Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?" Businesses are generally in favour of allowing asylum seekers to work after being here for 6 months. It would fill gaps in the job market, and provided extra tax revenue. The Rwanda scheme is bread and circus for the Tory base - nothing more. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/asylum-seekers-work-hotels-home-office-b1057556.html | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?" That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? " More asylum seekers stay than are deported, so the odds are in the favour of the poor souls felling god knows what. I know that if my family were in danger I’d take the chance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? " It will never be enacted , even if it is, it won’t deter anyone  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? More asylum seekers stay than are deported, so the odds are in the favour of the poor souls felling god knows what. I know that if my family were in danger I’d take the chance." Exactly, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’m ignoring the deliberately inflammatory language of deporting asylum seekers being ‘an absolute bargain’" Don’t worry, it is being heavily influenced from Tufton Street | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? More asylum seekers stay than are deported, so the odds are in the favour of the poor souls felling god knows what. I know that if my family were in danger I’d take the chance." How do you currently deport an asylum seeker whose country of origin you don't know? I've asked this question for the last 8 months or so. Still no answer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? More asylum seekers stay than are deported, so the odds are in the favour of the poor souls felling god knows what. I know that if my family were in danger I’d take the chance. How do you currently deport an asylum seeker whose country of origin you don't know? I've asked this question for the last 8 months or so. Still no answer." Under U.K law they can be returned to any country that will take them. Unfortunately for the frothing mouth bigots, Britain lacks third country return agreements since leaving the EU. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? More asylum seekers stay than are deported, so the odds are in the favour of the poor souls felling god knows what. I know that if my family were in danger I’d take the chance. How do you currently deport an asylum seeker whose country of origin you don't know? I've asked this question for the last 8 months or so. Still no answer. Under U.K law they can be returned to any country that will take them. Unfortunately for the frothing mouth bigots, Britain lacks third country return agreements since leaving the EU. " No they can not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? More asylum seekers stay than are deported, so the odds are in the favour of the poor souls felling god knows what. I know that if my family were in danger I’d take the chance. How do you currently deport an asylum seeker whose country of origin you don't know? I've asked this question for the last 8 months or so. Still no answer. Under U.K law they can be returned to any country that will take them. Unfortunately for the frothing mouth bigots, Britain lacks third country return agreements since leaving the EU. No they can not." https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/943128/CCS207_CCS1220673408-002_Explantory_Memorandum_to_HC_1043__Web_Accessible_.pdf | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would be interested in seeing this law that says the uk can dump an illegal migrant at any country that will take them. Please show me the act passed through Parliament or international agreement. Cheers " The immigration act 1971 - changes to immigration rules can be made without parliamentary oversight. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wait until you find out how much MPs claim on expenses - that we're paying for. Most of them are claiming figures approaching £300,000 per year - on top of their £84,000 salaries. Most of us have to pay for our own travel to work etc" Far be it from me to defend MP expenses, but the vast majority goes on staffing costs. (Albeit with some very extreme piss-taking examples thrown in) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? More asylum seekers stay than are deported, so the odds are in the favour of the poor souls felling god knows what. I know that if my family were in danger I’d take the chance. How do you currently deport an asylum seeker whose country of origin you don't know? I've asked this question for the last 8 months or so. Still no answer. Under U.K law they can be returned to any country that will take them. Unfortunately for the frothing mouth bigots, Britain lacks third country return agreements since leaving the EU. No they can not. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/943128/CCS207_CCS1220673408-002_Explantory_Memorandum_to_HC_1043__Web_Accessible_.pdf" No this doest say what you think it does. This is the change in law we are currently fighting to keep vs the human rights solicitors. Not what is actually enacted yet. Hence the legal cases. So you are highlighting we are having to change the law because current law doesn't allow it  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wait until you find out how much MPs claim on expenses - that we're paying for. Most of them are claiming figures approaching £300,000 per year - on top of their £84,000 salaries. Most of us have to pay for our own travel to work etc" These are typically for people to work in their office | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? More asylum seekers stay than are deported, so the odds are in the favour of the poor souls felling god knows what. I know that if my family were in danger I’d take the chance. How do you currently deport an asylum seeker whose country of origin you don't know? I've asked this question for the last 8 months or so. Still no answer. Under U.K law they can be returned to any country that will take them. Unfortunately for the frothing mouth bigots, Britain lacks third country return agreements since leaving the EU. No they can not. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/943128/CCS207_CCS1220673408-002_Explantory_Memorandum_to_HC_1043__Web_Accessible_.pdf No this doest say what you think it does. This is the change in law we are currently fighting to keep vs the human rights solicitors. Not what is actually enacted yet. Hence the legal cases. So you are highlighting we are having to change the law because current law doesn't allow it "The rules changed at 23:00 on 31st December 2020. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? More asylum seekers stay than are deported, so the odds are in the favour of the poor souls felling god knows what. I know that if my family were in danger I’d take the chance. How do you currently deport an asylum seeker whose country of origin you don't know? I've asked this question for the last 8 months or so. Still no answer. Under U.K law they can be returned to any country that will take them. Unfortunately for the frothing mouth bigots, Britain lacks third country return agreements since leaving the EU. No they can not. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/943128/CCS207_CCS1220673408-002_Explantory_Memorandum_to_HC_1043__Web_Accessible_.pdf No this doest say what you think it does. This is the change in law we are currently fighting to keep vs the human rights solicitors. Not what is actually enacted yet. Hence the legal cases. So you are highlighting we are having to change the law because current law doesn't allow it
The rules changed at 23:00 on 31st December 2020.
"So then before Rwanda plan we couldn't.. and now we can. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? More asylum seekers stay than are deported, so the odds are in the favour of the poor souls felling god knows what. I know that if my family were in danger I’d take the chance. How do you currently deport an asylum seeker whose country of origin you don't know? I've asked this question for the last 8 months or so. Still no answer. Under U.K law they can be returned to any country that will take them. Unfortunately for the frothing mouth bigots, Britain lacks third country return agreements since leaving the EU. No they can not. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/943128/CCS207_CCS1220673408-002_Explantory_Memorandum_to_HC_1043__Web_Accessible_.pdf No this doest say what you think it does. This is the change in law we are currently fighting to keep vs the human rights solicitors. Not what is actually enacted yet. Hence the legal cases. So you are highlighting we are having to change the law because current law doesn't allow it
The rules changed at 23:00 on 31st December 2020.
So then before Rwanda plan we couldn't.. and now we can.
"How many have been sent to Rwanda? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? More asylum seekers stay than are deported, so the odds are in the favour of the poor souls felling god knows what. I know that if my family were in danger I’d take the chance. How do you currently deport an asylum seeker whose country of origin you don't know? I've asked this question for the last 8 months or so. Still no answer. Under U.K law they can be returned to any country that will take them. Unfortunately for the frothing mouth bigots, Britain lacks third country return agreements since leaving the EU. No they can not. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/943128/CCS207_CCS1220673408-002_Explantory_Memorandum_to_HC_1043__Web_Accessible_.pdf No this doest say what you think it does. This is the change in law we are currently fighting to keep vs the human rights solicitors. Not what is actually enacted yet. Hence the legal cases. So you are highlighting we are having to change the law because current law doesn't allow it
The rules changed at 23:00 on 31st December 2020.
So then before Rwanda plan we couldn't.. and now we can.
How many have been sent to Rwanda? "None due to legal challenges. Because we had to change the law to allow it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? More asylum seekers stay than are deported, so the odds are in the favour of the poor souls felling god knows what. I know that if my family were in danger I’d take the chance. How do you currently deport an asylum seeker whose country of origin you don't know? I've asked this question for the last 8 months or so. Still no answer. Under U.K law they can be returned to any country that will take them. Unfortunately for the frothing mouth bigots, Britain lacks third country return agreements since leaving the EU. No they can not. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/943128/CCS207_CCS1220673408-002_Explantory_Memorandum_to_HC_1043__Web_Accessible_.pdf No this doest say what you think it does. This is the change in law we are currently fighting to keep vs the human rights solicitors. Not what is actually enacted yet. Hence the legal cases. So you are highlighting we are having to change the law because current law doesn't allow it
The rules changed at 23:00 on 31st December 2020.
So then before Rwanda plan we couldn't.. and now we can.
How many have been sent to Rwanda?
None due to legal challenges. Because we had to change the law to allow it. "Zero then? And when was the scheme first introduced? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? More asylum seekers stay than are deported, so the odds are in the favour of the poor souls felling god knows what. I know that if my family were in danger I’d take the chance. How do you currently deport an asylum seeker whose country of origin you don't know? I've asked this question for the last 8 months or so. Still no answer. Under U.K law they can be returned to any country that will take them. Unfortunately for the frothing mouth bigots, Britain lacks third country return agreements since leaving the EU. No they can not. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/943128/CCS207_CCS1220673408-002_Explantory_Memorandum_to_HC_1043__Web_Accessible_.pdf No this doest say what you think it does. This is the change in law we are currently fighting to keep vs the human rights solicitors. Not what is actually enacted yet. Hence the legal cases. So you are highlighting we are having to change the law because current law doesn't allow it
The rules changed at 23:00 on 31st December 2020.
So then before Rwanda plan we couldn't.. and now we can.
How many have been sent to Rwanda?
None due to legal challenges. Because we had to change the law to allow it. "And here endeth the lesson on ‘the myth of sovereignty’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? More asylum seekers stay than are deported, so the odds are in the favour of the poor souls felling god knows what. I know that if my family were in danger I’d take the chance. How do you currently deport an asylum seeker whose country of origin you don't know? I've asked this question for the last 8 months or so. Still no answer. Under U.K law they can be returned to any country that will take them. Unfortunately for the frothing mouth bigots, Britain lacks third country return agreements since leaving the EU. No they can not. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/943128/CCS207_CCS1220673408-002_Explantory_Memorandum_to_HC_1043__Web_Accessible_.pdf No this doest say what you think it does. This is the change in law we are currently fighting to keep vs the human rights solicitors. Not what is actually enacted yet. Hence the legal cases. So you are highlighting we are having to change the law because current law doesn't allow it
The rules changed at 23:00 on 31st December 2020.
So then before Rwanda plan we couldn't.. and now we can.
How many have been sent to Rwanda?
None due to legal challenges. Because we had to change the law to allow it.
And here endeth the lesson on ‘the myth of sovereignty’"Why? It's our courts ruling. Not the ecj. So yes...sovereignty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? More asylum seekers stay than are deported, so the odds are in the favour of the poor souls felling god knows what. I know that if my family were in danger I’d take the chance. How do you currently deport an asylum seeker whose country of origin you don't know? I've asked this question for the last 8 months or so. Still no answer. Under U.K law they can be returned to any country that will take them. Unfortunately for the frothing mouth bigots, Britain lacks third country return agreements since leaving the EU. No they can not. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/943128/CCS207_CCS1220673408-002_Explantory_Memorandum_to_HC_1043__Web_Accessible_.pdf No this doest say what you think it does. This is the change in law we are currently fighting to keep vs the human rights solicitors. Not what is actually enacted yet. Hence the legal cases. So you are highlighting we are having to change the law because current law doesn't allow it
The rules changed at 23:00 on 31st December 2020.
