Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just another kick in the teeth for the British people! That labour are funding rental deals to house illegal migrants. With deals of 5 years guaranteed payment to landlords." well lots guessed starmer would say anything to get into power and once in he would go back on his word and do even less to get them out of the country than the last lot tried to do,, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is as soon as they leave French waters we puncture the boat and dump them back!" Are you actually advocating drowning peope? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is as soon as they leave French waters we puncture the boat and dump them back!" When a person says something like this I do not think they see them as people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thatcher gave council tenants the right to buy. The problem was that councils sold their properties but didn’t build new stocks, in part because there wasn’t land to build on. " 75% of RTB sale proceeds had to go back to government to repay central govt loans. That’s the core reason, but we did not have the housing problems then. House prices were 3 times income in 1980, 5.6 times in 2000, and 8.5 times today. I don’t buy the land shortage argument. 68% of UK dwellings are houses with gardens. Why not build flats. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is as soon as they leave French waters we puncture the boat and dump them back! When a person says something like this I do not think they see them as people." I have little sympathy for them most are not fleeing wars. They throw away their passports lie about their age sexually etc. They have passed through safe countries so why don't they claim asylum there. They know their get accommodated dental care doctors on tap coming to the uk. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And the fairy tale ends when these poor souls get here. There but for the grace of God go any one of us. " Our message was directed at you, so you know. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is as soon as they leave French waters we puncture the boat and dump them back!" Tf is wrong with you? They’re still human beings… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just another kick in the teeth for the British people! That labour are funding rental deals to house illegal migrants. With deals of 5 years guaranteed payment to landlords." It’s not just Labour. All governments have been doing it for years (and I would guess SNP in Scotland as well)- washing it through charities and other orgs so that the general public don’t find out. I discovered it about a year ago when someone I know approached me for an investment opportunity that was essentially guaranteed but it had to be done via a set up that I wasn’t happy with. Essentially you buy a large house, switch to HMO status and then they guarantee you an income on each room, they will pay _all_ the bills and will totally renovate the house before handing it back completely new at the end of the guaranteed tenancy on all the rooms. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just another kick in the teeth for the British people! That labour are funding rental deals to house illegal migrants. With deals of 5 years guaranteed payment to landlords. It’s not just Labour. All governments have been doing it for years (and I would guess SNP in Scotland as well)- washing it through charities and other orgs so that the general public don’t find out. I discovered it about a year ago when someone I know approached me for an investment opportunity that was essentially guaranteed but it had to be done via a set up that I wasn’t happy with. Essentially you buy a large house, switch to HMO status and then they guarantee you an income on each room, they will pay _all_ the bills and will totally renovate the house before handing it back completely new at the end of the guaranteed tenancy on all the rooms." The registered charities (one big one in bournemouth) add a large fee to the weekly rent Iro £70-100 per week for ‘support’ and their ‘services’ managing the property that is not theirs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just another kick in the teeth for the British people! That labour are funding rental deals to house illegal migrants. With deals of 5 years guaranteed payment to landlords. It’s not just Labour. All governments have been doing it for years (and I would guess SNP in Scotland as well)- washing it through charities and other orgs so that the general public don’t find out. I discovered it about a year ago when someone I know approached me for an investment opportunity that was essentially guaranteed but it had to be done via a set up that I wasn’t happy with. Essentially you buy a large house, switch to HMO status and then they guarantee you an income on each room, they will pay _all_ the bills and will totally renovate the house before handing it back completely new at the end of the guaranteed tenancy on all the rooms." The governments of all colours have sold off 2.4 million council houses and flats at one time discounts on right to buy. The reduction of council housing correlates to the growth of private rented housing, and this is another part of that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is as soon as they leave French waters we puncture the boat and dump them back! Tf is wrong with you? They’re still human beings… " they're not this countrys though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just another kick in the teeth for the British people! That labour are funding rental deals to house illegal migrants. With deals of 5 years guaranteed payment to landlords. It’s not just Labour. All governments have been doing it for years (and I would guess SNP in Scotland as well)- washing it through charities and other orgs so that the general public don’t find out. I discovered it about a year ago when someone I know approached me for an investment opportunity that was essentially guaranteed but it had to be done via a set up that I wasn’t happy with. Essentially you buy a large house, switch to HMO status and then they guarantee you an income on each room, they will pay _all_ the bills and will totally renovate the house before handing it back completely new at the end of the guaranteed tenancy on all the rooms." It’s a rent - to rent - to rent model Owner by mortgage - housing assn - tenant | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is as soon as they leave French waters we puncture the boat and dump them back! Tf is wrong with you? They’re still human beings… they're not this countrys though" No, but for balance the uk made 2 million homeless in Iraq and the RAF ran 50 sortees for Israel last year identifying targets for them to bomb, another 2 million homeless there as well | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is as soon as they leave French waters we puncture the boat and dump them back! Tf is wrong with you? They’re still human beings… " Trying to break in to our country Bet you wouldn't say the same if they broke into your house. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is as soon as they leave French waters we puncture the boat and dump them back! Tf is wrong with you? They’re still human beings… they're not this countrys though" Exactly this It's their country's responsibility not ours. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just another kick in the teeth for the British people! That labour are funding rental deals to house illegal migrants. With deals of 5 years guaranteed payment to landlords." At least Labour is spending the money in the UK. The Tories have given £500 million to France to - er "Stop the Boats" and £318 million to the Rwandan government in preparation of sending exactly no one there. And who exactly would be puncturing these boats because they would be committing a serious crime if not multiple murders. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just another kick in the teeth for the British people! That labour are funding rental deals to house illegal migrants. With deals of 5 years guaranteed payment to landlords. At least Labour is spending the money in the UK. The Tories have given £500 million to France to - er "Stop the Boats" and £318 million to the Rwandan government in preparation of sending exactly no one there. And who exactly would be puncturing these boats because they would be committing a serious crime if not multiple murders. " 11% of uk rental properties are owned by overseas landlords; that includes 18% of rental homes in London, and 14% of rental homes in the east of England. No idea where they pay their taxes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is as soon as they leave French waters we puncture the boat and dump them back! Tf is wrong with you? They’re still human beings… they're not this countrys though No, but for balance the uk made 2 million homeless in Iraq and the RAF ran 50 sortees for Israel last year identifying targets for them to bomb, another 2 million homeless there as well " well if hamas hadnt of fucked aroind the Palestinians wouldnt of found out,the lesson they need to learn is dont take a knife to a gunfight | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just another kick in the teeth for the British people! That labour are funding rental deals to house illegal migrants. With deals of 5 years guaranteed payment to landlords. At least Labour is spending the money in the UK. The Tories have given £500 million to France to - er "Stop the Boats" and £318 million to the Rwandan government in preparation of sending exactly no one there. And who exactly would be puncturing these boats because they would be committing a serious crime if not multiple murders. 11% of uk rental properties are owned by overseas landlords; that includes 18% of rental homes in London, and 14% of rental homes in the east of England. No idea where they pay their taxes. " So 89% of rented properties have UK based landlords who pay UK tax. Rental income on UK properties owned by foreign landlords living overseas is taxed at source and paid to the UK government. My post was to point out to the OP that the previous government's track record was to pay large sums to foreign governments and get apparently nothing in return. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Poor souls ? Are you mad ? They are economic migrants Nothing else. It's deluded idiots like you that cause this country to have the issues it has. I bet you are a flag waving, let them in, we should house them person. But if I asked you if you would house them, you don't have enough......fill in the blanks." I watched a video from a guy he had a cameraman with him at a rally welcoming immigrants he asked people could you take a immigrant in your home and every single person said oh I rent or I don't have the room😂😂 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is as soon as they leave French waters we puncture the boat and dump them back! Tf is wrong with you? They’re still human beings… they're not this countrys though No, but for balance the uk made 2 million homeless in Iraq and the RAF ran 50 sortees for Israel last year identifying targets for them to bomb, another 2 million homeless there as well well if hamas hadnt of fucked aroind the Palestinians wouldnt of found out,the lesson they need to learn is dont take a knife to a gunfight " Perfect answer | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Stop the dehumanising language. Irregular migration is not a crime. People who have applied for asylum have a legal status." maybe you can give a room to a couple then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just another kick in the teeth for the British people! That labour are funding rental deals to house illegal migrants. With deals of 5 years guaranteed payment to landlords. At least Labour is spending the money in the UK. The Tories have given £500 million to France to - er "Stop the Boats" and £318 million to the Rwandan government in preparation of sending exactly no one there. And who exactly would be puncturing these boats because they would be committing a serious crime if not multiple murders. 11% of uk rental properties are owned by overseas landlords; that includes 18% of rental homes in London, and 14% of rental homes in the east of England. No idea where they pay their taxes. So 89% of rented properties have UK based landlords who pay UK tax. Rental income on UK properties owned by foreign landlords living overseas is taxed at source and paid to the UK government. My post was to point out to the OP that the previous government's track record was to pay large sums to foreign governments and get apparently nothing in return." my point is landlords are going to rent out properties to illegal immigrants rather than hard working British people. People who have paid taxes etc! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Irregular migration is not a crime." Yes it is. Entering the country by any means other than approved entry points is a crime. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is as soon as they leave French waters we puncture the boat and dump them back! Tf is wrong with you? They’re still human beings… they're not this countrys though No, but for balance the uk made 2 million homeless in Iraq and the RAF ran 50 sortees for Israel last year identifying targets for them to bomb, another 2 million homeless there as well well if hamas hadnt of fucked aroind the Palestinians wouldnt of found out,the lesson they need to learn is dont take a knife to a gunfight " Israel have been doing this to Palestine since before Hamas even existed… this segregation and genocides been going on since 1948, Hamas came about in 1987 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What blows my mind is when people of colour are attracted to racist men, ideologies of facists" Like Erdogan, Mugabe and many Indian, Chinese and Japanese politicians, who still have race, culture, caste or colour based prejudices? Are people of colour incapable of being fascists or racist? Or is this solely seen through a western lens? You, yourself, say that you're "exclusively into" South Asian women. You probably do not see yourself as racist, but some people would argue that one is, if one said "I only like white women" (this topic has been debated on these forums). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A friend of mine was in the military for 18 years. When he left he had to leave his military accommodation. He is suffering from ptsd and is homeless. He fought for our country and gets absolutely nothing. Contribute nothing to this country . Illegally come over and we’ll give you a great hotel room or a house to live in. It beggars belief doesn’t it !!!" “ Army families suing the Ministry of Defence over the squalor of their living quarters are being issued with “bullying” ultimatums to drop the claims or face having their pay docked to cover the legal costs. Documents obtained by the Guardian suggest the threat of further financial pain amid a deepening cost of living crisis is being exploited by government lawyers to keep compensation cases out of court.” No hotels for them (guardian nov 2022) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Poor souls ? Are you mad ? They are economic migrants Nothing else. It's deluded idiots like you that cause this country to have the issues it has. I bet you are a flag waving, let them in, we should house them person. But if I asked you if you would house them, you don't have enough......fill in the blanks." I think you will find that people on boats are not the underlying reason for the countries ill. You may be better looking at the political ineptitude of the Conservative government (not a swipe at all Con Govs's for the record, some have been good in general for the country) the brexit vote and the lack of managing a situation and our and western givernemvets forgien policy that made these peope homeless. You will never stop economic migrants, that's why our population go to Oz, Canada, Nz and the ilk. Enjoy yourself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is as soon as they leave French waters we puncture the boat and dump them back! When a person says something like this I do not think they see them as people. I have little sympathy for them most are not fleeing wars. They throw away their passports lie about their age sexually etc. They have passed through safe countries so why don't they claim asylum there. They know their get accommodated dental care doctors on tap coming to the uk." So that makes it ok for them to drown, mmmm makes no sense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A friend of mine was in the military for 18 years. When he left he had to leave his military accommodation. He is suffering from ptsd and is homeless. He fought for our country and gets absolutely nothing. Contribute nothing to this country . Illegally come over and we’ll give you a great hotel room or a house to live in. It beggars belief doesn’t it !!!" I do not think you're being factual, as a worker who has supported others I came across many soldiers who I referred to mental health services, housing, kitting out accommodation etc. There was a time soldiers were left out in the cold but when the public discovered it, the government put rules into place when coming across ex forces that went from the top DWP to the bottom local charities. So if you come across your friend tell them there is a world of real support for ex military. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At the end of the day it is government who are responsible for immigration and if the voter isn't happy with the progress, then blame the government why because they are in charge not migrants." and that's the problem it doesn't matter what party is in government they don't do what we the public want. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What blows my mind is when people of colour are attracted to racist men, ideologies of facists Like Erdogan, Mugabe and many Indian, Chinese and Japanese politicians, who still have race, culture, caste or colour based prejudices? Are people of colour incapable of being fascists or racist? Or is this solely seen through a western lens? You, yourself, say that you're "exclusively into" South Asian women. You probably do not see yourself as racist, but some people would argue that one is, if one said "I only like white women" (this topic has been debated on these forums)." your find alot of people don't believe if your white you can suffer racism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The fact that most of (if not all of) those who enter this country illegally, have done so after crossing through other safe destinations. They will camp in France for weeks and months, waiting for a way across the English Channel, to the land of milk and honey (our ridiculous benefits system). Here they get accommodation, spending money, and free health care, education etc. There has been many benefit reforms in recent years, none of them have addressed issues posed by illegal immigration…" The benefits system may be ridiculous say, however these people who come here as migrants cannot work, have to as I believe stay in accommodation provided (I've been in some of these hotels, they are not easy places to live) and recieve no benefits that the UK citizen is open too. We have a declining working population and an ageing population on state pension. It is fact that the number of heads working is decreasing in relation to the number of heads on pensions. It makes perfect sense to bring younger and fitter men from overseas here to help support the infrastructure of the UK long term. Be careful what you wish for. