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 |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'Immigration: More people believe it has a negative impact on society than positive, poll suggests The survey revealed deep political distrust among the public, with 52% saying they think Labour are not telling the truth about what they think on immigration, and 49% saying the same thing about the Conservatives.' https://news.sky.com/story/immigration-more-people-believe-it-has-a-negative-impact-on-society-than-positive-poll-suggests-13154613 " 
This is by design. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'Immigration: More people believe it has a negative impact on society than positive, poll suggests The survey revealed deep political distrust among the public, with 52% saying they think Labour are not telling the truth about what they think on immigration, and 49% saying the same thing about the Conservatives.' https://news.sky.com/story/immigration-more-people-believe-it-has-a-negative-impact-on-society-than-positive-poll-suggests-13154613
This is by design. "Go on. I'll bite. I know I shouldn't, but go one . . . explain why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'Immigration: More people believe it has a negative impact on society than positive, poll suggests The survey revealed deep political distrust among the public, with 52% saying they think Labour are not telling the truth about what they think on immigration, and 49% saying the same thing about the Conservatives.' https://news.sky.com/story/immigration-more-people-believe-it-has-a-negative-impact-on-society-than-positive-poll-suggests-13154613
This is by design.
Go on. I'll bite. I know I shouldn't, but go one . . . explain why?"I'm not sure what you mean. The anti immigrant rhetoric is specifically designed to distract and divide people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'Immigration: More people believe it has a negative impact on society than positive, poll suggests The survey revealed deep political distrust among the public, with 52% saying they think Labour are not telling the truth about what they think on immigration, and 49% saying the same thing about the Conservatives.' https://news.sky.com/story/immigration-more-people-believe-it-has-a-negative-impact-on-society-than-positive-poll-suggests-13154613
This is by design.
Go on. I'll bite. I know I shouldn't, but go one . . . explain why?
I'm not sure what you mean.
The anti immigrant rhetoric is specifically designed to distract and divide people."Ahhhh. Got you. It's a Plan put put hundreds of people into the dangerous waters of the English Channel each week and then divide the people with rhetoric about how we should deal with that. Cunning Plan Baldric - but still, to what end? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nothing wrong with immigration, it's a good thing for our country and economy BUT it must be 1) done through legal processes and 2) selective and vetted. Now we have neither = there's the problem." On this we entirely agree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'Immigration: More people believe it has a negative impact on society than positive, poll suggests The survey revealed deep political distrust among the public, with 52% saying they think Labour are not telling the truth about what they think on immigration, and 49% saying the same thing about the Conservatives.' https://news.sky.com/story/immigration-more-people-believe-it-has-a-negative-impact-on-society-than-positive-poll-suggests-13154613
This is by design.
Go on. I'll bite. I know I shouldn't, but go one . . . explain why?
I'm not sure what you mean.
The anti immigrant rhetoric is specifically designed to distract and divide people."Why can't citizens have genuine concerns about immigration without some crackpot conspiracy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'Immigration: More people believe it has a negative impact on society than positive, poll suggests The survey revealed deep political distrust among the public, with 52% saying they think Labour are not telling the truth about what they think on immigration, and 49% saying the same thing about the Conservatives.' https://news.sky.com/story/immigration-more-people-believe-it-has-a-negative-impact-on-society-than-positive-poll-suggests-13154613
This is by design.
Go on. I'll bite. I know I shouldn't, but go one . . . explain why?
I'm not sure what you mean.
The anti immigrant rhetoric is specifically designed to distract and divide people.
Why can't citizens have genuine concerns about immigration without some crackpot conspiracy?"Jeebus - two in a row! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'Immigration: More people believe it has a negative impact on society than positive, poll suggests The survey revealed deep political distrust among the public, with 52% saying they think Labour are not telling the truth about what they think on immigration, and 49% saying the same thing about the Conservatives.' https://news.sky.com/story/immigration-more-people-believe-it-has-a-negative-impact-on-society-than-positive-poll-suggests-13154613
This is by design.
Go on. I'll bite. I know I shouldn't, but go one . . . explain why?
I'm not sure what you mean.
The anti immigrant rhetoric is specifically designed to distract and divide people.
Why can't citizens have genuine concerns about immigration without some crackpot conspiracy?"They can, maybe some people start out that way. But I'm talking about the rhetoric that's forced down everyone's throat that immigrants cause all our problems. It's ubiquitous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'Immigration: More people believe it has a negative impact on society than positive, poll suggests The survey revealed deep political distrust among the public, with 52% saying they think Labour are not telling the truth about what they think on immigration, and 49% saying the same thing about the Conservatives.' https://news.sky.com/story/immigration-more-people-believe-it-has-a-negative-impact-on-society-than-positive-poll-suggests-13154613
This is by design.
Go on. I'll bite. I know I shouldn't, but go one . . . explain why?"Though uncontrolled immigration is a big problem,especially if its from cultures very different from ours. The media and the politicians particularly Tory and Reform, blame it on all the woes of the country. They make it seem that all we have to do is stop immigration and everything would be hunky dory. Illegal immigration is estimated to cost the UK £14.4b while tax havens where the wealthy store their money costs the UK over £18b. So while immigration is talked about endlessly, the other is hidden the shadows and only pops up now and then. Maybe on purpose, because the people who seem to direct the chatter seem to have a interest in telling the public to look there at the visible emotional argument. So the other problem is not talked about as much. Maybe thats what Johnny means by design. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why can't citizens have genuine concerns about immigration without some crackpot conspiracy? They can, maybe some people start out that way. But I'm talking about the rhetoric that's forced down everyone's throat that immigrants cause all our problems. It's ubiquitous." Still. You are not saying to what end? Who are these'some people'  And if it's just some doesn't that really defeat your use of the word 'ubiquitous' ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'Immigration: More people believe it has a negative impact on society than positive, poll suggests The survey revealed deep political distrust among the public, with 52% saying they think Labour are not telling the truth about what they think on immigration, and 49% saying the same thing about the Conservatives.' https://news.sky.com/story/immigration-more-people-believe-it-has-a-negative-impact-on-society-than-positive-poll-suggests-13154613
This is by design.
Go on. I'll bite. I know I shouldn't, but go one . . . explain why?
Though uncontrolled immigration is a big problem,especially if its from cultures very different from ours.
The media and the politicians particularly Tory and Reform, blame it on all the woes of the country.
They make it seem that all we have to do is stop immigration and everything would be hunky dory.
Illegal immigration is estimated to cost the UK £14.4b while tax havens where the wealthy store their money costs the UK over £18b.
So while immigration is talked about endlessly, the other is hidden the shadows and only pops up now and then.
Maybe on purpose, because the people who seem to direct the chatter seem to have a interest in telling the public to look there at the visible emotional argument. So the other problem is not talked about as much.
Maybe thats what Johnny means by design. "Thank you. I didn't think it needed spelling out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'Immigration: More people believe it has a negative impact on society than positive, poll suggests The survey revealed deep political distrust among the public, with 52% saying they think Labour are not telling the truth about what they think on immigration, and 49% saying the same thing about the Conservatives.' https://news.sky.com/story/immigration-more-people-believe-it-has-a-negative-impact-on-society-than-positive-poll-suggests-13154613
This is by design.
Go on. I'll bite. I know I shouldn't, but go one . . . explain why?
Though uncontrolled immigration is a big problem,especially if its from cultures very different from ours.
The media and the politicians particularly Tory and Reform, blame it on all the woes of the country.
They make it seem that all we have to do is stop immigration and everything would be hunky dory.
Illegal immigration is estimated to cost the UK £14.4b while tax havens where the wealthy store their money costs the UK over £18b.
So while immigration is talked about endlessly, the other is hidden the shadows and only pops up now and then.
Maybe on purpose, because the people who seem to direct the chatter seem to have a interest in telling the public to look there at the visible emotional argument. So the other problem is not talked about as much.
Maybe thats what Johnny means by design. "Exactly. Agree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'Immigration: More people believe it has a negative impact on society than positive, poll suggests The survey revealed deep political distrust among the public, with 52% saying they think Labour are not telling the truth about what they think on immigration, and 49% saying the same thing about the Conservatives.' https://news.sky.com/story/immigration-more-people-believe-it-has-a-negative-impact-on-society-than-positive-poll-suggests-13154613
This is by design.
Go on. I'll bite. I know I shouldn't, but go one . . . explain why?
Though uncontrolled immigration is a big problem,especially if its from cultures very different from ours.
The media and the politicians particularly Tory and Reform, blame it on all the woes of the country.
They make it seem that all we have to do is stop immigration and everything would be hunky dory.
Illegal immigration is estimated to cost the UK £14.4b while tax havens where the wealthy store their money costs the UK over £18b.
So while immigration is talked about endlessly, the other is hidden the shadows and only pops up now and then.
Maybe on purpose, because the people who seem to direct the chatter seem to have a interest in telling the public to look there at the visible emotional argument. So the other problem is not talked about as much.