So then before Rwanda plan we couldn't.. and now we can.
How many have been sent to Rwanda?
None due to legal challenges. Because we had to change the law to allow it.
And here endeth the lesson on ‘the myth of sovereignty’"Exactly, up to now the Rwanda scheme has cost £140 million, money that has left the country and we have deported the grand total of zero asylum seekers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? That gets them out of the UK for that cost. They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? More asylum seekers stay than are deported, so the odds are in the favour of the poor souls felling god knows what. I know that if my family were in danger I’d take the chance. How do you currently deport an asylum seeker whose country of origin you don't know? I've asked this question for the last 8 months or so. Still no answer. Under U.K law they can be returned to any country that will take them. Unfortunately for the frothing mouth bigots, Britain lacks third country return agreements since leaving the EU. No they can not. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/943128/CCS207_CCS1220673408-002_Explantory_Memorandum_to_HC_1043__Web_Accessible_.pdf No this doest say what you think it does. This is the change in law we are currently fighting to keep vs the human rights solicitors. Not what is actually enacted yet. Hence the legal cases. So you are highlighting we are having to change the law because current law doesn't allow it
The rules changed at 23:00 on 31st December 2020.
So then before Rwanda plan we couldn't.. and now we can.
How many have been sent to Rwanda?
None due to legal challenges. Because we had to change the law to allow it.
And here endeth the lesson on ‘the myth of sovereignty’
Why?
It's our courts ruling.
Not the ecj.
So yes...sovereignty.
"How many migrants have been deported to Rwanda did you say? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?" Racism in all its forms tends to be an expensive economic activity. None of the Brexit supporting racists cared anything about the economic costs of Brexit, Similarly, the frothing supporters of the Rwanda policy would not give a hoot that it would cost £billions in the long term as long as every refugee and asylum seeker could be deported. It would be their dream. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? Racism in all its forms tends to be an expensive economic activity. None of the Brexit supporting racists cared anything about the economic costs of Brexit, Similarly, the frothing supporters of the Rwanda policy would not give a hoot that it would cost £billions in the long term as long as every refugee and asylum seeker could be deported. It would be their dream." Imagine someone asking above if it was possible to have a sensible debate on this and your input is 'racists don't give a fuck' Clearly its not possible. This place really has gone to shit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them." £140 million, no one deported to Rwanda | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. £140 million, no one deported to Rwanda "yeah totally wasted but it's not to say the idea is correct | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. £140 million, no one deported to Rwanda yeah totally wasted but it's not to say the idea is correct "How can it be correct if nobody has been deported? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. £140 million, no one deported to Rwanda yeah totally wasted but it's not to say the idea is correct
How can it be correct if nobody has been deported? "We can't yet deport because of the legal challenges. Thats how out legal system works. Once the final ruling is over. The t he deportations begi, the costs lower, and we see less.boat arrivals. I look forward to it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. £140 million, no one deported to Rwanda yeah totally wasted but it's not to say the idea is correct
How can it be correct if nobody has been deported?
We can't yet deport because of the legal challenges.
Thats how out legal system works.
Once the final ruling is over. The t he deportations begi, the costs lower, and we see less.boat arrivals.
I look forward to it."When was the scheme first introduced? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. £140 million, no one deported to Rwanda yeah totally wasted but it's not to say the idea is correct
How can it be correct if nobody has been deported?
We can't yet deport because of the legal challenges.
Thats how out legal system works.
Once the final ruling is over. The t he deportations begi, the costs lower, and we see less.boat arrivals.
I look forward to it.
When was the scheme first introduced? "13/4/22 The first flight was scheduled for 14/6/22 before a legal challenge. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. £140 million, no one deported to Rwanda yeah totally wasted but it's not to say the idea is correct
How can it be correct if nobody has been deported?
We can't yet deport because of the legal challenges.
Thats how out legal system works.
Once the final ruling is over. The t he deportations begi, the costs lower, and we see less.boat arrivals.
I look forward to it.
When was the scheme first introduced?
13/4/22
The first flight was scheduled for 14/6/22 before a legal challenge.
"Over 12 months £140 million Zero deportations | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them." Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. " Pfffft you can't fit all that on a Sun or Mail headline. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. " In an economy that recently had over 1.3 million vacancies, stop it with the common sense please.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get em out! See, that's how you write a Sun headline. (Also, it sounds like you're talking about tits too.)" Judging by your last few posts across various threads in the forum, I don’t think you are taking politics too seriously | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get em out! See, that's how you write a Sun headline. (Also, it sounds like you're talking about tits too.) Judging by your last few posts across various threads in the forum, I don’t think you are taking politics too seriously "What gave it away? lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. £140 million, no one deported to Rwanda yeah totally wasted but it's not to say the idea is correct
How can it be correct if nobody has been deported?
We can't yet deport because of the legal challenges.
Thats how out legal system works.
Once the final ruling is over. The t he deportations begi, the costs lower, and we see less.boat arrivals.
I look forward to it.
When was the scheme first introduced?
13/4/22
The first flight was scheduled for 14/6/22 before a legal challenge.
Over 12 months
£140 million
Zero deportations "They have 5 years. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. In an economy that recently had over 1.3 million vacancies, stop it with the common sense please.." It's now closer to 800k | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. " You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. In an economy that recently had over 1.3 million vacancies, stop it with the common sense please.. It's now closer to 800k" Why is that? Immigration? Less people on dole? Companies withdrawing roles as not expanding any more? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. In an economy that recently had over 1.3 million vacancies, stop it with the common sense please.. It's now closer to 800k Why is that? Immigration? Less people on dole? Companies withdrawing roles as not expanding any more?" a mixture of things. We took in a lot of refugees who are now working Firms realised they ant get cheap labour so started investing in machinery to do jobs previously made easier by cheap foreign labour | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law." I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it." pffft you can't ever change laws to make things better. All laws are forever and ever, amen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it." What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required?" Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. " Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later?" How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later?" Sounds like the home office need to do a better job, doesn’t it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? Sounds like the home office need to do a better job, doesn’t it? " I've just had a brilliant idea. The Home Office could hire refugees to sort out any issue. That would solve all the problems at once. My genius today almost scares me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB, "How many do? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
How many do?"No idea | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
How many do?
No idea "69 is always the answer. (hehehe) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?" I was surprised of the figure of 106,000 just for housing and according to the BBC that is the low estimates as it could also be as high as 165,000 or somewhere in between the two. I know the hotels are expensive but up to 165,000 per person just for housing is surprising. On top of that they have the benefits discussed previously. Not sure if they are entitled to NHS treatment as well but would hope the sick get treatment | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? Racism in all its forms tends to be an expensive economic activity. None of the Brexit supporting racists cared anything about the economic costs of Brexit, Similarly, the frothing supporters of the Rwanda policy would not give a hoot that it would cost £billions in the long term as long as every refugee and asylum seeker could be deported. It would be their dream. Imagine someone asking above if it was possible to have a sensible debate on this and your input is 'racists don't give a fuck' Clearly its not possible. This place really has gone to shit." Read this thread. Read what the supporters are saying. How can you have a reasoned debate when people see good value in spending £170,000 per person to send say 1,000 (£170,000,000?) people to Rwanda when on current figures, 70-80% of those people would probably be accepted here as asylum seekers and would be able to work and contribute to the national economy. It’s a bonkers plan that is fuelled entirely on racist entitlement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? Racism in all its forms tends to be an expensive economic activity. None of the Brexit supporting racists cared anything about the economic costs of Brexit, Similarly, the frothing supporters of the Rwanda policy would not give a hoot that it would cost £billions in the long term as long as every refugee and asylum seeker could be deported. It would be their dream. Imagine someone asking above if it was possible to have a sensible debate on this and your input is 'racists don't give a fuck' Clearly its not possible. This place really has gone to shit. Read this thread. Read what the supporters are saying. How can you have a reasoned debate when people see good value in spending £170,000 per person to send say 1,000 (£170,000,000?) people to Rwanda when on current figures, 70-80% of those people would probably be accepted here as asylum seekers and would be able to work and contribute to the national economy. It’s a bonkers plan that is fuelled entirely on racist entitlement." Not one person on this thread has been even remotely racist. As I eluded to already, you're part of the reason we can't have reasoned debate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? Racism in all its forms tends to be an expensive economic activity. None of the Brexit supporting racists cared anything about the economic costs of Brexit, Similarly, the frothing supporters of the Rwanda policy would not give a hoot that it would cost £billions in the long term as long as every refugee and asylum seeker could be deported. It would be their dream. Imagine someone asking above if it was possible to have a sensible debate on this and your input is 'racists don't give a fuck' Clearly its not possible. This place really has gone to shit. Read this thread. Read what the supporters are saying. How can you have a reasoned debate when people see good value in spending £170,000 per person to send say 1,000 (£170,000,000?) people to Rwanda when on current figures, 70-80% of those people would probably be accepted here as asylum seekers and would be able to work and contribute to the national economy. It’s a bonkers plan that is fuelled entirely on racist entitlement." ***************************** I'm sorry to be rather blunt but I consider you are obsessed with dismissing far too many other contributors with the 'racist' slur. You ought to have a little more consideration, before posting such insults in future. Eva X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB, "Not sure about asylum seekers, but 98% of economic migrants who cross in small boats don't have any of the above and block up the system. If you care about asylum seekers, you would care about those playing the system that prevent them being processed and looked after in a timely manner.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? Racism in all its forms tends to be an expensive economic activity. None of the Brexit supporting racists cared anything about the economic costs of Brexit, Similarly, the frothing supporters of the Rwanda policy would not give a hoot that it would cost £billions in the long term as long as every refugee and asylum seeker could be deported. It would be their dream. Imagine someone asking above if it was possible to have a sensible debate on this and your input is 'racists don't give a fuck' Clearly its not possible. This place really has gone to shit. Read this thread. Read what the supporters are saying. How can you have a reasoned debate when people see good value in spending £170,000 per person to send say 1,000 (£170,000,000?) people to Rwanda when on current figures, 70-80% of those people would probably be accepted here as asylum seekers and would be able to work and contribute to the national economy. It’s a bonkers plan that is fuelled entirely on racist entitlement." That is not looking at the bigger picture is it? It might cost more to begin with but if it slows down the economic migrants who are playing the system, then it will begin to pay for itself and allow real asylum seekers refuge. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
Not sure about asylum seekers, but 98% of economic migrants who cross in small boats don't have any of the above and block up the system.