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At the end of the day it is government who are responsible for immigration and if the voter isn't happy with the progress, then blame the government why because they are in charge not migrants. and that's the problem it doesn't matter what party is in government they don't do what we the public want." This argument that the government is not doing what the public wants is not a lie, so why blame migrants blame the government you have stated why they should be blamed. I suggest you find others who have your views and lobby your local M.P they will not listen, but the M.P has 4 years, so you spend those 4 years organising the M.Ps removal it sends the ultimate message party wide. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The fact that most of (if not all of) those who enter this country illegally, have done so after crossing through other safe destinations. They will camp in France for weeks and months, waiting for a way across the English Channel, to the land of milk and honey (our ridiculous benefits system). Here they get accommodation, spending money, and free health care, education etc. There has been many benefit reforms in recent years, none of them have addressed issues posed by illegal immigration… The benefits system may be ridiculous say, however these people who come here as migrants cannot work, have to as I believe stay in accommodation provided (I've been in some of these hotels, they are not easy places to live) and recieve no benefits that the UK citizen is open too. We have a declining working population and an ageing population on state pension. It is fact that the number of heads working is decreasing in relation to the number of heads on pensions. It makes perfect sense to bring younger and fitter men from overseas here to help support the infrastructure of the UK long term. Be careful what you wish for." As I understand it there are perfectly legal ways for people to come and work here already without using the small boats crossing and arriving illegally | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They will camp in France for weeks and months, waiting for a way across the English Channel" Because, here's some examples. Because of having family in the UK. Because of being able to speak English but not French. Because of believing that Britain is a good country. Because of having applied to join family in the UK but Home Office delays left little choice but to spend thousands of euros on the dangerous small boat crossing. The UK is still a rule of law country the supports the refugee conventions and human rights. Thank goodness for that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They will camp in France for weeks and months, waiting for a way across the English Channel Because, here's some examples. Because of having family in the UK. Because of being able to speak English but not French. Because of believing that Britain is a good country. Because of having applied to join family in the UK but Home Office delays left little choice but to spend thousands of euros on the dangerous small boat crossing. The UK is still a rule of law country the supports the refugee conventions and human rights. Thank goodness for that." Do you genuinely believe this well worn trope, despite overwhelming evidence that economic migration is the primary driver of illegal channel crossings? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The fact that most of (if not all of) those who enter this country illegally, have done so after crossing through other safe destinations. They will camp in France for weeks and months, waiting for a way across the English Channel, to the land of milk and honey (our ridiculous benefits system). Here they get accommodation, spending money, and free health care, education etc. There has been many benefit reforms in recent years, none of them have addressed issues posed by illegal immigration…" Bollocks spun by daily express and reform types. These people don't get half of what the media would have you believe | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They will camp in France for weeks and months, waiting for a way across the English Channel" "Because, here's some examples. Because of having family in the UK. Because of being able to speak English but not French. Because of believing that Britain is a good country. Because of having applied to join family in the UK but Home Office delays left little choice but to spend thousands of euros on the dangerous small boat crossing. The UK is still a rule of law country the supports the refugee conventions and human rights. Thank goodness for that." All of those are good reasons why a migrant might want to come to the UK. None of them are good reasons why the UK should accept that migrant. More importantly, none of them are considerations in the Refugee Convention. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It would be cheaper to put them on a cruise ship and return them to their countries. They should be rebuilding their countries. After decades of migrants entering this country illegally some committing serious crime while here, this country is still in an economic mess. We keep getting told they are helping the economy, something is not adding up. There are plenty of unemployed here already. " They have increased the load on every aspect of the welfare state | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People having a pop at economic migrants who are prepared to risk their lives to get here. Must be pretty desperate to contemplate doing that kind of thing imo What would you do in their shoes? Why should people from the Global South etc continue to be exploited so the developed countries live their artificially inflated lifestyles at their expense? Should be working more towards reducing global inequality, thus reducing the reasons for economic migration, not doing things like reducing foreign aid!" Why should the UK accept anyone who has broken the laws of the land to be here? Why should the UK accept individuals who’ve entered the country illegally? The strain on our economy and public services is clear across the UK and most of Europe. I’m genuinely interested in your point about reducing global inequality, what do you think that involves for it to succeed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why should the UK accept anyone who has broken the laws of the land to be here? Why should the UK accept individuals who’ve entered the country illegally? The strain on our economy and public services is clear across the UK and most of Europe. I’m genuinely interested in your point about reducing global inequality, what do you think that involves for it to succeed?" You should see the long list of other countries the UK entered & plundered & on which a lot of its wealth was accrued. …& in the modern post colonial era, rich countries have effectively drained the global south of upwards of $150 trillion since 1960. Then you have displacement through wars, some of which has been cause through western aggression, Iraq, Libya etc Climate change is increasingly another factor in people wanting to move, primarily caused by the longest industrialised richer countries. …and you are wondering why these people want a piece of the action? Maybe just maybe they have had enough? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why should the UK accept anyone who has broken the laws of the land to be here? Why should the UK accept individuals who’ve entered the country illegally? The strain on our economy and public services is clear across the UK and most of Europe. I’m genuinely interested in your point about reducing global inequality, what do you think that involves for it to succeed? You should see the long list of other countries the UK entered & plundered & on which a lot of its wealth was accrued. …& in the modern post colonial era, rich countries have effectively drained the global south of upwards of $150 trillion since 1960. Then you have displacement through wars, some of which has been cause through western aggression, Iraq, Libya etc Climate change is increasingly another factor in people wanting to move, primarily caused by the longest industrialised richer countries. …and you are wondering why these people want a piece of the action? Maybe just maybe they have had enough? " You are using historic actions and events to justify ripping up our legal system and border controls. That argument doesn’t stand up either practically or morally. Every country regardless of its history, has the sovereign right to control immigration and protect its infrastructure, because no nation can survive if anyone who feels unfairly treated by the "past" is allowed to bypass the law and settle wherever they like. We have hundreds of thousands of people living in the UK who entered illegally, alongside many thousands more whose whereabouts are unknown, it estimated that 1 in 100 (745K) people are in the UK illegally. We do not have the infrastructure or financial means to absorb this without negative impact on the legal residents of the country. The rule of law must apply to everyone or they apply to no one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You are using historic actions and events to justify ripping up our legal system and border controls. That argument doesn’t stand up either practically or morally. Every country regardless of its history, has the sovereign right to control immigration and protect its infrastructure, because no nation can survive if anyone who feels unfairly treated by the "past" is allowed to bypass the law and settle wherever they like. We have hundreds of thousands of people living in the UK who entered illegally, alongside many thousands more whose whereabouts are unknown, it estimated that 1 in 100 (745K) people are in the UK illegally. We do not have the infrastructure or financial means to absorb this without negative impact on the legal residents of the country. The rule of law must apply to everyone or they apply to no one." Well the current system of shoring up the ramparts in an attempt to preserve what we have & our inflated standards of living at the expense of those less fortunate is going well isn’t it? I can only see it getting worse tbh The whole concept of ‘boarders’ & lines drawn on maps is pretty insane if you think about it. My rationale is one species, one planet & if that kind of thinking was more mainstream, I’ll guarantee you there would be a lot less global inequality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You are using historic actions and events to justify ripping up our legal system and border controls. That argument doesn’t stand up either practically or morally. Every country regardless of its history, has the sovereign right to control immigration and protect its infrastructure, because no nation can survive if anyone who feels unfairly treated by the "past" is allowed to bypass the law and settle wherever they like. We have hundreds of thousands of people living in the UK who entered illegally, alongside many thousands more whose whereabouts are unknown, it estimated that 1 in 100 (745K) people are in the UK illegally. We do not have the infrastructure or financial means to absorb this without negative impact on the legal residents of the country. The rule of law must apply to everyone or they apply to no one. Well the current system of shoring up the ramparts in an attempt to preserve what we have & our inflated standards of living at the expense of those less fortunate is going well isn’t it? I can only see it getting worse tbh The whole concept of ‘boarders’ & lines drawn on maps is pretty insane if you think about it. My rationale is one species, one planet & if that kind of thinking was more mainstream, I’ll guarantee you there would be a lot less global inequality." You’re describing is an ideology, not a rationale. As an ideology, “one species, one planet” sounds right, but as a rational model it fails because it is ignoring the demands on infrastructure, governance, and human nature. A world without borders would create dead zones where the poorest would struggle to survive, while the wealthy would live in protected environments, exactly what is already happening. The West has stretched services and crumbling infrastructure under the pressure of unmanaged migration. However, inflight projects like the Saudi Arabian NEOM mega city show us how the rich will protect themselves when nations have lost control of the basics. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The whole concept of ‘boarders’ & lines drawn on maps is pretty insane if you think about it." Not really. Looking out of my window I can see two seagulls squabbling with each other over who 'owns' the chimney of the house next door. The concept of "this is my space, you go find your own" is much older than humans. What sounds much more insane is the idea that we can declare one world with no borders, and that people will mix and live alongside each other happily. Have you never seen the way that people behave? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You’re describing is an ideology, not a rationale. As an ideology, “one species, one planet” sounds right, but as a rational model it fails because it is ignoring the demands on infrastructure, governance, and human nature. A world without borders would create dead zones where the poorest would struggle to survive, while the wealthy would live in protected environments, exactly what is already happening. The West has stretched services and crumbling infrastructure under the pressure of unmanaged migration. However, inflight projects like the Saudi Arabian NEOM mega city show us how the rich will protect themselves when nations have lost control of the basics. " Well the irony of the current system is the poorest already struggle to survive so what have they got to lose? This is basically a case of chickens coming home to roost. You can exploit the poor of the world for so long & then they start taking things more directly into their own hands. I agree about protected environments & the rich. Plenty of weapons accessible to the hoi polloi though if it comes to that. And there are a lot more of us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The whole concept of ‘boarders’ & lines drawn on maps is pretty insane if you think about it. Not really. Looking out of my window I can see two seagulls squabbling with each other over who 'owns' the chimney of the house next door. The concept of "this is my space, you go find your own" is much older than humans. What sounds much more insane is the idea that we can declare one world with no borders, and that people will mix and live alongside each other happily. Have you never seen the way that people behave?" It’s an objective viewpoint. Boarders aren’t for the greater good of humanity as a whole. They cause lots of issues. Having to wave a piece of paper to cross an artificial man made line drawn on the globe is completely ludicrous. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You’re describing is an ideology, not a rationale. As an ideology, “one species, one planet” sounds right, but as a rational model it fails because it is ignoring the demands on infrastructure, governance, and human nature. A world without borders would create dead zones where the poorest would struggle to survive, while the wealthy would live in protected environments, exactly what is already happening. The West has stretched services and crumbling infrastructure under the pressure of unmanaged migration. However, inflight projects like the Saudi Arabian NEOM mega city show us how the rich will protect themselves when nations have lost control of the basics. Well the irony of the current system is the poorest already struggle to survive so what have they got to lose? This is basically a case of chickens coming home to roost. You can exploit the poor of the world for so long & then they start taking things more directly into their own hands. I agree about protected environments & the rich. Plenty of weapons accessible to the hoi polloi though if it comes to that. And there are a lot more of us. " Two things come to mind. I watched a 3 part documentary called billion dollar deals and how they changed the world, first part referred to the Stockmarket, part 2 referred to corn syrup. part 3 referred to data harvesting, whilst watching that episode a man was interviewed whilst being interviewed he was driving through a forest and stopped in the middle of nowhere and showed the documentary maker drawings of a bunker he was building at the site they had stopped at. The man being interviewed explained he is very wealthy and he and others who are wealthy worried about us coming for them so they had started to build bunkers or silos to escape to when we came for them, the man I now know as Elon musk. Second thought and I have stated this before, when looking at the earth from space there are no boarders, boarders are a man made concept, capture a piece of land trap the people on it between false lines on a piece of paper, make them work and pay taxes bobs your uncle, you are mine till you wake up and take your power back. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You’re describing is an ideology, not a rationale. As an ideology, “one species, one planet” sounds right, but as a rational model it fails because it is ignoring the demands on infrastructure, governance, and human nature. A world without borders would create dead zones where the poorest would struggle to survive, while the wealthy would live in protected environments, exactly what is already happening. The West has stretched services and crumbling infrastructure under the pressure of unmanaged migration. However, inflight projects like the Saudi Arabian NEOM mega city show us how the rich will protect themselves when nations have lost control of the basics. Well the irony of the current system is the poorest already struggle to survive so what have they got to lose? This is basically a case of chickens coming home to roost. You can exploit the poor of the world for so long & then they start taking things more directly into their own hands. I agree about protected environments & the rich. Plenty of weapons accessible to the hoi polloi though if it comes to that. And there are a lot more of us. " Give me an example of the poor you’re referring to, and I will likely show you countries with corrupt and incompetent governments. People should be fixing their countries, not abandoning them to jump on the metaphorical gravy train. For me, it’s simple, if you break the law to enter this country, you should be turned away no exceptions. Our responsibility should be to stabilise our own country first, and when we exceed our needs we should then consider helping others, but not until. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Second thought and I have stated this before, when looking at the earth from space there are no boarders, boarders are a man made concept, capture a piece of land trap the people on it between false lines on a piece of paper, make them work and pay taxes bobs your uncle, you are mine till you wake up and take your power back." Borders allow for prosperity, innovation and a sense of being. If we didn't have borders there would have been no USSR or USA, which would have meant no space race that resulted in you being able to look back at earth from space. Let's be honest and direct, the 1951 refugee convention is outdated and is allowing people to play the system. If that continues to happen our infrastructure along with the rest of Europe will collapse further, nobody comes out of that well, except China and Russia. Simple solution is to rewrite the refugee convention to remove the loopholes from 74 years ago, and ensure it provides protections for those that really need it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Second thought and I have stated this before, when looking at the earth from space there are no boarders, boarders are a man made concept, capture a piece of land trap the people on it between false lines on a piece of paper, make them work and pay taxes bobs your uncle, you are mine till you wake up and take your power back. Borders allow for prosperity, innovation and a sense of being. If we didn't have borders there would have been no USSR or USA, which would have meant no space race that resulted in you being able to look back at earth from space. Let's be honest and direct, the 1951 refugee convention is outdated and is allowing people to play the system. If that continues to happen our infrastructure along with the rest of Europe will collapse further, nobody comes out of that well, except China and Russia. Simple solution is to rewrite the refugee convention to remove the loopholes from 74 years ago, and ensure it provides protections for those that really need it. " Boarders mean nothing of the sort. If humans wanted to go to space boarders would have nothing to do with it. Do not need boarders for economic wealth. Boarders means this to me, Putin has captured land yes? Putin now holds power over this land and the people both are captured, he will put these people to work like it or not, they will pay taxes, they have no choice because they are caught up behind a drawn line on a piece of paper. