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 |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? " The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. " The quickest way to stop illegal immigration……is to make it all legal! Genius! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. The quickest way to stop illegal immigration……is to make it all legal! Genius!" Is that what I said, or do you have comprehension issues? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. The quickest way to stop illegal immigration……is to make it all legal! Genius! Is that what I said, or do you have comprehension issues? " Fair play to you. You are the Labour Party’s inner voice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. The quickest way to stop illegal immigration……is to make it all legal! Genius! Is that what I said, or do you have comprehension issues? Fair play to you. You are the Labour Party’s inner voice." Are you accepting that you failed converted my post? That’s big of you, good work. Let me explain. Asylum clams could be made abroad. If you fail, you’re not permitted to attempt to come to the U.K. if you still do so, you’ll be turned around as you’ve already failed the check. So there’s no point coming. If how ever your claim is successful, you’ll be provided a safe route via ferry. So there’s no small boat gang to deal with. It’s a grown up solution to a problem that Brexit created. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. The quickest way to stop illegal immigration……is to make it all legal! Genius! Is that what I said, or do you have comprehension issues? Fair play to you. You are the Labour Party’s inner voice. Are you accepting that you failed converted my post? That’s big of you, good work. Let me explain. Asylum clams could be made abroad. If you fail, you’re not permitted to attempt to come to the U.K. if you still do so, you’ll be turned around as you’ve already failed the check. So there’s no point coming. If how ever your claim is successful, you’ll be provided a safe route via ferry. So there’s no small boat gang to deal with. It’s a grown up solution to a problem that Brexit created. " “You’ll be turned around as you’ve already failed the check”. Hysterical. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. The quickest way to stop illegal immigration……is to make it all legal! Genius! Is that what I said, or do you have comprehension issues? Fair play to you. You are the Labour Party’s inner voice. Are you accepting that you failed converted my post? That’s big of you, good work. Let me explain. Asylum clams could be made abroad. If you fail, you’re not permitted to attempt to come to the U.K. if you still do so, you’ll be turned around as you’ve already failed the check. So there’s no point coming. If how ever your claim is successful, you’ll be provided a safe route via ferry. So there’s no small boat gang to deal with. It’s a grown up solution to a problem that Brexit created. “You’ll be turned around as you’ve already failed the check”. Hysterical. " I assume you have a better solution that maintains legal commitments? | |||
(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 a government will balls leave the human rights court's. Soon as a boat reaches English waters we pick them up destroy the boat and dump them back in French waters. No one's going to do anything a few angry words from the Europeans but not much else." Leave the ECHR? Well done! You just shafted yourself, your kids and future generations | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. The quickest way to stop illegal immigration……is to make it all legal! Genius! Is that what I said, or do you have comprehension issues? Fair play to you. You are the Labour Party’s inner voice. Are you accepting that you failed converted my post? That’s big of you, good work. Let me explain. Asylum clams could be made abroad. If you fail, you’re not permitted to attempt to come to the U.K. if you still do so, you’ll be turned around as you’ve already failed the check. So there’s no point coming. If how ever your claim is successful, you’ll be provided a safe route via ferry. So there’s no small boat gang to deal with. It’s a grown up solution to a problem that Brexit created. “You’ll be turned around as you’ve already failed the check”. Hysterical. I assume you have a better solution that maintains legal commitments? " In reality you think that anyone who wants to come to the UK should be allowed to do so. And if your fellow taxpayers have to pay for their existence, all the better. It’s what Starmer thinks too. You are in good company. The only problem is that Starmer is at least intelligent enough to know that saying it would lead to electoral wipeout. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. The quickest way to stop illegal immigration……is to make it all legal! Genius! Is that what I said, or do you have comprehension issues? Fair play to you. You are the Labour Party’s inner voice. Are you accepting that you failed converted my post? That’s big of you, good work. Let me explain. Asylum clams could be made abroad. If you fail, you’re not permitted to attempt to come to the U.K. if you still do so, you’ll be turned around as you’ve already failed the check. So there’s no point coming. If how ever your claim is successful, you’ll be provided a safe route via ferry. So there’s no small boat gang to deal with. It’s a grown up solution to a problem that Brexit created. “You’ll be turned around as you’ve already failed the check”. Hysterical. I assume you have a better solution that maintains legal commitments? In reality you think that anyone who wants to come to the UK should be allowed to do so. " Do I? That’s news to me. I respect that anyone can claim for asylum, that’s international law. Are all cases successful ? No - and nor would I expect them to be. What you’ve done here is put your perception of Labour voters front and centre without considering for a second that you might be wrong. | |||
(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 a government will balls leave the human rights court's. Soon as a boat reaches English waters we pick them up destroy the boat and dump them back in French waters. No one's going to do anything a few angry words from the Europeans but not much else." You do realise that human rights are your human rights too? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is a government will balls leave the human rights court's. Soon as a boat reaches English waters we pick them up destroy the boat and dump them back in French waters. No one's going to do anything a few angry words from the Europeans but not much else. You do realise that human rights are your human rights too? " Sadly, not many seem to understand this. Certain sections of the media demonise the ECHR, certain members of the public buy the bait, and then think leaving the ECHR will solve the boat problem. Which it will not, of course. And various other rights will fall by the wayside too. I fear some folks do not want to treat others as human beings, and they would gladly give up their rights to be treated as human beings if it meant they could treat others abysmally. . History is replete with examples where human rights and legal protections were deliberately stripped away from certain groups, allowing them to be treated with cruelty, abuse, and impunity. These acts are often justified through laws, propaganda, or ideology to dehumanize the targeted population and to make the inexcusable seem legal or even necessary. . Prime examples are : Nuremberg Laws (1935) Transatlantic Sl@ave Trade (16th-19th Century) Apartheid (1948-1994) Japanese-American Internment in US (1942-1945) Rwandan Genocide (1994) Rohingya in Myanmar (Ongoing) Uyghur in China (Ongoing) . The pattern is very clear. Dehumanization through law, followed by systemic abuse, all justified under ideological, political, or racial rationalizations. Removing legal protections is often the first step in enabling atrocities, and history shows the devastating consequences when those protections are gone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Stopping excessive asylum seekers is simple. You need to make the UK into a more unappealing shit-hole than these people are fleeing from. In this respect, Labour seem to be doing a bang-up job. "These people are ‘fleeing’ nothing. Each one costs the taxpayer £1M (migration observatory) over their lifetime in uk on welfare, free healthcare, housing, state pension etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let me explain. Asylum clams could be made abroad." Where abroad? Which country would be willing to host the thousands of applicants while we do the processing? "If you fail, you’re not permitted to attempt to come to the U.K. if you still do so, you’ll be turned around as you’ve already failed the check. So there’s no point coming." So do you think that those who fail will simply give up the idea of improving their life and go home? Or will they jump into a small boat and try their luck anyway? "It’s a grown up solution to a problem that Brexit created." How is this in any way related to Brexit? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is a government will balls leave the human rights court's. Soon as a boat reaches English waters we pick them up destroy the boat and dump them back in French waters. No one's going to do anything a few angry words from the Europeans but not much else. You do realise that human rights are your human rights too? Sadly, not many seem to understand this. Certain sections of the media demonise the ECHR, certain members of the public buy the bait, and then think leaving the ECHR will solve the boat problem. Which it will not, of course. And various other rights will fall by the wayside too. I fear some folks do not want to treat others as human beings, and they would gladly give up their rights to be treated as human beings if it meant they could treat others abysmally. . History is replete with examples where human rights and legal protections were deliberately stripped away from certain groups, allowing them to be treated with cruelty, abuse, and impunity. These acts are often justified through laws, propaganda, or ideology to dehumanize the targeted population and to make the inexcusable seem legal or even necessary. . Prime examples are : Nuremberg Laws (1935) Transatlantic Sl@ave Trade (16th-19th Century) Apartheid (1948-1994) Japanese-American Internment in US (1942-1945) Rwandan Genocide (1994) Rohingya in Myanmar (Ongoing) Uyghur in China (Ongoing) . The pattern is very clear. Dehumanization through law, followed by systemic abuse, all justified under ideological, political, or racial rationalizations. Removing legal protections is often the first step in enabling atrocities, and history shows the devastating consequences when those protections are gone." I am travelling to a foreign country later this week. I have filled in some small forms. Paid a small visa application fee. Made some declarations about who I am. I may even have to stand in line for ten minutes when I get there and not have a tantrum about it. It’s all pretty straightforward. My reasonable expectation is that if I don’t do these things that country should have the right to refuse me entry and put me back on the next available plane, at my own expense. I think the country I am travelling to may be able to offer me a better standard of living than the one I am leaving. That doesn’t miraculously override all the rules and allow me to ignore them. This is a civilised way to do things. The host country has the right to set the rules. I should respect them as a visitor and adhere to the rules. It’s a privilege for me to be able to visit and spend time there. I’m not so arrogant to think that my personal interests should override the host country’s right to set its own rules and govern itself for the good of its own people. What I don’t think is that by being asked to adhere to these rules my human rights are being breached and that we are all one step away from the gas chambers. That would be patently absurd. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. " That's a flawed concept. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 20% are genuine asylum seekers and successfully qualify for asylum in the UK. What will the 80% do? Say "Oh never mind, I'll go back to Syria, Albania ....wherever"? No, they'll just pitch up at Calais and try again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. That's a flawed concept. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 20% are genuine asylum seekers and successfully qualify for asylum in the UK. What will the 80% do? Say "Oh never mind, I'll go back to Syria, Albania ....wherever"? No, they'll just pitch up at Calais and try again. " Knowing that they’ll be turned around? Or perhaps face criminal charges? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How is this in any way related to Brexit?" No Dublin agreement or returns process with France and EU nations. https://bylinetimes.com/2023/02/17/small-boats-the-post-brexit-migration-story-the-media-doesnt-report/ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is a government will balls leave the human rights court's. Soon as a boat reaches English waters we pick them up destroy the boat and dump them back in French waters. No one's going to do anything a few angry words from the Europeans but not much else. You do realise that human rights are your human rights too? Sadly, not many seem to understand this. Certain sections of the media demonise the ECHR, certain members of the public buy the bait, and then think leaving the ECHR will solve the boat problem. Which it will not, of course. And various other rights will fall by the wayside too. I fear some folks do not want to treat others as human beings, and they would gladly give up their rights to be treated as human beings if it meant they could treat others abysmally. . History is replete with examples where human rights and legal protections were deliberately stripped away from certain groups, allowing them to be treated with cruelty, abuse, and impunity. These acts are often justified through laws, propaganda, or ideology to dehumanize the targeted population and to make the inexcusable seem legal or even necessary. . Prime examples are : Nuremberg Laws (1935) Transatlantic Sl@ave Trade (16th-19th Century) Apartheid (1948-1994) Japanese-American Internment in US (1942-1945) Rwandan Genocide (1994) Rohingya in Myanmar (Ongoing) Uyghur in China (Ongoing) . The pattern is very clear. Dehumanization through law, followed by systemic abuse, all justified under ideological, political, or racial rationalizations. Removing legal protections is often the first step in enabling atrocities, and history shows the devastating consequences when those protections are gone. I am travelling to a foreign country later this week. I have filled in some small forms. Paid a small visa application fee. Made some declarations about who I am. I may even have to stand in line for ten minutes when I get there and not have a tantrum about it. It’s all pretty straightforward. My reasonable expectation is that if I don’t do these things that country should have the right to refuse me entry and put me back on the next available plane, at my own expense. I think the country I am travelling to may be able to offer me a better standard of living than the one I am leaving. That doesn’t miraculously override all the rules and allow me to ignore them. This is a civilised way to do things. The host country has the right to set the rules. I should respect them as a visitor and adhere to the rules. It’s a privilege for me to be able to visit and spend time there. I’m not so arrogant to think that my personal interests should override the host country’s right to set its own rules and govern itself for the good of its own people. What I don’t think is that by being asked to adhere to these rules my human rights are being breached and that we are all one step away from the gas chambers. That would be patently absurd. " Are you seeking asylum? No? Then it’s not relevant. Do some reading on laws around asylum/refugees. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. That's a flawed concept. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 20% are genuine asylum seekers and successfully qualify for asylum in the UK. What will the 80% do? Say "Oh never mind, I'll go back to Syria, Albania ....wherever"? No, they'll just pitch up at Calais and try again. Knowing that they’ll be turned around? Or perhaps face criminal charges?" But, as you well know, they won't be turned around or face charges. International maritime law compels vessels to pick up people in distress or danger at sea. Cue Border Force and RNLI. The French police (funded by the UK taxpayer) will patrol the beaches and take photo's of the migrants as they leave. As happened yesterday. Once ashore in the UK a veritable army of human rights lawyers (funded by the UK taxpayer) will use every trick in the book (pet cats, chicken nuggets Etc.) to drag out asylum cases for years. I suppose if we chose to ignore international maritime law and pulled out of the EHCR then perhaps your idea would work. Is that what you are suggesting? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Channel Crossings are not an asylum issue as those involved are clearly coming from a safe country. It is a crime and security issue and should be treated as such." The safe country being France perhaps? So, by your apparent argument, all asylum seekers who want to get to the UK should stay in France as it is a safe country. But perhaps they don't want to or perhaps France cannot afford to take in more than they already have so should they go back to Italy (if that was the route they took) or Spain? Perhaps all the asylum seekers who arrive on that Greek island should stay there and let the Greeks sort it out? Or perhaps the asylum seekers shouldn't leave their own country as, perhaps they are not being persecuted at all and only want an easier life where the tax payers of another country support them? Do you have a solution to sort out asylum seekers or is it simply to keep them out of the UK and leave it at that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How is this in any way related to Brexit? No Dublin agreement or returns process with France and EU nations. https://bylinetimes.com/2023/02/17/small-boats-the-post-brexit-migration-story-the-media-doesnt-report/" Let’s play the Labour “Who’s Fault Is It Today?” game! “Whose fault is it today”? Thursday: it’s the Tories Friday: it’s Reform Saturday: it’s Brexit But Sunday is a new day! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How is this in any way related to Brexit? No Dublin agreement or returns process with France and EU nations. https://bylinetimes.com/2023/02/17/small-boats-the-post-brexit-migration-story-the-media-doesnt-report/ Let’s play the Labour “Who’s Fault Is It Today?” game! “Whose fault is it today”? Thursday: it’s the Tories Friday: it’s Reform Saturday: it’s Brexit But Sunday is a new day!" Well small boat crossings weren’t a particularly enormous problem pre-Brexit, and have ramped up since. Did you reach the piece? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. That's a flawed concept. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 20% are genuine asylum seekers and successfully qualify for asylum in the UK. What will the 80% do? Say "Oh never mind, I'll go back to Syria, Albania ....wherever"? No, they'll just pitch up at Calais and try again. Knowing that they’ll be turned around? Or perhaps face criminal charges?" They would clearly invent another ID and backstory. Why would they fear criminal charges when the penalty is a comfortable cell, TV and 3 meals a day? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Channel Crossings are not an asylum issue as those involved are clearly coming from a safe country. It is a crime and security issue and should be treated as such. The safe country being France perhaps? So, by your apparent argument, all asylum seekers who want to get to the UK should stay in France as it is a safe country. But perhaps they don't want to or perhaps France cannot afford to take in more than they already have so should they go back to Italy (if that was the route they took) or Spain? Perhaps all the asylum seekers who arrive on that Greek island should stay there and let the Greeks sort it out? Or perhaps the asylum seekers shouldn't leave their own country as, perhaps they are not being persecuted at all and only want an easier life where the tax payers of another country support them? Do you have a solution to sort out asylum seekers or is it simply to keep them out of the UK and leave it at that?" Yes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Channel Crossings are not an asylum issue as those involved are clearly coming from a safe country. It is a crime and security issue and should be treated as such." You know you can seek asylum in any country? You don’t have to stay in any ‘safe country’ that you pass through. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. That's a flawed concept. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 20% are genuine asylum seekers and successfully qualify for asylum in the UK. What will the 80% do? Say "Oh never mind, I'll go back to Syria, Albania ....wherever"? No, they'll just pitch up at Calais and try again. Knowing that they’ll be turned around? Or perhaps face criminal charges? They would clearly invent another ID and backstory. Why would they fear criminal charges when the penalty is a comfortable cell, TV and 3 meals a day?" Once again, feel free to provide a solution that doesn’t breach international law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How is this in any way related to Brexit? No Dublin agreement or returns process with France and EU nations. https://bylinetimes.com/2023/02/17/small-boats-the-post-brexit-migration-story-the-media-doesnt-report/ Let’s play the Labour “Who’s Fault Is It Today?” game! “Whose fault is it today”? Thursday: it’s the Tories Friday: it’s Reform Saturday: it’s Brexit But Sunday is a new day! Well small boat crossings weren’t a particularly enormous problem pre-Brexit, and have ramped up since. Did you reach the piece? " So how come crossings are up 30% over the past year? Had we not left the EU last year? It’s perfectly clear why illegal crossings are going up. They are going up for the same reason they rocketed in the US when Biden was in charge. Because the illegals know that the Leftists are an even softer touch than the conservatives were (if that’s possible). There is zero chance of Starmer “smashing the gangs”. And if I wanted to enter the UK illegally and claim lots of benefits, what better time to do it than under a Labour government? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How is this in any way related to Brexit? No Dublin agreement or returns process with France and EU nations. https://bylinetimes.com/2023/02/17/small-boats-the-post-brexit-migration-story-the-media-doesnt-report/ Let’s play the Labour “Who’s Fault Is It Today?” game! “Whose fault is it today”? Thursday: it’s the Tories Friday: it’s Reform Saturday: it’s Brexit But Sunday is a new day! Well small boat crossings weren’t a particularly enormous problem pre-Brexit, and have ramped up since. Did you reach the piece? So how come crossings are up 30% over the past year? Had we not left the EU last year? It’s perfectly clear why illegal crossings are going up. They are going up for the same reason they rocketed in the US when Biden was in charge. Because the illegals know that the Leftists are an even softer touch than the conservatives were (if that’s possible). There is zero chance of Starmer “smashing the gangs”. And if I wanted to enter the UK illegally and claim lots of benefits, what better time to do it than under a Labour government?" Oh nothing that happens now can be as a consequence of something that happened years ago? That’s your argument? Again, did you read the piece? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is a government will balls leave the human rights court's. Soon as a boat reaches English waters we pick them up destroy the boat and dump them back in French waters. No one's going to do anything a few angry words from the Europeans but not much else." International maritime law, specifically Article 98 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), obligates ships to assist those in danger at sea. Immigration status or other exceptions do not negate the duty to rescue individuals in distress at sea. To do what you suggest violates that law. So in order to stop the migrants you are quite happy for a British cruise liner with 8,000 souls on board to be left to sink unaided mid Atlantic? Interesting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is a government will balls leave the human rights court's. Soon as a boat reaches English waters we pick them up destroy the boat and dump them back in French waters. No one's going to do anything a few angry words from the Europeans but not much else. International maritime law, specifically Article 98 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), obligates ships to assist those in danger at sea. Immigration status or other exceptions do not negate the duty to rescue individuals in distress at sea. To do what you suggest violates that law. So in order to stop the migrants you are quite happy for a British cruise liner with 8,000 souls on board to be left to sink unaided mid Atlantic? Interesting. " These laws are abused the world over Under international humanitarian law, specifically the Geneva Conventions, occupying forces have obligations to look after the civilian population in the occupied territory, including providing for their basic needs and respecting their rights. This includes respecting their property, prohibiting forcible transfer of the population, and facilitating humanitarian aid. Israel killing children in their beds. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. That's a flawed concept. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 20% are genuine asylum seekers and successfully qualify for asylum in the UK. What will the 80% do? Say "Oh never mind, I'll go back to Syria, Albania ....wherever"? No, they'll just pitch up at Calais and try again. Knowing that they’ll be turned around? Or perhaps face criminal charges? They would clearly invent another ID and backstory. Why would they fear criminal charges when the penalty is a comfortable cell, TV and 3 meals a day? Once again, feel free to provide a solution that doesn’t breach international law." Countries breach international laws all the time if national interest is threatened. It's a matter of priorities and elected politicians complying with the mandate they are given by voters. Democracy!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. That's a flawed concept. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 20% are genuine asylum seekers and successfully qualify for asylum in the UK. What will the 80% do? Say "Oh never mind, I'll go back to Syria, Albania ....wherever"? No, they'll just pitch up at Calais and try again. Knowing that they’ll be turned around? Or perhaps face criminal charges? They would clearly invent another ID and backstory. Why would they fear criminal charges when the penalty is a comfortable cell, TV and 3 meals a day? Once again, feel free to provide a solution that doesn’t breach international law. Countries breach international laws all the time if national interest is threatened. It's a matter of priorities and elected politicians complying with the mandate they are given by voters. Democracy!!" Voters can’t demand that their elected officials breach international laws. So once again, what’s the solution? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only way to stop the boats is a government will balls leave the human rights court's. Soon as a boat reaches English waters we pick them up destroy the boat and dump them back in French waters. No one's going to do anything a few angry words from the Europeans but not much else. International maritime law, specifically Article 98 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), obligates ships to assist those in danger at sea. Immigration status or other exceptions do not negate the duty to rescue individuals in distress at sea. To do what you suggest violates that law. So in order to stop the migrants you are quite happy for a British cruise liner with 8,000 souls on board to be left to sink unaided mid Atlantic? Interesting. These laws are abused the world over Under international humanitarian law, specifically the Geneva Conventions, occupying forces have obligations to look after the civilian population in the occupied territory, including providing for their basic needs and respecting their rights. This includes respecting their property, prohibiting forcible transfer of the population, and facilitating humanitarian aid. Israel killing children in their beds. " Excellent reply! Ignore the Laws!! I am a homicidal maniac, I like killing people. Will you speak on my behalf at my next trial? Explain that ignoring Laws is good. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet another thread where never the twain shall meet and most of the posts so far have been more about personal attacks than solving the issue. " I know the standard of debate on fabs is poor, but to follow up this (above) with the below paragraph is actually hilarious: "Those on the left want to welcome them all with open arms, especially the terrorists, foreign agents, rapists, drug dealers and pedophiles. And they expect those on the right to pay for it and go along with it. If you don’t you’re a Nazi. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the levels of paranoia among those trapped in the far right echo chamber is off the scale." It’s an education problem that’s rife in the U.K. Social media has a lot to answer for. YouTube experts and online grifters saying anything for clicks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. That's a flawed concept. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 20% are genuine asylum seekers and successfully qualify for asylum in the UK. What will the 80% do? Say "Oh never mind, I'll go back to Syria, Albania ....wherever"? No, they'll just pitch up at Calais and try again. Knowing that they’ll be turned around? Or perhaps face criminal charges? They would clearly invent another ID and backstory. Why would they fear criminal charges when the penalty is a comfortable cell, TV and 3 meals a day? Once again, feel free to provide a solution that doesn’t breach international law. Countries breach international laws all the time if national interest is threatened. It's a matter of priorities and elected politicians complying with the mandate they are given by voters. Democracy!! Voters can’t demand that their elected officials breach international laws. So once again, what’s the solution? " I read the solution get rid of human rights due to what is a small number of people considering our population of millions that those millions must give away our rights to suit a small number of people who are fed up with migrants. In the past most people hated the rich buying up assets and other things, suddenly Enoch Powell telling us it isn't the rich or the establishment it was immigrants. And everyone hated immigrants. Unrest in the 80's it is those bla0k people, and the 90's. Now it is migrants. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the levels of paranoia among those trapped in the far right echo chamber is off the scale." Add in gross ignorance and obscene assumptions and the gullibility to believe (because it's said so) anything that fits their bias.. And people look back in history and ponder how so called normal citizens can be manipulated to the point they act like a mob.. Reminiscent of the attack upon the paediatric consultant when the news of the world where whipping up fear.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet another thread where never the twain shall meet and most of the posts so far have been more about personal attacks than solving the issue. I know the standard of debate on fabs is poor, but to follow up this (above) with the below paragraph is actually hilarious: Those on the left want to welcome them all with open arms, especially the terrorists, foreign agents, rapists, drug dealers and pedophiles. And they expect those on the right to pay for it and go along with it. If you don’t you’re a Nazi. " There was a certain amount of irony I’ll admit, or perhaps it was poetic licence? lol I clearly over egged the pudding but calling people a Nazi (not saying you have) because they don’t want to pay for a free hotel and give free money to foreign national pedophiles is also over egging the pudding. “See one, play one” as they say in cribbage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the levels of paranoia among those trapped in the far right echo chamber is off the scale." Are those levels any different from those trapped in the far left echo chamber🤷🏻♂️ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the levels of paranoia among those trapped in the far right echo chamber is off the scale. Are those levels any different from those trapped in the far left echo chamber🤷🏻♂️" why don't you tell us oh hirsute font of all knowledge | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet another thread where never the twain shall meet and most of the posts so far have been more about personal attacks than solving the issue. We have laws and conventions which we are legally bound to abide by. Other countries don’t feel that they need to of course. Even seen news reports where some of those oh so noble liberal EU countries fudge the lines when it suits them, but we have to abide by them to the letter. International laws and treaties are important. We should rescue these boats that have booked a day trip from France in to the channel and back to France. Unfortunately our coastguard get confused and think they booked a trip to Kent. Can’t have done that, they left their ID on the beach. They’d bring it if they wanted to enter a different country. This topic is simple…. Those on the left want to welcome them all with open arms, especially the terrorists, foreign agents, rapists, drug dealers and pedophiles. And they expect those on the right to pay for it and go along with it. If you don’t you’re a Nazi. Those with more conservative views don’t want to pay for it. They also recognise the massive infrastructure problems that’s being constantly added to on a seemingly daily basis, that we don’t have the money to fix. Nothing Nazi about that but hey ho The current government (and successive governments since Blair got in) must either want more migrants or they are legally shackled from tackling the issues by the afore mentioned international laws and treaties. So as I see it, as a nation we have two routes. We either bend over and take it up the arse like we have been doing, or we do something about those laws and treaties. There is no way in a million years that a former human rights lawyer who has protected terrorists, rapists and pedophiles is going to do anything about those laws and treaties. And those waiting in the wings to replace him will put on a free shuttle service from as many countries as possible to bring in even more. She’d probably take out advertising on every countries national radio to make sure they know about the free houses she’s building for them and the free money she’ll give them. And Kemi has said she won’t either. The big political issues used to be education, health care, the economy and defence. Illegal migration is choking the first 3 to death and doing nothing to help the 4th. I know we won’t all agree on how to tackle the issue, but it’s staggering to think that some people don’t seem to think it’s an issue. " I worked in public services when Cameron got in, over night youth services were gone community centres and councils had their budgets slashed. And the same has been going on since it was called austerity an excuse to siphon off cash from us to the rich. And if anyone questions this it the migrant fault. You really do not see the bigger picture and what is behind this, there are few rich but lot of us and they are scared of losing that wealth and especially power of which you want to give them more. A solution would be to empty your bank account and pension and just give it to the nearest Manson you find. The biggest cash grab was during covid to the tune of 16,500 for every adult person. How do I know this that is the debt we owe them and they are taking it through utilities, every bill we pay has risen some above inflation. But it isn't any government fault, it is those migrants. The millions of pounds it is said to cost for every migrant is not so they see very little of that cash, it goes to companies like Serco, hotels and the such it is greed and while they turn your head they are picking your pocket. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. That's a flawed concept. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 20% are genuine asylum seekers and successfully qualify for asylum in the UK. What will the 80% do? Say "Oh never mind, I'll go back to Syria, Albania ....wherever"? No, they'll just pitch up at Calais and try again. Knowing that they’ll be turned around? Or perhaps face criminal charges? They would clearly invent another ID and backstory. Why would they fear criminal charges when the penalty is a comfortable cell, TV and 3 meals a day? Once again, feel free to provide a solution that doesn’t breach international law." You're starting from the false assumption that International 'Law' should be respected. Britain had a very robust human rights structure which is accountable to the people through Parliamentary elections, as Jack Straw has said. Many European nations that send Judges to the EHRC are extraordinary corrupt with no proper legal or democratic checks or balances. The idea that the world's oldest continuous Parliament should be taking instruction from Slovenia or Romania is not a serious proposition. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". You're starting from the false assumption that International 'Law' should be respected.." As above, we have a very obvious education problem in the U.K. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read the solution get rid of human rights due to what is a small number of people considering our population of millions that those millions must give away our rights to suit a small number of people who are fed up with migrants." Small number? What like half a dozen or so? 50? 500? A million? I’m not a Reform supporter by the way, but they only have one policy for their manifesto and they have the following if close to half the population in the polls. Not bad for a bunch of Nazi’s that have only been around for 5 minutes. Nobody is advocating abolishing human rights, they are advocating modernisation of some of the laws and treaties that govern them. Some of which have been around for over 70 years. You think the world is still the same as it was 70 years ago? The practicality of the current situation… Foreign national arrives on the beach. Free 4star hotel and pocket money while he waits 18 months or so for a hearing. He lies about persecution. Asylum denied. Lodges an appeal via his £1000 a day barrister and remains here another 6 months till his appeal. Home office review his appeal and it’s denied. Appeals via the afore mentioned barrister to the courts. Then one of 2 things happen, the court grants his appeal and he gets to stay, or it’s denied and he goes on the run and gets to stay anyway. But let me ask you a simple question, if it’s only a handful of people arriving here illegally, why is it costing £15 billion a year to look after them while they wait for their hearing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The practicality of the current situation… Foreign national arrives on the beach. Free 4star hotel and pocket money while he waits 18 months or so for a hearing. He lies about persecution. Asylum denied. Lodges an appeal via his £1000 a day barrister and remains here another 6 months till his appeal. Home office review his appeal and it’s denied. Appeals via the afore mentioned barrister to the courts. Then one of 2 things happen, the court grants his appeal and he gets to stay, or it’s denied and he goes on the run and gets to stay anyway. " So much citation needed that I’m not sure where to begin. Let’s start with one fact though, Labour are already doing a better job of deporting criminals and illegals migrants than the Tories were doing. That’s not anecdote - that’s data from 2018-2025 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How is this in any way related to Brexit?" "No Dublin agreement or returns process with France and EU nations." The Dublin agreement meant that we could return anyone that had previously had an asylum claim rejected by an EU country. It covered only about 2% of those that applied here. In every year that it applied, Britain was given more returns to the UK than we sent back to the EU. Brexit meant the end of the Dublin Agreement, which meant that the net flow of asylum seekers reduced very slightly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How is this in any way related to Brexit? No Dublin agreement or returns process with France and EU nations. The Dublin agreement meant that we could return anyone that had previously had an asylum claim rejected by an EU country. It covered only about 2% of those that applied here. In every year that it applied, Britain was given more returns to the UK than we sent back to the EU. Brexit meant the end of the Dublin Agreement, which meant that the net flow of asylum seekers reduced very slightly." Did you read the piece? I’d be interested to hear your counter arguments in full. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. That's a flawed concept. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 20% are genuine asylum seekers and successfully qualify for asylum in the UK. What will the 80% do? Say "Oh never mind, I'll go back to Syria, Albania ....wherever"? No, they'll just pitch up at Calais and try again. Knowing that they’ll be turned around? Or perhaps face criminal charges? They would clearly invent another ID and backstory. Why would they fear criminal charges when the penalty is a comfortable cell, TV and 3 meals a day? Once again, feel free to provide a solution that doesn’t breach international law. You're starting from the false assumption that International 'Law' should be respected. Britain had a very robust human rights structure which is accountable to the people through Parliamentary elections, as Jack Straw has said. Many European nations that send Judges to the EHRC are extraordinary corrupt with no proper legal or democratic checks or balances. The idea that the world's oldest continuous Parliament should be taking instruction from Slovenia or Romania is not a serious proposition." This is pure colonialism .. Yes there is corruption but if you seriously don't think our own system is rife with it and that because we are the oldest etc we (those who profit) haven't become more adept at it and much better of hiding it then I'm surprised at you.. It's often said we taught the world this that and the other and yes to a point that's true but we also taught where it suited how to subvert and destabilise democracies through violence those places that didn't suit our aims as an empire.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well small boat crossings weren’t a particularly enormous problem pre-Brexit, and have ramped up since." Of course they weren't. Previously people could apply for asylum in any EU country, and once accepted they had freedom of movement to get to the UK. That ended when we left the EU, so now they have to use a different approach. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But let me ask you a simple question, if it’s only a handful of people arriving here illegally, why is it costing £15 billion a year to look after them while they wait for their hearing? " Follow the money,it's the same companies that profit from owning prisons and making a profit from that.. Ditto COVID.. One being cynical might think the whole thing is about maximising profit for a few select companies and ensures people are further divided by what they are spoon fed.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. That's a flawed concept. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 20% are genuine asylum seekers and successfully qualify for asylum in the UK. What will the 80% do? Say "Oh never mind, I'll go back to Syria, Albania ....wherever"? No, they'll just pitch up at Calais and try again. Knowing that they’ll be turned around? Or perhaps face criminal charges? They would clearly invent another ID and backstory. Why would they fear criminal charges when the penalty is a comfortable cell, TV and 3 meals a day? Once again, feel free to provide a solution that doesn’t breach international law. You're starting from the false assumption that International 'Law' should be respected. Britain had a very robust human rights structure which is accountable to the people through Parliamentary elections, as Jack Straw has said. Many European nations that send Judges to the EHRC are extraordinary corrupt with no proper legal or democratic checks or balances. The idea that the world's oldest continuous Parliament should be taking instruction from Slovenia or Romania is not a serious proposition. This is pure colonialism .. Yes there is corruption but if you seriously don't think our own system is rife with it and that because we are the oldest etc we (those who profit) haven't become more adept at it and much better of hiding it then I'm surprised at you.. It's often said we taught the world this that and the other and yes to a point that's true but we also taught where it suited how to subvert and destabilise democracies through violence those places that didn't suit our aims as an empire.. " I would recommend some reading on the recent Romanian elections or on judicial corruption in Slovenia or Slovakia. Eye watering stuff. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read the solution get rid of human rights due to what is a small number of people considering our population of millions that those millions must give away our rights to suit a small number of people who are fed up with migrants. Small number? What like half a dozen or so? 50? 500? A million? I’m not a Reform supporter by the way, but they only have one policy for their manifesto and they have the following if close to half the population in the polls. Not bad for a bunch of Nazi’s that have only been around for 5 minutes. Nobody is advocating abolishing human rights, they are advocating modernisation of some of the laws and treaties that govern them. Some of which have been around for over 70 years. You think the world is still the same as it was 70 years ago? The practicality of the current situation… Foreign national arrives on the beach. Free 4star hotel and pocket money while he waits 18 months or so for a hearing. He lies about persecution. Asylum denied. Lodges an appeal via his £1000 a day barrister and remains here another 6 months till his appeal. Home office review his appeal and it’s denied. Appeals via the afore mentioned barrister to the courts. Then one of 2 things happen, the court grants his appeal and he gets to stay, or it’s denied and he goes on the run and gets to stay anyway. But let me ask you a simple question, if it’s only a handful of people arriving here illegally, why is it costing £15 billion a year to look after them while they wait for their hearing? " The term Nazi is your choice of words not mine, I thank you. In comparison to the whole UK population yes it is small by comparison, lots more arrive here legally who need housing, medical care, use our services. You say no one here has said to abolish human rights, go to the top of this thread and read through it again if you wish. As I have already explained companies like Serco etc are given millions upon millions to service contracts (hence SerCo get it).Serco take a cut for themselves that is after the skim off the top by ministers, then the services they are servicing have there cut, hotels are next, catering, room cleaning, support that's were the cash is going, what the migrants get are a room, if that room is 4* you can see where the monies are going it is out of your mouth but it has been spun the other way. If migrants are in 4* accommodation I will agree with you that is a pee take and there's no need for that travel lodge or a private BnB. But because they are, they had no ask in the matter they were put there. and the reason has been explained. 15 billion you say, well the rich are just getting richer whilst us and migrants just get poorer and poorer. Open your eyes to things around you and you will see. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. That's a flawed concept. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 20% are genuine asylum seekers and successfully qualify for asylum in the UK. What will the 80% do? Say "Oh never mind, I'll go back to Syria, Albania ....wherever"? No, they'll just pitch up at Calais and try again. Knowing that they’ll be turned around? Or perhaps face criminal charges? They would clearly invent another ID and backstory. Why would they fear criminal charges when the penalty is a comfortable cell, TV and 3 meals a day? Once again, feel free to provide a solution that doesn’t breach international law. You're starting from the false assumption that International 'Law' should be respected. Britain had a very robust human rights structure which is accountable to the people through Parliamentary elections, as Jack Straw has said. Many European nations that send Judges to the EHRC are extraordinary corrupt with no proper legal or democratic checks or balances. The idea that the world's oldest continuous Parliament should be taking instruction from Slovenia or Romania is not a serious proposition. This is pure colonialism .. Yes there is corruption but if you seriously don't think our own system is rife with it and that because we are the oldest etc we (those who profit) haven't become more adept at it and much better of hiding it then I'm surprised at you.. It's often said we taught the world this that and the other and yes to a point that's true but we also taught where it suited how to subvert and destabilise democracies through violence those places that didn't suit our aims as an empire.. I would recommend some reading on the recent Romanian elections or on judicial corruption in Slovenia or Slovakia. Eye watering stuff." Interference from other global players isn't news, not being rude in saying that.. Post 1945 our friends across the pond where extremely good at it.. Some despots where even wined and dined by our own iron lady as their murdering thugs where pushing people alive from helicopters.. We probably learned from the Romans.