If you care about asylum seekers, you would care about those playing the system that prevent them being processed and looked after in a timely manner.. "This is where we ask you to backup your claim. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
Not sure about asylum seekers, but 98% of economic migrants who cross in small boats don't have any of the above and block up the system.
If you care about asylum seekers, you would care about those playing the system that prevent them being processed and looked after in a timely manner..
This is where we ask you to backup your claim."He can't because you'll say 'but Tufton street' even though the data comes from the GOVT. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? Racism in all its forms tends to be an expensive economic activity. None of the Brexit supporting racists cared anything about the economic costs of Brexit, Similarly, the frothing supporters of the Rwanda policy would not give a hoot that it would cost £billions in the long term as long as every refugee and asylum seeker could be deported. It would be their dream. Imagine someone asking above if it was possible to have a sensible debate on this and your input is 'racists don't give a fuck' Clearly its not possible. This place really has gone to shit. Read this thread. Read what the supporters are saying. How can you have a reasoned debate when people see good value in spending £170,000 per person to send say 1,000 (£170,000,000?) people to Rwanda when on current figures, 70-80% of those people would probably be accepted here as asylum seekers and would be able to work and contribute to the national economy. It’s a bonkers plan that is fuelled entirely on racist entitlement. Not one person on this thread has been even remotely racist. As I eluded to already, you're part of the reason we can't have reasoned debate." You may not see inflammatory comments about deportation being ‘an absolute bargain’ as remotely racist, but as we discussed the other day, this stuff (what is or is not racism) can be subjective. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
Not sure about asylum seekers, but 98% of economic migrants who cross in small boats don't have any of the above and block up the system.
If you care about asylum seekers, you would care about those playing the system that prevent them being processed and looked after in a timely manner..
This is where we ask you to backup your claim.
He can't because you'll say 'but Tufton street' even though the data comes from the GOVT."Am I guilty of regularly saying ‘but Tufton street’ then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? Racism in all its forms tends to be an expensive economic activity. None of the Brexit supporting racists cared anything about the economic costs of Brexit, Similarly, the frothing supporters of the Rwanda policy would not give a hoot that it would cost £billions in the long term as long as every refugee and asylum seeker could be deported. It would be their dream. Imagine someone asking above if it was possible to have a sensible debate on this and your input is 'racists don't give a fuck' Clearly its not possible. This place really has gone to shit. Read this thread. Read what the supporters are saying. How can you have a reasoned debate when people see good value in spending £170,000 per person to send say 1,000 (£170,000,000?) people to Rwanda when on current figures, 70-80% of those people would probably be accepted here as asylum seekers and would be able to work and contribute to the national economy. It’s a bonkers plan that is fuelled entirely on racist entitlement. Not one person on this thread has been even remotely racist. As I eluded to already, you're part of the reason we can't have reasoned debate. You may not see inflammatory comments about deportation being ‘an absolute bargain’ as remotely racist, but as we discussed the other day, this stuff (what is or is not racism) can be subjective." 'An absolute bargain' compared to what it costs to keep asylum seekers long term is someone's opinion. Its not even remotely racist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
Not sure about asylum seekers, but 98% of economic migrants who cross in small boats don't have any of the above and block up the system.
If you care about asylum seekers, you would care about those playing the system that prevent them being processed and looked after in a timely manner..
This is where we ask you to backup your claim.
He can't because you'll say 'but Tufton street' even though the data comes from the GOVT.
Am I guilty of regularly saying ‘but Tufton street’ then?
"It seems to be the latest go to. And yeah, you most definitely have joined in with it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
Not sure about asylum seekers, but 98% of economic migrants who cross in small boats don't have any of the above and block up the system.
If you care about asylum seekers, you would care about those playing the system that prevent them being processed and looked after in a timely manner..
This is where we ask you to backup your claim.
He can't because you'll say 'but Tufton street' even though the data comes from the GOVT.
Am I guilty of regularly saying ‘but Tufton street’ then?
It seems to be the latest go to. And yeah, you most definitely have joined in with it."That’s why I said ‘regularly’ I’ve definitely mentioned Tufton st once today In a thread about….well, Tufton st. But other than that? Are you imagining things again, Morefast? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? Racism in all its forms tends to be an expensive economic activity. None of the Brexit supporting racists cared anything about the economic costs of Brexit, Similarly, the frothing supporters of the Rwanda policy would not give a hoot that it would cost £billions in the long term as long as every refugee and asylum seeker could be deported. It would be their dream. Imagine someone asking above if it was possible to have a sensible debate on this and your input is 'racists don't give a fuck' Clearly its not possible. This place really has gone to shit. Read this thread. Read what the supporters are saying. How can you have a reasoned debate when people see good value in spending £170,000 per person to send say 1,000 (£170,000,000?) people to Rwanda when on current figures, 70-80% of those people would probably be accepted here as asylum seekers and would be able to work and contribute to the national economy. It’s a bonkers plan that is fuelled entirely on racist entitlement. Not one person on this thread has been even remotely racist. As I eluded to already, you're part of the reason we can't have reasoned debate. You may not see inflammatory comments about deportation being ‘an absolute bargain’ as remotely racist, but as we discussed the other day, this stuff (what is or is not racism) can be subjective. 'An absolute bargain' compared to what it costs to keep asylum seekers long term is someone's opinion. Its not even remotely racist." I think placing an arbitrary monetary value on asylum seekers lives is deliberately inflammatory and could be construed as racist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
Not sure about asylum seekers, but 98% of economic migrants who cross in small boats don't have any of the above and block up the system.
If you care about asylum seekers, you would care about those playing the system that prevent them being processed and looked after in a timely manner..
This is where we ask you to backup your claim.
He can't because you'll say 'but Tufton street' even though the data comes from the GOVT.
Am I guilty of regularly saying ‘but Tufton street’ then?
It seems to be the latest go to. And yeah, you most definitely have joined in with it.
That’s why I said ‘regularly’
I’ve definitely mentioned Tufton st once today In a thread about….well, Tufton st. But other than that?
Are you imagining things again, Morefast?"Do you wanna stop with the name calling? That would be a nice start. I'm saying 'Tufton St' seems to be the latest go to and you've joined in on it, which you've just confirmed. Anyway, just do a little research and you'll find the data to back the posters claim, nice and easy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? Racism in all its forms tends to be an expensive economic activity. None of the Brexit supporting racists cared anything about the economic costs of Brexit, Similarly, the frothing supporters of the Rwanda policy would not give a hoot that it would cost £billions in the long term as long as every refugee and asylum seeker could be deported. It would be their dream. Imagine someone asking above if it was possible to have a sensible debate on this and your input is 'racists don't give a fuck' Clearly its not possible. This place really has gone to shit. Read this thread. Read what the supporters are saying. How can you have a reasoned debate when people see good value in spending £170,000 per person to send say 1,000 (£170,000,000?) people to Rwanda when on current figures, 70-80% of those people would probably be accepted here as asylum seekers and would be able to work and contribute to the national economy. It’s a bonkers plan that is fuelled entirely on racist entitlement. Not one person on this thread has been even remotely racist. As I eluded to already, you're part of the reason we can't have reasoned debate. You may not see inflammatory comments about deportation being ‘an absolute bargain’ as remotely racist, but as we discussed the other day, this stuff (what is or is not racism) can be subjective. 'An absolute bargain' compared to what it costs to keep asylum seekers long term is someone's opinion. Its not even remotely racist. I think placing an arbitrary monetary value on asylum seekers lives is deliberately inflammatory and could be construed as racist. " Could be? Cool, I don't see it as racist in any such form. Placing a abitary monetary value on workers doing dangerous job could be viewed as what exactly? Why? because it happens every single day. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
Not sure about asylum seekers, but 98% of economic migrants who cross in small boats don't have any of the above and block up the system.
If you care about asylum seekers, you would care about those playing the system that prevent them being processed and looked after in a timely manner..
This is where we ask you to backup your claim.
He can't because you'll say 'but Tufton street' even though the data comes from the GOVT.
Am I guilty of regularly saying ‘but Tufton street’ then?
It seems to be the latest go to. And yeah, you most definitely have joined in with it.
That’s why I said ‘regularly’
I’ve definitely mentioned Tufton st once today In a thread about….well, Tufton st. But other than that?
Are you imagining things again, Morefast?
Do you wanna stop with the name calling? That would be a nice start.
I'm saying 'Tufton St' seems to be the latest go to and you've joined in on it, which you've just confirmed.
Anyway, just do a little research and you'll find the data to back the posters claim, nice and easy"So confirming that I wrote about Tufton street on a thread that your mucker started about Tufton street, literally entitled 55 Tufton Street’ is confirmation that I have joined in the ‘trend’ of replying ‘but Tufton street’ in response to claims made by other posters? Have you been drinking? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
Not sure about asylum seekers, but 98% of economic migrants who cross in small boats don't have any of the above and block up the system.
If you care about asylum seekers, you would care about those playing the system that prevent them being processed and looked after in a timely manner..
This is where we ask you to backup your claim.
He can't because you'll say 'but Tufton street' even though the data comes from the GOVT.
Am I guilty of regularly saying ‘but Tufton street’ then?
It seems to be the latest go to. And yeah, you most definitely have joined in with it.
That’s why I said ‘regularly’
I’ve definitely mentioned Tufton st once today In a thread about….well, Tufton st. But other than that?
Are you imagining things again, Morefast?
Do you wanna stop with the name calling? That would be a nice start.
I'm saying 'Tufton St' seems to be the latest go to and you've joined in on it, which you've just confirmed.
Anyway, just do a little research and you'll find the data to back the posters claim, nice and easy
So confirming that I wrote about Tufton street on a thread that your mucker started about Tufton street, literally entitled 55 Tufton Street’ is confirmation that I have joined in the ‘trend’ of replying ‘but Tufton street’ in response to claims made by other posters?
Have you been drinking?
"More insults
I don't have any 'muckers' here. You must have me confused with someone else. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
Not sure about asylum seekers, but 98% of economic migrants who cross in small boats don't have any of the above and block up the system.
If you care about asylum seekers, you would care about those playing the system that prevent them being processed and looked after in a timely manner..
This is where we ask you to backup your claim.
He can't because you'll say 'but Tufton street' even though the data comes from the GOVT.
Am I guilty of regularly saying ‘but Tufton street’ then?
It seems to be the latest go to. And yeah, you most definitely have joined in with it.
That’s why I said ‘regularly’
I’ve definitely mentioned Tufton st once today In a thread about….well, Tufton st. But other than that?
Are you imagining things again, Morefast?
Do you wanna stop with the name calling? That would be a nice start.
I'm saying 'Tufton St' seems to be the latest go to and you've joined in on it, which you've just confirmed.
Anyway, just do a little research and you'll find the data to back the posters claim, nice and easy
So confirming that I wrote about Tufton street on a thread that your mucker started about Tufton street, literally entitled 55 Tufton Street’ is confirmation that I have joined in the ‘trend’ of replying ‘but Tufton street’ in response to claims made by other posters?