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Give me an example of the poor you’re referring to, and I will likely show you countries with corrupt and incompetent governments. People should be fixing their countries, not abandoning them to jump on the metaphorical gravy train. For me, it’s simple, if you break the law to enter this country, you should be turned away no exceptions. Our responsibility should be to stabilise our own country first, and when we exceed our needs we should then consider helping others, but not until." Corrupt governments maybe, but corrupted by whom? The West propping up dodgy regimes in order to enable continued capitalist exploitation of resources? https://youtube.com/shorts/Y9fhDKjhQD0?si=1rtms3rZHkxUogE9 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Borders are important, for the advancement of humanity. The human race is made up of many phenotypes, we don’t just look different, we speak different languages, play different music, dance, play and act differently. All of our different cultures should be preserved, and passed down from the generations throughout time, and written into our own histories. Let us celebrate everything that makes us different, is that too much to ask? Political correctness has a lot to answer for!" Are you saying that I am politically correct? If so due to not believing in imagined lines on a piece of paper then being told I cannot travel over those lines without another piece of paper is as another poster noted a stupid concept and can only be up held through deception and fear. English will still be English as would French polish Australian the only change would be real freedom of movement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Give me an example of the poor you’re referring to, and I will likely show you countries with corrupt and incompetent governments. People should be fixing their countries, not abandoning them to jump on the metaphorical gravy train. For me, it’s simple, if you break the law to enter this country, you should be turned away no exceptions. Our responsibility should be to stabilise our own country first, and when we exceed our needs we should then consider helping others, but not until. Corrupt governments maybe, but corrupted by whom? The West propping up dodgy regimes in order to enable continued capitalist exploitation of resources? https://youtube.com/shorts/Y9fhDKjhQD0?si=1rtms3rZHkxUogE9 " Whether corruption is internal or externally influenced, the answer is the same, staying and fixing it is the only path to change. Poland and India two very different countries that faced major corruption and instability, yet turned themselves around because people chose to invest, rebuild, and reform, not abandon ship. We are drifting off topic slightly.. We can't afford to continue to pay billions on housing immigrants that have decided to enter the country illegally. This government and the last have not managed to contain the problem and we are haemorrhaging money we simply do not have. There is no answer to this issue as long as we are a participant in the outdated refugee convention. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is as soon as they leave French waters we puncture the boat and dump them back!" Disgusting vile comment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Give me an example of the poor you’re referring to, and I will likely show you countries with corrupt and incompetent governments. People should be fixing their countries, not abandoning them to jump on the metaphorical gravy train. For me, it’s simple, if you break the law to enter this country, you should be turned away no exceptions. Our responsibility should be to stabilise our own country first, and when we exceed our needs we should then consider helping others, but not until. Corrupt governments maybe, but corrupted by whom? The West propping up dodgy regimes in order to enable continued capitalist exploitation of resources? https://youtube.com/shorts/Y9fhDKjhQD0?si=1rtms3rZHkxUogE9 Whether corruption is internal or externally influenced, the answer is the same, staying and fixing it is the only path to change. Poland and India two very different countries that faced major corruption and instability, yet turned themselves around because people chose to invest, rebuild, and reform, not abandon ship. We are drifting off topic slightly.. We can't afford to continue to pay billions on housing immigrants that have decided to enter the country illegally. This government and the last have not managed to contain the problem and we are haemorrhaging money we simply do not have. There is no answer to this issue as long as we are a participant in the outdated refugee convention. " Your fourth paragraph hits the nail on the head, it is the government who is at fault. From what I know governments skim off the top and this migration situation were more and more cash is being spent and skimmed is an ideal situation for M.P's the perfect cover, that's why we have this situation and why it will continue. How do we stop this vote in the monster raving looney party, why we already vote for such parties so we might as well be true to ourselves and vote the real ones in. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Give me an example of the poor you’re referring to, and I will likely show you countries with corrupt and incompetent governments. People should be fixing their countries, not abandoning them to jump on the metaphorical gravy train. For me, it’s simple, if you break the law to enter this country, you should be turned away no exceptions. Our responsibility should be to stabilise our own country first, and when we exceed our needs we should then consider helping others, but not until. Corrupt governments maybe, but corrupted by whom? The West propping up dodgy regimes in order to enable continued capitalist exploitation of resources? https://youtube.com/shorts/Y9fhDKjhQD0?si=1rtms3rZHkxUogE9 Whether corruption is internal or externally influenced, the answer is the same, staying and fixing it is the only path to change. Poland and India two very different countries that faced major corruption and instability, yet turned themselves around because people chose to invest, rebuild, and reform, not abandon ship. We are drifting off topic slightly.. We can't afford to continue to pay billions on housing immigrants that have decided to enter the country illegally. This government and the last have not managed to contain the problem and we are haemorrhaging money we simply do not have. There is no answer to this issue as long as we are a participant in the outdated refugee convention. Your fourth paragraph hits the nail on the head, it is the government who is at fault. From what I know governments skim off the top and this migration situation were more and more cash is being spent and skimmed is an ideal situation for M.P's the perfect cover, that's why we have this situation and why it will continue. How do we stop this vote in the monster raving looney party, why we already vote for such parties so we might as well be true to ourselves and vote the real ones in." The government I don’t think can skim off the top of but they have awarded the housing contracts to three major providers. One of them, Serco, is now reaching out to private landlords offering them above market rent for five year contracts - in effect pricing out other rental tenants. Another, Clearsprings has made £180 million profits from housing migrants over the last three years. A money merry go round, a rent to rent to rent business model. And many landlords exiting due to section 24 mortgage interest relief being capped at basic rate, which has led to residential property (incorporated) companies being set up to circumvent this, which on reading up appears to be the largest sector of company incorporations currently outstripped all other types of business. You could not make this up | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is as soon as they leave French waters we puncture the boat and dump them back! Tf is wrong with you? They’re still human beings… they're not this countrys though No, but for balance the uk made 2 million homeless in Iraq and the RAF ran 50 sortees for Israel last year identifying targets for them to bomb, another 2 million homeless there as well well if hamas hadnt of fucked aroind the Palestinians wouldnt of found out,the lesson they need to learn is dont take a knife to a gunfight " I suggest you go and watch 'No other land' on Channel 4 and Louis Theroux's latest Documentary 'Settlers' on BBC iplayer before writing such nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Give me an example of the poor you’re referring to, and I will likely show you countries with corrupt and incompetent governments. People should be fixing their countries, not abandoning them to jump on the metaphorical gravy train. For me, it’s simple, if you break the law to enter this country, you should be turned away no exceptions. Our responsibility should be to stabilise our own country first, and when we exceed our needs we should then consider helping others, but not until. Corrupt governments maybe, but corrupted by whom? The West propping up dodgy regimes in order to enable continued capitalist exploitation of resources? https://youtube.com/shorts/Y9fhDKjhQD0?si=1rtms3rZHkxUogE9 Whether corruption is internal or externally influenced, the answer is the same, staying and fixing it is the only path to change. Poland and India two very different countries that faced major corruption and instability, yet turned themselves around because people chose to invest, rebuild, and reform, not abandon ship. We are drifting off topic slightly.. We can't afford to continue to pay billions on housing immigrants that have decided to enter the country illegally. This government and the last have not managed to contain the problem and we are haemorrhaging money we simply do not have. There is no answer to this issue as long as we are a participant in the outdated refugee convention. Your fourth paragraph hits the nail on the head, it is the government who is at fault. From what I know governments skim off the top and this migration situation were more and more cash is being spent and skimmed is an ideal situation for M.P's the perfect cover, that's why we have this situation and why it will continue. How do we stop this vote in the monster raving looney party, why we already vote for such parties so we might as well be true to ourselves and vote the real ones in. The government I don’t think can skim off the top of but they have awarded the housing contracts to three major providers. One of them, Serco, is now reaching out to private landlords offering them above market rent for five year contracts - in effect pricing out other rental tenants. Another, Clearsprings has made £180 million profits from housing migrants over the last three years. A money merry go round, a rent to rent to rent business model. And many landlords exiting due to section 24 mortgage interest relief being capped at basic rate, which has led to residential property (incorporated) companies being set up to circumvent this, which on reading up appears to be the largest sector of company incorporations currently outstripped all other types of business. You could not make this up " I am well aware of Service Contractor (SerCo) SerCo acts well is a management company, the government gives SerCo all the money yes all of it and SerCo manage who gets this cash that's all SerCo do. I worked for a company called Action For Employment (A4E), Same model as SerCo but was caught over and over again skimming money. The CEO of A4E went on to be the family tzar in Camerons government after a few months C4 investigated the CEO and was found that they had SKIMMED 10 million off the top so it happens it almost cost a lot of people their jobs. Other truths was that employees accounts were also used to Launder money and widespread fraud. Thats why I say do not trust them as in government I have the experience, as a footnote the money laundered Was money skimmed from the Iraq war and illegal arms sales. Do not believe me put a4e in wikipedia. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Borders are important, for the advancement of humanity. The human race is made up of many phenotypes, we don’t just look different, we speak different languages, play different music, dance, play and act differently. All of our different cultures should be preserved, and passed down from the generations throughout time, and written into our own histories. Let us celebrate everything that makes us different, is that too much to ask? Political correctness has a lot to answer for! Are you saying that I am politically correct? If so due to not believing in imagined lines on a piece of paper then being told I cannot travel over those lines without another piece of paper is as another poster noted a stupid concept and can only be up held through deception and fear. English will still be English as would French polish Australian the only change would be real freedom of movement." Hmm, so you think my message was all about you? Well I have met a few ‘No Borders’ types over the years. They all appear to be liberal pc types. Me? I think borders are not only necessary, but as I have already pointed out, they are important as a way of stopping the ‘free movement’ to which you allude. Fortunately Great Britain is an island, if you look at it from space, you will see that we have our very own natural border, the sea doth surround us. Even so we under constant invasion, which we are told not to speak of, let alone fight back. No, we have to rely on authorities, and they don’t give a shit, not fit for purpose. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Borders are important, for the advancement of humanity. The human race is made up of many phenotypes, we don’t just look different, we speak different languages, play different music, dance, play and act differently. All of our different cultures should be preserved, and passed down from the generations throughout time, and written into our own histories. Let us celebrate everything that makes us different, is that too much to ask? Political correctness has a lot to answer for! Are you saying that I am politically correct? If so due to not believing in imagined lines on a piece of paper then being told I cannot travel over those lines without another piece of paper is as another poster noted a stupid concept and can only be up held through deception and fear. English will still be English as would French polish Australian the only change would be real freedom of movement. Hmm, so you think my message was all about you? Well I have met a few ‘No Borders’ types over the years. They all appear to be liberal pc types. Me? I think borders are not only necessary, but as I have already pointed out, they are important as a way of stopping the ‘free movement’ to which you allude. Fortunately Great Britain is an island, if you look at it from space, you will see that we have our very own natural border, the sea doth surround us. Even so we under constant invasion, which we are told not to speak of, let alone fight back. No, we have to rely on authorities, and they don’t give a shit, not fit for purpose." Well I thought you must be referring to me as your post was about my post, posting on here is all about me as I am writing the words vice versa. Under invasion hahaha well one to his own. Fight back against who? We cannot speak of it, what are we doing now? Boarders are a man made concept, please explain were these boarders are please as when I walk about I do not see any when I go elsewhere say what you would call Spain I see no boarder just a lot of people in uniforms containing the lie of boarders but when in an airport one can see no boarder but a lot of people telling us that there is a boarder, but I still cannot see it just people telling me their is one. If I still do not believe it fear is attempted to sway me, so to me when people try and put fear in to me that's when I know I am right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Borders are important, for the advancement of humanity. The human race is made up of many phenotypes, we don’t just look different, we speak different languages, play different music, dance, play and act differently. All of our different cultures should be preserved, and passed down from the generations throughout time, and written into our own histories. Let us celebrate everything that makes us different, is that too much to ask? Political correctness has a lot to answer for! Are you saying that I am politically correct? If so due to not believing in imagined lines on a piece of paper then being told I cannot travel over those lines without another piece of paper is as another poster noted a stupid concept and can only be up held through deception and fear. English will still be English as would French polish Australian the only change would be real freedom of movement. Hmm, so you think my message was all about you? Well I have met a few ‘No Borders’ types over the years. They all appear to be liberal pc types. Me? I think borders are not only necessary, but as I have already pointed out, they are important as a way of stopping the ‘free movement’ to which you allude. Fortunately Great Britain is an island, if you look at it from space, you will see that we have our very own natural border, the sea doth surround us. Even so we under constant invasion, which we are told not to speak of, let alone fight back. No, we have to rely on authorities, and they don’t give a shit, not fit for purpose." one last thing you are right they do not give a shit, so why think migrant when you have just stated the real issue the issue we all should grasp "They just don't give a shit" and as long as we put up with this fact the less and less they will give a shit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Indeed the UK is under invasion, and has been since the end of WW2. Whatever anyone’s says it is to the detriment of our demographics, our culture, our population, our existence as a sovereign state. Nothing is going to change that as fact, and posting back and forth will change nobodies mind. Pretty pointless innit?" I take it you are referring to me? What is pointless is that you know the real issue choose to ignore it and blame migrants as our government welcomes them in. So our culture what the mixed heritage diverse culture we now have from many nations who choose to come here and add to our economy. Economic migrants those who break the law to add to our economy and that's a bad thing. When you and I are retired we will need these migrants to pay our pensions, keep the NHS going, drive trains, sweep the streets and clear our rubbish. Our young are so dissolved from society (no job, no way of getting a house no family no future no hope) that they have been shuttered out of society so cannot really hope for their help. The truth is we will all depend on migrants well those of a certain age like it or not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Indeed the UK is under invasion, and has been since the end of WW2. Whatever anyone’s says it is to the detriment of our demographics, our culture, our population, our existence as a sovereign state. Nothing is going to change that as fact, and posting back and forth will change nobodies mind. Pretty pointless innit?" This country would have been completely bolloxed without immigration after WW2, which is why it was encouraged. And why not? It’s ok to fight in wars on behalf of the mother country but no you can’t immigrate? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The truth is we will all depend on migrants well those of a certain age like it or not." Nobody is arguing against immigration. The people here are just saying that they want immigration to be controlled, not haphazard. An immigration policy of having no qualification for entry other than a willingness to break the law, might not be the best policy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The truth is we will all depend on migrants well those of a certain age like it or not. Nobody is arguing against immigration. The people here are just saying that they want immigration to be controlled, not haphazard. An immigration policy of having no qualification for entry other than a willingness to break the law, might not be the best policy." This is not the migrants fault is it ,you are all saying who is really to blame you are all aware. So blaming migrants for exploiting a loop hole the government created makes no sense, blame those who deserve it, those who create it and benefit from it. Then we will get to the very heart of the matter. And then we can find solutions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody is arguing against immigration. The people here are just saying that they want immigration to be controlled, not haphazard. An immigration policy of having no qualification for entry other than a willingness to break the law, might not be the best policy." "This is not the migrants fault is it ,you are all saying who is really to blame you are all aware. So blaming migrants for exploiting a loop hole the government created makes no sense, blame those who deserve it, those who create it and benefit from it." So if I click on the green arrow by your name, I won't find any posts criticising rich people for avoiding taxes, or criticising employers for not paying enough wages? After all, they're just taking advantage of the loophole that the government created, you'd be blaming the government, not the exploiters, right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The truth is we will all depend on migrants well those of a certain age like it or not. Nobody is arguing against immigration. The people here are just saying that they want immigration to be controlled, not haphazard. An immigration policy of having no qualification for entry other than a willingness to break the law, might not be the best policy. This is not the migrants fault is it ,you are all saying who is really to blame you are all aware. So blaming migrants for exploiting a loop hole the government created makes no sense, blame those who deserve it, those who create it and benefit from it. Then we will get to the very heart of the matter. And then we can find solutions." not the immigrants fault?really? So who are those people jumping In dinghies in France wana come here for work do it the right way hundreds of thousands do,only reason these people are coming by boat is because they would be turned down the legal way of migrating here because let's be honest majority of these people ain't asylum seekers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody is arguing against immigration. The people here are just saying that they want immigration to be controlled, not haphazard. An immigration policy of having no qualification for entry other than a willingness to break the law, might not be the best policy. This is not the migrants fault is it ,you are all saying who is really to blame you are all aware. So blaming migrants for exploiting a loop hole the government created makes no sense, blame those who deserve it, those who create it and benefit from it. So if I click on the green arrow by your name, I won't find any posts criticising rich people for avoiding taxes, or criticising employers for not paying enough wages? After all, they're just taking advantage of the loophole that the government created, you'd be blaming the government, not the exploiters, right?" not got a clue what is it your trying to say to me? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody is arguing against immigration. The people here are just saying that they want immigration to be controlled, not haphazard. An immigration policy of having no qualification for entry other than a willingness to break the law, might not be the best policy. This is not the migrants fault is it ,you are all saying who is really to blame you are all aware. So blaming migrants for exploiting a loop hole the government created makes no sense, blame those who deserve it, those who create it and benefit from it. So if I click on the green arrow by your name, I won't find any posts criticising rich people for avoiding taxes, or criticising employers for not paying enough wages? After all, they're just taking advantage of the loophole that the government created, you'd be blaming the government, not the exploiters, right?" You have pressed the green arrow maybe to find something unrelated to this discussion to cancel me in some way, fella knock yourself out. Where there is inequality you will find me. The loophole was put there by the government of the day which is why it is being exploited, with no sign of them closing it which as law makers should not be an issue. You keep on sighting the cause the government but still choose to blame migrants. Stupid is what stupid gets. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The truth is we will all depend on migrants well those of a certain age like it or not. Nobody is arguing against immigration. The people here are just saying that they want immigration to be controlled, not haphazard. An immigration policy of having no qualification for entry other than a willingness to break the law, might not be the best policy. This is not the migrants fault is it ,you are all saying who is really to blame you are all aware. So blaming migrants for exploiting a loop hole the government created makes no sense, blame those who deserve it, those who create it and benefit from it. Then we will get to the very heart of the matter. And then we can find solutions.not the immigrants fault?really? So who are those people jumping In dinghies in France wana come here for work do it the right way hundreds of thousands do,only reason these people are coming by boat is because they would be turned down the legal way of migrating here because let's be honest majority of these people ain't asylum seekers" There are no safe routes into Britian for certain migrants that's why they choose to risk their lives. What you believe is that these migrants economic ones are here to scrounge so why call them economic. You have sucked up ukip reform BNP whatever they choose to call themselves now that what they were in my past and as long as I remember the division stoked up by such groups I will always remember their racist roots. Thats why you cannot blame the government because you choose to seed division and hate and mistrust, this is due to how YOU feel about this situation it frightens you brings you privilege into question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lets have these safe routes in every country asap, and the first person to let it slip to the never ending line waiting to be heard that they were refused entry and told not to enter the UK by boat, that line would disappear mighty fast. The safe route idea will not work. " The safe route has and is working, visa's are working to such an extent that it shadows illegal immgration. It is not stupidity they suffer it is lack of knowledge brought on by the rise of propaganda. It is easy to divide people when all of us are put under pressure by the very class that says we have to pay for rising prices, we fear how to feed our families, heat our homes pay every day bills. There has to be someone responsible for this other than the government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Indeed the UK is under invasion, and has been since the end of WW2. Whatever anyone’s says it is to the detriment of our demographics, our culture, our population, our existence as a sovereign state. Nothing is going to change that as fact, and posting back and forth will change nobodies mind. Pretty pointless innit? This country would have been completely bolloxed without immigration after WW2, which is why it was encouraged. And why not? It’s ok to fight in wars on behalf of the mother country but no you can’t immigrate? " You are mixing together illegal and legal immigration. The people who are arriving via small boat crossings are not the same as those who have applied for a work visa and have followed the correct policies and processes. We need controlled immigration for job skill shortages etc. We do not need unskilled people who choose to arrive here by nefarious means. It is estimated over 56% of people who arrived here via small boat and have been granted refugee status are unemployed. That figure is unmanageable. By the end of this year it is expected that over 100k will be on benefits, along with 40K in the system. To put this into perspective those new arrivals last year cost £5.38 Billion in benefit and housing payments, by 2026 it is expected to reach £11 billion a year. Those figures do not take into consideration the 100K + who are also receiving benefits and housing costs outside of the asylum process. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lets have these safe routes in every country asap, and the first person to let it slip to the never ending line waiting to be heard that they were refused entry and told not to enter the UK by boat, that line would disappear mighty fast. The safe route idea will not work. The safe route has and is working, visa's are working to such an extent that it shadows illegal immgration. It is not stupidity they suffer it is lack of knowledge brought on by the rise of propaganda. It is easy to divide people when all of us are put under pressure by the very class that says we have to pay for rising prices, we fear how to feed our families, heat our homes pay every day bills. There has to be someone responsible for this other than the government." But the rhetoric around illegal migration from France to the UK is that there are no procceing centres in France or other European countries, and that the migrants have to cross in boats to claim asylum, I put it again the procceing centres would be empty the first time someone let it slip they were refused entry to the UK and told not to get on a boat. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The truth is we will all depend on migrants well those of a certain age like it or not. Nobody is arguing against immigration. The people here are just saying that they want immigration to be controlled, not haphazard. An immigration policy of having no qualification for entry other than a willingness to break the law, might not be the best policy. This is not the migrants fault is it ,you are all saying who is really to blame you are all aware. So blaming migrants for exploiting a loop hole the government created makes no sense, blame those who deserve it, those who create it and benefit from it. Then we will get to the very heart of the matter. And then we can find solutions.not the immigrants fault?really? So who are those people jumping In dinghies in France wana come here for work do it the right way hundreds of thousands do,only reason these people are coming by boat is because they would be turned down the legal way of migrating here because let's be honest majority of these people ain't asylum seekers There are no safe routes into Britian for certain migrants that's why they choose to risk their lives. What you believe is that these migrants economic ones are here to scrounge so why call them economic. You have sucked up ukip reform BNP whatever they choose to call themselves now that what they were in my past and as long as I remember the division stoked up by such groups I will always remember their racist roots. Thats why you cannot blame the government because you choose to seed division and hate and mistrust, this is due to how YOU feel about this situation it frightens you brings you privilege into question." i bdlive reform and bnp do i lol i dont even vote so no idea why you think i belive them, and as for migrants coming here for work hundreds of thousands do it the legal way every year, only reason those coming across in dinghies dont fdo it the legal way is be ause they are unskiled and we hhsve enough of our own unskilled without shipping more in, these peoople in dinghies are not doctors or engineers though some people would like you to think they are, and if they were seeking asylum why throw your identification away, i see you moan on here about how stretched housing and services are yet here you are tjinking its ok to let even more people in, being concerned about uncontrolled illegal immagtation dosent make people racist, bit i suppose if uou havent got that to throw around at people then you dont have much else | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK didn't appear to have a problem of people crossing on small boats until AFTER we left The E,U, " You're misremembering. Here's a news article from 2016: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36410828 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC Kent reporting the number of people crossing the English Channel in small boats is thought to have topped 10,000 for 2025 so far. If they are in hotels at £120 a night that’s iro £1.2million a day. " £50 odd million a year annually is peanuts on government revenue of almost £1.1 trillion just for perspective. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC Kent reporting the number of people crossing the English Channel in small boats is thought to have topped 10,000 for 2025 so far. If they are in hotels at £120 a night that’s iro £1.2million a day. £50 odd million a year annually is peanuts on government revenue of almost £1.1 trillion just for perspective." Agreed. And this is the problem with diluting these figures into bigger numbers for comparisons. The total cost of migrant and asylum housing and their support is £14.4bn a year. Enough to build 72,000 council houses annually. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC Kent reporting the number of people crossing the English Channel in small boats is thought to have topped 10,000 for 2025 so far. If they are in hotels at £120 a night that’s iro £1.2million a day." "£50 odd million a year annually is peanuts on government revenue of almost £1.1 trillion just for perspective." It's enough to pay for 1428 new nurses for the NHS. Which would you rather they spent the money on? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC Kent reporting the number of people crossing the English Channel in small boats is thought to have topped 10,000 for 2025 so far. If they are in hotels at £120 a night that’s iro £1.2million a day. £50 odd million a year annually is peanuts on government revenue of almost £1.1 trillion just for perspective. It's enough to pay for 1428 new nurses for the NHS. Which would you rather they spent the money on?" How much money do the 700k + legal migrants generate for the UK economy to offset that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The truth is we will all depend on migrants well those of a certain age like it or not. Nobody is arguing against immigration. The people here are just saying that they want immigration to be controlled, not haphazard. An immigration policy of having no qualification for entry other than a willingness to break the law, might not be the best policy." Which law are these people breaking? 🤔 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK didn't appear to have a problem of people crossing on small boats until AFTER we left The E,U, You're misremembering. Here's a news article from 2016: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36410828" Could you back this up with numbers please People crossing before we lost our returns agreement with the EU in 2018 v numbers after | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The truth is we will all depend on migrants well those of a certain age like it or not. Nobody is arguing against immigration. The people here are just saying that they want immigration to be controlled, not haphazard. An immigration policy of having no qualification for entry other than a willingness to break the law, might not be the best policy. This is not the migrants fault is it ,you are all saying who is really to blame you are all aware. So blaming migrants for exploiting a loop hole the government created makes no sense, blame those who deserve it, those who create it and benefit from it. Then we will get to the very heart of the matter. And then we can find solutions.not the immigrants fault?really? So who are those people jumping In dinghies in France wana come here for work do it the right way hundreds of thousands do,only reason these people are coming by boat is because they would be turned down the legal way of migrating here because let's be honest majority of these people ain't asylum seekers There are no safe routes into Britian for certain migrants that's why they choose to risk their lives. What you believe is that these migrants economic ones are here to scrounge so why call them economic. You have sucked up ukip reform BNP whatever they choose to call themselves now that what they were in my past and as long as I remember the division stoked up by such groups I will always remember their racist roots. Thats why you cannot blame the government because you choose to seed division and hate and mistrust, this is due to how YOU feel about this situation it frightens you brings you privilege into question.i bdlive reform and bnp do i lol i dont even vote so no idea why you think i belive them, and as for migrants coming here for work hundreds of thousands do it the legal way every year, only reason those coming across in dinghies dont fdo it the legal way is be ause they are unskiled and we hhsve enough of our own unskilled without shipping more in, these peoople in dinghies are not doctors or engineers though some people would like you to think they are, and if they were seeking asylum why throw your identification away, i see you moan on here about how stretched housing and services are yet here you are tjinking its ok to let even more people in, being concerned about uncontrolled illegal immagtation dosent make people racist, bit i suppose if uou havent got that to throw around at people then you dont have much else" You must be getting your thought process from somewhere and from what I read by your posts it reads like a GBnews script. Leagle immigration by far outweighs illegal immigration but you have no issue. Anyway this isn't about you per say but about who is to blame I do not think it is ok to let in a steady stream of people who will not add to our economy. I have asked the government to stop but as usual they do not listen as it is ok for them. But do I blame migrants no because if I did my eye would be off the ball as to the real culprits who are the government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I really have to question the potential net gains here if we go all tough on the boat people, who let us remind ourselves represent a mere ca 4-5% of all netbmigrants annually into the UK £14 billion a year cost apparently for illegal migrants as posted previously. How much would it cost to beef up border enforcement & turn the boats back even if we were allowed to as Farage wants? Better to tackle the root causes of migration ie global inequality I reckon, rather than cutting foreign aid & expecting less people to attempt the journey over the channel as a result of that." There's also the small question of responsibility for why there are so many refugees feom certain