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well small boat crossings weren’t a particularly enormous problem pre-Brexit, and have ramped up since. Of course they weren't. Previously people could apply for asylum in any EU country, and once accepted they had freedom of movement to get to the UK. That ended when we left the EU, so now they have to use a different approach." Only with specific documentation, and due to the Dublin agreement, could be returned to the EU nation from where they had been granted asylum. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The practicality of the current situation… Foreign national arrives on the beach. Free 4star hotel and pocket money while he waits 18 months or so for a hearing. He lies about persecution. Asylum denied. Lodges an appeal via his £1000 a day barrister and remains here another 6 months till his appeal. Home office review his appeal and it’s denied. Appeals via the afore mentioned barrister to the courts. Then one of 2 things happen, the court grants his appeal and he gets to stay, or it’s denied and he goes on the run and gets to stay anyway. So much citation needed that I’m not sure where to begin. Let’s start with one fact though, Labour are already doing a better job of deporting criminals and illegals migrants than the Tories were doing. That’s not anecdote - that’s data from 2018-2025" Where did I say it was any better under the conservatives? I actually clearly stated that it’s been pretty much the same under successive leadership and government since Blair. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The practicality of the current situation… Foreign national arrives on the beach. Free 4star hotel and pocket money while he waits 18 months or so for a hearing. He lies about persecution. Asylum denied. Lodges an appeal via his £1000 a day barrister and remains here another 6 months till his appeal. Home office review his appeal and it’s denied. Appeals via the afore mentioned barrister to the courts. Then one of 2 things happen, the court grants his appeal and he gets to stay, or it’s denied and he goes on the run and gets to stay anyway. So much citation needed that I’m not sure where to begin. Let’s start with one fact though, Labour are already doing a better job of deporting criminals and illegals migrants than the Tories were doing. That’s not anecdote - that’s data from 2018-2025 Where did I say it was any better under the conservatives? I actually clearly stated that it’s been pretty much the same under successive leadership and government since Blair. " But since the present Labour govt. Is succeeding more than any govt since at least 2018, it’s a bit weird for people to claim that Labour/Starmer actually want more illegal migration (as we’ve seen this thread) isn’t it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. That's a flawed concept. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 20% are genuine asylum seekers and successfully qualify for asylum in the UK. What will the 80% do? Say "Oh never mind, I'll go back to Syria, Albania ....wherever"? No, they'll just pitch up at Calais and try again. Knowing that they’ll be turned around? Or perhaps face criminal charges? They would clearly invent another ID and backstory. Why would they fear criminal charges when the penalty is a comfortable cell, TV and 3 meals a day? Once again, feel free to provide a solution that doesn’t breach international law. You're starting from the false assumption that International 'Law' should be respected. Britain had a very robust human rights structure which is accountable to the people through Parliamentary elections, as Jack Straw has said. Many European nations that send Judges to the EHRC are extraordinary corrupt with no proper legal or democratic checks or balances. The idea that the world's oldest continuous Parliament should be taking instruction from Slovenia or Romania is not a serious proposition. This is pure colonialism .. Yes there is corruption but if you seriously don't think our own system is rife with it and that because we are the oldest etc we (those who profit) haven't become more adept at it and much better of hiding it then I'm surprised at you.. It's often said we taught the world this that and the other and yes to a point that's true but we also taught where it suited how to subvert and destabilise democracies through violence those places that didn't suit our aims as an empire.. I would recommend some reading on the recent Romanian elections or on judicial corruption in Slovenia or Slovakia. Eye watering stuff. Interference from other global players isn't news, not being rude in saying that.. Post 1945 our friends across the pond where extremely good at it.. Some despots where even wined and dined by our own iron lady as their murdering thugs where pushing people alive from helicopters.. We probably learned from the Romans.." I think you're going off at several tangents there! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. That's a flawed concept. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 20% are genuine asylum seekers and successfully qualify for asylum in the UK. What will the 80% do? Say "Oh never mind, I'll go back to Syria, Albania ....wherever"? No, they'll just pitch up at Calais and try again. Knowing that they’ll be turned around? Or perhaps face criminal charges? They would clearly invent another ID and backstory. Why would they fear criminal charges when the penalty is a comfortable cell, TV and 3 meals a day? Once again, feel free to provide a solution that doesn’t breach international law. You're starting from the false assumption that International 'Law' should be respected. Britain had a very robust human rights structure which is accountable to the people through Parliamentary elections, as Jack Straw has said. Many European nations that send Judges to the EHRC are extraordinary corrupt with no proper legal or democratic checks or balances. The idea that the world's oldest continuous Parliament should be taking instruction from Slovenia or Romania is not a serious proposition. This is pure colonialism .. Yes there is corruption but if you seriously don't think our own system is rife with it and that because we are the oldest etc we (those who profit) haven't become more adept at it and much better of hiding it then I'm surprised at you.. It's often said we taught the world this that and the other and yes to a point that's true but we also taught where it suited how to subvert and destabilise democracies through violence those places that didn't suit our aims as an empire.. I would recommend some reading on the recent Romanian elections or on judicial corruption in Slovenia or Slovakia. Eye watering stuff. Interference from other global players isn't news, not being rude in saying that.. Post 1945 our friends across the pond where extremely good at it.. Some despots where even wined and dined by our own iron lady as their murdering thugs where pushing people alive from helicopters.. We probably learned from the Romans.. I think you're going off at several tangents there!" Possibly but whilst for some they might be unpopular truths they're all relevant.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. The quickest way to stop illegal immigration……is to make it all legal! Genius! Is that what I said, or do you have comprehension issues? Fair play to you. You are the Labour Party’s inner voice. Are you accepting that you failed converted my post? That’s big of you, good work. Let me explain. Asylum clams could be made abroad. If you fail, you’re not permitted to attempt to come to the U.K. if you still do so, you’ll be turned around as you’ve already failed the check. So there’s no point coming. If how ever your claim is successful, you’ll be provided a safe route via ferry. So there’s no small boat gang to deal with. It’s a grown up solution to a problem that Brexit created. " This is not a solution due to the same rules being in place that we are bound to under the 1951 refugee convention. This really needs to be understood because it is the blocker that prevents any proposal being successful | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. The quickest way to stop illegal immigration……is to make it all legal! Genius! Is that what I said, or do you have comprehension issues? Fair play to you. You are the Labour Party’s inner voice. Are you accepting that you failed converted my post? That’s big of you, good work. Let me explain. Asylum clams could be made abroad. If you fail, you’re not permitted to attempt to come to the U.K. if you still do so, you’ll be turned around as you’ve already failed the check. So there’s no point coming. If how ever your claim is successful, you’ll be provided a safe route via ferry. So there’s no small boat gang to deal with. It’s a grown up solution to a problem that Brexit created. This is not a solution due to the same rules being in place that we are bound to under the 1951 refugee convention. This really needs to be understood because it is the blocker that prevents any proposal being successful " It doesn’t get around those rules at all. We still have a means of applying for asylum. We still have checks in place, and we can still return failed seekers who arrive without having gone through the process correctly. It’s an infinitely better system than we presently have. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Very interesting recent letter led by Denmark and Italy, and signed by 7 other countries, calling for changes to ECHR powers on immigration issues. It's obvious across Europe that this unaccountable court has exceeded it's powers and original remit." Globally the numbers projected to be on the move for all the reasons we know are set to rise, like any international agreement and laws it probably needs updating from when it was first signed off.. The direction of travel of independent countries will collectively define how it is changed, ignoring individual states who are signatories won't work as some will just do what they need to.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. The quickest way to stop illegal immigration……is to make it all legal! Genius! Is that what I said, or do you have comprehension issues? Fair play to you. You are the Labour Party’s inner voice. Are you accepting that you failed converted my post? That’s big of you, good work. Let me explain. Asylum clams could be made abroad. If you fail, you’re not permitted to attempt to come to the U.K. if you still do so, you’ll be turned around as you’ve already failed the check. So there’s no point coming. If how ever your claim is successful, you’ll be provided a safe route via ferry. So there’s no small boat gang to deal with. It’s a grown up solution to a problem that Brexit created. This is not a solution due to the same rules being in place that we are bound to under the 1951 refugee convention. This really needs to be understood because it is the blocker that prevents any proposal being successful It doesn’t get around those rules at all. We still have a means of applying for asylum. We still have checks in place, and we can still return failed seekers who arrive without having gone through the process correctly. It’s an infinitely better system than we presently have." It is only a better system if the loopholes are removed, if they stay in place it is a meaningless proposal, as the same loopholes will be exploited then as they are today. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all." Let them sign up to a register so that they can be opted out in decades to come from the essential services and care that we as a nation will need due to our falling birthrates.. Says me the grandson of immigrants.