Maybe thats what Johnny means by design.
Thank you.
I didn't think it needed spelling out."So the design - is to hide the CONSPIRACY then ? Oh dear. Reaching. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Immigration is good and necessary. Too little and a society missed out on significant progress and opportunities, the cross-pollination of culture and ideas. Too much, too fast or with malicious intent (e.g. colonialism) and a culture dies, or changes in ways that terrifies the average person, leading to horrible consequences. Finding the right place to draw that line is what makes politics so... fun." Agree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'Immigration: More people believe it has a negative impact on society than positive, poll suggests The survey revealed deep political distrust among the public, with 52% saying they think Labour are not telling the truth about what they think on immigration, and 49% saying the same thing about the Conservatives.' https://news.sky.com/story/immigration-more-people-believe-it-has-a-negative-impact-on-society-than-positive-poll-suggests-13154613
This is by design.
Go on. I'll bite. I know I shouldn't, but go one . . . explain why?
Though uncontrolled immigration is a big problem,especially if its from cultures very different from ours.
The media and the politicians particularly Tory and Reform, blame it on all the woes of the country.
They make it seem that all we have to do is stop immigration and everything would be hunky dory.
Illegal immigration is estimated to cost the UK £14.4b while tax havens where the wealthy store their money costs the UK over £18b.
So while immigration is talked about endlessly, the other is hidden the shadows and only pops up now and then.
Maybe on purpose, because the people who seem to direct the chatter seem to have a interest in telling the public to look there at the visible emotional argument. So the other problem is not talked about as much.
Maybe thats what Johnny means by design.
Thank you.
I didn't think it needed spelling out.
So the design - is to hide the CONSPIRACY then ?
Oh dear. Reaching."I don't know what conspiracy you mean. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ________________________________ Every party has consistently said: (even Reform): Immigration should be controlled by legal means. Arrival by application through a system of immigration control. How is that divisive? I ask anyone here - would you expect to turn up at any country in the world and expect free-let to stay with no checks or control? ________________________________ " Anyone want to take a stab at this? After all, it's easy to chat about hidden conspiracies while never providing actual proof of them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has nothing to do with our generation. This has been a worry for thousands of years. This was also a "problem" last generation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech Immigration was pretty pathetic for Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals. It didn't always work out well for the peoples of the British isles (themselves immigrants who displaced earlier immigrants). The same people who decry anti-immigration xenophobes in the UK bang on about the horrors of immigration in Israel (ship them back to Poland or America). Immigration is good and necessary. Too little and a society missed out on significant progress and opportunities, the cross-pollination of culture and ideas. Too much, too fast or with malicious intent (e.g. colonialism) and a culture dies, or changes in ways that terrifies the average person, leading to horrible consequences. Finding the right place to draw that line is what makes politics so... fun." Very well said but you will be ignored on the forum in favour of the clickbait dog whistle posters on here pursuing their agendas... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Very well said but you will be ignored on the forum in favour of the clickbait dog whistle posters on here pursuing their agendas..." What agenda is that - and who? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ________________________________ Every party has consistently said: (even Reform): Immigration should be controlled by legal means. Arrival by application through a system of immigration control. How is that divisive? I ask anyone here - would you expect to turn up at any country in the world and expect free-let to stay with no checks or control? ________________________________ Anyone want to take a stab at this? After all, it's easy to chat about hidden conspiracies while never providing actual proof of them." Anyone? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ________________________________ Every party has consistently said: (even Reform): Immigration should be controlled by legal means. Arrival by application through a system of immigration control. How is that divisive? I ask anyone here - would you expect to turn up at any country in the world and expect free-let to stay with no checks or control? ________________________________ Anyone want to take a stab at this? After all, it's easy to chat about hidden conspiracies while never providing actual proof of them. Anyone?" Immigration is currently controlled by legal means. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nothing wrong with immigration, it's a good thing for our country and economy BUT it must be 1) done through legal processes and 2) selective and vetted. Now we have neither = there's the problem. On this we entirely agree. "I'm happy to ride this bus too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'Immigration: More people believe it has a negative impact on society than positive, poll suggests The survey revealed deep political distrust among the public, with 52% saying they think Labour are not telling the truth about what they think on immigration, and 49% saying the same thing about the Conservatives.' https://news.sky.com/story/immigration-more-people-believe-it-has-a-negative-impact-on-society-than-positive-poll-suggests-13154613
This is by design.
Go on. I'll bite. I know I shouldn't, but go one . . . explain why?
I'm not sure what you mean.
The anti immigrant rhetoric is specifically designed to distract and divide people."It certainly seems to take up an awful lot of your time….. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why can't citizens have genuine concerns about immigration without some crackpot conspiracy? They can, maybe some people start out that way. But I'm talking about the rhetoric that's forced down everyone's throat that immigrants cause all our problems. It's ubiquitous. Still. You are not saying to what end? Who are these'some people' And if it's just some doesn't that really defeat your use of the word 'ubiquitous' ?"Sorry missed this one. The rhetoric is ubiquitous, is what I meant. And to what end, have you seen any instances where fear of immigrants, fear of immigration have been amped up to persuade people to vote a certain way? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why can't citizens have genuine concerns about immigration without some crackpot conspiracy? They can, maybe some people start out that way. But I'm talking about the rhetoric that's forced down everyone's throat that immigrants cause all our problems. It's ubiquitous. Still. You are not saying to what end? Who are these'some people' And if it's just some doesn't that really defeat your use of the word 'ubiquitous' ?
Sorry missed this one.
The rhetoric is ubiquitous, is what I meant.
And to what end, have you seen any instances where fear of immigrants, fear of immigration have been amped up to persuade people to vote a certain way?
"Well. I for one am not scared of immigration one bit - I just want it to be legal immigration, not one that trikes to circumvent control. there are millions like me that feel that same way too. Now if they vote because that is the system they want too then we are all a victim of your conspiracy to scare us into voting for every single party in the election right now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ________________________________ Every party has consistently said: (even Reform): Immigration should be controlled by legal means. Arrival by application through a system of immigration control. How is that divisive? I ask anyone here - would you expect to turn up at any country in the world and expect free-let to stay with no checks or control? ________________________________ Anyone want to take a stab at this? After all, it's easy to chat about hidden conspiracies while never providing actual proof of them. Anyone?" Really? Nobody? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why can't citizens have genuine concerns about immigration without some crackpot conspiracy? They can, maybe some people start out that way. But I'm talking about the rhetoric that's forced down everyone's throat that immigrants cause all our problems. It's ubiquitous. Still. You are not saying to what end? Who are these'some people' And if it's just some doesn't that really defeat your use of the word 'ubiquitous' ?
Sorry missed this one.
The rhetoric is ubiquitous, is what I meant.
And to what end, have you seen any instances where fear of immigrants, fear of immigration have been amped up to persuade people to vote a certain way?
Well. I for one am not scared of immigration one bit - I just want it to be legal immigration, not one that trikes to circumvent control. there are millions like me that feel that same way too. Now if they vote because that is the system they want too then we are all a victim of your conspiracy to scare us into voting for every single party in the election right now."What conspiracy are you talking about? I'm talking about the anti immigrant rhetoric that was used to persuade people to vote to leave the EU, or to vote for the Tories and now to vote for Reform. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why can't citizens have genuine concerns about immigration without some crackpot conspiracy? They can, maybe some people start out that way. But I'm talking about the rhetoric that's forced down everyone's throat that immigrants cause all our problems. It's ubiquitous. Still. You are not saying to what end? Who are these'some people' And if it's just some doesn't that really defeat your use of the word 'ubiquitous' ?
Sorry missed this one.
The rhetoric is ubiquitous, is what I meant.
And to what end, have you seen any instances where fear of immigrants, fear of immigration have been amped up to persuade people to vote a certain way?
Well. I for one am not scared of immigration one bit - I just want it to be legal immigration, not one that trikes to circumvent control. there are millions like me that feel that same way too. Now if they vote because that is the system they want too then we are all a victim of your conspiracy to scare us into voting for every single party in the election right now.
What conspiracy are you talking about?
I'm talking about the anti immigrant rhetoric that was used to persuade people to vote to leave the EU, or to vote for the Tories and now to vote for Reform.
"The one you agreed with another poster above - read back, after all you agreed with it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ________________________________ Every party has consistently said: (even Reform): Immigration should be controlled by legal means. Arrival by application through a system of immigration control. How is that divisive? I ask anyone here - would you expect to turn up at any country in the world and expect free-let to stay with no checks or control? ________________________________ Anyone want to take a stab at this? After all, it's easy to chat about hidden conspiracies while never providing actual proof of them. Anyone? Really? Nobody?" Immigration should be controlled by legal means. = YES I agree Arrival by application through a system of immigration control. = YES I agree How is that divisive? = Because at present those safe legal channels do not exist for many of the countries of origin for the asylum seekers. AND because to claim asylum (rather than apply for s Visa to live and work) you need to be on sovereign territory (the beach, an Embassy) I ask anyone here - would you expect to turn up at any country in the world and expect free-let to stay with no checks or control? = No but who is saying they should? If someone crosses in a dinghy and gets onto the beach and claims asylum, the UK is required to process that person and establish legitimacy of asylum claim. What do you do with that person in the interim that is humane and civilised? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nothing wrong with immigration, it's a good thing for our country and economy BUT it must be 1) done through legal processes and 2) selective and vetted. Now we have neither = there's the problem. On this we entirely agree. "There is a vetting system in place. We may not think there is but I can personally assure anyone here there is and this also includes minors. There may be other questions around this but it's in place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nothing wrong with immigration, it's a good thing for our country and economy BUT it must be 1) done through legal processes and 2) selective and vetted. Now we have neither = there's the problem. On this we entirely agree.