countries. It's estimated the UK spent circa £70bn on its involvement in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (no surprise where the largest number of migrants and refugees are coming from) which caused millions to become homeless. Add in the issue with pulling out of these countries and leaving thousands who helped the armed forces vulnerable and we have a duty to provide safety to these people. If a country thousands of miles away bombed the shit out of the UK and people had to leave due to homelessness, then I'm pretty sure they wouldn't all want to settle in France just because it's next door, nor would they expect the French to be responsible for the plight of UK citizens. We helped create the problem. We're responsible for our actions and doing what's necessary to put them right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I really have to question the potential net gains here if we go all tough on the boat people, who let us remind ourselves represent a mere ca 4-5% of all netbmigrants annually into the UK £14 billion a year cost apparently for illegal migrants as posted previously. How much would it cost to beef up border enforcement & turn the boats back even if we were allowed to as Farage wants? Better to tackle the root causes of migration ie global inequality I reckon, rather than cutting foreign aid & expecting less people to attempt the journey over the channel as a result of that. There's also the small question of responsibility for why there are so many refugees feom certain countries. It's estimated the UK spent circa £70bn on its involvement in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (no surprise where the largest number of migrants and refugees are coming from) which caused millions to become homeless. Add in the issue with pulling out of these countries and leaving thousands who helped the armed forces vulnerable and we have a duty to provide safety to these people. If a country thousands of miles away bombed the shit out of the UK and people had to leave due to homelessness, then I'm pretty sure they wouldn't all want to settle in France just because it's next door, nor would they expect the French to be responsible for the plight of UK citizens. We helped create the problem. We're responsible for our actions and doing what's necessary to put them right. " The Uk with USA made 2 million homeless in Iraq, and the RAF ran 50 sortees identifying targets for the IDF to bomb gazans homes, another 1.9 million homeless there now. The UN says another 1.2bn migrants will enter Europe by 2080. We’ve seen nothing yet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I really have to question the potential net gains here if we go all tough on the boat people, who let us remind ourselves represent a mere ca 4-5% of all netbmigrants annually into the UK £14 billion a year cost apparently for illegal migrants as posted previously. How much would it cost to beef up border enforcement & turn the boats back even if we were allowed to as Farage wants? Better to tackle the root causes of migration ie global inequality I reckon, rather than cutting foreign aid & expecting less people to attempt the journey over the channel as a result of that. There's also the small question of responsibility for why there are so many refugees feom certain countries. It's estimated the UK spent circa £70bn on its involvement in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (no surprise where the largest number of migrants and refugees are coming from) which caused millions to become homeless. Add in the issue with pulling out of these countries and leaving thousands who helped the armed forces vulnerable and we have a duty to provide safety to these people. If a country thousands of miles away bombed the shit out of the UK and people had to leave due to homelessness, then I'm pretty sure they wouldn't all want to settle in France just because it's next door, nor would they expect the French to be responsible for the plight of UK citizens. We helped create the problem. We're responsible for our actions and doing what's necessary to put them right. The Uk with USA made 2 million homeless in Iraq, and the RAF ran 50 sortees identifying targets for the IDF to bomb gazans homes, another 1.9 million homeless there now. The UN says another 1.2bn migrants will enter Europe by 2080. We’ve seen nothing yet. " Yep. And what the anti-refugee crowd generally fail to see is that the vast majority DO remain close to home. Turkey houses the majority of Syrian refugees. Likewise other countries that are always touted as 'safe' before reaching the UK. In terms of the number of asylum applications per head of population, the UK ranks 17th highest in Europe. 17th. We're far from being the destination of choice for refugees. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC Kent reporting the number of people crossing the English Channel in small boats is thought to have topped 10,000 for 2025 so far. If they are in hotels at £120 a night that’s iro £1.2million a day. £50 odd million a year annually is peanuts on government revenue of almost £1.1 trillion just for perspective. It's enough to pay for 1428 new nurses for the NHS. Which would you rather they spent the money on? How much money do the 700k + legal migrants generate for the UK economy to offset that? " Very little, factor in the in work benefits. Another poster has reliably said 9.5 million benefit claimants in uk (excluding pensions). Housing benefit alone costs the taxpayer £24bn a year. That can’t be attributed to migrants alone of course but they are not coming here with cash to buy houses are they, relying on the uk taxpayer and benefits system to pay for them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC Kent reporting the number of people crossing the English Channel in small boats is thought to have topped 10,000 for 2025 so far. If they are in hotels at £120 a night that’s iro £1.2million a day. £50 odd million a year annually is peanuts on government revenue of almost £1.1 trillion just for perspective. It's enough to pay for 1428 new nurses for the NHS. Which would you rather they spent the money on? How much money do the 700k + legal migrants generate for the UK economy to offset that? Very little, factor in the in work benefits. Another poster has reliably said 9.5 million benefit claimants in uk (excluding pensions). Housing benefit alone costs the taxpayer £24bn a year. That can’t be attributed to migrants alone of course but they are not coming here with cash to buy houses are they, relying on the uk taxpayer and benefits system to pay for them. " Because they're not permitted to work. And that £120 a night figure quoted? I'd love to see the source for that. On arrival asylum seekers are housed in camps and communal accommodation. Even those who are housed in hotels with contracts funded by the government (the usual suspects and if you trace the money you'll know why it takes so long to process applications - there's no profit in a speedy process) aren't costing anywhere near £120 a night. Makes for great headlines using '5* hotels' when the reality is places such as the old Prem Inn in West Brom and the Roundhouse in Bournemouth are being used with people sharing rooms with strangers. But that wouldn't rouse the rabble and cause anger would it? 🤦♂️ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I really have to question the potential net gains here if we go all tough on the boat people, who let us remind ourselves represent a mere ca 4-5% of all netbmigrants annually into the UK £14 billion a year cost apparently for illegal migrants as posted previously. How much would it cost to beef up border enforcement & turn the boats back even if we were allowed to as Farage wants? Better to tackle the root causes of migration ie global inequality I reckon, rather than cutting foreign aid & expecting less people to attempt the journey over the channel as a result of that." There are a number of things that make the system we have unworkable. The 1951 refugee convention that allows loopholes to be exploited by gangs and people who enter here for personal gain and nefarious activities. The crossings that were made in 2024, 20% of those in Q1 were Vietnamese, making them the highest nationality. The reasons for this uplift were reported as economic hardship and smuggling gangs using the network of small boats to promote a better life in the UK, with a fee of course. That was a sharp change from 2022 when the number 1 nationality was Albanian. The reasons given for the travel were pretty much the same, better prospects that were promoted by smuggling gangs who offered package deals to get them here, including all transport, crossings, jobs (illegal) and the scripts for obtaining asylum. This flip flopping of nationality is a reflection of where the gangs are concentrating their promotional efforts. The reason I'm going through this is to point out that the system is broken beyond repair in its current state, genuine asylum seekers are in the mix, but are being pushed down and even neglected due to the overwhelming numbers of people coming here for economic gains rather than asylum. There is nothing in practice that can be done to stop people and gangs playing the system, although the bilateral agreement with Albania was a success, it was an outlier. We could place a facility in every European country to process applications but that wouldn't stop the boat crossings, the boat crossings work, making a processing facility outside the UK to risky an option. The only meaningful change that can help in my opinion is to remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention and rewrite a convention that removes the loopholes and supports genuine asylum seekers. The challenge to this is the emotive arguments that we would not be recognising human rights, which couldn't be further from the truth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And that £120 a night figure quoted? I'd love to see the source for that. " That is just for the 5000 vacant hotel rooms booked by the home office for a small boat ‘influx’, which the home office representative at the select committee very reluctantly revealed when repeatedly questioned. They didn’t even agree a rack rate with the hotel provider. £219,000,000 a year. All rooms empty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I really have to question the potential net gains here if we go all tough on the boat people, who let us remind ourselves represent a mere ca 4-5% of all netbmigrants annually into the UK £14 billion a year cost apparently for illegal migrants as posted previously. How much would it cost to beef up border enforcement & turn the boats back even if we were allowed to as Farage wants? Better to tackle the root causes of migration ie global inequality I reckon, rather than cutting foreign aid & expecting less people to attempt the journey over the channel as a result of that. There are a number of things that make the system we have unworkable. The 1951 refugee convention that allows loopholes to be exploited by gangs and people who enter here for personal gain and nefarious activities. The crossings that were made in 2024, 20% of those in Q1 were Vietnamese, making them the highest nationality. The reasons for this uplift were reported as economic hardship and smuggling gangs using the network of small boats to promote a better life in the UK, with a fee of course. That was a sharp change from 2022 when the number 1 nationality was Albanian. The reasons given for the travel were pretty much the same, better prospects that were promoted by smuggling gangs who offered package deals to get them here, including all transport, crossings, jobs (illegal) and the scripts for obtaining asylum. This flip flopping of nationality is a reflection of where the gangs are concentrating their promotional efforts. The reason I'm going through this is to point out that the system is broken beyond repair in its current state, genuine asylum seekers are in the mix, but are being pushed down and even neglected due to the overwhelming numbers of people coming here for economic gains rather than asylum. There is nothing in practice that can be done to stop people and gangs playing the system, although the bilateral agreement with Albania was a success, it was an outlier. We could place a facility in every European country to process applications but that wouldn't stop the boat crossings, the boat crossings work, making a processing facility outside the UK to risky an option. The only meaningful change that can help in my opinion is to remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention and rewrite a convention that removes the loopholes and supports genuine asylum seekers. The challenge to this is the emotive arguments that we would not be recognising human rights, which couldn't be further from the truth. " Right so we beef up the paperwork. What is to stop migrants still taking their chances on the boats & just disappearing into the black economy. It all comes back to global inequality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I really have to question the potential net gains here if we go all tough on the boat people, who let us remind ourselves represent a mere ca 4-5% of all netbmigrants annually into the UK £14 billion a year cost apparently for illegal migrants as posted previously. How much would it cost to beef up border enforcement & turn the boats back even if we were allowed to as Farage wants? Better to tackle the root causes of migration ie global inequality I reckon, rather than cutting foreign aid & expecting less people to attempt the journey over the channel as a result of that. There are a number of things that make the system we have unworkable. The 1951 refugee convention that allows loopholes to be exploited by gangs and people who enter here for personal gain and nefarious activities. The crossings that were made in 2024, 20% of those in Q1 were Vietnamese, making them the highest nationality. The reasons for this uplift were reported as economic hardship and smuggling gangs using the network of small boats to promote a better life in the UK, with a fee of course. That was a sharp change from 2022 when the number 1 nationality was Albanian. The reasons given for the travel were pretty much the same, better prospects that were promoted by smuggling gangs who offered package deals to get them here, including all transport, crossings, jobs (illegal) and the scripts for obtaining asylum. This flip flopping of nationality is a reflection of where the gangs are concentrating their promotional efforts. The reason I'm going through this is to point out that the system is broken beyond repair in its current state, genuine asylum seekers are in the mix, but are being pushed down and even neglected due to the overwhelming numbers of people coming here for economic gains rather than asylum. There is nothing in practice that can be done to stop people and gangs playing the system, although the bilateral agreement with Albania was a success, it was an outlier. We could place a facility in every European country to process applications but that wouldn't stop the boat crossings, the boat crossings work, making a processing facility outside the UK to risky an option. The only meaningful change that can help in my opinion is to remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention and rewrite a convention that removes the loopholes and supports genuine asylum seekers. The challenge to this is the emotive arguments that we would not be recognising human rights, which couldn't be further from the truth. " The easiest solution would be an effective and prompt system for processing applications. Investment more money in that and you'd need less to cover accommodation. But that doesn't generate profit for the companies given contracts to house, feed and service applicants. And of course had we not left the EU the Dublin agreement would still be in place. 🤷♂️ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And that £120 a night figure quoted? I'd love to see the source for that. That is just for the 5000 vacant hotel rooms booked by the home office for a small boat ‘influx’, which the home office representative at the select committee very reluctantly revealed when repeatedly questioned. They didn’t even agree a rack rate with the hotel provider. £219,000,000 a year. All rooms empty. " Track and Trace all over again. Follow the money....... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And that £120 a night figure quoted? I'd love to see the source for that. That is just for the 5000 vacant hotel rooms booked by the home office for a small boat ‘influx’, which the home office representative at the select committee very reluctantly revealed when repeatedly questioned. They didn’t even agree a rack rate with the hotel provider. £219,000,000 a year. All rooms empty. Track and Trace all over again. Follow the money......." Private landlords and hotels ‘cashing in’ on England’s hidden homelessness crisis Exclusive: Half of local authorities charged double by private providers for temporary housing, investigation finds Full article Guardian 27 April 2025 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I really have to question the potential net gains here if we go all tough on the boat people, who let us remind ourselves represent a mere ca 4-5% of all netbmigrants annually into the UK £14 billion a year cost apparently for illegal migrants as posted previously. How much would it cost to beef up border enforcement & turn the boats back even if we were allowed to as Farage wants? Better to tackle the root causes of migration ie global inequality I reckon, rather than cutting foreign aid & expecting less people to attempt the journey over the channel as a result of that. There are a number of things that make the system we have unworkable. The 1951 refugee convention that allows loopholes to be exploited by gangs and people who enter here for personal gain and nefarious activities. The crossings that were made in 2024, 20% of those in Q1 were Vietnamese, making them the highest nationality. The reasons for this uplift were reported as economic hardship and smuggling gangs using the network of small boats to promote a better life in the UK, with a fee of course. That was a sharp change from 2022 when the number 1 nationality was Albanian. The reasons given for the travel were pretty much the same, better prospects that were promoted by smuggling gangs who offered package deals to get them here, including all transport, crossings, jobs (illegal) and the scripts for obtaining asylum. This flip flopping of nationality is a reflection of where the gangs are concentrating their promotional efforts. The reason I'm going through this is to point out that the system is broken beyond repair in its current state, genuine asylum seekers are in the mix, but are being pushed down and even neglected due to the overwhelming numbers of people coming here for economic gains rather than asylum. There is nothing in practice that can be done to stop people and gangs playing the system, although the bilateral agreement with Albania was a success, it was an outlier. We could place a facility in every European country to process applications but that wouldn't stop the boat crossings, the boat crossings work, making a processing facility outside the UK to risky an option. The only meaningful change that can help in my opinion is to remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention and rewrite a convention that removes the loopholes and supports genuine asylum seekers. The challenge to this is the emotive arguments that we would not be recognising human rights, which couldn't be further from the truth. Right so we beef up the paperwork. What is to stop migrants still taking their chances on the boats & just disappearing into the black economy. It all comes back to global inequality." It is not as simple as beefing up the paperwork 
To rewrite the 1951 refugee convention would take several years, with a lot of collaboration and negotiation, so not the silver bullet for a while.
