Afghan interpreters petition delivered to Cameron

[Jimbuna]

These translators weren't forced to participate Sky....like the Gurkhas before them, they made a choice.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

These translators weren't forced to participate Sky....like the Gurkhas before them, they made a choice.

Yes, they volunteered. However, the Gurkhas made a choice to fight for Britain, and to serve for Britain - that si why Britain owed to them. The interpreters made a choice to serve for Afghanistan's future. The Germans going there served Afghanistan'S future, or tried so. The interpreters did not decide for serving Germany. That is the difference between them and the Gurkhas.

You really cannot see that difference?

Anyhow, as I said, let's be generous and let them in if they are willing to integrate in Germany, okay. But them, and their immediate close family only. And I stick to it: it is no moral obligation of Germany to let them in, but a generous gesture. They did not serve Germany, but themselves, and Afghanistan. They are not like the Gurkhas.

[Jimbuna]

No problem...we agree to disagree but we are the same on one point...let them come to our respective countries.

[Skybird]

It might only be academic in this case, but still - it's just that I cannot understand you. I fail to see the parallel you draw between the Gurkhas and the Afghans there.

If an African guy would lend a hand to a British development worker in Africa, this hardly earns him the right for asylum in Britain - Britain came to the help or aid of that African country, so what claim has that country or guy to make against Britain for owing it/him something? But if a guy from Puerto Rico serves in the US armed forces for some time, that service is not for Puerto Rico but the US, and it - deservedly - earns him citizenship after some time. Obviously, both cases do not compare! The first example is about serving that African country, or one'S own interest to have a regular income. The second is about serving America. Two totally different motivations and view on things! Voluntariness is not a thing of interest in this, it has no relevance for this whole question. I am quite certain that many of those Afghan interpreters did not even sign in due to wanting to serve Afghanistan's future, but because of the money the get payed for their job. That is okay, no moral objection. It's just that this also is no argument to imply that Britain/Germany have the obligation to accept them in Europe now.

Yes, we agree to let them (and their very closest relatives only) in. It just is an intellectual "quarrel" I have with you over your strange comparison to the Gurkhas. The Gurkhas came to the explicit and dedicated service for Britain. The interpreters came to the service for Afghanistan's future (if they were idealists) or their own interest to have a job and have an income. They did not come to the service for Germany or Britain, quite the other way around - Germany and Britain came to the service of Afghanistan (or so they argue).

[Jimbuna]

I used Gurkha as an example because that was the first comparator that sprung to mind.

It would be the same for any national that helped our troops on the front line and as a consequence of our troops pulling out found themselves and their family in clear and present danger.

We are not talking of tens of thousands here in fact the number would probably be miniscule when considering the number of illegal immigrants currently in the UK.

One other consideration should be the fact that these people usually have skills in addition to their bilingual capability.

[August]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I used Gurkha as an example because that was the first comparator that sprung to mind.

It would be the same for any national that helped our troops on the front line and as a consequence of our troops pulling out found themselves and their family in clear and present danger.

We are not talking of tens of thousands here in fact the number would probably be miniscule when considering the number of illegal immigrants currently in the UK.

One other consideration should be the fact that these people usually have skills in addition to their bilingual capability.

This ^

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I used Gurkha as an example because that was the first comparator that sprung to mind.

It would be the same for any national that helped our troops on the front line and as a consequence of our troops pulling out found themselves and their family in clear and present danger.

We are not talking of tens of thousands here in fact the number would probably be miniscule when considering the number of illegal immigrants currently in the UK.

One other consideration should be the fact that these people usually have skills in addition to their bilingual capability.

Still, the motivation is totally different. It is a difference whether you help foreign troops to help your country and you take risks over that, or you help foreign troops and take risks for their country. I talked, by chance, with two friends yesterday. They too see the difference. I fail to see why one c/would miss it.

But anyhow, nix für ungut.

[Platapus]

So the next conflict that the Brits are involved in, will they be "shocked" when the local populace does not collaborate with them?

Not a very good message to send to the world.

"help us fight our enemies and when we are done, you are on your own"