Have you been drinking?
More insults
I don't have any 'muckers' here. You must have me confused with someone else."You are easily confused with Morely tbf. So are we agreed that responding to a thread entitled ‘55 Tufton street’ to mention Tufton street doesn’t actually back up your claim? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
Not sure about asylum seekers, but 98% of economic migrants who cross in small boats don't have any of the above and block up the system.
If you care about asylum seekers, you would care about those playing the system that prevent them being processed and looked after in a timely manner..
This is where we ask you to backup your claim.
He can't because you'll say 'but Tufton street' even though the data comes from the GOVT.
Am I guilty of regularly saying ‘but Tufton street’ then?
It seems to be the latest go to. And yeah, you most definitely have joined in with it.
That’s why I said ‘regularly’
I’ve definitely mentioned Tufton st once today In a thread about….well, Tufton st. But other than that?
Are you imagining things again, Morefast?
Do you wanna stop with the name calling? That would be a nice start.
I'm saying 'Tufton St' seems to be the latest go to and you've joined in on it, which you've just confirmed.
Anyway, just do a little research and you'll find the data to back the posters claim, nice and easy
So confirming that I wrote about Tufton street on a thread that your mucker started about Tufton street, literally entitled 55 Tufton Street’ is confirmation that I have joined in the ‘trend’ of replying ‘but Tufton street’ in response to claims made by other posters?
Have you been drinking?
More insults
I don't have any 'muckers' here. You must have me confused with someone else.
You are easily confused with Morely tbf.
So are we agreed that responding to a thread entitled ‘55 Tufton street’ to mention Tufton street doesn’t actually back up your claim? "No I'm not easily confused with Morley. You purposely mash our names together as an insult, everyone else does just fine. I'm not here to 'back up my claim', I genuinely have no interest in 'backing it up', as I said, do some very easy research. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
Not sure about asylum seekers, but 98% of economic migrants who cross in small boats don't have any of the above and block up the system.
If you care about asylum seekers, you would care about those playing the system that prevent them being processed and looked after in a timely manner..
This is where we ask you to backup your claim.
He can't because you'll say 'but Tufton street' even though the data comes from the GOVT.
Am I guilty of regularly saying ‘but Tufton street’ then?
It seems to be the latest go to. And yeah, you most definitely have joined in with it.
That’s why I said ‘regularly’
I’ve definitely mentioned Tufton st once today In a thread about….well, Tufton st. But other than that?
Are you imagining things again, Morefast?
Do you wanna stop with the name calling? That would be a nice start.
I'm saying 'Tufton St' seems to be the latest go to and you've joined in on it, which you've just confirmed.
Anyway, just do a little research and you'll find the data to back the posters claim, nice and easy
So confirming that I wrote about Tufton street on a thread that your mucker started about Tufton street, literally entitled 55 Tufton Street’ is confirmation that I have joined in the ‘trend’ of replying ‘but Tufton street’ in response to claims made by other posters?
Have you been drinking?
More insults
I don't have any 'muckers' here. You must have me confused with someone else.
You are easily confused with Morely tbf.
So are we agreed that responding to a thread entitled ‘55 Tufton street’ to mention Tufton street doesn’t actually back up your claim?
No I'm not easily confused with Morley. You purposely mash our names together as an insult, everyone else does just fine.
I'm not here to 'back up my claim', I genuinely have no interest in 'backing it up', as I said, do some very easy research."Of course you don’t want to back it up. Because it’s not true and you’ve been called out on it. There’s someone else here who’s just like that. I’m still awaiting his apology, as it happens.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
Not sure about asylum seekers, but 98% of economic migrants who cross in small boats don't have any of the above and block up the system.
If you care about asylum seekers, you would care about those playing the system that prevent them being processed and looked after in a timely manner..
This is where we ask you to backup your claim.
He can't because you'll say 'but Tufton street' even though the data comes from the GOVT.
Am I guilty of regularly saying ‘but Tufton street’ then?
It seems to be the latest go to. And yeah, you most definitely have joined in with it.
That’s why I said ‘regularly’
I’ve definitely mentioned Tufton st once today In a thread about….well, Tufton st. But other than that?
Are you imagining things again, Morefast?
Do you wanna stop with the name calling? That would be a nice start.
I'm saying 'Tufton St' seems to be the latest go to and you've joined in on it, which you've just confirmed.
Anyway, just do a little research and you'll find the data to back the posters claim, nice and easy
So confirming that I wrote about Tufton street on a thread that your mucker started about Tufton street, literally entitled 55 Tufton Street’ is confirmation that I have joined in the ‘trend’ of replying ‘but Tufton street’ in response to claims made by other posters?
Have you been drinking?
More insults
I don't have any 'muckers' here. You must have me confused with someone else.
You are easily confused with Morely tbf.
So are we agreed that responding to a thread entitled ‘55 Tufton street’ to mention Tufton street doesn’t actually back up your claim?
No I'm not easily confused with Morley. You purposely mash our names together as an insult, everyone else does just fine.
I'm not here to 'back up my claim', I genuinely have no interest in 'backing it up', as I said, do some very easy research.
Of course you don’t want to back it up. Because it’s not true and you’ve been called out on it.
There’s someone else here who’s just like that. I’m still awaiting his apology, as it happens. "I don't need to back it up mate. I'm entitled to say what I think. Nice way to get off track though, do your research, you'll find the answer to your question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
Not sure about asylum seekers, but 98% of economic migrants who cross in small boats don't have any of the above and block up the system.
If you care about asylum seekers, you would care about those playing the system that prevent them being processed and looked after in a timely manner..
This is where we ask you to backup your claim.
He can't because you'll say 'but Tufton street' even though the data comes from the GOVT.
Am I guilty of regularly saying ‘but Tufton street’ then?
It seems to be the latest go to. And yeah, you most definitely have joined in with it.
That’s why I said ‘regularly’
I’ve definitely mentioned Tufton st once today In a thread about….well, Tufton st. But other than that?
Are you imagining things again, Morefast?
Do you wanna stop with the name calling? That would be a nice start.
I'm saying 'Tufton St' seems to be the latest go to and you've joined in on it, which you've just confirmed.
Anyway, just do a little research and you'll find the data to back the posters claim, nice and easy
So confirming that I wrote about Tufton street on a thread that your mucker started about Tufton street, literally entitled 55 Tufton Street’ is confirmation that I have joined in the ‘trend’ of replying ‘but Tufton street’ in response to claims made by other posters?
Have you been drinking?
More insults
I don't have any 'muckers' here. You must have me confused with someone else.
You are easily confused with Morely tbf.
So are we agreed that responding to a thread entitled ‘55 Tufton street’ to mention Tufton street doesn’t actually back up your claim?
No I'm not easily confused with Morley. You purposely mash our names together as an insult, everyone else does just fine.
I'm not here to 'back up my claim', I genuinely have no interest in 'backing it up', as I said, do some very easy research.
Of course you don’t want to back it up. Because it’s not true and you’ve been called out on it.
There’s someone else here who’s just like that. I’m still awaiting his apology, as it happens.
I don't need to back it up mate. I'm entitled to say what I think. Nice way to get off track though, do your research, you'll find the answer to your question."So now it’s suddenly ok to make claims and not back them up? As you were, morefast. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
Not sure about asylum seekers, but 98% of economic migrants who cross in small boats don't have any of the above and block up the system.
If you care about asylum seekers, you would care about those playing the system that prevent them being processed and looked after in a timely manner..
This is where we ask you to backup your claim.
He can't because you'll say 'but Tufton street' even though the data comes from the GOVT.
Am I guilty of regularly saying ‘but Tufton street’ then?
It seems to be the latest go to. And yeah, you most definitely have joined in with it.
That’s why I said ‘regularly’
I’ve definitely mentioned Tufton st once today In a thread about….well, Tufton st. But other than that?
Are you imagining things again, Morefast?
Do you wanna stop with the name calling? That would be a nice start.
I'm saying 'Tufton St' seems to be the latest go to and you've joined in on it, which you've just confirmed.
Anyway, just do a little research and you'll find the data to back the posters claim, nice and easy
So confirming that I wrote about Tufton street on a thread that your mucker started about Tufton street, literally entitled 55 Tufton Street’ is confirmation that I have joined in the ‘trend’ of replying ‘but Tufton street’ in response to claims made by other posters?
Have you been drinking?
More insults
I don't have any 'muckers' here. You must have me confused with someone else.
You are easily confused with Morely tbf.
So are we agreed that responding to a thread entitled ‘55 Tufton street’ to mention Tufton street doesn’t actually back up your claim?
No I'm not easily confused with Morley. You purposely mash our names together as an insult, everyone else does just fine.
I'm not here to 'back up my claim', I genuinely have no interest in 'backing it up', as I said, do some very easy research.
Of course you don’t want to back it up. Because it’s not true and you’ve been called out on it.
There’s someone else here who’s just like that. I’m still awaiting his apology, as it happens.
I don't need to back it up mate. I'm entitled to say what I think. Nice way to get off track though, do your research, you'll find the answer to your question.
So now it’s suddenly ok to make claims and not back them up?
As you were, morefast. "Nothing but insults. That's all you have
You can wait for me to back it up but you'll be waiting a long time.
If you say its untrue, cool, we can agree to disagree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. " If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum?" To avoid repatriation costs probably. Remember we taxpayers pay for HR lawyers who are also getting fat on illegal people smuggling. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. " Why don’t we go after the gangs who are profiteering from this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum? To avoid repatriation costs probably. Remember we taxpayers pay for HR lawyers who are also getting fat on illegal people smuggling." The government should devise a scheme that doesn’t break the law then | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. Why don’t we go after the gangs who are profiteering from this? "We do. There were arrests last week. And convictions in France a couple of months back (joint task force). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum? To avoid repatriation costs probably. Remember we taxpayers pay for HR lawyers who are also getting fat on illegal people smuggling." Really? You don’t think it’s likely that maybe, just maybe, most of them are genuine? Would you make that crossing in a dinghy for the opportunity to be given £40 a week? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum? To avoid repatriation costs probably. Remember we taxpayers pay for HR lawyers who are also getting fat on illegal people smuggling. The government should devise a scheme that doesn’t break the law then "They have. It's called Immigration. Yet we tolerate it's abuse costing us £millions a day. Fair enough, but then don't complain your granny can't get a hip op or that there are 1 ft deep potholes on the M1. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum? To avoid repatriation costs probably. Remember we taxpayers pay for HR lawyers who are also getting fat on illegal people smuggling. The government should devise a scheme that doesn’t break the law then "Exactly. Safe crossing schemes and better cooperation with other nations are the answer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?" . We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum? To avoid repatriation costs probably. Remember we taxpayers pay for HR lawyers who are also getting fat on illegal people smuggling. The government should devise a scheme that doesn’t break the law then
They have. It's called Immigration. Yet we tolerate it's abuse costing us £millions a day. Fair enough, but then don't complain your granny can't get a hip op or that there are 1 ft deep potholes on the M1."Wait til we tell you what the establishment and their mates cost us per day. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. " You mean ministerial code breaker Suella Braverman? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum? To avoid repatriation costs probably. Remember we taxpayers pay for HR lawyers who are also getting fat on illegal people smuggling. The government should devise a scheme that doesn’t break the law then
They have. It's called Immigration. Yet we tolerate it's abuse costing us £millions a day. Fair enough, but then don't complain your granny can't get a hip op or that there are 1 ft deep potholes on the M1.