As I mentioned, facilities to process will not be a deterrent or a means to filter out the good from bad, as the small boat route will always be favoured, and once they arrive we are then bound by the convention again. We are in a loop we can't escape from and can't afford. It is interesting that you mention disappear into the black economy, it is estimated that we have 745K people in the country illegally who are part of a black market, which paints a very different picture to the one we have of boats being detected and people being rounded up when they arrive. My guess is far more people are avoiding detection than being detained on landing here by whatever method they are using.
There is no quick answer and equally we can't be held accountable for economic problems in other countries at a cost of billions a year. Our government has a duty to protect our interests, our assets and futures, presenting tough tag lines isn't enough it needs a plan that is workable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC Kent reporting the number of people crossing the English Channel in small boats is thought to have topped 10,000 for 2025 so far. If they are in hotels at £120 a night that’s iro £1.2million a day." "£50 odd million a year annually is peanuts on government revenue of almost £1.1 trillion just for perspective." "It's enough to pay for 1428 new nurses for the NHS. Which would you rather they spent the money on?" "How much money do the 700k + legal migrants generate for the UK economy to offset that?" That's not a relevant question. No one is complaining about legal immigrants, which in general do provide benefit to the country. We're talking about costs for illegal immigrants. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There is no quick answer and equally we can't be held accountable for economic problems in other countries at a cost of billions a year. Our government has a duty to protect our interests, our assets and futures, presenting tough tag lines isn't enough it needs a plan that is workable." I’ve already gone though historical exploitation but still it continues. If you have ever purchased an item manufactured cheaply in the global south you are supporting low wages for cheaper western consumption & western company profits. Why would a Vietnamese worker want to carry on working a sewing machine for pennies all day when he can hop on a boat in an attempt to join those on the sunnier side of the fence who are happily exploiting the situation buying their sl@ve made, cheap tat from Primark etc? Only an accident of birth that he was born there & not here isn’t it? I wouldn’t (and don’t) blame him at all. Do you agree with the recent cuts to foreign aid? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I really have to question the potential net gains here if we go all tough on the boat people, who let us remind ourselves represent a mere ca 4-5% of all netbmigrants annually into the UK £14 billion a year cost apparently for illegal migrants as posted previously. How much would it cost to beef up border enforcement & turn the boats back even if we were allowed to as Farage wants? Better to tackle the root causes of migration ie global inequality I reckon, rather than cutting foreign aid & expecting less people to attempt the journey over the channel as a result of that. There are a number of things that make the system we have unworkable. The 1951 refugee convention that allows loopholes to be exploited by gangs and people who enter here for personal gain and nefarious activities. The crossings that were made in 2024, 20% of those in Q1 were Vietnamese, making them the highest nationality. The reasons for this uplift were reported as economic hardship and smuggling gangs using the network of small boats to promote a better life in the UK, with a fee of course. That was a sharp change from 2022 when the number 1 nationality was Albanian. The reasons given for the travel were pretty much the same, better prospects that were promoted by smuggling gangs who offered package deals to get them here, including all transport, crossings, jobs (illegal) and the scripts for obtaining asylum. This flip flopping of nationality is a reflection of where the gangs are concentrating their promotional efforts. The reason I'm going through this is to point out that the system is broken beyond repair in its current state, genuine asylum seekers are in the mix, but are being pushed down and even neglected due to the overwhelming numbers of people coming here for economic gains rather than asylum. There is nothing in practice that can be done to stop people and gangs playing the system, although the bilateral agreement with Albania was a success, it was an outlier. We could place a facility in every European country to process applications but that wouldn't stop the boat crossings, the boat crossings work, making a processing facility outside the UK to risky an option. The only meaningful change that can help in my opinion is to remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention and rewrite a convention that removes the loopholes and supports genuine asylum seekers. The challenge to this is the emotive arguments that we would not be recognising human rights, which couldn't be further from the truth. The easiest solution would be an effective and prompt system for processing applications. Investment more money in that and you'd need less to cover accommodation. But that doesn't generate profit for the companies given contracts to house, feed and service applicants. And of course had we not left the EU the Dublin agreement would still be in place. 🤷♂️" Faster processing might reduce immediate accommodation costs, but it doesn’t solve the core issue the system is still being overwhelmed by volume and misuse. It would also be likely to add to local housing pressure, when larger numbers of approved applicants move into mainstream housing at a faster rate, creating more strains on local councils that are already struggling to meet the demand. Can we safely say that the temporary housing that is being used and the time to process is part of a strategy that mitigates thousands of people looking to be housed all at the same time? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BBC Kent reporting the number of people crossing the English Channel in small boats is thought to have topped 10,000 for 2025 so far. If they are in hotels at £120 a night that’s iro £1.2million a day. £50 odd million a year annually is peanuts on government revenue of almost £1.1 trillion just for perspective. It's enough to pay for 1428 new nurses for the NHS. Which would you rather they spent the money on? How much money do the 700k + legal migrants generate for the UK economy to offset that? That's not a relevant question. No one is complaining about legal immigrants, which in general do provide benefit to the country. We're talking about costs for illegal immigrants." The farmers (£460m iht), pensioners (£1.7bn wfa) and disabled/pip (£5bn) have paid for those. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There is no quick answer and equally we can't be held accountable for economic problems in other countries at a cost of billions a year. Our government has a duty to protect our interests, our assets and futures, presenting tough tag lines isn't enough it needs a plan that is workable. I’ve already gone though historical exploitation but still it continues. If you have ever purchased an item manufactured cheaply in the global south you are supporting low wages for cheaper western consumption & western company profits. Why would a Vietnamese worker want to carry on working a sewing machine for pennies all day when he can hop on a boat in an attempt to join those on the sunnier side of the fence who are happily exploiting the situation buying their sl@ve made, cheap tat from Primark etc? Only an accident of birth that he was born there & not here isn’t it? I wouldn’t (and don’t) blame him at all. Do you agree with the recent cuts to foreign aid? " I support the principle of helping others, but only "once we have stabilised our own economy" and services. Foreign aid should be based on the capacity to support not guilt.... We can care about global inequality without compromising our own stability or ignoring the rules that every functioning nation upholds. I know of no country that allows uncontrolled entry or the automatic right to work, why should we be the first and why disadvantage the UK in that way, what would that mean in real terms? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody is arguing against immigration. The people here are just saying that they want immigration to be controlled, not haphazard. An immigration policy of having no qualification for entry other than a willingness to break the law, might not be the best policy." "Which law are these people breaking?" The Immigration Act 1971, section 24 (D1) and (E1), which basically say that you commit an offence by entering the UK if you don't have pre-authorisation to do so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK didn't appear to have a problem of people crossing on small boats until AFTER we left The E,U," "You're misremembering. Here's a news article from 2016: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36410828" "Could you back this up with numbers please People crossing before we lost our returns agreement with the EU in 2018 v numbers after" The numbers of people moved under Dublin III was always very small. In the last 2 years of our membership we transferred 676 people back to the EU, and had 1,019 people sent to us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK didn't appear to have a problem of people crossing on small boats until AFTER we left The E,U, You're misremembering. Here's a news article from 2016: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36410828 Could you back this up with numbers please People crossing before we lost our returns agreement with the EU in 2018 v numbers after The numbers of people moved under Dublin III was always very small. In the last 2 years of our membership we transferred 676 people back to the EU, and had 1,019 people sent to us." So , how many people were arriving on small boats , prior to 2018 ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody is arguing against immigration. The people here are just saying that they want immigration to be controlled, not haphazard. An immigration policy of having no qualification for entry other than a willingness to break the law, might not be the best policy. Which law are these people breaking? The Immigration Act 1971, section 24 (D1) and (E1), which basically say that you commit an offence by entering the UK if you don't have pre-authorisation to do so." Except that asylum seekers do so under international law, which supercedes that. "Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim." So not illegal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody is arguing against immigration. The people here are just saying that they want immigration to be controlled, not haphazard. An immigration policy of having no qualification for entry other than a willingness to break the law, might not be the best policy. Which law are these people breaking? The Immigration Act 1971, section 24 (D1) and (E1), which basically say that you commit an offence by entering the UK if you don't have pre-authorisation to do so. Except that asylum seekers do so under international law, which supercedes that. "Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim." So not illegal. " Does this law also require the receiving state to provide free housing, healthcare, benefits, food, gas/warer/electical services, mobile phones, clothes, dentists, education, legal, interpreters etc etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So , how many people were arriving on small boats , prior to 2018 ?" You realise that there's a product called Google that lets you look these things up for yourself? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Which law are these people breaking?" "The Immigration Act 1971, section 24 (D1) and (E1), which basically say that you commit an offence by entering the UK if you don't have pre-authorisation to do so." "Except that asylum seekers do so under international law, which supercedes that." Sigh. There's no such thing as International Law. What we have is international agreements, that in turn get codified into each of the signatory countries' legal frameworks. "Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim." There's nothing in the Refugee Convention about this, but it does state that a person who fits the definition of a refugee must be accepted by any country in which they make an application. So the words "has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention" are accurate, and they mean that the person must be *in* the country to which they make that application. There is no obligation on any signatory country to allow a refugee entry so that they can make an application. This has been tested in the courts hundreds of times, and established precedent is that asylum seekers do not have the right to cross a border to make an application in a preferred country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody is arguing against immigration. The people here are just saying that they want immigration to be controlled, not haphazard. An immigration policy of having no qualification for entry other than a willingness to break the law, might not be the best policy. Which law are these people breaking? The Immigration Act 1971, section 24 (D1) and (E1), which basically say that you commit an offence by entering the UK if you don't have pre-authorisation to do so. Except that asylum seekers do so under international law, which supercedes that. "Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim." So not illegal. Does this law also require the receiving state to provide free housing, healthcare, benefits, food, gas/warer/electical services, mobile phones, clothes, dentists, education, legal, interpreters etc etc. " Pretty much, yes. "1 The 1951 Refugee Convention offers refugees in signatory countries several benefits, including the right to lawful stay, work, study, access to housing and welfare benefits, free healthcare, and the right to family reunification. It also prohibits their return to a country where they fear persecution, and offers access to the courts, education, and documentation." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Which law are these people breaking? The Immigration Act 1971, section 24 (D1) and (E1), which basically say that you commit an offence by entering the UK if you don't have pre-authorisation to do so. Except that asylum seekers do so under international law, which supercedes that. Sigh. There's no such thing as International Law. What we have is international agreements, that in turn get codified into each of the signatory countries' legal frameworks. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim. There's nothing in the Refugee Convention about this, but it does state that a person who fits the definition of a refugee must be accepted by any country in which they make an application. So the words "has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention" are accurate, and they mean that the person must be *in* the country to which they make that application. There is no obligation on any signatory country to allow a refugee entry so that they can make an application. This has been tested in the courts hundreds of times, and established precedent is that asylum seekers do not have the right to cross a border to make an application in a preferred country." Actually Article 31 of the Refugee Convention protects refugees from being penalized for illegal entry or presence if they present themselves to the authorities promptly and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. So there's that. 🤷♂️ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So , how many people were arriving on small boats , prior to 2018 ? You realise that there's a product called Google that lets you look these things up for yourself?" Yes ,, I did and it seemed to agree with my assumption that the problem on our shores increased dramatically after we left the EU , , You claimed I had misremembered, I didn't think I did ,, Google appears to be agreeing with me ,,that on this occasion my memory was correct , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There is no quick answer and equally we can't be held accountable for economic problems in other countries at a cost of billions a year. Our government has a duty to protect our interests, our assets and futures, presenting tough tag lines isn't enough it needs a plan that is workable. I’ve already gone though historical exploitation but still it continues. If you have ever purchased an item manufactured cheaply in the global south you are supporting low wages for cheaper western consumption & western company profits. Why would a Vietnamese worker want to carry on working a sewing machine for pennies all day when he can hop on a boat in an attempt to join those on the sunnier side of the fence who are happily exploiting the situation buying their sl@ve made, cheap tat from Primark etc? Only an accident of birth that he was born there & not here isn’t it? I wouldn’t (and don’t) blame him at all. Do you agree with the recent cuts to foreign aid? I support the principle of helping others, but only "once we have stabilised our own economy" and services. Foreign aid should be based on the capacity to support not guilt.... We can care about global inequality without compromising our own stability or ignoring the rules that every functioning nation upholds. I know of no country that allows uncontrolled entry or the automatic right to work, why should we be the first and why disadvantage the UK in that way, what would that mean in real terms? " Well, that is where we differ as people. Living the comparative life of Riley in the first world moaning about first world problems whilst we rinse the global poor for our continued benefit really doesn’t rest easy at all with me. …and then we have the temerity to complain when they want a piece of our pie! In an ideal world, no the UK certainly shouldn’t go it alone in changing things. It needs to be done collectively by the developed nations. But then most of the governments in these developed nations have to win elections & people living in these developed nations - in the main - tend to be inherently selfish & want to preserve their artificially inflated standards of living by global standards, don’t they? You still haven’t answered btw irt foreign aid. I take it you don’t think our economy is in order currently from what you are saying so consequently you agree with the recent cuts to it? Do you think that will discourage migrants from wanting to move to developed, richer nations? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There is no quick answer and equally we can't be held accountable for economic problems in other countries at a cost of billions a year. Our government has a duty to protect our interests, our assets and futures, presenting tough tag lines isn't enough it needs a plan that is workable. I’ve already gone though historical exploitation but still it continues. If you have ever purchased an item manufactured cheaply in the global south you are supporting low wages for cheaper western consumption & western company profits. Why would a Vietnamese worker want to carry on working a sewing machine for pennies all day when he can hop on a boat in an attempt to join those on the sunnier side of the fence who are happily exploiting the situation buying their sl@ve made, cheap tat from Primark etc? Only an accident of birth that he was born there & not here isn’t it? I wouldn’t (and don’t) blame him at all. Do you agree with the recent cuts to foreign aid? I support the principle of helping others, but only "once we have stabilised our own economy" and services. Foreign aid should be based on the capacity to support not guilt.... We can care about global inequality without compromising our own stability or ignoring the rules that every functioning nation upholds. I know of no country that allows uncontrolled entry or the automatic right to work, why should we be the first and why disadvantage the UK in that way, what would that mean in real terms? Well, that is where we differ as people. Living the comparative life of Riley in the first world moaning about first world problems whilst we rinse the global poor for our continued benefit really doesn’t rest easy at all with me. …and then we have the temerity to complain when they want a piece of our pie! In an ideal world, no the UK certainly shouldn’t go it alone in changing things. It needs to be done collectively by the developed nations. But then most of the governments in these developed nations have to win elections & people living in these developed nations - in the main - tend to be inherently selfish & want to preserve their artificially inflated standards of living by global standards, don’t they? You still haven’t answered btw irt foreign aid. I take it you don’t think our economy is in order currently from what you are saying so consequently you agree with the recent cuts to it? Do you think that will discourage migrants from wanting to move to developed, richer nations? " I’ve already answered the question, but I’ll expand. Yes, I support the foreign aid cuts based on where the UK economy is now and the pressures we heading into. That doesn’t mean I don't want to help others, I believe help should come from capacity, not guilt. I hear your ideology clearly, but I’m not hearing any practical solution. So let me ask you... If you support the idea of people moving freely from poorer to richer countries, how would that work economically, socially, and politically? No country in the world allows totally unrestricted movement why do you think that is? I would like to hear the workings of this not the emotive arguments. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody is arguing against immigration. The people here are just saying that they want immigration to be controlled, not haphazard. An immigration policy of having no qualification for entry other than a willingness to break the law, might not be the best policy. Which law are these people breaking? The Immigration Act 1971, section 24 (D1) and (E1), which basically say that you commit an offence by entering the UK if you don't have pre-authorisation to do so. Except that asylum seekers do so under international law, which supercedes that. "Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim." So not illegal. Does this law also require the receiving state to provide free housing, healthcare, benefits, food, gas/warer/electical services, mobile phones, clothes, dentists, education, legal, interpreters etc etc. Pretty much, yes. "1 The 1951 Refugee Convention offers refugees in signatory countries several benefits, including the right to lawful stay, work, study, access to housing and welfare benefits, free healthcare, and the right to family reunification. It also prohibits their return to a country where they fear persecution, and offers access to the courts, education, and documentation."" Reform forgot to mention that part | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody is arguing against immigration. The people here are just saying that they want immigration to be controlled, not haphazard. An immigration policy of having no qualification for entry other than a willingness to break the law, might not be the best policy. Which law are these people breaking? The Immigration Act 1971, section 24 (D1) and (E1), which basically say that you commit an offence by entering the UK if you don't have pre-authorisation to do so. Except that asylum seekers do so under international law, which supercedes that. "Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim." So not illegal. Does this law also require the receiving state to provide free housing, healthcare, benefits, food, gas/warer/electical services, mobile phones, clothes, dentists, education, legal, interpreters etc etc. Pretty much, yes. "1 The 1951 Refugee Convention offers refugees in signatory countries several benefits, including the right to lawful stay, work, study, access to housing and welfare benefits, free healthcare, and the right to family reunification. It also prohibits their return to a country where they fear persecution, and offers access to the courts, education, and documentation."" You're getting asylum seekers and refugees and their different rights mixed up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually Article 31 of the Refugee Convention protects refugees from being penalized for illegal entry or presence if they present themselves to the authorities promptly and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence." That's true, but it only applies to those granted asylum, not to those that aren't. It also only prevents them from being penalised, it doesn't absolve the crime, or give them a right to a clean criminal record. In the case of small boat crossings, what do you think they could present as 'good cause' for their illegal entry? If they were escaping directly from Iran, I can see that an illegal entry might be justified. But these people are crossing from France, and it's hard to imagine any reason that would justify illegal entry from there. In your reply, please restrict your 'good cause' reasons to those that are compatible with the 1951 Convention. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There is no quick answer and equally we can't be held accountable for economic problems in other countries at a cost of billions a year. Our government has a duty to protect our interests, our assets and futures, presenting tough tag lines isn't enough it needs a plan that is workable. I’ve already gone though historical exploitation but still it continues. If you have ever purchased an item manufactured cheaply in the global south you are supporting low wages for cheaper western consumption & western company profits. Why would a Vietnamese worker want to carry on working a sewing machine for pennies all day when he can hop on a boat in an attempt to join those on the sunnier side of the fence who are happily exploiting the situation buying their sl@ve made, cheap tat from Primark etc? Only an accident of birth that he was born there & not here isn’t it? I wouldn’t (and don’t) blame him at all. Do you agree with the recent cuts to foreign aid? I support the principle of helping others, but only "once we have stabilised our own economy" and services. Foreign aid should be based on the capacity to support not guilt.... We can care about global inequality without compromising our own stability or ignoring the rules that every functioning nation upholds. I know of no country that allows uncontrolled entry or the automatic right to work, why should we be the first and why disadvantage the UK in that way, what would that mean in real terms? Well, that is where we differ as people. Living the comparative life of Riley in the first world moaning about first world problems whilst we rinse the global poor for our continued benefit really doesn’t rest easy at all with me. …and then we have the temerity to complain when they want a piece of our pie! In an ideal world, no the UK certainly shouldn’t go it alone in changing things. It needs to be done collectively by the developed nations. But then most of the governments in these developed nations have to win elections & people living in these developed nations - in the main - tend to be inherently selfish & want to preserve their artificially inflated standards of living by global standards, don’t they? You still haven’t answered btw irt foreign aid. I take it you don’t think our economy is in order currently from what you are saying so consequently you agree with the recent cuts to it? Do you think that will discourage migrants from wanting to move to developed, richer nations? I’ve already answered the question, but I’ll expand. Yes, I support the foreign aid cuts based on where the UK economy is now and the pressures we heading into. That doesn’t mean I don't want to help others, I believe help should come from capacity, not guilt. I hear your ideology clearly, but I’m not hearing any practical solution. So let me ask you... If you support the idea of people moving freely from poorer to richer countries, how would that work economically, socially, and politically? No country in the world allows totally unrestricted movement why do you think that is? I would like to hear the workings of this not the emotive arguments. " You don’t necessarily need movement of people. In fact, you probably need fairer distribution of resources & wealth so people are less inclined to want or need to move. All I’m saying is I totally understand WHY some people want to move, whether it’s legal or not. In respect of global inequality generally it’s a vast subject, plenty of suggestions out there.. One example: Global financial institutions need reform imo. The World Bank & IMF instead of seemingly wanting to keep a boot on the neck of countries through enforced austerity and/or removal of price controls in return for their loans, could wield their power instead to restructure debt in a way these countries have more £ to spend on the betterment of their social programs & societies instead of it being secondary to the actual repayment of the debt as is the case now. Poorer countries are under represented within some of these Bretton Woods institutions, they are dominated by the rich countries who created them, why aren’t the poor countries getting more of a say given the population numbers & resources involved? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There is no quick answer and equally we can't be held accountable for economic problems in other countries at a cost of billions a year. Our government has a duty to protect our interests, our assets and futures, presenting tough tag lines isn't enough it needs a plan that is workable. I’ve already gone though historical exploitation but still it continues. If you have ever purchased an item manufactured cheaply in the global south you are supporting low wages for cheaper western consumption & western company profits. Why would a Vietnamese worker want to carry on working a sewing machine for pennies all day when he can hop on a boat in an attempt to join those on the sunnier side of the fence who are happily exploiting the situation buying their sl@ve made, cheap tat from Primark etc? Only an accident of birth that he was born there & not here isn’t it? I wouldn’t (and don’t) blame him at all. Do you agree with the recent cuts to foreign aid? I support the principle of helping others, but only "once we have stabilised our own economy" and services. Foreign aid should be based on the capacity to support not guilt.... We can care about global inequality without compromising our own stability or ignoring the rules that every functioning nation upholds. I know of no country that allows uncontrolled entry or the automatic right to work, why should we be the first and why disadvantage the UK in that way, what would that mean in real terms? Well, that is where we differ as people. Living the comparative life of Riley in the first world moaning about first world problems whilst we rinse the global poor for our continued benefit really doesn’t rest easy at all with me. …and then we have the temerity to complain when they want a piece of our pie! In an ideal world, no the UK certainly shouldn’t go it alone in changing things. It needs to be done collectively by the developed nations. But then most of the governments in these developed nations have to win elections & people living in these developed nations - in the main - tend to be inherently selfish & want to preserve their artificially inflated standards of living by global standards, don’t they? You still haven’t answered btw irt foreign aid. I take it you don’t think our economy is in order currently from what you are saying so consequently you agree with the recent cuts to it? Do you think that will discourage migrants from wanting to move to developed, richer nations? I’ve already answered the question, but I’ll expand. Yes, I support the foreign aid cuts based on where the UK economy is now and the pressures we heading into. That doesn’t mean I don't want to help others, I believe help should come from capacity, not guilt. I hear your ideology clearly, but I’m not hearing any practical solution. So let me ask you... If you support the idea of people moving freely from poorer to richer countries, how would that work economically, socially, and politically? No country in the world allows totally unrestricted movement why do you think that is? I would like to hear the workings of this not the emotive arguments. You don’t necessarily need movement of people. In fact, you probably need fairer distribution of resources & wealth so people are less inclined to want or need to move. All I’m saying is I totally understand WHY some people want to move, whether it’s legal or not. In respect of global inequality generally it’s a vast subject, plenty of suggestions out there.. One example: Global financial institutions need reform imo. The World Bank & IMF instead of seemingly wanting to keep a boot on the neck of countries through enforced austerity and/or removal of price controls in return for their loans, could wield their power instead to restructure debt in a way these countries have more £ to spend on the betterment of their social programs & societies instead of it being secondary to the actual repayment of the debt as is the case now. Poorer countries are under represented within some of these Bretton Woods institutions, they are dominated by the rich countries who created them, why aren’t the poor countries getting more of a say given the population numbers & resources involved? " I can see how you are joining the dots but those dots seem aligned to you political beliefs rather than the reality of global economies. I understand your criticism of the IMF and World Bank, but I disagree with the idea that they are oppressive. If a country is seeking a "large loan", it it is more than reasonable for the lender especially one backed by other nations "taxpayers", to expect some level of financial discipline and reform in return. There is a common understanding that taking a loan requires evidence of the ability to pay it back. The goal isn’t to punish a poor country, it’s to prevent mismanagement, corruption, and unsustainable debt that would cripple the country for many more years. If a government has a track record of poor economic governance, the conditions are there to stabilise the economy and protect both the loan and the longterm interests of the country taking the loan. The alternative is to not provide a loan in the first place.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually Article 31 of the Refugee Convention protects refugees from being penalized for illegal entry or presence if they present themselves to the authorities promptly and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. That's true, but it only applies to those granted asylum, not to those that aren't. It also only prevents them from being penalised, it doesn't absolve the crime, or give them a right to a clean criminal record. In the case of small boat crossings, what do you think they could present as 'good cause' for their illegal entry? If they were escaping directly from Iran, I can see that an illegal entry might be justified. But these people are crossing from France, and it's hard to imagine any reason that would justify illegal entry from there. In your reply, please restrict your 'good cause' reasons to those that are compatible with the 1951 Convention." If someone wishes to claim asylum in UK , they are unable to do so while they are in France ,,,they used to be able to but we left the EU ,, now they have to be in the UK , Which could probably be a reason for the vast increase in small boats since Brexit,, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There is no quick answer and equally we can't be held accountable for economic problems in other countries at a cost of billions a year. Our government has a duty to protect our interests, our assets and futures, presenting tough tag lines isn't enough it needs a plan that is workable. I’ve already gone though historical exploitation but still it continues. If you have ever purchased an item manufactured cheaply in the global south you are supporting low wages for cheaper western consumption & western company profits. Why would a Vietnamese worker want to carry on working a sewing machine for pennies all day when he can hop on a boat in an attempt to join those on the sunnier side of the fence who are happily exploiting the situation buying their sl@ve made, cheap tat from Primark etc? Only an accident of birth that he was born there & not here isn’t it? I wouldn’t (and don’t) blame him at all. Do you agree with the recent cuts to foreign aid? I support the principle of helping others, but only "once we have stabilised our own economy" and services. Foreign aid should be based on the capacity to support not guilt.... We can care about global inequality without compromising our own stability or ignoring the rules that every functioning nation upholds. I know of no country that allows uncontrolled entry or the automatic right to work, why should we be the first and why disadvantage the UK in that way, what would that mean in real terms? Well, that is where we differ as people. Living the comparative life of Riley in the first world moaning about first world problems whilst we rinse the global poor for our continued benefit really doesn’t rest easy at all with me. …and then we have the temerity to complain when they want a piece of our pie! In an ideal world, no the UK certainly shouldn’t go it alone in changing things. It needs to be done collectively by the developed nations. But then most of the governments in these developed nations have to win elections & people living in these developed nations - in the main - tend to be inherently selfish & want to preserve their artificially inflated standards of living by global standards, don’t they? You still haven’t answered btw irt foreign aid. I take it you don’t think our economy is in order currently from what you are saying so consequently you agree with the recent cuts to it? Do you think that will discourage migrants from wanting to move to developed, richer nations? I’ve already answered the question, but I’ll expand. Yes, I support the foreign aid cuts based on where the UK economy is now and the pressures we heading into. That doesn’t mean I don't want to help others, I believe help should come from capacity, not guilt. I hear your ideology clearly, but I’m not hearing any practical solution. So let me ask you... If you support the idea of people moving freely from poorer to richer countries, how would that work economically, socially, and politically? No country in the world allows totally unrestricted movement why do you think that is? I would like to hear the workings of this not the emotive arguments. You don’t necessarily need movement of people. In fact, you probably need fairer distribution of resources & wealth so people are less inclined to want or need to move. All I’m saying is I totally understand WHY some people want to move, whether it’s legal or not. In respect of global inequality generally it’s a vast subject, plenty of suggestions out there.. One example: Global financial institutions need reform imo. The World Bank & IMF instead of seemingly wanting to keep a boot on the neck