There is a vetting system in place. We may not think there is but I can personally assure anyone here there is and this also includes minors.
There may be other questions around this but it's in place."Agreed I think the problem is a lack of investment ergo resources to quickly undertake investigations to establish legitimacy and eligibility (for both official routes/visas AND asylum seekers). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Then we agree. That it should be legal. and That, saying it should be Legal, isn't divisive. Anyway. I have 210 sq'meteres feet of carpet laying to Lady over - laters gators. "Your assumption is that entering the UK without a visa and then claiming asylum is illegal. It isn’t. Entering the UK without a Visa then cracking on with no asylum claim is illegal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why can't citizens have genuine concerns about immigration without some crackpot conspiracy? They can, maybe some people start out that way. But I'm talking about the rhetoric that's forced down everyone's throat that immigrants cause all our problems. It's ubiquitous. Still. You are not saying to what end? Who are these'some people' And if it's just some doesn't that really defeat your use of the word 'ubiquitous' ?
Sorry missed this one.
The rhetoric is ubiquitous, is what I meant.
And to what end, have you seen any instances where fear of immigrants, fear of immigration have been amped up to persuade people to vote a certain way?
Well. I for one am not scared of immigration one bit - I just want it to be legal immigration, not one that trikes to circumvent control. there are millions like me that feel that same way too. Now if they vote because that is the system they want too then we are all a victim of your conspiracy to scare us into voting for every single party in the election right now.
What conspiracy are you talking about?
I'm talking about the anti immigrant rhetoric that was used to persuade people to vote to leave the EU, or to vote for the Tories and now to vote for Reform.
The one you agreed with another poster above - read back, after all you agreed with it. "Honestly confused. I haven't mentioned anything about conspiracies, or agreed to anything conspiracy based. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Every party has consistently said: (even Reform): Immigration should be controlled by legal means. Arrival by application through a system of immigration control. How is that divisive? I ask anyone here - would you expect to turn up at any country in the world and expect free-let to stay with no checks or control? " if you can turn up stay with no checks it’s not a country it’s just land I don’t think anyone thinks mass migration is of any good tp any country now especially when the culture is so different does anyone on here think mass migration is a good thing if so who for ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"does anyone on here think mass migration is a good thing if so who for ?" It might be good for those who are mass migrating... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... to claim asylum (rather than apply for a Visa to live and work) you need to be on sovereign territory (the beach, an Embassy) ..." Just to nip this one in the bud, embassies are not sovereign territory, and you can't claim asylum in one. It's an international convention that an embassy is treated as though it were the sovereign territory of the nation it hosts, but there's no legal basis to that. That's why a country can expel diplomats, and they can't just hide in their embassy. No embassy anywhere will accept asylum claims from standard refugees. That idea only came about during the Cold War, when both sides were happy to accept high level people that wanted to defect. There was no legal compulsion to accept them, and many many low level defectors got turned away. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"does anyone on here think mass migration is a good thing if so who for ? It might be good for those who are mass migrating..." exactly but for the normal public it does nothing and we have never been asked if it was what we wanted it’s been forced upon us for decades | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Then we agree. That it should be legal. and That, saying it should be Legal, isn't divisive. Anyway. I have 210 sq'meteres feet of carpet laying to Lady over - laters gators.
Your assumption is that entering the UK without a visa and then claiming asylum is illegal. It isn’t. Entering the UK without a Visa then cracking on with no asylum claim is illegal."Are you then saying entering the UK without a passport is leagal? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... to claim asylum (rather than apply for a Visa to live and work) you need to be on sovereign territory (the beach, an Embassy) ... Just to nip this one in the bud, embassies are not sovereign territory, and you can't claim asylum in one. It's an international convention that an embassy is treated as though it were the sovereign territory of the nation it hosts, but there's no legal basis to that. That's why a country can expel diplomats, and they can't just hide in their embassy. No embassy anywhere will accept asylum claims from standard refugees. That idea only came about during the Cold War, when both sides were happy to accept high level people that wanted to defect. There was no legal compulsion to accept them, and many many low level defectors got turned away." Ah great to know. So where are these legal routes that people claim should be used to claim asylum? I think they get conflated with visa applications? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Immigration is a short term fix to a long term problem. It's like always eating out because you can't cook. Eventually you go broke. But you will starve while trying to learn to cook. No party is embracing the long term solutions or questions. Increased birth rate is just swapping the restaurant you are going to from a chain to the local chippy. And let's keep the focus on the food bill rather than getting distracted by the starbucks coffee it's the big numbers that will cause you to become broke. Imo, we need to accept retiring a lot later. We also need to get the nation healthier. As state pension and healthcare inflate with age profile, even if the population size is the same. We may also need to accept changes in our standard of living today. Much of our convenient lifestyle relies on cheap labour. " we do our bit up here we die younger than rest of U.K. lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Then we agree. That it should be legal. and That, saying it should be Legal, isn't divisive. Anyway. I have 210 sq'meteres feet of carpet laying to Lady over - laters gators.
Your assumption is that entering the UK without a visa and then claiming asylum is illegal. It isn’t. Entering the UK without a Visa then cracking on with no asylum claim is illegal.
Are you then saying entering the UK without a passport is leagal?"No I am saying that once you claim asylum it is not illegal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Immigration is a short term fix to a long term problem. It's like always eating out because you can't cook. Eventually you go broke. But you will starve while trying to learn to cook. No party is embracing the long term solutions or questions. Increased birth rate is just swapping the restaurant you are going to from a chain to the local chippy. And let's keep the focus on the food bill rather than getting distracted by the starbucks coffee it's the big numbers that will cause you to become broke. Imo, we need to accept retiring a lot later. We also need to get the nation healthier. As state pension and healthcare inflate with age profile, even if the population size is the same. We may also need to accept changes in our standard of living today. Much of our convenient lifestyle relies on cheap labour. " I don’t think your manifesto is going to be very popular  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that immigration has become a demonised subject…. How many people would believe the fact that people who have come in from overseas actually contributed more per head in tax revenue for the treasury than their indigenous counterparts… But hey… easy target…. " but that’s only the ones who work what about the low paid immigrants and the ones who don’t work as it made us richer no there asnt been much benifit to the U.K. ppl from mass migration | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that immigration has become a demonised subject…. How many people would believe the fact that people who have come in from overseas actually contributed more per head in tax revenue for the treasury than their indigenous counterparts… But hey… easy target…. " I promised myself I wouldn't get involved but....your point is correct to a point. There will also be many who have come to the UK from overseas for benefits and make no contribution in the same way as there will be many of their indigenous counterparts sitting on their backsides playing the system and refusing to contribute anything. Once they're off benefits and contributing, by all means let's look for more overseas workers. This was the belief of the late Labour MP Frank Field and I see nothing wrong with it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that immigration has become a demonised subject…. How many people would believe the fact that people who have come in from overseas actually contributed more per head in tax revenue for the treasury than their indigenous counterparts… But hey… easy target…. I promised myself I wouldn't get involved but....your point is correct to a point. There will also be many who have come to the UK from overseas for benefits and make no contribution in the same way as there will be many of their indigenous counterparts sitting on their backsides playing the system and refusing to contribute anything. Once they're off benefits and contributing, by all means let's look for more overseas workers. This was the belief of the late Labour MP Frank Field and I see nothing wrong with it " I am not saying this is wrong but can you point to evidence that proves this is right please? Also you say “many” but what does that mean in this context as it seems to imply more than do not (ie most)? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has nothing to do with our generation. This has been a worry for thousands of years. This was also a "problem" last generation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech Immigration was pretty pathetic for Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals. It didn't always work out well for the peoples of the British isles (themselves immigrants who displaced earlier immigrants). The same people who decry anti-immigration xenophobes in the UK bang on about the horrors of immigration in Israel (ship them back to Poland or America). Immigration is good and necessary. Too little and a society missed out on significant progress and opportunities, the cross-pollination of culture and ideas. Too much, too fast or with malicious intent (e.g. colonialism) and a culture dies, or changes in ways that terrifies the average person, leading to horrible consequences. Finding the right place to draw that line is what makes politics so... fun." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that immigration has become a demonised subject…. How many people would believe the fact that people who have come in from overseas actually contributed more per head in tax revenue for the treasury than their indigenous counterparts… But hey… easy target…. " Depends how it's been calculated. Obviously it's not a fair comparison to compare a small demographic of people that have been granted work visa's to a total population, that would include elderly, disabled ect ect | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that immigration has become a demonised subject…. How many people would believe the fact that people who have come in from overseas actually contributed more per head in tax revenue for the treasury than their indigenous counterparts… But hey… easy target…. I promised myself I wouldn't get involved but....your point is correct to a point. There will also be many who have come to the UK from overseas for benefits and make no contribution in the same way as there will be many of their indigenous counterparts sitting on their backsides playing the system and refusing to contribute anything. Once they're off benefits and contributing, by all means let's look for more overseas workers. This was the belief of the late Labour MP Frank Field and I see nothing wrong with it I am not saying this is wrong but can you point to evidence that proves this is right please? Also you say “many” but what does that mean in this context as it seems to imply more than do not (ie most)?" I actually say "there will be many". I'm not trying to suggest more do not contribute but if the number were 30% for example, that is still many. I have no links to direct you to, this is merely my personal belief based on my life experience | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that immigration has become a demonised subject…. How many people would believe the fact that people who have come in from overseas actually contributed more per head in tax revenue for the treasury than their indigenous counterparts… But hey… easy target…. but that’s only the ones who work what about the low paid immigrants and the ones who don’t work as it made us richer no there asnt been much benifit to the U.K. ppl from mass migration " Do you believe that the UK has experienced mass immigration? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So where are these legal routes that people claim should be used to claim asylum?" As has been said several times. You apply for a tourist visa, get on the ferry, then apply for asylum once you have got your passport stamped. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your assumption is that entering the UK without a visa and then claiming asylum is illegal. It isn’t. Entering the UK without a Visa then cracking on with no asylum claim is illegal." "Are you then saying entering the UK without a passport is leagal?" "No I am saying that once you claim asylum it is not illegal." Entering the UK without permission is illegal. It remains illegal even after you apply for asylum. It's just that whilst you are in the asylum system, you cannot be prosecuted for offences related to entering the country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So where are these legal routes that people claim should be used to claim asylum? As has been said several times. You apply for a tourist visa, get on the ferry, then apply for asylum once you have got your passport stamped." Hmmm yes that might work for many countries. Doubt it works for some, especially those that account for most of the asylum seekers. Assuming you are genuine and face persecution in country X. What is the likelihood of being able to apply for, let alone secure a tourist visa? Also, it is the responsibility of our Visas and Immigration department to assess risk as to whether someone is genuinely wanting to visit as a tourist before granting the visa. All feels very Catch 22! Wonder how many in Syria or Afghanistan can rock up to the British Consulate (is there one?) and submit a tourist visa request? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your assumption is that entering the UK without a visa and then claiming asylum is illegal. It isn’t. Entering the UK without a Visa then cracking on with no asylum claim is illegal. Are you then saying entering the UK without a passport is leagal? No I am saying that once you claim asylum it is not illegal. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. It remains illegal even after you apply for asylum. It's just that whilst you are in the asylum system, you cannot be prosecuted for offences related to entering the country." And if granted asylum? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So where are these legal routes that people claim should be used to claim asylum? As has been said several times. You apply for a tourist visa, get on the ferry, then apply for asylum once you have got your passport stamped." isn't that illegal entry too ? After all you aren't intending to be a tourist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your assumption is that entering the UK without a visa and then claiming asylum is illegal. It isn’t. Entering the UK without a Visa then cracking on with no asylum claim is illegal." "Are you then saying entering the UK without a passport is leagal?" "No I am saying that once you claim asylum it is not illegal." "Entering the UK without permission is illegal. It remains illegal even after you apply for asylum. It's just that whilst you are in the asylum system, you cannot be prosecuted for offences related to entering the country." "And if granted asylum?" If asylum is granted, you remain in the system. Asylum rights stay with you for life, and cannot be revoked. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So where are these legal routes that people claim should be used to claim asylum?" "As has been said several times. You apply for a tourist visa, get on the ferry, then apply for asylum once you have got your passport stamped." "isn't that illegal entry too ? After all you aren't intending to be a tourist." No. There is no offence of making a false statement on a visa application. It doesn't count as fraud either because no pecuniary advantage is gained. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So where are these legal routes that people claim should be used to claim asylum? As has been said several times. You apply for a tourist visa, get on the ferry, then apply for asylum once you have got your passport stamped. isn't that illegal entry too ? After all you aren't intending to be a tourist. No. There is no offence of making a false statement on a visa application. It doesn't count as fraud either because no pecuniary advantage is gained." You sure? from GOV.UK......... It’s a criminal offence to make a false declaration on a passport application. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So where are these legal routes that people claim should be used to claim asylum?" "As has been said several times. You apply for a tourist visa, get on the ferry, then apply for asylum once you have got your passport stamped." "isn't that illegal entry too ? After all you aren't intending to be a tourist." "No. There is no offence of making a false statement on a visa application. It doesn't count as fraud either because no pecuniary advantage is gained." "You sure? from GOV.UK......... It’s a criminal offence to make a false declaration on a passport application. " That's a passport, not a visa. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So where are these legal routes that people claim should be used to claim asylum? As has been said several times. You apply for a tourist visa, get on the ferry, then apply for asylum once you have got your passport stamped. isn't that illegal entry too ? After all you aren't intending to be a tourist. No. There is no offence of making a false statement on a visa application. It doesn't count as fraud either because no pecuniary advantage is gained. You sure? from GOV.UK......... It’s a criminal offence to make a false declaration on a passport application. That's a passport, not a visa." Yes, and I can see it would be impractical to take action against overseas applicants anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So where are these legal routes that people claim should be used to claim asylum? As has been said several times. You apply for a tourist visa, get on the ferry, then apply for asylum once you have got your passport stamped. isn't that illegal entry too ? After all you aren't intending to be a tourist. No. There is no offence of making a false statement on a visa application. It doesn't count as fraud either because no pecuniary advantage is gained. You sure? from GOV.UK......... It’s a criminal offence to make a false declaration on a passport application. That's a passport, not a visa." I'm gonna guess deception. Section 24A(1) of immigration act. IANAL | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So where are these legal routes that people claim should be used to claim asylum? As has been said several times. You apply for a tourist visa, get on the ferry, then apply for asylum once you have got your passport stamped. Hmmm yes that might work for many countries. Doubt it works for some, especially those that account for most of the asylum seekers. Assuming you are genuine and face persecution in country X. What is the likelihood of being able to apply for, let alone secure a tourist visa? Also, it is the responsibility of our Visas and Immigration department to assess risk as to whether someone is genuinely wanting to visit as a tourist before granting the visa. All feels very Catch 22! Wonder how many in Syria or Afghanistan can rock up to the British Consulate (is there one?) and submit a tourist visa request?" I wonder how many people will get within 100 yards of the consulate if the reason they are trying to flee the country is that they are being persecuted by the government and fear for their lives? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nothing wrong with immigration, it's a good thing for our country and economy BUT it must be 1) done through legal processes and 2) selective and vetted. Now we have neither = there's the problem." Totally agree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why can't citizens have genuine concerns about immigration without some crackpot conspiracy?" lol Plenty of those around | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can anyone think of a way to shoehorn Hamas into this thread? Give it a go if you can." Media reporting from several sources has alleged that 19 individuals with suspected links to terrorism were able to enter the UK through illegal migration networks in 2022.[1] The suspects that were reportedly identified through biometric scanning upon entry to the UK include five Iraqis, five Iranians, four Afghans, four Somalis and one Libyan.[2] It is alleged that the individuals have links to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Islamic State Khorasan Province (Afghanistan), and unspecified Iranian terrorist groups.[3] The reporting has suggested that the majority of these individuals have made formal asylum claims to the UK whilst based in migrant hotels and are unable to be deported. The individuals are now reportedly under surveillance by police and UK security services.[4] In an interview, Tony Smith, former head of the UK Border Force stated that during the evacuation of the “dangerously overcrowded” Manston refugee centre “not all security checks were done, and some could have been missed… my worry is that someone with terrorist intent has crept through that system”. [5] Reportedly, over 45,000 individuals crossed the English Channel irregularly in 2022. The majority of these crossings were in small boats provided by criminal groups operating on the French coast.[ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can anyone think of a way to shoehorn Hamas into this thread? Give it a go if you can. Media reporting from several sources has alleged that 19 individuals with suspected links to terrorism were able to enter the UK through illegal migration networks in 2022.[1] The suspects that were reportedly identified through biometric scanning upon entry to the UK include five Iraqis, five Iranians, four Afghans, four Somalis and one Libyan.[2] It is alleged that the individuals have links to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Islamic State Khorasan Province (Afghanistan), and unspecified Iranian terrorist groups.[3] The reporting has suggested that the majority of these individuals have made formal asylum claims to the UK whilst based in migrant hotels and are unable to be deported. The individuals are now reportedly under surveillance by police and UK security services.[4] In an interview, Tony Smith, former head of the UK Border Force stated that during the evacuation of the “dangerously overcrowded” Manston refugee centre “not all security checks were done, and some could have been missed… my worry is that someone with terrorist intent has crept through that system”. [5] Reportedly, over 45,000 individuals crossed the English Channel irregularly in 2022. The majority of these crossings were in small boats provided by criminal groups operating on the French coast.[ " I’m sure they are good lads and will soon repent of their past ways and start working as NHS surgeons. Very gracious to leave all the women and children behind and not trouble them with such a perilous journey. We are lucky to have them given that British people are all too lazy and stupid to do anything useful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So where are these legal routes that people claim should be used to claim asylum? As has been said several times. You apply for a tourist visa, get on the ferry, then apply for asylum once you have got your passport stamped. Hmmm yes that might work for many countries. Doubt it works for some, especially those that account for most of the asylum seekers. Assuming you are genuine and face persecution in country X. What is the likelihood of being able to apply for, let alone secure a tourist visa? Also, it is the responsibility of our Visas and Immigration department to assess risk as to whether someone is genuinely wanting to visit as a tourist before granting the visa. All feels very Catch 22! Wonder how many in Syria or Afghanistan can rock up to the British Consulate (is there one?) and submit a tourist visa request?" I read Palestinians were being offered a way out of Gaza, they needed to pay of course, and so do people using small boats. There is always a way out, so much so people from the countries you mention are arriving in Europe and here daily. It is not always worst case scenarios. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nothing wrong with immigration, it's a good thing for our country and economy BUT it must be 1) done through legal processes and 2) selective and vetted. Now we have neither = there's the problem." generally agree with this though I would say that both legal and illegal immigrants go through a system. The system might be very poor though especially for the illegals. Both sets are often clumped together especially when talking about net benefit and we don't seem to get figures for the illegal ones on their own. For me if a UK company need say 100 carpenters and can only find 50 locally then the remaining 50 can be brought in from elsewhere. But not bring in unlimited numbers of carpenters. Training more locally will help in the long term. Also it should be said that those that take up these offers are a loss to their home nation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can anyone think of a way to shoehorn Hamas into this thread? Give it a go if you can. Media reporting from several sources has alleged that 19 individuals with suspected links to terrorism were able to enter the UK through illegal migration networks in 2022.[1] The suspects that were reportedly identified through biometric scanning upon entry to the UK include five Iraqis, five Iranians, four Afghans, four Somalis and one Libyan.[2] It is alleged that the individuals have links to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Islamic State Khorasan Province (Afghanistan), and unspecified Iranian terrorist groups.[3] The reporting has suggested that the majority of these individuals have made formal asylum claims to the UK whilst based in migrant hotels and are unable to be deported. The individuals are now reportedly under surveillance by police and UK security services.[4] In an interview, Tony Smith, former head of the UK Border Force stated that during the evacuation of the “dangerously overcrowded” Manston refugee centre “not all security checks were done, and some could have been missed… my worry is that someone with terrorist intent has crept through that system”. [5] Reportedly, over 45,000 individuals crossed the English Channel irregularly in 2022. The majority of these crossings were in small boats provided by criminal groups operating on the French coast.[ " That's a very weird site you copied and pasted this from. If they were identified through the biometric scan, why were they let in? Also, you failed to rant about Hamas. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nothing wrong with immigration, it's a good thing for our country and economy BUT it must be 1) done through legal processes and 2) selective and vetted. Now we have neither = there's the problem. generally agree with this though I would say that both legal and illegal immigrants go through a system. The system might be very poor though especially for the illegals. Both sets are often clumped together especially when talking about net benefit and we don't seem to get figures for the illegal ones on their own. For me if a UK company need say 100 carpenters and can only find 50 locally then the remaining 50 can be brought in from elsewhere. But not bring in unlimited numbers of carpenters. Training more locally will help in the long term. Also it should be said that those that take up these offers are a loss to their home nation"Totally agree ?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your assumption is that entering the UK without a visa and then claiming asylum is illegal. It isn’t. Entering the UK without a Visa then cracking on with no asylum claim is illegal. Are you then saying entering the UK without a passport is leagal? No I am saying that once you claim asylum it is not illegal. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. It remains illegal even after you apply for asylum. It's just that whilst you are in the asylum system, you cannot be prosecuted for offences related to entering the country. And if granted asylum? If asylum is granted, you remain in the system. Asylum rights stay with you for life, and cannot be revoked." So it is an illegal act but those individuals get a sort of amnesty from prosecution for that particular crime. What if they are not granted asylum? Are they then not protected by this amnesty? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can anyone think of a way to shoehorn Hamas into this thread? Give it a go if you can. Media reporting from several sources has alleged that 19 individuals with suspected links to terrorism were able to enter the UK through illegal migration networks in 2022.[1] The suspects that were reportedly identified through biometric scanning upon entry to the UK include five Iraqis, five Iranians, four Afghans, four Somalis and one Libyan.[2] It is alleged that the individuals have links to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Islamic State Khorasan Province (Afghanistan), and unspecified Iranian terrorist groups.[3] The reporting has suggested that the majority of these individuals have made formal asylum claims to the UK whilst based in migrant hotels and are unable to be deported. The individuals are now reportedly under surveillance by police and UK security services.[4] In an interview, Tony Smith, former head of the UK Border Force stated that during the evacuation of the “dangerously overcrowded” Manston refugee centre “not all security checks were done, and some could have been missed… my worry is that someone with terrorist intent has crept through that system”. [5] Reportedly, over 45,000 individuals crossed the English Channel irregularly in 2022. The majority of these crossings were in small boats provided by criminal groups operating on the French coast.[ That's a very weird site you copied and pasted this from. If they were identified through the biometric scan, why were they let in? Also, you failed to rant about Hamas. " I couldn't give 2 shits about hamas, as its sponsored by Iran... and just derails the debate imho | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can anyone think of a way to shoehorn Hamas into this thread? Give it a go if you can. Media reporting from several sources has alleged that 19 individuals with suspected links to terrorism were able to enter the UK through illegal migration networks in 2022.[1] The suspects that were reportedly identified through biometric scanning upon entry to the UK include five Iraqis, five Iranians, four Afghans, four Somalis and one Libyan.[2] It is alleged that the individuals have links to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Islamic State Khorasan Province (Afghanistan), and unspecified Iranian terrorist groups.[3] The reporting has suggested that the majority of these individuals have made formal asylum claims to the UK whilst based in migrant hotels and are unable to be deported. The individuals are now reportedly under surveillance by police and UK security services.[4] In an interview, Tony Smith, former head of the UK Border Force stated that during the evacuation of the “dangerously overcrowded” Manston refugee centre “not all security checks were done, and some could have been missed… my worry is that someone with terrorist intent has crept through that system”. [5] Reportedly, over 45,000 individuals crossed the English Channel irregularly in 2022. The majority of these crossings were in small boats provided by criminal groups operating on the French coast.[ That's a very weird site you copied and pasted this from. If they were identified through the biometric scan, why were they let in? Also, you failed to rant about Hamas. I couldn't give 2 shits about hamas, as its sponsored by Iran... and just derails the debate imho" We're on the same page. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I’m sure they are good lads and will soon repent of their past ways and start working as NHS surgeons. Very gracious to leave all the women and children behind and not trouble them with such a perilous journey. We are lucky to have them given that British people are all too lazy and stupid to do anything useful." https://news.sky.com/story/migrants-try-to-board-small-boat-off-french-beach-in-desperate-bid-for-britain-as-powerless-police-watch-on-13154980 Whilst the majority are young men, there are a number of families, as evidenced by the many heart-wreching stories of children drowning. Knowing the dangers, it's criminally wanton negligence to take children on such a journey from any (otherwise safe) European country. While there may be an arguable right under law to head towards any country as an asylum seeker, parents who subject their children to mortal danger for a better opportunity have some hard questions to answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your assumption is that entering the UK without a visa and then claiming asylum is illegal. It isn’t. Entering the UK without a Visa then cracking on with no asylum claim is illegal. Are you then saying entering the UK without a passport is leagal? No I am saying that once you claim asylum it is not illegal. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. It remains illegal even after you apply for asylum. It's just that whilst you are in the asylum system, you cannot be prosecuted for offences related to entering the country. And if granted asylum? If asylum is granted, you remain in the system. Asylum rights stay with you for life, and cannot be revoked. So it is an illegal act but those individuals get a sort of amnesty from prosecution for that particular crime. What if they are not granted asylum? Are they then not protected by this amnesty?" If we look at this problem openly, you are in my opinion very close to core of the problem. 45K ish arrived by small boat last year, one estimate based on the number of people destroying or not having documents, makes 95% of those 45K ish not legitimate. We now have a very big problem, they have broken our laws and we can't do anything about it, we cant send 42500 ish people to jail, we can't put 42500 ish people through court, we can't fine them and we can't return them easily because we don't know who they are or a lot of times where they come from. So what do we do next? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I’m sure they are good lads and will soon repent of their past ways and start working as NHS surgeons. Very gracious to leave all the women and children behind and not trouble them with such a perilous journey. We are lucky to have them given that British people are all too lazy and stupid to do anything useful. https://news.sky.com/story/migrants-try-to-board-small-boat-off-french-beach-in-desperate-bid-for-britain-as-powerless-police-watch-on-13154980 Whilst the majority are young men, there are a number of families, as evidenced by the many heart-wreching stories of children drowning. Knowing the dangers, it's criminally wanton negligence to take children on such a journey from any (otherwise safe) European country. While there may be an arguable right under law to head towards any country as an asylum seeker, parents who subject their children to mortal danger for a better opportunity have some hard questions to answer. " the parents who put them on the boats want arresting and sent back because there’s not a normal person on here who would risk the life of there own child regardless how many family are here already and regardless of how much of a better life they will have than in France | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So where are these legal routes that people claim should be used to claim asylum? As has been said several times. You apply for a tourist visa, get on the ferry, then apply for asylum once you have got your passport stamped. Hmmm yes that might work for many countries. Doubt it works for some, especially those that account for most of the asylum seekers. Assuming you are genuine and face persecution in country X. What is the likelihood of being able to apply for, let alone secure a tourist visa? Also, it is the responsibility of our Visas and Immigration department to assess risk as to whether someone is genuinely wanting to visit as a tourist before granting the visa. All feels very Catch 22! Wonder how many in Syria or Afghanistan can rock up to the British Consulate (is there one?) and submit a tourist visa request?" The answer is they probably couldn’t For “Certain” countries, to even get a tourist visa you would need to show your have travel tickets… a return set of tickets… and you would need to show means of proof that you can support yourself during your potential stay… or a sponsor would need to show they would support you during your stay…. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The answer is they probably couldn’t For “Certain” countries, to even get a tourist visa you would need to show your have travel tickets… a return set of tickets… and you would need to show means of proof that you can support yourself during your potential stay… or a sponsor would need to show they would support you during your stay…." The standard trafficking charge is reportedly £3000-10000? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your assumption is that entering the UK without a visa and then claiming asylum is illegal. It isn’t. Entering the UK without a Visa then cracking on with no asylum claim is illegal. Are you then saying entering the UK without a passport is leagal? No I am saying that once you claim asylum it is not illegal. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. It remains illegal even after you apply for asylum. It's just that whilst you are in the asylum system, you cannot be prosecuted for offences related to entering the country. And if granted asylum? If asylum is granted, you remain in the system. Asylum rights stay with you for life, and cannot be revoked. So it is an illegal act but those individuals get a sort of amnesty from prosecution for that particular crime. What if they are not granted asylum? Are they then not protected by this amnesty? If we look at this problem openly, you are in my opinion very close to core of the problem. 45K ish arrived by small boat last year, one estimate based on the number of people destroying or not having documents, makes 95% of those 45K ish not legitimate. We now have a very big problem, they have broken our laws and we can't do anything about it, we cant send 42500 ish people to jail, we can't put 42500 ish people through court, we can't fine them and we can't return them easily because we don't know who they are or a lot of times where they come from. So what do we do next? " this issue exists regardless of having any asylum system or not. And even a few thousand to Rwanda isnt going to touch the sides. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your assumption is that entering the UK without a visa and then claiming asylum is illegal. It isn’t. Entering the UK without a Visa then cracking on with no asylum claim is illegal. Are you then saying entering the UK without a passport is leagal? No I am saying that once you claim asylum it is not illegal. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. It remains illegal even after you apply for asylum. It's just that whilst you are in the asylum system, you cannot be prosecuted for offences related to entering the country. And if granted asylum? If asylum is granted, you remain in the system. Asylum rights stay with you for life, and cannot be revoked. So it is an illegal act but those individuals get a sort of amnesty from prosecution for that particular crime. What if they are not granted asylum? Are they then not protected by this amnesty? If we look at this problem openly, you are in my opinion very close to core of the problem. 45K ish arrived by small boat last year, one estimate based on the number of people destroying or not having documents, makes 95% of those 45K ish not legitimate. We now have a very big problem, they have broken our laws and we can't do anything about it, we cant send 42500 ish people to jail, we can't put 42500 ish people through court, we can't fine them and we can't return them easily because we don't know who they are or a lot of times where they come from. So what do we do next? this issue exists regardless of having any asylum system or not. And even a few thousand to Rwanda isnt going to touch the sides. " Exactly, we can discuss option a or b and right down to z, it doesn’t stop the problem of being overwhelmed and not being able to cope. Put in a safe route, those that would be under more scrutiny would still get in the boats. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda is a gimmick, rather use a few islands off the coast of Scotland, cost effective and guarantee most will want to go home after 6 weeks ..." Unresolvable atm. UN says 1.2bn more migrants will enter Europe by 2060/70 as a result of climate change, war and poverty. We’ve seen nothing yet | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your assumption is that entering the UK without a visa and then claiming asylum is illegal. It isn’t. Entering the UK without a Visa then cracking on with no asylum claim is illegal. Are you then saying entering the UK without a passport is leagal? No I am saying that once you claim asylum it is not illegal. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. It remains illegal even after you apply for asylum. It's just that whilst you are in the asylum system, you cannot be prosecuted for offences related to entering the country. And if granted asylum? If asylum is granted, you remain in the system. Asylum rights stay with you for life, and cannot be revoked. So it is an illegal act but those individuals get a sort of amnesty from prosecution for that particular crime. What if they are not granted asylum? Are they then not protected by this amnesty? If we look at this problem openly, you are in my opinion very close to core of the problem. 45K ish arrived by small boat last year, one estimate based on the number of people destroying or not having documents, makes 95% of those 45K ish not legitimate. We now have a very big problem, they have broken our laws and we can't do anything about it, we cant send 42500 ish people to jail, we can't put 42500 ish people through court, we can't fine them and we can't return them easily because we don't know who they are or a lot of times where they come from. So what do we do next? this issue exists regardless of having any asylum system or not. And even a few thousand to Rwanda isnt going to touch the sides. Exactly, we can discuss option a or b and right down to z, it doesn’t stop the problem of being overwhelmed and not being able to cope. Put in a safe route, those that would be under more scrutiny would still get in the boats." agreed. But it may help genuine cases being lost or being pulled into criminality. You are also more likely to get a lefty like me inside with how you manage those that do cross. Imagine if we agreed with France that we could process their end. And anyone crossing gets sent to those processing sites. Why bother crossing ? Breaks the gangs. And then have a Rwanda style scheme for those who cases fail. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda is a gimmick, rather use a few islands off the coast of Scotland, cost effective and guarantee most will want to go home after 6 weeks ..." Yes of course all us folks living in nowhere land as the BBC cunts call us will welcome them all for six weeks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your assumption is that entering the UK without a visa and then claiming asylum is illegal. It isn’t. Entering the UK without a Visa then cracking on with no asylum claim is illegal. Are you then saying entering the UK without a passport is leagal? No I am saying that once you claim asylum it is not illegal. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. It remains illegal even after you apply for asylum. It's just that whilst you are in the asylum system, you cannot be prosecuted for offences related to entering the country. And if granted asylum? If asylum is granted, you remain in the system. Asylum rights stay with you for life, and cannot be revoked. So it is an illegal act but those individuals get a sort of amnesty from prosecution for that particular crime. What if they are not granted asylum? Are they then not protected by this amnesty? If we look at this problem openly, you are in my opinion very close to core of the problem. 45K ish arrived by small boat last year, one estimate based on the number of people destroying or not having documents, makes 95% of those 45K ish not legitimate. We now have a very big problem, they have broken our laws and we can't do anything about it, we cant send 42500 ish people to jail, we can't put 42500 ish people through court, we can't fine them and we can't return them easily because we don't know who they are or a lot of times where they come from. So what do we do next? this issue exists regardless of having any asylum system or not. And even a few thousand to Rwanda isnt going to touch the sides. Exactly, we can discuss option a or b and right down to z, it doesn’t stop the problem of being overwhelmed and not being able to cope. Put in a safe route, those that would be under more scrutiny would still get in the boats." Absolutely. 215,500 on home office asylum application list Assuming no more arrive, it will take 431 years (@200pa) to deport all these if it is ever legal to do so, and if Rwanda can take them all, annual stated capacities are argued in the range 200-300 a year. And labour are binning the scheme anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your assumption is that entering the UK without a visa and then claiming asylum is illegal. It isn’t. Entering the UK without a Visa then cracking on with no asylum claim is illegal. Are you then saying entering the UK without a passport is leagal? No I am saying that once you claim asylum it is not illegal. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. It remains illegal even after you apply for asylum. It's just that whilst you are in the asylum system, you cannot be prosecuted for offences related to entering the country. And if granted asylum? If asylum is granted, you remain in the system. Asylum rights stay with you for life, and cannot be revoked. So it is an illegal act but those individuals get a sort of amnesty from prosecution for that particular crime. What if they are not granted asylum? Are they then not protected by this amnesty? If we look at this problem openly, you are in my opinion very close to core of the problem. 45K ish arrived by small boat last year, one estimate based on the number of people destroying or not having documents, makes 95% of those 45K ish not legitimate. We now have a very big problem, they have broken our laws and we can't do anything about it, we cant send 42500 ish people to jail, we can't put 42500 ish people through court, we can't fine them and we can't return them easily because we don't know who they are or a lot of times where they come from. So what do we do next? this issue exists regardless of having any asylum system or not. And even a few thousand to Rwanda isnt going to touch the sides. Exactly, we can discuss option a or b and right down to z, it doesn’t stop the problem of being overwhelmed and not being able to cope. Put in a safe route, those that would be under more scrutiny would still get in the boats.agreed. But it may help genuine cases being lost or being pulled into criminality. You are also more likely to get a lefty like me inside with how you manage those that do cross. Imagine if we agreed with France that we could process their end. And anyone crossing gets sent to those processing sites. Why bother crossing ? Breaks the gangs. And then have a Rwanda style scheme for those who cases fail. " Very good point on catching the genuine | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your assumption is that entering the UK without a visa and then claiming asylum is illegal. It isn’t. Entering the UK without a Visa then cracking on with no asylum claim is illegal. Are you then saying entering the UK without a passport is leagal? No I am saying that once you claim asylum it is not illegal. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. It remains illegal even after you apply for asylum. It's just that whilst you are in the asylum system, you cannot be prosecuted for offences related to entering the country. And if granted asylum? If asylum is granted, you remain in the system. Asylum rights stay with you for life, and cannot be revoked. So it is an illegal act but those individuals get a sort of amnesty from prosecution for that particular crime. What if they are not granted asylum? Are they then not protected by this amnesty? If we look at this problem openly, you are in my opinion very close to core of the problem. 