Wait til we tell you what the establishment and their mates cost us per day. "That's just 'whataboutism'. Let's solve one problem at a time eh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum? To avoid repatriation costs probably. Remember we taxpayers pay for HR lawyers who are also getting fat on illegal people smuggling. The government should devise a scheme that doesn’t break the law then
They have. It's called Immigration. Yet we tolerate it's abuse costing us £millions a day. Fair enough, but then don't complain your granny can't get a hip op or that there are 1 ft deep potholes on the M1.
Wait til we tell you what the establishment and their mates cost us per day.
That's just 'whataboutism'. Let's solve one problem at a time eh?"I agree. Let’s remove the people who have been in power for the past 13 years, and then we can discuss how to help asylum seekers fairly and humanely. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum? To avoid repatriation costs probably. Remember we taxpayers pay for HR lawyers who are also getting fat on illegal people smuggling. The government should devise a scheme that doesn’t break the law then
They have. It's called Immigration. Yet we tolerate it's abuse costing us £millions a day. Fair enough, but then don't complain your granny can't get a hip op or that there are 1 ft deep potholes on the M1.
Wait til we tell you what the establishment and their mates cost us per day.
That's just 'whataboutism'. Let's solve one problem at a time eh?
I agree.
Let’s remove the people who have been in power for the past 13 years, and then we can discuss how to help asylum seekers fairly and humanely."You'll have the legal opportunity next year in a GE. Meanwhile, how about applying the law to border control? Or do we have a sliding scale of justice? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum? To avoid repatriation costs probably. Remember we taxpayers pay for HR lawyers who are also getting fat on illegal people smuggling. The government should devise a scheme that doesn’t break the law then
They have. It's called Immigration. Yet we tolerate it's abuse costing us £millions a day. Fair enough, but then don't complain your granny can't get a hip op or that there are 1 ft deep potholes on the M1.
Wait til we tell you what the establishment and their mates cost us per day.
That's just 'whataboutism'. Let's solve one problem at a time eh?
I agree.
Let’s remove the people who have been in power for the past 13 years, and then we can discuss how to help asylum seekers fairly and humanely.
You'll have the legal opportunity next year in a GE. Meanwhile, how about applying the law to border control? Or do we have a sliding scale of justice?"The law is being applied, is it not? If you have a problem with the speed of it, that’s a home office problem - that can be resolved at the next GE as well. Genuine question - if the U.K fell into civil war, would you seek asylum elsewhere? To protect your family? Would you be willing to break the law to keep them safe? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum? To avoid repatriation costs probably. Remember we taxpayers pay for HR lawyers who are also getting fat on illegal people smuggling. The government should devise a scheme that doesn’t break the law then
They have. It's called Immigration. Yet we tolerate it's abuse costing us £millions a day. Fair enough, but then don't complain your granny can't get a hip op or that there are 1 ft deep potholes on the M1.
Wait til we tell you what the establishment and their mates cost us per day.
That's just 'whataboutism'. Let's solve one problem at a time eh?
I agree.
Let’s remove the people who have been in power for the past 13 years, and then we can discuss how to help asylum seekers fairly and humanely.
You'll have the legal opportunity next year in a GE. Meanwhile, how about applying the law to border control? Or do we have a sliding scale of justice?
The law is being applied, is it not?
If you have a problem with the speed of it, that’s a home office problem - that can be resolved at the next GE as well.
Genuine question - if the U.K fell into civil war, would you seek asylum elsewhere? To protect your family? Would you be willing to break the law to keep them safe? "Not a chance in hell I would run, it's not possible to take the whole family and no one shall be left behind, so we don't leave. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum? To avoid repatriation costs probably. Remember we taxpayers pay for HR lawyers who are also getting fat on illegal people smuggling. The government should devise a scheme that doesn’t break the law then
They have. It's called Immigration. Yet we tolerate it's abuse costing us £millions a day. Fair enough, but then don't complain your granny can't get a hip op or that there are 1 ft deep potholes on the M1.
Wait til we tell you what the establishment and their mates cost us per day.
That's just 'whataboutism'. Let's solve one problem at a time eh?
I agree.
Let’s remove the people who have been in power for the past 13 years, and then we can discuss how to help asylum seekers fairly and humanely.
You'll have the legal opportunity next year in a GE. Meanwhile, how about applying the law to border control? Or do we have a sliding scale of justice?
The law is being applied, is it not?
If you have a problem with the speed of it, that’s a home office problem - that can be resolved at the next GE as well.
Genuine question - if the U.K fell into civil war, would you seek asylum elsewhere? To protect your family? Would you be willing to break the law to keep them safe? "You have to sort out your own country. Look, I have sympathy with genuine asylum seekers, but the vast majority are economic migrants being smuggled by criminals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That gets them out of the UK for that cost They currently cost a lot more to keep over their lifetime when we can't deport them, and it'd not worth the risk to any ones life. All in all am absolute bargain. Because as soon as Rwanda can be enacted. What's the draw to the uk if you're going to be deported? " Perhaps it’s the chance to play “rugby” league and get CTE? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are easily confused with Morely tbf." Not by anyone that can read. One of those two writes cogent and considered posts, with a smattering of humour. The other is clearly in a hurry to get their thoughts written down, and doesn't have time to proof read. If you think those two are the same person, you really do need critical thinking lessons. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. " It is the same old, same old… They deliberately mix up asylum seekers, economic migrants and immigrants. They should be ashamed of how they plant their seeds, and yet they call out politicians for being liar, untrustworthy and hypocritical! I can’t see the differences in their approach to be fair.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would you make that crossing in a dinghy for the opportunity to be given £40 a week?" But they aren't taking that risk for £40 a week (plus housing and utilities and healthcare). They are taking that risk for the opportunity to be allowed to live here, a nice safe friendly country, with lots of work and, from their point of view, vast amounts of money to be earned. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
Not sure about asylum seekers, but 98% of economic migrants who cross in small boats don't have any of the above and block up the system.
If you care about asylum seekers, you would care about those playing the system that prevent them being processed and looked after in a timely manner..
This is where we ask you to backup your claim."98% of people arriving by small boats do not have ID, that is your google reference. Enjoy FOI | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum? To avoid repatriation costs probably. Remember we taxpayers pay for HR lawyers who are also getting fat on illegal people smuggling. The government should devise a scheme that doesn’t break the law then
They have. It's called Immigration. Yet we tolerate it's abuse costing us £millions a day. Fair enough, but then don't complain your granny can't get a hip op or that there are 1 ft deep potholes on the M1.
Wait til we tell you what the establishment and their mates cost us per day.
That's just 'whataboutism'. Let's solve one problem at a time eh?
I agree.
Let’s remove the people who have been in power for the past 13 years, and then we can discuss how to help asylum seekers fairly and humanely.
You'll have the legal opportunity next year in a GE. Meanwhile, how about applying the law to border control? Or do we have a sliding scale of justice?
The law is being applied, is it not?
If you have a problem with the speed of it, that’s a home office problem - that can be resolved at the next GE as well.
Genuine question - if the U.K fell into civil war, would you seek asylum elsewhere? To protect your family? Would you be willing to break the law to keep them safe? "What kind of question is this? Are you going down the damned if you do, damned if you don’t route? You consistently mix up genuine asylum seekers with economic migrants who are entering the country illegally. If you can’t see this, reflection on an exposed approach is required | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
How many do?
No idea "Perhaps you should research that before asking about the other | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
Not sure about asylum seekers, but 98% of economic migrants who cross in small boats don't have any of the above and block up the system.
If you care about asylum seekers, you would care about those playing the system that prevent them being processed and looked after in a timely manner..
This is where we ask you to backup your claim.
98% of people arriving by small boats do not have ID, that is your google reference. Enjoy FOI "I found a report using your suggested words and it does seem to confirm what you said earlier. It is a just over a year old so not sure if that figure is still accurate but it might well be. I did notice it said arrives without passport so it's possible they have other forms of ID. That said the report did mention that lack of ID is intentional | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? Racism in all its forms tends to be an expensive economic activity. None of the Brexit supporting racists cared anything about the economic costs of Brexit, Similarly, the frothing supporters of the Rwanda policy would not give a hoot that it would cost £billions in the long term as long as every refugee and asylum seeker could be deported. It would be their dream. Imagine someone asking above if it was possible to have a sensible debate on this and your input is 'racists don't give a fuck' Clearly its not possible. This place really has gone to shit. Read this thread. Read what the supporters are saying. How can you have a reasoned debate when people see good value in spending £170,000 per person to send say 1,000 (£170,000,000?) people to Rwanda when on current figures, 70-80% of those people would probably be accepted here as asylum seekers and would be able to work and contribute to the national economy. It’s a bonkers plan that is fuelled entirely on racist entitlement. Not one person on this thread has been even remotely racist. As I eluded to already, you're part of the reason we can't have reasoned debate." Discussing immigration reasonably is perfectly acceptable. The Rwanda plan however is inherently racist and therefore cannot be debated reasonably because anyone who describes it as being “an absolute bargain” is surely more of a reason why reasoned debate cannot happen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? Racism in all its forms tends to be an expensive economic activity. None of the Brexit supporting racists cared anything about the economic costs of Brexit, Similarly, the frothing supporters of the Rwanda policy would not give a hoot that it would cost £billions in the long term as long as every refugee and asylum seeker could be deported. It would be their dream. Imagine someone asking above if it was possible to have a sensible debate on this and your input is 'racists don't give a fuck' Clearly its not possible. This place really has gone to shit. Read this thread. Read what the supporters are saying. How can you have a reasoned debate when people see good value in spending £170,000 per person to send say 1,000 (£170,000,000?) people to Rwanda when on current figures, 70-80% of those people would probably be accepted here as asylum seekers and would be able to work and contribute to the national economy. It’s a bonkers plan that is fuelled entirely on racist entitlement. Not one person on this thread has been even remotely racist. As I eluded to already, you're part of the reason we can't have reasoned debate. Discussing immigration reasonably is perfectly acceptable. The Rwanda plan however is inherently racist and therefore cannot be debated reasonably because anyone who describes it as being “an absolute bargain” is surely more of a reason why reasoned debate cannot happen." Why is it racist? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Discussing immigration reasonably is perfectly acceptable. The Rwanda plan however is inherently racist and therefore cannot be debated reasonably because anyone who describes it as being “an absolute bargain” is surely more of a reason why reasoned debate cannot happen." ********************************* In YOUR opinion, that is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum? To avoid repatriation costs probably. Remember we taxpayers pay for HR lawyers who are also getting fat on illegal people smuggling. The government should devise a scheme that doesn’t break the law then
They have. It's called Immigration. Yet we tolerate it's abuse costing us £millions a day. Fair enough, but then don't complain your granny can't get a hip op or that there are 1 ft deep potholes on the M1.
