"Hi, my name is Matthew Parris and I am such a liberal that refugees can die somewhere else because frankly they are too poor and foreign for me to care about." 
The premise of @MatthewParris3's column appears to be that the public are so against asylum seekers that even "liberals" should get on the bandwagon of undermining the entire international refugee regime. thetimes.co.uk/article/234a0a…
There's nothing "liberal" about abandoning people or trying to make out the relatively tiny number of asylum seekers the UK takes is a "problem". There is definitely nothing "moral" @MatthewParris3 about calling for the main legal protection of vulnerable people to be removed.
That wealth and safety are seemingly inseparable in the eyes says everything that needs saying in my opinion, and maybe Parris didn't mean to imply that, but it is definitely how it comes across. For people seeking safety it is about far more than getting "richer".
I am sure @MatthewParris3 will have done his research for this column, after all he managed to demonstrate how few, relatively speaking, asylum seekers UK hosts, so I'm sure he knows 86% reside in developing nations. Developing nations take a fraction, and he wants to take less.
So that's why it appears people being "poor", not necessarily the case for asylum seekers by the way, comes across as being a suggested as a factor in denying them safety. The idea they should be denied it because they are foreign needs far less analysis with comments like this.
Okay, time to mute this one.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