45K ish arrived by small boat last year, one estimate based on the number of people destroying or not having documents, makes 95% of those 45K ish not legitimate. We now have a very big problem, they have broken our laws and we can't do anything about it, we cant send 42500 ish people to jail, we can't put 42500 ish people through court, we can't fine them and we can't return them easily because we don't know who they are or a lot of times where they come from. So what do we do next? this issue exists regardless of having any asylum system or not. And even a few thousand to Rwanda isnt going to touch the sides. Exactly, we can discuss option a or b and right down to z, it doesn’t stop the problem of being overwhelmed and not being able to cope. Put in a safe route, those that would be under more scrutiny would still get in the boats. Absolutely. 215,500 on home office asylum application list Assuming no more arrive, it will take 431 years (@200pa) to deport all these if it is ever legal to do so, and if Rwanda can take them all, annual stated capacities are argued in the range 200-300 a year. And labour are binning the scheme anyway. " Overwhelming the system, and no plan, it is either pull out of our commitments to conventions and international laws we have signed up to or accept the fact we have no tools in the box to stop people simply walking in. It’s a tough choice and I can’t see a middle ground. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda is a gimmick, rather use a few islands off the coast of Scotland, cost effective and guarantee most will want to go home after 6 weeks ... Yes of course all us folks living in nowhere land as the BBC cunts call us will welcome them all for six weeks" Snp are crying out for immigration on the currant debates ... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your assumption is that entering the UK without a visa and then claiming asylum is illegal. It isn’t. Entering the UK without a Visa then cracking on with no asylum claim is illegal. Are you then saying entering the UK without a passport is leagal? No I am saying that once you claim asylum it is not illegal. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. It remains illegal even after you apply for asylum. It's just that whilst you are in the asylum system, you cannot be prosecuted for offences related to entering the country. And if granted asylum? If asylum is granted, you remain in the system. Asylum rights stay with you for life, and cannot be revoked. So it is an illegal act but those individuals get a sort of amnesty from prosecution for that particular crime. What if they are not granted asylum? Are they then not protected by this amnesty? If we look at this problem openly, you are in my opinion very close to core of the problem. 45K ish arrived by small boat last year, one estimate based on the number of people destroying or not having documents, makes 95% of those 45K ish not legitimate. We now have a very big problem, they have broken our laws and we can't do anything about it, we cant send 42500 ish people to jail, we can't put 42500 ish people through court, we can't fine them and we can't return them easily because we don't know who they are or a lot of times where they come from. So what do we do next? this issue exists regardless of having any asylum system or not. And even a few thousand to Rwanda isnt going to touch the sides. Exactly, we can discuss option a or b and right down to z, it doesn’t stop the problem of being overwhelmed and not being able to cope. Put in a safe route, those that would be under more scrutiny would still get in the boats. Absolutely. 215,500 on home office asylum application list Assuming no more arrive, it will take 431 years (@200pa) to deport all these if it is ever legal to do so, and if Rwanda can take them all, annual stated capacities are argued in the range 200-300 a year. And labour are binning the scheme anyway. Overwhelming the system, and no plan, it is either pull out of our commitments to conventions and international laws we have signed up to or accept the fact we have no tools in the box to stop people simply walking in. It’s a tough choice and I can’t see a middle ground. " Exactly this And in the meantime costing the taxpayer a fortune. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda is a gimmick, rather use a few islands off the coast of Scotland, cost effective and guarantee most will want to go home after 6 weeks ... Unresolvable atm. UN says 1.2bn more migrants will enter Europe by 2060/70 as a result of climate change, war and poverty. We’ve seen nothing yet " Hence give them 6 weeks ... even in summer, midges will love the fresh supply  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda is a gimmick, rather use a few islands off the coast of Scotland, cost effective and guarantee most will want to go home after 6 weeks ... Yes of course all us folks living in nowhere land as the BBC cunts call us will welcome them all for six weeks Snp are crying out for immigration on the currant debates ..." How to keep EVERYONE happy: Scottish independence + give Scotland all illegal, undocumented or asylum-refused immigrants.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I ask anyone here - would you expect to turn up at any country in the world and expect free-let to stay with no checks or control? " Yes. When every single border in every country in the world is torn down, I do fully expect people to move around as they so desire. I see no problem in that. Empires will fall and new ones will arise. We are the only species that recognise borders. No other animal in the animal kingdom does. We have incarcerated ourselves with borders for far too long. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I ask anyone here - would you expect to turn up at any country in the world and expect free-let to stay with no checks or control? Yes. When every single border in every country in the world is torn down, I do fully expect people to move around as they so desire. I see no problem in that. Empires will fall and new ones will arise. We are the only species that recognise borders. No other animal in the animal kingdom does. We have incarcerated ourselves with borders for far too long." It depends on how you're defining "borders". Pretty much every mammal, some birds and some sea creatures mark their territory in some way and will defend these "borders" to the death. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I ask anyone here - would you expect to turn up at any country in the world and expect free-let to stay with no checks or control? Yes. When every single border in every country in the world is torn down, I do fully expect people to move around as they so desire. I see no problem in that. Empires will fall and new ones will arise. We are the only species that recognise borders. No other animal in the animal kingdom does. We have incarcerated ourselves with borders for far too long." Many animals have territories, mark them with scent, and defend them ferociously. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I ask anyone here - would you expect to turn up at any country in the world and expect free-let to stay with no checks or control? Yes. When every single border in every country in the world is torn down, I do fully expect people to move around as they so desire. I see no problem in that. Empires will fall and new ones will arise. We are the only species that recognise borders. No other animal in the animal kingdom does. We have incarcerated ourselves with borders for far too long. Many animals have territories, mark them with scent, and defend them ferociously." Indeed, but enough about Lee Anderson and the bar stool in his local 'spoons. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I ask anyone here - would you expect to turn up at any country in the world and expect free-let to stay with no checks or control? Yes. When every single border in every country in the world is torn down, I do fully expect people to move around as they so desire. I see no problem in that. Empires will fall and new ones will arise. We are the only species that recognise borders. No other animal in the animal kingdom does. We have incarcerated ourselves with borders for far too long. Many animals have territories, mark them with scent, and defend them ferociously. Indeed, but enough about Lee Anderson and the bar stool in his local 'spoons. "
Very good | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I ask anyone here - would you expect to turn up at any country in the world and expect free-let to stay with no checks or control? Yes. When every single border in every country in the world is torn down, I do fully expect people to move around as they so desire. I see no problem in that. Empires will fall and new ones will arise. We are the only species that recognise borders. No other animal in the animal kingdom does. We have incarcerated ourselves with borders for far too long." A big world government without borders between countries will always be a pipe dream. The only way to do that is through authoritarianism. To bring everyone together, you will need everyone to follow the similar ideology and have similar values, which is close to impossible. The furthest any ideology has united people is religion, which is dying away. I personally hope we don't all become sheeps having same values. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes. When every single border in every country in the world is torn down, I do fully expect people to move around as they so desire. I see no problem in that. Empires will fall and new ones will arise. We are the only species that recognise borders. No other animal in the animal kingdom does. We have incarcerated ourselves with borders for far too long." There are no drawn borders in the wild animal kingdom but many do mark their territories with urine and if any other of the same species crosses into their territories there is a fight often to death. Most all other species coming into those territories are killed and eaten. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes. When every single border in every country in the world is torn down, I do fully expect people to move around as they so desire. I see no problem in that. Empires will fall and new ones will arise. We are the only species that recognise borders. No other animal in the animal kingdom does. We have incarcerated ourselves with borders for far too long. There are no drawn borders in the wild animal kingdom but many do mark their territories with urine and if any other of the same species crosses into their territories there is a fight often to death. Most all other species coming into those territories are killed and eaten. " Precisely. It is all about securing then guarding the area with the best resources. Humans are not so dissimilar to animals, all are territorial. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes. When every single border in every country in the world is torn down, I do fully expect people to move around as they so desire. I see no problem in that. Empires will fall and new ones will arise. We are the only species that recognise borders. No other animal in the animal kingdom does. We have incarcerated ourselves with borders for far too long. There are no drawn borders in the wild animal kingdom but many do mark their territories with urine and if any other of the same species crosses into their territories there is a fight often to death. Most all other species coming into those territories are killed and eaten. " Unfortunately I doubt us pissing in the channel will deter the boats. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes. When every single border in every country in the world is torn down, I do fully expect people to move around as they so desire. I see no problem in that. Empires will fall and new ones will arise. We are the only species that recognise borders. No other animal in the animal kingdom does. We have incarcerated ourselves with borders for far too long. There are no drawn borders in the wild animal kingdom but many do mark their territories with urine and if any other of the same species crosses into their territories there is a fight often to death. Most all other species coming into those territories are killed and eaten. Unfortunately I doubt us pissing in the channel will deter the boats. " Pissing on the politicians might help tho, and that's what's gonna happen too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Kidding aside, apart from perhaps your own home, and immediate territory, the rest ? Artificial nonsense.