Wait til we tell you what the establishment and their mates cost us per day.
That's just 'whataboutism'. Let's solve one problem at a time eh?
I agree.
Let’s remove the people who have been in power for the past 13 years, and then we can discuss how to help asylum seekers fairly and humanely.
You'll have the legal opportunity next year in a GE. Meanwhile, how about applying the law to border control? Or do we have a sliding scale of justice?
The law is being applied, is it not?
If you have a problem with the speed of it, that’s a home office problem - that can be resolved at the next GE as well.
Genuine question - if the U.K fell into civil war, would you seek asylum elsewhere? To protect your family? Would you be willing to break the law to keep them safe?
What kind of question is this?
Are you going down the damned if you do, damned if you don’t route?
You consistently mix up genuine asylum seekers with economic migrants who are entering the country illegally.
If you can’t see this, reflection on an exposed approach is required"We have an asylum system in place to work out which of the arrivals are genuine - don’t assume how I think. And my question is valid - would you seek asylum? Breaking laws if necessary for protect your family? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum? To avoid repatriation costs probably. Remember we taxpayers pay for HR lawyers who are also getting fat on illegal people smuggling. The government should devise a scheme that doesn’t break the law then
They have. It's called Immigration. Yet we tolerate it's abuse costing us £millions a day. Fair enough, but then don't complain your granny can't get a hip op or that there are 1 ft deep potholes on the M1.
Wait til we tell you what the establishment and their mates cost us per day.
That's just 'whataboutism'. Let's solve one problem at a time eh?
I agree.
Let’s remove the people who have been in power for the past 13 years, and then we can discuss how to help asylum seekers fairly and humanely.
You'll have the legal opportunity next year in a GE. Meanwhile, how about applying the law to border control? Or do we have a sliding scale of justice?
The law is being applied, is it not?
If you have a problem with the speed of it, that’s a home office problem - that can be resolved at the next GE as well.
Genuine question - if the U.K fell into civil war, would you seek asylum elsewhere? To protect your family? Would you be willing to break the law to keep them safe?
You have to sort out your own country. Look, I have sympathy with genuine asylum seekers, but the vast majority are economic migrants being smuggled by criminals. "The data suggest otherwise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? Racism in all its forms tends to be an expensive economic activity. None of the Brexit supporting racists cared anything about the economic costs of Brexit, Similarly, the frothing supporters of the Rwanda policy would not give a hoot that it would cost £billions in the long term as long as every refugee and asylum seeker could be deported. It would be their dream. Imagine someone asking above if it was possible to have a sensible debate on this and your input is 'racists don't give a fuck' Clearly its not possible. This place really has gone to shit. Read this thread. Read what the supporters are saying. How can you have a reasoned debate when people see good value in spending £170,000 per person to send say 1,000 (£170,000,000?) people to Rwanda when on current figures, 70-80% of those people would probably be accepted here as asylum seekers and would be able to work and contribute to the national economy. It’s a bonkers plan that is fuelled entirely on racist entitlement. Not one person on this thread has been even remotely racist. As I eluded to already, you're part of the reason we can't have reasoned debate. Discussing immigration reasonably is perfectly acceptable. The Rwanda plan however is inherently racist and therefore cannot be debated reasonably because anyone who describes it as being “an absolute bargain” is surely more of a reason why reasoned debate cannot happen. Why is it racist? " I don’t think the Rwanda scheme is racist per se. It is dehumanising and it does segregate asylum seekers from different regions into acceptable and not-acceptable. (E.g Ukraine good, others not necessarily so). Factor in Rwanda’s less than stellar human rights record and you’ve got a shameful and grubby situation all round. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum? To avoid repatriation costs probably. Remember we taxpayers pay for HR lawyers who are also getting fat on illegal people smuggling. The government should devise a scheme that doesn’t break the law then
They have. It's called Immigration. Yet we tolerate it's abuse costing us £millions a day. Fair enough, but then don't complain your granny can't get a hip op or that there are 1 ft deep potholes on the M1.
Wait til we tell you what the establishment and their mates cost us per day.
That's just 'whataboutism'. Let's solve one problem at a time eh?
I agree.
Let’s remove the people who have been in power for the past 13 years, and then we can discuss how to help asylum seekers fairly and humanely.
You'll have the legal opportunity next year in a GE. Meanwhile, how about applying the law to border control? Or do we have a sliding scale of justice?
The law is being applied, is it not?
If you have a problem with the speed of it, that’s a home office problem - that can be resolved at the next GE as well.
Genuine question - if the U.K fell into civil war, would you seek asylum elsewhere? To protect your family? Would you be willing to break the law to keep them safe?
What kind of question is this?
Are you going down the damned if you do, damned if you don’t route?
You consistently mix up genuine asylum seekers with economic migrants who are entering the country illegally.
If you can’t see this, reflection on an exposed approach is required"The exact numbers change year on year, but around 60% of asylum claims are granted. Which means we have to assume that 60% of asylum seekers are genuine. (This doesn’t include the Ukraine figures which are a separate entity). So 40% are non genuine, a high figure, yes - but given that our asylum system has found that out, action can be taken to resolve/deport - as I’m sure we’d all agree with. So exactly who is conflating genuine asylum seekers and economic immigrants? Unless of course you don’t believe that 60% of asylum seekers are genuine, in which case I’d take that up with the home office, and ask yourself why you came to that conclusion in the face of data. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. " I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings." The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still cheaper than letting them stay over a lifetime add medical care schooling id pay a extra 100000 to get rid of them. Or, allow legal asylum seekers to work and contribute, and actually have them pay into the system. You can't work while you claim asylum. This would breach employment law. I’m aware of this. That’s why we should change it. What would you change? No background checks? No ID required? Background checks are done as per the asylum process - and as per Red Cross recommendations, the onus should fall on the home office to prove that someone undocumented is unsuitable rather than binning them off as standard. Not if they are working these checks can take years as we are witnessing with the backlog. But you want them working in that time? You are saying we should grant an I'd a name, a national insurance number and a date of birth to individuals then verify this later? How many asylum seekers don’t have a name, place of origin and a DOB,
How many do?
No idea
Perhaps you should research that before asking about the other "Why? The reason I asked the question is because I don’t know the answer? Do you know the answer ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP missed the adjective 'illegal' in front of migrants. The vast majority are bogus asylum seekers. By not enforcing the law, we encourage people smugglers and actually disadvantage genuine asylum seekers. It's plain gormless to sit for decades watching our borders being violated. If ‘the vast majority are bogus’, why do the majority of claims grant asylum? To avoid repatriation costs probably. Remember we taxpayers pay for HR lawyers who are also getting fat on illegal people smuggling. The government should devise a scheme that doesn’t break the law then
They have. It's called Immigration. Yet we tolerate it's abuse costing us £millions a day. Fair enough, but then don't complain your granny can't get a hip op or that there are 1 ft deep potholes on the M1."Are you blaming pot holes and long NHS waiting lists on a tiny number of people arriving by small boats ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? " The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. " The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). " Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)" "Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there". A great reason to let them into the UK unchecked and unvetted then. Good grief!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) "Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there". A great reason to let them into the UK unchecked and unvetted then. Good grief!! " Who’s letting anyone in unchecked and unvetted? This is why we have an asylum claims system, is it not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)" About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. " The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. " Not sure what this proves - asylum seekers (and foreign migrants generally) are more likely be living in poorer conditions, earning less money, have poorer prospects etc and are more likely to turn to crime - just as ethnic minorities in general are more likely to be involved in crime - it’s a complex social issue rather than a race/creed/background issue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. " Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. " That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. " Well Albanians would say all that wouldn't they? They're not going to say "I'm entering the UK to join drug gangs and live a life of criminality - all funded by UK taxpayers". A sane immigration policy allows Doctors, Engineers, Scientist etc to enter our country. We are getting hardened criminals who make people's lives a misery and then have to be imprisoned at our expense. Look up Albanian Crimewave. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Well Albanians would say all that wouldn't they? They're not going to say "I'm entering the UK to join drug gangs and live a life of criminality - all funded by UK taxpayers". A sane immigration policy allows Doctors, Engineers, Scientist etc to enter our country. We are getting hardened criminals who make people's lives a misery and then have to be imprisoned at our expense. Look up Albanian Crimewave." So you’re claiming that you know better than the people who process the actual asylum claims? In that case, I’m out of the convo | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. " High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways "You didn’t read your own quote. “A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason” It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
"You're absolutely right. 83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad."And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it."I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats. Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen."One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany. Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means."How bad must life be to take a risk like that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that? "And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough. On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty? Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
"You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”"Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate? Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads. That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
"Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again. Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy. And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 28/06/23 22:40:55]" Oooh that was lucky | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 28/06/23 22:40:55] Oooh that was lucky" Reposted it to add a bit. Nothing inaccurate in what I said. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
"You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding. I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely."Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention. Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely.
Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention.
Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law."You are mixing it up again... I'm not talking about legitimate asylum seekers and neither is anybody else. Now let's get back yo those pesky economic migrants illegally entering the country, whats your plan to stop them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely.
Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention.
Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law.
You are mixing it up again... I'm not talking about legitimate asylum seekers and neither is anybody else.
Now let's get back yo those pesky economic migrants illegally entering the country, whats your plan to stop them?"There are no legitimate or illegitimate asylum seekers - there are only asylum seekers. Those whose case is successful remain and become legal refugees. Those whose case is unsuccessful face deportation. Once again - it is not illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the channel and claim asylum, regardless of their reason for doing so. I’m not sure how much more simple I can make this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely.
Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention.
Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law.
You are mixing it up again... I'm not talking about legitimate asylum seekers and neither is anybody else.
Now let's get back yo those pesky economic migrants illegally entering the country, whats your plan to stop them?
There are no legitimate or illegitimate asylum seekers - there are only asylum seekers. Those whose case is successful remain and become legal refugees. Those whose case is unsuccessful face deportation.
Once again - it is not illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the channel and claim asylum, regardless of their reason for doing so.
I’m not sure how much more simple I can make this. "Do you recognise economic migrants are entering the country illegally or not? Ye or No is all I need | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely.
Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention.
Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law.
You are mixing it up again... I'm not talking about legitimate asylum seekers and neither is anybody else.
Now let's get back yo those pesky economic migrants illegally entering the country, whats your plan to stop them?
