where it happened. Even when we had investigators in the country they’d be asking potential victims why they didn’t bother to make a list of witnesses or why they didn’t report the incidents to the Afghan national police while at the same time warning the same ‘claimants’ that the police were corrupt. The whole system seemed to be set up to say no.
When one Afghan MOD employee (who actually worked with me on this stuff daily, he’s here in the UK now thankfully) actually spoke up and told the civil servants in charge that he thought the system was flawed, instead of listening to him they tried (and thankfully failed due to my boss out there at the time) to designate him as an ‘insider threat’ and take away his right for him and his family to relocate to the UK.
We should welcome 100% of these immigrants. Anybody who says otherwise is racist.
Afghanistan is extremely high risk and there are some deeply dangerous and questionable people out there who might try to exploit ‘refugee’ status to get into the UK, then what?
We are right to be cautious. It is possible to extend a ‘warm welcome’ without lifting the doors off their hinges.