Mind the Gap! Coalition claims and realities for child detention in the UK

The world's population is currently approaching 7 billion, with rapid depletion of remaining cheap fossil fuels, rising material expectations and impending climate disruption. So how exactly is cramming more people into an overcrowded island going to help? For every so-called asylum seeker in the UK, there are hundreds of destitute people in third world metropolises suffering the consequences of a failed model of development. The experiment has failed.
Type "London immigration" into the search engine of your choice and you will be directed to the sites and promotional videos of some very well-to-do immigration lawyers. Growth is the enemy, rational humanity and common sense are best solutions for the undeniable limits to growth we have hit.

In reply to:

Neil I don't think that any of the people who have concerns about the UK's treatment of asylum seekers are arguing that if everyone can stay in Britain then climate change and world poverty will cease. That is simply a jumble of associations in a rather woolly mind that hs been ordered by too intensive a diet of Express and Daily Mail. And what on earth do you mean by 'growth is the enemy'? There may be some sort of defensible argument in there somewhere about the ideology of productivity, but your statement is so utterly vague as to be indefensible. It also has nothing to do with the treatment of vulnerable adults and even more vulnerable children in the system of detention that the UK enforces upon those who seek sanctuary here. The jumbled, unsupported nature of the attacks upon this article illustrate the quality of the debate in wider arenas very clearly indeed.
Congratulations on pushing all the right psychological buttons likely to appeal to wishful-thinking Guardian and Independent readers. Simply stating in your very authoritative tone that my thinking is jumbled doesn't make it so, unless you provide evidence. It amounts to little more than a carefully worded ad hominem attack.
My point is simple. Unsustainable net immigration in the UK simply worsens the average quality of life for ordinary people in the UK, while it no doubt may benefit the short-term interests of UK-based multinationals eager for a ready supply of cheap labour.
By contrast, a few extra million UK residents is but a drop in the ocean compared to the millions of very real human tragedies worldwide. We need to consume less, not more, which would put me at odds with your average DM reader convinced that climate change is scam to deny them of their God-given right to drive their 4x4s around M25. I take an environmentalist stance. So if we really want to help people in other countries, we'd better promote sustainable development both here (i.e. lead by example) and abroad. I also disagree with the notion that the UK is morally superior to other countries or better able to safeguard people's human rights. These rights are ultimately best served by a sustainable environment, which I believe can only be realistically achieved if we act now to lower aggregate consumption. Each new immigrant to this country increases demand for imported resources that only exacerbate the exploitation of developing countries by Western multinationals. 
Remember I live reality on the ground in London every day and have travelled extensively in South America and Africa. It has become a city of extremes. Unfortunately I'm not entitled to housing benefit and have to rent a room at market rates. Overcrowding London ain't going help. It's an extremely wasteful and expensive way to let a few individuals get a taste of great American dream
PS: Have you read Jared Diamond or Richard Heinberg?
Source URL: 
http://www.opendemocracy.net/node/57414#comment-123970670
+