There are no legitimate or illegitimate asylum seekers - there are only asylum seekers. Those whose case is successful remain and become legal refugees. Those whose case is unsuccessful face deportation.
Once again - it is not illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the channel and claim asylum, regardless of their reason for doing so.
I’m not sure how much more simple I can make this.
Do you recognise economic migrants are entering the country illegally or not? Ye or No is all I need"Until their asylum claim is heard, they are not illegal. That’s the point you don’t understand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely.
Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention.
Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law.
You are mixing it up again... I'm not talking about legitimate asylum seekers and neither is anybody else.
Now let's get back yo those pesky economic migrants illegally entering the country, whats your plan to stop them?
There are no legitimate or illegitimate asylum seekers - there are only asylum seekers. Those whose case is successful remain and become legal refugees. Those whose case is unsuccessful face deportation.
Once again - it is not illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the channel and claim asylum, regardless of their reason for doing so.
I’m not sure how much more simple I can make this.
Do you recognise economic migrants are entering the country illegally or not? Ye or No is all I need
Until their asylum claim is heard, they are not illegal. That’s the point you don’t understand.
"Yes or no? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely.
Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention.
Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law.
You are mixing it up again... I'm not talking about legitimate asylum seekers and neither is anybody else.
Now let's get back yo those pesky economic migrants illegally entering the country, whats your plan to stop them?
There are no legitimate or illegitimate asylum seekers - there are only asylum seekers. Those whose case is successful remain and become legal refugees. Those whose case is unsuccessful face deportation.
Once again - it is not illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the channel and claim asylum, regardless of their reason for doing so.
I’m not sure how much more simple I can make this.
Do you recognise economic migrants are entering the country illegally or not? Ye or No is all I need
Until their asylum claim is heard, they are not illegal. That’s the point you don’t understand.
Yes or no?"No. https://una.org.uk/magazine/1-2016/false-dichotomy-between-economic-migrants-and-refugees | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely.
Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention.
Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law.
You are mixing it up again... I'm not talking about legitimate asylum seekers and neither is anybody else.
Now let's get back yo those pesky economic migrants illegally entering the country, whats your plan to stop them?
There are no legitimate or illegitimate asylum seekers - there are only asylum seekers. Those whose case is successful remain and become legal refugees. Those whose case is unsuccessful face deportation.
Once again - it is not illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the channel and claim asylum, regardless of their reason for doing so.
I’m not sure how much more simple I can make this.
Do you recognise economic migrants are entering the country illegally or not? Ye or No is all I need
Until their asylum claim is heard, they are not illegal. That’s the point you don’t understand.
Yes or no?
No.
https://una.org.uk/magazine/1-2016/false-dichotomy-between-economic-migrants-and-refugees"The Poles you mentioned were they asylum seekers or economic migrants? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely.
Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention.
Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law.
You are mixing it up again... I'm not talking about legitimate asylum seekers and neither is anybody else.
Now let's get back yo those pesky economic migrants illegally entering the country, whats your plan to stop them?
There are no legitimate or illegitimate asylum seekers - there are only asylum seekers. Those whose case is successful remain and become legal refugees. Those whose case is unsuccessful face deportation.
Once again - it is not illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the channel and claim asylum, regardless of their reason for doing so.
I’m not sure how much more simple I can make this.
Do you recognise economic migrants are entering the country illegally or not? Ye or No is all I need
Until their asylum claim is heard, they are not illegal. That’s the point you don’t understand.
Yes or no?
No.
https://una.org.uk/magazine/1-2016/false-dichotomy-between-economic-migrants-and-refugees
The Poles you mentioned were they asylum seekers or economic migrants?"They were migrants. Did you read the link? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely.
Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention.
Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law.
You are mixing it up again... I'm not talking about legitimate asylum seekers and neither is anybody else.
Now let's get back yo those pesky economic migrants illegally entering the country, whats your plan to stop them?
There are no legitimate or illegitimate asylum seekers - there are only asylum seekers. Those whose case is successful remain and become legal refugees. Those whose case is unsuccessful face deportation.
Once again - it is not illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the channel and claim asylum, regardless of their reason for doing so.
I’m not sure how much more simple I can make this.
Do you recognise economic migrants are entering the country illegally or not? Ye or No is all I need
Until their asylum claim is heard, they are not illegal. That’s the point you don’t understand.
Yes or no?
No.
https://una.org.uk/magazine/1-2016/false-dichotomy-between-economic-migrants-and-refugees
The Poles you mentioned were they asylum seekers or economic migrants?
They were migrants. Did you read the link? "What type of migrants? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely.
Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention.
Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law.
You are mixing it up again... I'm not talking about legitimate asylum seekers and neither is anybody else.
Now let's get back yo those pesky economic migrants illegally entering the country, whats your plan to stop them?
There are no legitimate or illegitimate asylum seekers - there are only asylum seekers. Those whose case is successful remain and become legal refugees. Those whose case is unsuccessful face deportation.
Once again - it is not illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the channel and claim asylum, regardless of their reason for doing so.
I’m not sure how much more simple I can make this.
Do you recognise economic migrants are entering the country illegally or not? Ye or No is all I need
Until their asylum claim is heard, they are not illegal. That’s the point you don’t understand.
Yes or no?
No.
https://una.org.uk/magazine/1-2016/false-dichotomy-between-economic-migrants-and-refugees
The Poles you mentioned were they asylum seekers or economic migrants?
They were migrants. Did you read the link?
What type of migrants?"Just migrants. I’m assuming you didn’t read the link, or you’d have known that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely.
Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention.
Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law.
You are mixing it up again... I'm not talking about legitimate asylum seekers and neither is anybody else.
Now let's get back yo those pesky economic migrants illegally entering the country, whats your plan to stop them?
There are no legitimate or illegitimate asylum seekers - there are only asylum seekers. Those whose case is successful remain and become legal refugees. Those whose case is unsuccessful face deportation.
Once again - it is not illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the channel and claim asylum, regardless of their reason for doing so.
I’m not sure how much more simple I can make this.
Do you recognise economic migrants are entering the country illegally or not? Ye or No is all I need
Until their asylum claim is heard, they are not illegal. That’s the point you don’t understand.
Yes or no?
No.
https://una.org.uk/magazine/1-2016/false-dichotomy-between-economic-migrants-and-refugees
The Poles you mentioned were they asylum seekers or economic migrants?
They were migrants. Did you read the link?
What type of migrants?
Just migrants. I’m assuming you didn’t read the link, or you’d have known that. "I have no need to read your links, you have provided me all I need to know | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely.
Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention.
Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law.
You are mixing it up again... I'm not talking about legitimate asylum seekers and neither is anybody else.
Now let's get back yo those pesky economic migrants illegally entering the country, whats your plan to stop them?
There are no legitimate or illegitimate asylum seekers - there are only asylum seekers. Those whose case is successful remain and become legal refugees. Those whose case is unsuccessful face deportation.
Once again - it is not illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the channel and claim asylum, regardless of their reason for doing so.
I’m not sure how much more simple I can make this.
Do you recognise economic migrants are entering the country illegally or not? Ye or No is all I need
Until their asylum claim is heard, they are not illegal. That’s the point you don’t understand.
Yes or no?
No.
https://una.org.uk/magazine/1-2016/false-dichotomy-between-economic-migrants-and-refugees
The Poles you mentioned were they asylum seekers or economic migrants?
They were migrants. Did you read the link?
What type of migrants?
Just migrants. I’m assuming you didn’t read the link, or you’d have known that.
I have no need to read your links, you have provided me all I need to know
"That’s a shame, because the link explains the difference between the terms ‘migrant’, ‘refugee’ and ‘asylum seeker’, whilst also pointing out that ‘economic migrant’ is a term without legal definition. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely.
Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention.
Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law.
You are mixing it up again... I'm not talking about legitimate asylum seekers and neither is anybody else.
Now let's get back yo those pesky economic migrants illegally entering the country, whats your plan to stop them?
There are no legitimate or illegitimate asylum seekers - there are only asylum seekers. Those whose case is successful remain and become legal refugees. Those whose case is unsuccessful face deportation.
Once again - it is not illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the channel and claim asylum, regardless of their reason for doing so.
I’m not sure how much more simple I can make this.
Do you recognise economic migrants are entering the country illegally or not? Ye or No is all I need
Until their asylum claim is heard, they are not illegal. That’s the point you don’t understand.
Yes or no?
No.
https://una.org.uk/magazine/1-2016/false-dichotomy-between-economic-migrants-and-refugees
The Poles you mentioned were they asylum seekers or economic migrants?
They were migrants. Did you read the link?
What type of migrants?
Just migrants. I’m assuming you didn’t read the link, or you’d have known that.
I have no need to read your links, you have provided me all I need to know
That’s a shame, because the link explains the difference between the terms ‘migrant’, ‘refugee’ and ‘asylum seeker’, whilst also pointing out that ‘economic migrant’ is a term without legal definition. "Hey, I'm not going to burst your bubble. Have a good night | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely.
Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention.
Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law.
You are mixing it up again... I'm not talking about legitimate asylum seekers and neither is anybody else.
Now let's get back yo those pesky economic migrants illegally entering the country, whats your plan to stop them?
There are no legitimate or illegitimate asylum seekers - there are only asylum seekers. Those whose case is successful remain and become legal refugees. Those whose case is unsuccessful face deportation.
Once again - it is not illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the channel and claim asylum, regardless of their reason for doing so.
I’m not sure how much more simple I can make this.
Do you recognise economic migrants are entering the country illegally or not? Ye or No is all I need
Until their asylum claim is heard, they are not illegal. That’s the point you don’t understand.
Yes or no?
No.
https://una.org.uk/magazine/1-2016/false-dichotomy-between-economic-migrants-and-refugees
The Poles you mentioned were they asylum seekers or economic migrants?
They were migrants. Did you read the link?
What type of migrants?
Just migrants. I’m assuming you didn’t read the link, or you’d have known that.
I have no need to read your links, you have provided me all I need to know
"Like I said, it’s been explained to you. If you’d rather not learn, and continue to use inflammatory language and spread falsehoods - that’s a ‘you’ problem. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely.
Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention.
Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law.
You are mixing it up again... I'm not talking about legitimate asylum seekers and neither is anybody else.
Now let's get back yo those pesky economic migrants illegally entering the country, whats your plan to stop them?
There are no legitimate or illegitimate asylum seekers - there are only asylum seekers. Those whose case is successful remain and become legal refugees. Those whose case is unsuccessful face deportation.
Once again - it is not illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the channel and claim asylum, regardless of their reason for doing so.
I’m not sure how much more simple I can make this.
Do you recognise economic migrants are entering the country illegally or not? Ye or No is all I need
Until their asylum claim is heard, they are not illegal. That’s the point you don’t understand.
Yes or no?