I checked an Atlas dated -200,000 BC. Can't see many political borders back then. Just tribes squabbling over imaginary borders. 200,000 years later, nothing has changed. Apart from the atlases of course. (Who remembers Microsoft Encarta ?)
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, hypothetical question. All this talk of animals and territories and whatnot. Say I build the Millenium Falcon. Fly off to space. Hyperdrive. Discover new worlds. Decide to take a closer look at one. coming in through the atmosphere. Comms hailed to my console. "Unknown alien spacecraft. You have no authority to visit this planet. You are an alien. Turn around." . 1. Turn around. 2. Turn off the console and ignore them. (Bonus 3. Nuke the Place From Orbit, it's the only way to be sure). . I'm going with #2. They have no authority or indeed autonomy over me. I am not beholden to their laws. Sure, they have a right to defend themselves if they so wish, and I have a right to defend myself too. So option 3 it is then
Kidding aside, apart from perhaps your own home, and immediate territory, the rest ? Artificial nonsense.
I checked an Atlas dated -200,000 BC. Can't see many political borders back then. Just tribes squabbling over imaginary borders. 200,000 years later, nothing has changed. Apart from the atlases of course. (Who remembers Microsoft Encarta ?)
"We don't want the lazy green scroungers coming here!!    | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, hypothetical question. All this talk of animals and territories and whatnot. Say I build the Millenium Falcon. Fly off to space. Hyperdrive. Discover new worlds. Decide to take a closer look at one. coming in through the atmosphere. Comms hailed to my console. "Unknown alien spacecraft. You have no authority to visit this planet. You are an alien. Turn around." . 1. Turn around. 2. Turn off the console and ignore them. (Bonus 3. Nuke the Place From Orbit, it's the only way to be sure). . I'm going with #2. They have no authority or indeed autonomy over me. I am not beholden to their laws. Sure, they have a right to defend themselves if they so wish, and I have a right to defend myself too. So option 3 it is then
Kidding aside, apart from perhaps your own home, and immediate territory, the rest ? Artificial nonsense.
I checked an Atlas dated -200,000 BC. Can't see many political borders back then. Just tribes squabbling over imaginary borders. 200,000 years later, nothing has changed. Apart from the atlases of course. (Who remembers Microsoft Encarta ?)
"“Millenium Falcon” “What a piece of junk” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, hypothetical question. All this talk of animals and territories and whatnot. Say I build the Millenium Falcon. Fly off to space. Hyperdrive. Discover new worlds. Decide to take a closer look at one. coming in through the atmosphere. Comms hailed to my console. "Unknown alien spacecraft. You have no authority to visit this planet. You are an alien. Turn around." . 1. Turn around. 2. Turn off the console and ignore them. (Bonus 3. Nuke the Place From Orbit, it's the only way to be sure). . I'm going with #2. They have no authority or indeed autonomy over me. I am not beholden to their laws. Sure, they have a right to defend themselves if they so wish, and I have a right to defend myself too. So option 3 it is then
Kidding aside, apart from perhaps your own home, and immediate territory, the rest ? Artificial nonsense.
I checked an Atlas dated -200,000 BC. Can't see many political borders back then. Just tribes squabbling over imaginary borders. 200,000 years later, nothing has changed. Apart from the atlases of course. (Who remembers Microsoft Encarta ?)
"If you have no borders how do you collect the taxes that society demands? How do you build an infrastructure to the size of the population? How do you police? How do you stop 66% of the world being uninhabited or more importantly 33% of the world being overcrowded ? How do you stop the rich and powerful taking whatever land they want? I could go on, but answers to those questions should be a good start to understand if we actually do need borders | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, hypothetical question. All this talk of animals and territories and whatnot. Say I build the Millenium Falcon. Fly off to space. Hyperdrive. Discover new worlds. Decide to take a closer look at one. coming in through the atmosphere. Comms hailed to my console. "Unknown alien spacecraft. You have no authority to visit this planet. You are an alien. Turn around." . 1. Turn around. 2. Turn off the console and ignore them. (Bonus 3. Nuke the Place From Orbit, it's the only way to be sure). . I'm going with #2. They have no authority or indeed autonomy over me. I am not beholden to their laws. Sure, they have a right to defend themselves if they so wish, and I have a right to defend myself too. So option 3 it is then
Kidding aside, apart from perhaps your own home, and immediate territory, the rest ? Artificial nonsense.
I checked an Atlas dated -200,000 BC. Can't see many political borders back then. Just tribes squabbling over imaginary borders. 200,000 years later, nothing has changed. Apart from the atlases of course. (Who remembers Microsoft Encarta ?)
If you have no borders how do you collect the taxes that society demands?
How do you build an infrastructure to the size of the population?
How do you police?
How do you stop 66% of the world being uninhabited or more importantly 33% of the world being overcrowded ?
How do you stop the rich and powerful taking whatever land they want?
I could go on, but answers to those questions should be a good start to understand if we actually do need borders"without borders it’s just land not a country | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, hypothetical question. All this talk of animals and territories and whatnot. Say I build the Millenium Falcon. Fly off to space. Hyperdrive. Discover new worlds. Decide to take a closer look at one. coming in through the atmosphere. Comms hailed to my console. "Unknown alien spacecraft. You have no authority to visit this planet. You are an alien. Turn around." . 1. Turn around. 2. Turn off the console and ignore them. (Bonus 3. Nuke the Place From Orbit, it's the only way to be sure). . I'm going with #2. They have no authority or indeed autonomy over me. I am not beholden to their laws. Sure, they have a right to defend themselves if they so wish, and I have a right to defend myself too. So option 3 it is then
Kidding aside, apart from perhaps your own home, and immediate territory, the rest ? Artificial nonsense.
I checked an Atlas dated -200,000 BC. Can't see many political borders back then. Just tribes squabbling over imaginary borders. 200,000 years later, nothing has changed. Apart from the atlases of course. (Who remembers Microsoft Encarta ?)
If you have no borders how do you collect the taxes that society demands?
How do you build an infrastructure to the size of the population?
How do you police?
How do you stop 66% of the world being uninhabited or more importantly 33% of the world being overcrowded ?
How do you stop the rich and powerful taking whatever land they want?
I could go on, but answers to those questions should be a good start to understand if we actually do need borderswithout borders it’s just land not a country "Like the Wild West, the good old days… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" How do you stop 66% of the world being uninhabited or more importantly 33% of the world being overcrowded ? " Simple solution. If poor dark people upset rich white people by abandoning their home in [insert brutal regime here] and arrive on our shores, then rich white people could simply go to [insert brutal regime here], hire a private army and have a great standard of living. Oh, wait... Oops! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" How do you stop 66% of the world being uninhabited or more importantly 33% of the world being overcrowded ? Simple solution. If poor dark people upset rich white people by abandoning their home in [insert brutal regime here] and arrive on our shores, then rich white people could simply go to [insert brutal regime here], hire a private army and have a great standard of living. Oh, wait... Oops!" Wouldn’t be “our shores” so that scenario is not available. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
