Afghan interpreters petition delivered to Cameron

[Jimbuna]

Absolutely disgraceful...these people have stood shoulder to shoulder with our troops and deserve better treatment than to be left stranded and targets for the Taliban.

It was done for the Gurkha's after all.

Campaigners have petitioned Downing Street to call for Afghan interpreters who worked with UK forces to be given the right to settle in Britain.
Sir Winston Churchill's great-grandson Alexander Perkins helped deliver the 60,000-signature petition.
Some interpreters have been offered resettlement in the UK, but campaigners want all staff treated equally.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23684980

How many decades did it take for the Gurkhas to get the right to reside?

[Skybird]

Same with the Afghans helping the Germans. Around 5000 translators and scouts cooperated with the Bundeswehr, it was written in a paper some weeks ago. I'm all for letting them and their close families (not the whole village clan) into Germany, if - what can be assumed in most cases, since they worked with the Germans - they are not holding fundamentalist views (which would be an unpardonable exclusion criterion, of course). But only the actual workers, brothers and sisters of the workers since they are at high risk also and are not older than a to-be-defined criterion age (they should be young enough to be able to integrate and adapt to life in Germany), the workers' wifes for obvious reasons, their children. Not more. Not the old parents, not aunts, uncles, siblings' marriage partners and their children - they have to make a tough decision. I know, and I'm sorry, but one has to define a criterion and a red line, and I want that criterion defined tight. So it is - for example - the translator, his wife, his kids, his brothers and sisters of same generation, period.

In the end, I am disagreeing with those saying that we owe this to them. We do not owe this to them, for our people went to their cursed country and tried to help THEM, and took risks for THEM - not th eother way around; and what these translators did was no service to Germany, but a service to their own country in an attempt to improve its' situation. I indeed see it as generosity from our side if nevertheless we welcome the active staff in Germany now: generosity, not a moral obligation. But I do not see why our social system should pay for their whole village clan, so to speak. And let'S be realistic: thes epeople coming to germany (if they are allowed in), will be social netto receivers, not netto payers. That's why I refuse their elders and parents, cousins and uncles and aunts and so many more.

I refuse your comparison with the Gurkhas, Jim. The Gurkhas fought in the name and for the British crown. You see my point.

[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).