No.
https://una.org.uk/magazine/1-2016/false-dichotomy-between-economic-migrants-and-refugees
The Poles you mentioned were they asylum seekers or economic migrants?
They were migrants. Did you read the link?
What type of migrants?
Just migrants. I’m assuming you didn’t read the link, or you’d have known that.
I have no need to read your links, you have provided me all I need to know
Like I said, it’s been explained to you. If you’d rather not learn, and continue to use inflammatory language and spread falsehoods - that’s a ‘you’ problem.
"I said I don't want to burst your bubble, don't let my reality of economic migrants be a thing that disturbs your constructed thoughts. It is not worth it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely.
Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention.
Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law.
You are mixing it up again... I'm not talking about legitimate asylum seekers and neither is anybody else.
Now let's get back yo those pesky economic migrants illegally entering the country, whats your plan to stop them?
There are no legitimate or illegitimate asylum seekers - there are only asylum seekers. Those whose case is successful remain and become legal refugees. Those whose case is unsuccessful face deportation.
Once again - it is not illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the channel and claim asylum, regardless of their reason for doing so.
I’m not sure how much more simple I can make this.
Do you recognise economic migrants are entering the country illegally or not? Ye or No is all I need
Until their asylum claim is heard, they are not illegal. That’s the point you don’t understand.
Yes or no?
No.
https://una.org.uk/magazine/1-2016/false-dichotomy-between-economic-migrants-and-refugees
The Poles you mentioned were they asylum seekers or economic migrants?
They were migrants. Did you read the link?
What type of migrants?
Just migrants. I’m assuming you didn’t read the link, or you’d have known that.
I have no need to read your links, you have provided me all I need to know
Like I said, it’s been explained to you. If you’d rather not learn, and continue to use inflammatory language and spread falsehoods - that’s a ‘you’ problem.
I said I don't want to burst your bubble, don't let my reality of economic migrants be a thing that disturbs your constructed thoughts. It is not worth it."So having been proven wrong (again), you’re doubling down? Yeah, I’m out too. On this topic your ignorance is truly astounding. One might say ‘bigoted’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse?. We are already a densely populated country and have a housing shortage. Just look at the cost of rent . Every extra person places an additional strain on NHS resources and various other services . We need to concentrate on mechanisation. Unfortunately cheap labour removes the incentive to mechanise menial or repetitive tasks . At least Suella Braverman is an elected MP and Home Secretary . Last time I checked she was supported by 67% of the electorate in terms of the policies that she was pursuing. She is pursuing the wishes of the electorate despite the efforts of the legal professine to cash in on the situation. With her background and experience she is probably the ideal candidate to realve a difficult and complex issue. I would disagree on the densely populated aspect of the United Kingdom. I would say London is Densely populated, being a capital city. But then again all cities are densely populated. If you ever take a trip out to the rest of the countryside you’d think umm it’s not really that populated. In terms of burden and resources, we’ll if you had people paying into the taxation system because they are actually working and contributing to the system, then more money can used to build hospitals, housing , schools, roads and rail. Mechanisation, we can barely afford actual human labour let alone the machinery which can bring this all to ahead, significant upfront costs manufacturers have to pay on the promise something will work. Then you’ve got to think about maintenance, nothing fixes itself still need a human. I don’t see cars changing their own tyres yet either. In terms of 67% of the electorate, last GE the share for the tories was about 36 % with about 64% of the electorate voting against them in some form. I think lots of people have been fed a lot of garbage stories about immigration. But I guess it’s better to blame others then blame themselves for their own shortcomings. The UK is amongst the most densely populated countries in Europe after Netherlands, Belgium and a handful of city states. If we keep building at this rate we will lose the ability to feed ourselves and supply water and sanitation. This is a simple matter of law and order. Our borders are being illegally crossed on a daily basis. If your house was burgled every single night for a decade, you'd reasonably expect something to be done right? The U.K is around 4% urban. We have plenty of room for growth (and regardless of immigration, we need to build more. Much more). The ability to feed ourselves? The UK hasn’t been self sufficient in supplies since the 19th century. And if you want to blame anyone for the state of services, take a look at the government and their mishandling of well, everything, but in particular their privatisation of essential utilities. Once again, the majority of crossings are made by genuine asylum seekers - some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The rate of building on green land is horrifying, huge swathes being taken up for housing and warehouses. Yes, we rely too much on imported food which may not be a reliable source in future. So we need to protect our green spaces, both for the environment and food production. We'll have to disagree on whether asylum seekers are genuine or not. My own opinion is that most are bogus (e.g. why do Albanians seek refuge?). Albania is not a particularly safe country - Modern sl@very and human trafficking is rife there. Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be) About 12% of Albanians claim they are victims of modern slav ery. Over 80% of Albanians want to leave their country for Economic reasons. Albanians are the highest foreign nationality in UK prisons. The site I just looked at said about 40% of Albanians flee for the reasons I cited, and about 40% are economic migrants. Why are so many Albanians leaving? A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason. That quote doesn’t say that 80% of Albanians are leaving for economic reasons though. High cost of living isn't now economic? Fuck me sideways
You didn’t read your own quote.
“A recent survey conducted by the Regional Cooperation Council called the Balkan Barometer revealed that approximately 83% of Albanians expressed their desire to leave the country, citing the high cost of living as the most common reason”
It could be that 40-50% of those 83% cite the cost of living as their reason, with smaller percentages making up the rest of the numbers.
You're absolutely right.
83% want to leave, around 50% are actively looking for work(ecnomic) abroad.
And that’s where safe routes and a proper asylum process comes in - this would stop the small bot crossings, stop (or at least hamper) people smugglers, and protect our economy from any migrants who might seek to abuse it.
I agree with safe routes. I disagree it would stop small boats.
Anyone who is rejected at a 'safe place' would still head for the French coast, so whilst there would be less, they would still happen.
One of the dead from last week's Greek migrant tragedy, was a Syrian woman denied a visa to join her husband in Germany.
Even after being told "No", they will still try to come via illegal means.
How bad must life be to take a risk like that?
And here is where the line is drawn by sensible rational thinking adults, we say enough is enough.
On the other side of coin is your argument, shall we let bank robbers off, burglars, shoplifters, muggers and anyone else that pleads poverty?
Or is down to your judgement who deserves reprieve?
You must have missed the part where I said “Some flee because of extreme poverty (and that’s unfortunately not a valid reason, as understandable as it may be)”
Do you consider the countries needs that economic migrants are leaving? How do countries thrive and develop if they are simply a place to be born in and the next generations migrate?
Nobody has ever disputed the fact that legitimate asylum seekers need our help, to my knowledge in these threads.
That is in stark contrast to those in these threads that blatantly ignore the economic migrants who are making illegal crossings into the UK as an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Funny how you change tack when you’re proven wrong again.
Anyhoo, In the 90’s and 2000’s under EU FoM, many poles made the U.K their home. They worked hard, they sent money home. Poland began to reap the greater economic benefits of EU membership. As this happened, polish migration to the U.K began to slow, as Poland became a more powerful economy.
And once again, as you’ve been told, it’s not illegal to cross the channel and claim asylum.
You have nothing to add really except changing the direction, even making Polish migrants a like for like with illegal economic migrant crossings is outstanding.
I also like the "as you have been told" comment, you have summed yourself up lovely.
Well it’s been explained, but you appear not to pay attention.
Crossing the channel and claiming asylum is not illegal, under international law.
You are mixing it up again... I'm not talking about legitimate asylum seekers and neither is anybody else.
Now let's get back yo those pesky economic migrants illegally entering the country, whats your plan to stop them?
There are no legitimate or illegitimate asylum seekers - there are only asylum seekers. Those whose case is successful remain and become legal refugees. Those whose case is unsuccessful face deportation.
Once again - it is not illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the channel and claim asylum, regardless of their reason for doing so.
I’m not sure how much more simple I can make this.
Do you recognise economic migrants are entering the country illegally or not? Ye or No is all I need
Until their asylum claim is heard, they are not illegal. That’s the point you don’t understand.
Yes or no?
No.
https://una.org.uk/magazine/1-2016/false-dichotomy-between-economic-migrants-and-refugees
The Poles you mentioned were they asylum seekers or economic migrants?
They were migrants. Did you read the link?
What type of migrants?
Just migrants. I’m assuming you didn’t read the link, or you’d have known that.
I have no need to read your links, you have provided me all I need to know
Like I said, it’s been explained to you. If you’d rather not learn, and continue to use inflammatory language and spread falsehoods - that’s a ‘you’ problem.
I said I don't want to burst your bubble, don't let my reality of economic migrants be a thing that disturbs your constructed thoughts. It is not worth it.
So having been proven wrong (again), you’re doubling down?
Yeah, I’m out too. On this topic your ignorance is truly astounding. One might say ‘bigoted’"I'm leaving this right here, nothing left to say.. have a good one | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the governments own impact assessment has now said it will cost £169,000 to move a migrant to Rwanda. Flipping heck! That’s a lot of money. It would cost £106,000 to provide housing support here for a migrant. What should we do? Should we just have migrants work and pay taxes? To fund the services they require? Instead of being a burden on state, I am sure the economic argument is more justified now considering the massive labour shortage we have. Or should we let Cruella Braverman continue to pursue policies which waste money from the public purse? Racism in all its forms tends to be an expensive economic activity. None of the Brexit supporting racists cared anything about the economic costs of Brexit, Similarly, the frothing supporters of the Rwanda policy would not give a hoot that it would cost £billions in the long term as long as every refugee and asylum seeker could be deported. It would be their dream. Imagine someone asking above if it was possible to have a sensible debate on this and your input is 'racists don't give a fuck' Clearly its not possible. This place really has gone to shit. Read this thread. Read what the supporters are saying. How can you have a reasoned debate when people see good value in spending £170,000 per person to send say 1,000 (£170,000,000?) people to Rwanda when on current figures, 70-80% of those people would probably be accepted here as asylum seekers and would be able to work and contribute to the national economy. It’s a bonkers plan that is fuelled entirely on racist entitlement." I don't think Rwanda plan will succeed as think it will continue to be stopped via legal challenges ect. But in your figures you only quote one side and did not mention that out of the 169,000 you have to deduct at up to 165,000 for housing per person plus their benefits which have been confirmed, plus medical care, plus the impact on places like hotels. As I mentioned earlier 95 people are losing their jobs that work in a hotel because of this. It's not a one way thing as some try to portray | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can anybody else smell that? Whoa, it absolutely reeks! ... ... ... Racism... Entitlement... Bigotry... Hatred..." I can't see or smell any of the above. One of the things that lead to the attitudes you mention is people being accused of simply for having a different view. Such accusations to normal debate are the problem | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can anybody else smell that? Whoa, it absolutely reeks! ... ... ... Racism... Entitlement... Bigotry... Hatred..." I have not read one racist comment or any of the other things you have written for dramatic effect. It appears there are people that can't discuss difficult topics without resorting to name calling | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