of countries through enforced austerity and/or removal of price controls in return for their loans, could wield their power instead to restructure debt in a way these countries have more £ to spend on the betterment of their social programs & societies instead of it being secondary to the actual repayment of the debt as is the case now. Poorer countries are under represented within some of these Bretton Woods institutions, they are dominated by the rich countries who created them, why aren’t the poor countries getting more of a say given the population numbers & resources involved? I can see how you are joining the dots but those dots seem aligned to you political beliefs rather than the reality of global economies. I understand your criticism of the IMF and World Bank, but I disagree with the idea that they are oppressive. If a country is seeking a "large loan", it it is more than reasonable for the lender especially one backed by other nations "taxpayers", to expect some level of financial discipline and reform in return. There is a common understanding that taking a loan requires evidence of the ability to pay it back. The goal isn’t to punish a poor country, it’s to prevent mismanagement, corruption, and unsustainable debt that would cripple the country for many more years. If a government has a track record of poor economic governance, the conditions are there to stabilise the economy and protect both the loan and the longterm interests of the country taking the loan. The alternative is to not provide a loan in the first place.... " We can agree to disagree & I’m cool with that. Thing is though, the status quo isn’t working is it? Which is why you’ve got something to complain about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If someone wishes to claim asylum in UK , they are unable to do so while they are in France ,,,they used to be able to but we left the EU ,, now they have to be in the UK , Which could probably be a reason for the vast increase in small boats since Brexit,," Asylum seekers have never been allowed to claim from outside the UK. There were several schemes that allowed specific nationalities to apply for residence in the UK, but these were immigration schemes, not asylum claims. No country in the world allows asylum seekers to make a claim from another country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If someone wishes to claim asylum in UK , they are unable to do so while they are in France ,,,they used to be able to but we left the EU ,, now they have to be in the UK , Which could probably be a reason for the vast increase in small boats since Brexit,, Asylum seekers have never been allowed to claim from outside the UK. There were several schemes that allowed specific nationalities to apply for residence in the UK, but these were immigration schemes, not asylum claims. No country in the world allows asylum seekers to make a claim from another country." Exactly. Barring specific schemes such as those relating to Afghanistan and the Ukraine, they have to be on the UK mainland in order to apply. Ergo.....just cause. 🤷♂️ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If someone wishes to claim asylum in UK , they are unable to do so while they are in France ,,,they used to be able to but we left the EU ,, now they have to be in the UK , Which could probably be a reason for the vast increase in small boats since Brexit,," "Asylum seekers have never been allowed to claim from outside the UK. There were several schemes that allowed specific nationalities to apply for residence in the UK, but these were immigration schemes, not asylum claims. No country in the world allows asylum seekers to make a claim from another country." "Exactly. Barring specific schemes such as those relating to Afghanistan and the Ukraine, they have to be on the UK mainland in order to apply. Ergo.....just cause." An asylum seekers desires have no weight in the 1951 Convention. Simply preferring to apply in the UK rather than France is not a just cause. The original 1951 Convention was created to handle cases of people displaced by WWII, who now found that their new host countries were trying to send them back to Germany. The Convention was written with the assumption that people would have been present in a country for some years, and would be applying to prevent themselves being sent 'back where they came from'. That's why it says nothing about entering a country, and gives no rights to refugees to apply from anywhere other than in that country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If someone wishes to claim asylum in UK , they are unable to do so while they are in France ,,,they used to be able to but we left the EU ,, now they have to be in the UK , Which could probably be a reason for the vast increase in small boats since Brexit,, Asylum seekers have never been allowed to claim from outside the UK. There were several schemes that allowed specific nationalities to apply for residence in the UK, but these were immigration schemes, not asylum claims. No country in the world allows asylum seekers to make a claim from another country. Exactly. Barring specific schemes such as those relating to Afghanistan and the Ukraine, they have to be on the UK mainland in order to apply. Ergo.....just cause. An asylum seekers desires have no weight in the 1951 Convention. Simply preferring to apply in the UK rather than France is not a just cause. The original 1951 Convention was created to handle cases of people displaced by WWII, who now found that their new host countries were trying to send them back to Germany. The Convention was written with the assumption that people would have been present in a country for some years, and would be applying to prevent themselves being sent 'back where they came from'. That's why it says nothing about entering a country, and gives no rights to refugees to apply from anywhere other than in that country." Being granted asylum in one EU country would allow you to move to another EU country under freedom of movement | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If someone wishes to claim asylum in UK , they are unable to do so while they are in France ,,,they used to be able to but we left the EU ,, now they have to be in the UK , Which could probably be a reason for the vast increase in small boats since Brexit,, Asylum seekers have never been allowed to claim from outside the UK. There were several schemes that allowed specific nationalities to apply for residence in the UK, but these were immigration schemes, not asylum claims. No country in the world allows asylum seekers to make a claim from another country. Exactly. Barring specific schemes such as those relating to Afghanistan and the Ukraine, they have to be on the UK mainland in order to apply. Ergo.....just cause. An asylum seekers desires have no weight in the 1951 Convention. Simply preferring to apply in the UK rather than France is not a just cause. The original 1951 Convention was created to handle cases of people displaced by WWII, who now found that their new host countries were trying to send them back to Germany. The Convention was written with the assumption that people would have been present in a country for some years, and would be applying to prevent themselves being sent 'back where they came from'. That's why it says nothing about entering a country, and gives no rights to refugees to apply from anywhere other than in that country." The 1951 Convention has no requirement for people to seek asylum in. The first 'safe'country they pass through. There's no end of information on this online. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"An asylum seekers desires have no weight in the 1951 Convention. Simply preferring to apply in the UK rather than France is not a just cause. The original 1951 Convention was created to handle cases of people displaced by WWII, who now found that their new host countries were trying to send them back to Germany. The Convention was written with the assumption that people would have been present in a country for some years, and would be applying to prevent themselves being sent 'back where they came from'. That's why it says nothing about entering a country, and gives no rights to refugees to apply from anywhere other than in that country." "The 1951 Convention has no requirement for people to seek asylum in. The first 'safe'country they pass through. There's no end of information on this online." Correct. I'm not sure where you think I have said otherwise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"An asylum seekers desires have no weight in the 1951 Convention. Simply preferring to apply in the UK rather than France is not a just cause. The original 1951 Convention was created to handle cases of people displaced by WWII, who now found that their new host countries were trying to send them back to Germany. The Convention was written with the assumption that people would have been present in a country for some years, and would be applying to prevent themselves being sent 'back where they came from'. That's why it says nothing about entering a country, and gives no rights to refugees to apply from anywhere other than in that country. The 1951 Convention has no requirement for people to seek asylum in. The first 'safe'country they pass through. There's no end of information on this online. Correct. I'm not sure where you think I have said otherwise." They're allowed to apply in the UK rather than France if they choose and that prevents them from being prosecuted for illegal entry if done in a timely manner. Just cause for entering 'illegally' as some choose to term it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They're allowed to apply in the UK rather than France if they choose and that prevents them from being prosecuted for illegal entry if done in a timely manner. Just cause for entering 'illegally' as some choose to term it." That's not correct. A refuge can apply in the country they are currently in. They do not have the right to enter a country to make an application. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Indeed the UK is under invasion, and has been since the end of WW2. Whatever anyone’s says it is to the detriment of our demographics, our culture, our population, our existence as a sovereign state. Nothing is going to change that as fact, and posting back and forth will change nobodies mind. Pretty pointless innit? This country would have been completely bolloxed without immigration after WW2, which is why it was encouraged. And why not? It’s ok to fight in wars on behalf of the mother country but no you can’t immigrate? " We lost multiple generations during the two world wars, and the supposed sticking plaster solution, was to use people from commonwealth countries to plug the gaps. How very wonderful, instead of work permits they got full citizenship. Here we are some seventy five years on, and parts of the UK are unrecognisable. If that is what you want, then good for you. As for my pension? It’s sorted, and my children are grown up, and although not all left home, are safe and happy. I’m also happy to be a granddad, but I worry that the only real future for those being born now, lies in places like Bulgaria, Hungary or Poland. Because this place is all but lost… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just another kick in the teeth for the British people! That labour are funding rental deals to house illegal migrants. With deals of 5 years guaranteed payment to landlords. It’s not just Labour. All governments have been doing it for years (and I would guess SNP in Scotland as well)- washing it through charities and other orgs so that the general public don’t find out. I discovered it about a year ago when someone I know approached me for an investment opportunity that was essentially guaranteed but it had to be done via a set up that I wasn’t happy with. Essentially you buy a large house, switch to HMO status and then they guarantee you an income on each room, they will pay _all_ the bills and will totally renovate the house before handing it back completely new at the end of the guaranteed tenancy on all the rooms." Yet the rhetoric is to blame the immigrants not the rich who are getting richer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody is arguing against immigration. The people here are just saying that they want immigration to be controlled, not haphazard. An immigration policy of having no qualification for entry other than a willingness to break the law, might not be the best policy. Which law are these people breaking? The Immigration Act 1971, section 24 (D1) and (E1), which basically say that you commit an offence by entering the UK if you don't have pre-authorisation to do so. Except that asylum seekers do so under international law, which supercedes that. "Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim." So not illegal. Does this law also require the receiving state to provide free housing, healthcare, benefits, food, gas/warer/electical services, mobile phones, clothes, dentists, education, legal, interpreters etc etc. Pretty much, yes. "1 The 1951 Refugee Convention offers refugees in signatory countries several benefits, including the right to lawful stay, work, study, access to housing and welfare benefits, free healthcare, and the right to family reunification. It also prohibits their return to a country where they fear persecution, and offers access to the courts, education, and documentation." You're getting asylum seekers and refugees and their different rights mixed up." The problem in these types of debates is that the language is often manipulated to blur the lines between legal migration, asylum seekers, and illegal entry. I haven’t seen anyone arguing against genuine asylum seekers, so what are people actually arguing about? Are there really people who support the actions of those entering the country by playing the asylum process as economic migrants? I would love to know the answer to that, I have spoken to 1 person that does how many more do? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"45,755 in 2022 was the highest number of people crossing the channel. It really is small beer when comparing it to the number of legal migrants. Won’t stop the right wing dog whistling about it though. Nice little three word mantras for all the Sun readers to lap up: ‘GET BREXIT DONE’, ‘STOP THE BOATS’ etc" Like ”Smash the Gangs” you mean? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"45,755 in 2022 was the highest number of people crossing the channel. It really is small beer when comparing it to the number of legal migrants. Won’t stop the right wing dog whistling about it though. Nice little three word mantras for all the Sun readers to lap up: ‘GET BREXIT DONE’, ‘STOP THE BOATS’ etc Like ”Smash the Gangs” you mean?" Absolutely. Starmer going for the Sun reader vote. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"45,755 in 2022 was the highest number of people crossing the channel. It really is small beer when comparing it to the number of legal migrants. Won’t stop the right wing dog whistling about it though. Nice little three word mantras for all the Sun readers to lap up: ‘GET BREXIT DONE’, ‘STOP THE BOATS’ etc" You’ve mixed up migration definitions, which is exactly the problem I highlighted earlier. The fact that there are large numbers of legal migrants doesn’t somehow make it acceptable for 45,755 people to bypass the legal process in 2022 and for that number to keep rising. Dismissing concerns as “right wing dog whistles” is an attempt to shut down debate about how to manage an effective immigration system. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"45,755 in 2022 was the highest number of people crossing the channel. It really is small beer when comparing it to the number of legal migrants. Won’t stop the right wing dog whistling about it though. Nice little three word mantras for all the Sun readers to lap up: ‘GET BREXIT DONE’, ‘STOP THE BOATS’ etc You’ve mixed up migration definitions, which is exactly the problem I highlighted earlier. The fact that there are large numbers of legal migrants doesn’t somehow make it acceptable for 45,755 people to bypass the legal process in 2022 and for that number to keep rising. Dismissing concerns as “right wing dog whistles” is an attempt to shut down debate about how to manage an effective immigration system. " Not really. It’s an attempt to put things into perspective. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"45,755 in 2022 was the highest number of people crossing the channel. It really is small beer when comparing it to the number of legal migrants. Won’t stop the right wing dog whistling about it though. Nice little three word mantras for all the Sun readers to lap up: ‘GET BREXIT DONE’, ‘STOP THE BOATS’ etc You’ve mixed up migration definitions, which is exactly the problem I highlighted earlier. The fact that there are large numbers of legal migrants doesn’t somehow make it acceptable for 45,755 people to bypass the legal process in 2022 and for that number to keep rising. Dismissing concerns as “right wing dog whistles” is an attempt to shut down debate about how to manage an effective immigration system. " Of course. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"45,755 in 2022 was the highest number of people crossing the channel. It really is small beer when comparing it to the number of legal migrants. Won’t stop the right wing dog whistling about it though. Nice little three word mantras for all the Sun readers to lap up: ‘GET BREXIT DONE’, ‘STOP THE BOATS’ etc Like ”Smash the Gangs” you mean? Absolutely. Starmer going for the Sun reader vote."
So you believe only people on the right are concerned about tens of thousands entering the UK via small boats, operated by organised crime gangs?
You might want to remember that Boris Johnson’s landslide win came thanks to traditional Labour voters in the Red Wall, who backed Brexit and were clearly concerned about issues like immigration and border control.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"45,755 in 2022 was the highest number of people crossing the channel. It really is small beer when comparing it to the number of legal migrants. Won’t stop the right wing dog whistling about it though. Nice little three word mantras for all the Sun readers to lap up: ‘GET BREXIT DONE’, ‘STOP THE BOATS’ etc You’ve mixed up migration definitions, which is exactly the problem I highlighted earlier. The fact that there are large numbers of legal migrants doesn’t somehow make it acceptable for 45,755 people to bypass the legal process in 2022 and for that number to keep rising. Dismissing concerns as “right wing dog whistles” is an attempt to shut down debate about how to manage an effective immigration system. Not really. It’s an attempt to put things into perspective." Your perspective, not the perspective. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"45,755 in 2022 was the highest number of people crossing the channel. It really is small beer when comparing it to the number of legal migrants. Won’t stop the right wing dog whistling about it though. Nice little three word mantras for all the Sun readers to lap up: ‘GET BREXIT DONE’, ‘STOP THE BOATS’ etc Like ”Smash the Gangs” you mean? Absolutely. Starmer going for the Sun reader vote.
So you believe only people on the right are concerned about tens of thousands entering the UK via small boats, operated by organised crime gangs?
You might want to remember that Boris Johnson’s landslide win came thanks to traditional Labour voters in the Red Wall, who backed Brexit and were clearly concerned about issues like immigration and border control.
"Typical contempt for working class voters who bear the cost of illegal migration. Still, as long as people get a cheap car wash and Deliveroo who cares ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