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Let them sign up to a register so that they can be opted out in decades to come from the essential services and care that we as a nation will need due to our falling birthrates.. Says me the grandson of immigrants.." Tongue in cheek..   | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Let them sign up to a register so that they can be opted out in decades to come from the essential services and care that we as a nation will need due to our falling birthrates.. Says me the grandson of immigrants.." Can we have a register of all those willing to take half a dozen undocumented young men into their homes ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all." Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦" That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where is the clause that says “but if they just wanna freeload you can send them back”? " That’s literally the asylum process. We have that right, now. And we do send them back - the biggest problem is the speed of the system. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. " It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention." Sorry, I should have specified: I’m still waiting for someone to offer a *realistic* system. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. Sorry, I should have specified: I’m still waiting for someone to offer a *realistic* system. " Nobody here can offer that. Writing a new convention that ties into UKHR laws is not something anyone could possibly suggest. The first step should be to agree the baseline of rewriting our own convention and understanding the task. I would suggest it could take 5 years +. However this will remove the back and forth we have today that has no resolution, and put the accountability of change on all governments going forward rather than them simply talking about pie in the sky ideas that will never succeed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Very interesting recent letter led by Denmark and Italy, and signed by 7 other countries, calling for changes to ECHR powers on immigration issues. It's obvious across Europe that this unaccountable court has exceeded it's powers and original remit. Globally the numbers projected to be on the move for all the reasons we know are set to rise, like any international agreement and laws it probably needs updating from when it was first signed off.. The direction of travel of independent countries will collectively define how it is changed, ignoring individual states who are signatories won't work as some will just do what they need to.." UN says another 1,200,000,000 by 2080 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. Sorry, I should have specified: I’m still waiting for someone to offer a *realistic* system. " Do a deal with Ukraine They need young men of fighting age. 1000 a week. They will soon get the message. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. " Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. Sorry, I should have specified: I’m still waiting for someone to offer a *realistic* system. Do a deal with Ukraine They need young men of fighting age. 1000 a week. They will soon get the message. " Maybe we could send all those without work or intention of seeking it - including home grown. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively?" I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise." Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications" That reply tells me you are not thinking beyond a personal level. We need to consider a much wider perspective than that to move forward. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. " Leave the ECHR did you say? According to another poster no one on this thread wants that. Just saying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications That reply tells me you are not thinking beyond a personal level. We need to consider a much wider perspective than that to move forward." Leaving the ECHR to prevent small boats is the very definition of small thinking. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise." It would never get the numbers, Boris talked about it although as usual without any specifics and got an 80 seat majority.. Then it was forgotten .. Farage is and will ramp up his intention but it won't happen.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? " The illegal arrivals seem to be commuting more and more with some eye watering numbers especially given the danger involved. It was a hit topic long before the GE and the Tories made lots of claims of how they would stop it. Their Rwanda plan got bogged down in legal challenges and they lost political ground due to not fulfilling their promises. Labour promised their plan of smashing the gangs would work but so far the situation seems to be getting worse. They are nearly 1 year into their term now so still have time but must be aware failure on this topic does not go down well with the electorate | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The illegal arrivals seem to be commuting more and more with some eye watering numbers especially given the danger involved. It was a hit topic long before the GE and the Tories made lots of claims of how they would stop it. Their Rwanda plan got bogged down in legal challenges and they lost political ground due to not fulfilling their promises. Labour promised their plan of smashing the gangs would work but so far the situation seems to be getting worse. They are nearly 1 year into their term now so still have time but must be aware failure on this topic does not go down well with the electorate" Once again, more deportations under Labour than any govt. Since 2018. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. That's a flawed concept. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 20% are genuine asylum seekers and successfully qualify for asylum in the UK. What will the 80% do? Say "Oh never mind, I'll go back to Syria, Albania ....wherever"? No, they'll just pitch up at Calais and try again. Knowing that they’ll be turned around? Or perhaps face criminal charges? They would clearly invent another ID and backstory. Why would they fear criminal charges when the penalty is a comfortable cell, TV and 3 meals a day? Once again, feel free to provide a solution that doesn’t breach international law. Countries breach international laws all the time if national interest is threatened. It's a matter of priorities and elected politicians complying with the mandate they are given by voters. Democracy!! Voters can’t demand that their elected officials breach international laws. So once again, what’s the solution? " The solution is to secure our borders the same as any land border. Turn them back. They are overwhelmingly economic migrants being smuggled into the UK. Consider also, that if this issues isn't sorted in the coming year or so, then expect the inestimable Mr Farage as PM. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. That's a flawed concept. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 20% are genuine asylum seekers and successfully qualify for asylum in the UK. What will the 80% do? Say "Oh never mind, I'll go back to Syria, Albania ....wherever"? No, they'll just pitch up at Calais and try again. Knowing that they’ll be turned around? Or perhaps face criminal charges? They would clearly invent another ID and backstory. Why would they fear criminal charges when the penalty is a comfortable cell, TV and 3 meals a day? Once again, feel free to provide a solution that doesn’t breach international law. Countries breach international laws all the time if national interest is threatened. It's a matter of priorities and elected politicians complying with the mandate they are given by voters. Democracy!! Voters can’t demand that their elected officials breach international laws. So once again, what’s the solution? The solution is to secure our borders the same as any land border. Turn them back. They are overwhelmingly economic migrants being smuggled into the UK. Consider also, that if this issues isn't sorted in the coming year or so, then expect the inestimable Mr Farage as PM. " “ They are overwhelmingly economic migrants being smuggled into the UK” Let’s assume this is true - by your own language you accept that not *all* are economic migrants and some would be eligible for asylum - correct? Which means they can’t be ‘sent back’ because they have a right to make an asylum claim. (Everyone does, even you, me et al). This is really not difficult to understand | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. That's a flawed concept. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 20% are genuine asylum seekers and successfully qualify for asylum in the UK. What will the 80% do? Say "Oh never mind, I'll go back to Syria, Albania ....wherever"? No, they'll just pitch up at Calais and try again. Knowing that they’ll be turned around? Or perhaps face criminal charges? They would clearly invent another ID and backstory. Why would they fear criminal charges when the penalty is a comfortable cell, TV and 3 meals a day? Once again, feel free to provide a solution that doesn’t breach international law. Countries breach international laws all the time if national interest is threatened. It's a matter of priorities and elected politicians complying with the mandate they are given by voters. Democracy!! Voters can’t demand that their elected officials breach international laws. So once again, what’s the solution? The solution is to secure our borders the same as any land border. Turn them back. They are overwhelmingly economic migrants being smuggled into the UK. Consider also, that if this issues isn't sorted in the coming year or so, then expect the inestimable Mr Farage as PM. “ They are overwhelmingly economic migrants being smuggled into the UK” Let’s assume this is true - by your own language you accept that not *all* are economic migrants and some would be eligible for asylum - correct? Which means they can’t be ‘sent back’ because they have a right to make an asylum claim. (Everyone does, even you, me et al). This is really not difficult to understand " Not really, asylum applications could then be duly assessed on the merits of the applicant. The irony of our present mess is that genuine asylum seekers are getting squeezed out of the system by bogus applicants aided and abetted by criminals. That serves nobody. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Not really, asylum applications could then be duly assessed on the merits of the applicant." I’m not sure if you’re serious here. What do you think asylum claims are? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the levels of paranoia among those trapped in the far right echo chamber is off the scale. Are those levels any different from those trapped in the far left echo chamber🤷🏻♂️ why don't you tell us oh hirsute font of all knowledge" I’d say they were probably comparable, extremes of opinion seem to be the order of the day, each being fuelled by the echoes in their own insular bubbles | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications That reply tells me you are not thinking beyond a personal level. We need to consider a much wider perspective than that to move forward. Leaving the ECHR to prevent small boats is the very definition of small thinking. " I'm not sure you understand the underlying problem, because you are offering no argument or way forward that would take away the underlying problem. I can't emphasise this any more than I have, no alternative method of stopping illegal entry by small boat into the country exists. There is nothing we can do to manage a person who falsely claims to be in danger in their home country for any number of reasons, nothing at all. We could continue to go around this circus ring like clowns, but at some point the issues we have with outdated conventions will be closed without due diligence, because that is what the majority of the country want and someone will capitalise on that. Oh wait they already are, carry on as you were. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the levels of paranoia among those trapped in the far right echo chamber is off the scale. Are those levels any different from those trapped in the far left echo chamber🤷🏻♂️ why don't you tell us oh hirsute font of all knowledge I’d say they were probably comparable, extremes of opinion seem to be the order of the day, each being fuelled by the echoes in their own insular bubbles" glad to have helped you with your homework | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications That reply tells me you are not thinking beyond a personal level. We need to consider a much wider perspective than that to move forward. Leaving the ECHR to prevent small boats is the very definition of small thinking. I'm not sure you understand the underlying problem, because you are offering no argument or way forward that would take away the underlying problem. I can't emphasise this any more than I have, no alternative method of stopping illegal entry by small boat into the country exists. There is nothing we can do to manage a person who falsely claims to be in danger in their home country for any number of reasons, nothing at all. We could continue to go around this circus ring like clowns, but at some point the issues we have with outdated conventions will be closed without due diligence, because that is what the majority of the country want and someone will capitalise on that. Oh wait they already are, carry on as you were. " Leaving the EHCR isn’t an option. Primarily because impacts on far more than simply bait crossings, but practically because it requires an act of parliament. Even if reform had enough support to push it through the commons (326 seats with no abstainers of ‘no’ votes from them). It then has to pass the lords. Chance of the lords passing it? 0%. Literally 0% - as we saw with Brexit, the lords are easily mocked but they absolutely will stand up when they have to. So in the absence of your fantasy politics, what do we do? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications That reply tells me you are not thinking beyond a personal level. We need to consider a much wider perspective than that to move forward. Leaving the ECHR to prevent small boats is the very definition of small thinking. I'm not sure you understand the underlying problem, because you are offering no argument or way forward that would take away the underlying problem. I can't emphasise this any more than I have, no alternative method of stopping illegal entry by small boat into the country exists. There is nothing we can do to manage a person who falsely claims to be in danger in their home country for any number of reasons, nothing at all. We could continue to go around this circus ring like clowns, but at some point the issues we have with outdated conventions will be closed without due diligence, because that is what the majority of the country want and someone will capitalise on that. Oh wait they already are, carry on as you were. Leaving the EHCR isn’t an option. Primarily because impacts on far more than simply bait crossings, but practically because it requires an act of parliament. Even if reform had enough support to push it through the commons (326 seats with no abstainers of ‘no’ votes from them). It then has to pass the lords. Chance of the lords passing it? 0%. Literally 0% - as we saw with Brexit, the lords are easily mocked but they absolutely will stand up when they have to. So in the absence of your fantasy politics, what do we do? " I'm going to leave it right here due to you missing every point I have made knowingly or not. For example, the point about understanding the baseline, which could take several years. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications That reply tells me you are not thinking beyond a personal level. We need to consider a much wider perspective than that to move forward. Leaving the ECHR to prevent small boats is the very definition of small thinking. I'm not sure you understand the underlying problem, because you are offering no argument or way forward that would take away the underlying problem. I can't emphasise this any more than I have, no alternative method of stopping illegal entry by small boat into the country exists. There is nothing we can do to manage a person who falsely claims to be in danger in their home country for any number of reasons, nothing at all. We could continue to go around this circus ring like clowns, but at some point the issues we have with outdated conventions will be closed without due diligence, because that is what the majority of the country want and someone will capitalise on that. Oh wait they already are, carry on as you were. Leaving the EHCR isn’t an option. Primarily because impacts on far more than simply bait crossings, but practically because it requires an act of parliament. Even if reform had enough support to push it through the commons (326 seats with no abstainers of ‘no’ votes from them). It then has to pass the lords. Chance of the lords passing it? 0%. Literally 0% - as we saw with Brexit, the lords are easily mocked but they absolutely will stand up when they have to. So in the absence of your fantasy politics, what do we do? I'm going to leave it right here due to you missing every point I have made knowingly or not. For example, the point about understanding the baseline, which could take several years. " You mean the part that you started with “ We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention.” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications That reply tells me you are not thinking beyond a personal level. We need to consider a much wider perspective than that to move forward. Leaving the ECHR to prevent small boats is the very definition of small thinking. I'm not sure you understand the underlying problem, because you are offering no argument or way forward that would take away the underlying problem. I can't emphasise this any more than I have, no alternative method of stopping illegal entry by small boat into the country exists. There is nothing we can do to manage a person who falsely claims to be in danger in their home country for any number of reasons, nothing at all. We could continue to go around this circus ring like clowns, but at some point the issues we have with outdated conventions will be closed without due diligence, because that is what the majority of the country want and someone will capitalise on that. Oh wait they already are, carry on as you were. Leaving the EHCR isn’t an option. Primarily because impacts on far more than simply bait crossings, but practically because it requires an act of parliament. Even if reform had enough support to push it through the commons (326 seats with no abstainers of ‘no’ votes from them). It then has to pass the lords. Chance of the lords passing it? 0%. Literally 0% - as we saw with Brexit, the lords are easily mocked but they absolutely will stand up when they have to. So in the absence of your fantasy politics, what do we do? I'm going to leave it right here due to you missing every point I have made knowingly or not. For example, the point about understanding the baseline, which could take several years. You mean the part that you started with “ We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention.” " Let me help you out, this too was part of the messages in that conversation you took a single line from, it helps to keep things in context: "I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications That reply tells me you are not thinking beyond a personal level. We need to consider a much wider perspective than that to move forward. Leaving the ECHR to prevent small boats is the very definition of small thinking. I'm not sure you understand the underlying problem, because you are offering no argument or way forward that would take away the underlying problem. I can't emphasise this any more than I have, no alternative method of stopping illegal entry by small boat into the country exists. There is nothing we can do to manage a person who falsely claims to be in danger in their home country for any number of reasons, nothing at all. We could continue to go around this circus ring like clowns, but at some point the issues we have with outdated conventions will be closed without due diligence, because that is what the majority of the country want and someone will capitalise on that. Oh wait they already are, carry on as you were. Leaving the EHCR isn’t an option. Primarily because impacts on far more than simply bait crossings, but practically because it requires an act of parliament. Even if reform had enough support to push it through the commons (326 seats with no abstainers of ‘no’ votes from them). It then has to pass the lords. Chance of the lords passing it? 0%. Literally 0% - as we saw with Brexit, the lords are easily mocked but they absolutely will stand up when they have to. So in the absence of your fantasy politics, what do we do? " So when did the House of Lords being able to stop legislation happen? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. " That’s the first statement in this post. " If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. " So now you’re moving on, but your premise is that everything else will *follow* leaving the ECHR. " Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from.” " And there’s your statement about baseline - so your baseline *begins* with leaving the ECHR. Do you see now where you’ve gone wrong? Your whole ‘suggestion’ as posted is predicated on leaving the ECHR. Once again, we are not leaving the ECHR, realistically. Only a fool would think it likely. So your suggestion is vague fantasy nonsense | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications That reply tells me you are not thinking beyond a personal level. We need to consider a much wider perspective than that to move forward. Leaving the ECHR to prevent small boats is the very definition of small thinking. I'm not sure you understand the underlying problem, because you are offering no argument or way forward that would take away the underlying problem. I can't emphasise this any more than I have, no alternative method of stopping illegal entry by small boat into the country exists. There is nothing we can do to manage a person who falsely claims to be in danger in their home country for any number of reasons, nothing at all. We could continue to go around this circus ring like clowns, but at some point the issues we have with outdated conventions will be closed without due diligence, because that is what the majority of the country want and someone will capitalise on that. Oh wait they already are, carry on as you were. Leaving the EHCR isn’t an option. Primarily because impacts on far more than simply bait crossings, but practically because it requires an act of parliament. Even if reform had enough support to push it through the commons (326 seats with no abstainers of ‘no’ votes from them). It then has to pass the lords. Chance of the lords passing it? 0%. Literally 0% - as we saw with Brexit, the lords are easily mocked but they absolutely will stand up when they have to. So in the absence of your fantasy politics, what do we do? So when did the House of Lords being able to stop legislation happen?" You know the lords can delay and amend acts of Parliament, right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. " Why would anyone want safe routes. These people are arriving in the county illegally are are not wanted here. If their documentation is incorrect they should be returned immediately to their county of original. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications That reply tells me you are not thinking beyond a personal level. We need to consider a much wider perspective than that to move forward. Leaving the ECHR to prevent small boats is the very definition of small thinking. I'm not sure you understand the underlying problem, because you are offering no argument or way forward that would take away the underlying problem. I can't emphasise this any more than I have, no alternative method of stopping illegal entry by small boat into the country exists. There is nothing we can do to manage a person who falsely claims to be in danger in their home country for any number of reasons, nothing at all. We could continue to go around this circus ring like clowns, but at some point the issues we have with outdated conventions will be closed without due diligence, because that is what the majority of the country want and someone will capitalise on that. Oh wait they already are, carry on as you were. Leaving the EHCR isn’t an option. Primarily because impacts on far more than simply bait crossings, but practically because it requires an act of parliament. Even if reform had enough support to push it through the commons (326 seats with no abstainers of ‘no’ votes from them). It then has to pass the lords. Chance of the lords passing it? 0%. Literally 0% - as we saw with Brexit, the lords are easily mocked but they absolutely will stand up when they have to. So in the absence of your fantasy politics, what do we do? So when did the House of Lords being able to stop legislation happen? You know the lords can delay and amend acts of Parliament, right? " Ah okay, so they can’t stop legislation. I’m glad we have cleared that up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications That reply tells me you are not thinking beyond a personal level. We need to consider a much wider perspective than that to move forward. Leaving the ECHR to prevent small boats is the very definition of small thinking. I'm not sure you understand the underlying problem, because you are offering no argument or way forward that would take away the underlying problem. I can't emphasise this any more than I have, no alternative method of stopping illegal entry by small boat into the country exists. There is nothing we can do to manage a person who falsely claims to be in danger in their home country for any number of reasons, nothing at all. We could continue to go around this circus ring like clowns, but at some point the issues we have with outdated conventions will be closed without due diligence, because that is what the majority of the country want and someone will capitalise on that. Oh wait they already are, carry on as you were. Leaving the EHCR isn’t an option. Primarily because impacts on far more than simply bait crossings, but practically because it requires an act of parliament. Even if reform had enough support to push it through the commons (326 seats with no abstainers of ‘no’ votes from them). It then has to pass the lords. Chance of the lords passing it? 0%. Literally 0% - as we saw with Brexit, the lords are easily mocked but they absolutely will stand up when they have to. So in the absence of your fantasy politics, what do we do? So when did the House of Lords being able to stop legislation happen? You know the lords can delay and amend acts of Parliament, right? Ah okay, so they can’t stop legislation. I’m glad we have cleared that up." They can revise it to the point that there’s no point pressing ahead, correct? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. Why would anyone want safe routes. These people are arriving in the county illegally are are not wanted here. If their documentation is incorrect they should be returned immediately to their county of original. " Blimey, another one who doesn’t understand the asylum process. Like I said, we have an education problem in the U.K. not helped by internet experts and populist politicians. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How is this in any way related to Brexit?" "No Dublin agreement or returns process with France and EU nations." "The Dublin agreement meant that we could return anyone that had previously had an asylum claim rejected by an EU country. It covered only about 2% of those that applied here. In every year that it applied, Britain was given more returns to the UK than we sent back to the EU. Brexit meant the end of the Dublin Agreement, which meant that the net flow of asylum seekers reduced very slightly." "Did you read the piece? I’d be interested to hear your counter arguments in full." There was no point reading it when the very first paragraph turned out to be wildly incorrect. It stated "There were no migrants arriving by small boats claiming asylum on record until 2018". Here's a BBC News article about migrants in small boats from May 2016: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36410828 It goes on to say "Anyone travelling to the UK irregularly [...] could [be] returned to the first safe EU country they had arrived in originally". That's completely wrong. The Dublin III Agreement allowed us to return any asylum seeker that had already applied for asylum in another EU country, and had been turned down. It did not allow us to return people that had simply travelled from an EU country but not applied for asylum there. The figures for Dublin III returns are available from government websites, it's easy to check how many there were for each year. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How is this in any way related to Brexit? No Dublin agreement or returns process with France and EU nations. The Dublin agreement meant that we could return anyone that had previously had an asylum claim rejected by an EU country. It covered only about 2% of those that applied here. In every year that it applied, Britain was given more returns to the UK than we sent back to the EU. Brexit meant the end of the Dublin Agreement, which meant that the net flow of asylum seekers reduced very slightly. Did you read the piece? I’d be interested to hear your counter arguments in full. There was no point reading it when the very first paragraph turned out to be wildly incorrect." Thanks for confirming. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How is this in any way related to Brexit? No Dublin agreement or returns process with France and EU nations. The Dublin agreement meant that we could return anyone that had previously had an asylum claim rejected by an EU country. It covered only about 2% of those that applied here. In every year that it applied, Britain was given more returns to the UK than we sent back to the EU. Brexit meant the end of the Dublin Agreement, which meant that the net flow of asylum seekers reduced very slightly. Did you read the piece? I’d be interested to hear your counter arguments in full. There was no point reading it when the very first paragraph turned out to be wildly incorrect. It stated "There were no migrants arriving by small boats claiming asylum on record until 2018". Here's a BBC News article about migrants in small boats from May 2016: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36410828 It goes on to say "Anyone travelling to the UK irregularly [...] could [be] returned to the first safe EU country they had arrived in originally". That's completely wrong. The Dublin III Agreement allowed us to return any asylum seeker that had already applied for asylum in another EU country, and had been turned down. It did not allow us to return people that had simply travelled from an EU country but not applied for asylum there. The figures for Dublin III returns are available from government websites, it's easy to check how many there were for each year." You know we could return anyone (including legal EU citizens) if they met criteria (such as a sustained period of unemployment, no means to support themselves etc). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well small boat crossings weren’t a particularly enormous problem pre-Brexit, and have ramped up since." "Of course they weren't. Previously people could apply for asylum in any EU country, and once accepted they had freedom of movement to get to the UK. That ended when we left the EU, so now they have to use a different approach." "Only with specific documentation, and due to the Dublin agreement, could be returned to the EU nation from where they had been granted asylum." People granted asylum in any country get citizenship, which in the EU means an ID card. Under EU freedom of movement that's all they needed to get on a ferry and travel to the UK. The Dublin Agreement did not allow us to return them, as they were EU citizens and therefore allowed to be here. We could only return them if they made another asylum application here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications That reply tells me you are not thinking beyond a personal level. We need to consider a much wider perspective than that to move forward. Leaving the ECHR to prevent small boats is the very definition of small thinking. I'm not sure you understand the underlying problem, because you are offering no argument or way forward that would take away the underlying problem. I can't emphasise this any more than I have, no alternative method of stopping illegal entry by small boat into the country exists. There is nothing we can do to manage a person who falsely claims to be in danger in their home country for any number of reasons, nothing at all. We could continue to go around this circus ring like clowns, but at some point the issues we have with outdated conventions will be closed without due diligence, because that is what the majority of the country want and someone will capitalise on that. Oh wait they already are, carry on as you were. Leaving the EHCR isn’t an option. Primarily because impacts on far more than simply bait crossings, but practically because it requires an act of parliament. Even if reform had enough support to push it through the commons (326 seats with no abstainers of ‘no’ votes from them). It then has to pass the lords. Chance of the lords passing it? 0%. Literally 0% - as we saw with Brexit, the lords are easily mocked but they absolutely will stand up when they have to. So in the absence of your fantasy politics, what do we do? So when did the House of Lords being able to stop legislation happen? You know the lords can delay and amend acts of Parliament, right? Ah okay, so they can’t stop legislation. I’m glad we have cleared that up. They can revise it to the point that there’s no point pressing ahead, correct? " No. Ultimately if the Commons persists it gets its way. I think maybe you aren’t the constitutional expert you think you are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well small boat crossings weren’t a particularly enormous problem pre-Brexit, and have ramped up since. Of course they weren't. Previously people could apply for asylum in any EU country, and once accepted they had freedom of movement to get to the UK. That ended when we left the EU, so now they have to use a different approach. Only with specific documentation, and due to the Dublin agreement, could be returned to the EU nation from where they had been granted asylum. People granted asylum in any country get citizenship, which in the EU means an ID card. Under EU freedom of movement that's all they needed to get on a ferry and travel to the UK. The Dublin Agreement did not allow us to return them, as they were EU citizens and therefore allowed to be here. We could only return them if they made another asylum application here." Or if they were incapable of supporting themselves. (Which we probs should have used more, but that was a U.K. gov. failing, not the EU) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications That reply tells me you are not thinking beyond a personal level. We need to consider a much wider perspective than that to move forward. Leaving the ECHR to prevent small boats is the very definition of small thinking. I'm not sure you understand the underlying problem, because you are offering no argument or way forward that would take away the underlying problem. I can't emphasise this any more than I have, no alternative method of stopping illegal entry by small boat into the country exists. There is nothing we can do to manage a person who falsely claims to be in danger in their home country for any number of reasons, nothing at all. We could continue to go around this circus ring like clowns, but at some point the issues we have with outdated conventions will be closed without due diligence, because that is what the majority of the country want and someone will capitalise on that. Oh wait they already are, carry on as you were. Leaving the EHCR isn’t an option. Primarily because impacts on far more than simply bait crossings, but practically because it requires an act of parliament. Even if reform had enough support to push it through the commons (326 seats with no abstainers of ‘no’ votes from them). It then has to pass the lords. Chance of the lords passing it? 0%. Literally 0% - as we saw with Brexit, the lords are easily mocked but they absolutely will stand up when they have to. So in the absence of your fantasy politics, what do we do? So when did the House of Lords being able to stop legislation happen? You know the lords can delay and amend acts of Parliament, right? Ah okay, so they can’t stop legislation. I’m glad we have cleared that up. They can revise it to the point that there’s no point pressing ahead, correct? No. Ultimately if the Commons persists it gets its way. I think maybe you aren’t the constitutional expert you think you are." I’ve not pretended to be an expert, though I am right on the fact that we won’t leave the ECHR | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications That reply tells me you are not thinking beyond a personal level. We need to consider a much wider perspective than that to move forward. Leaving the ECHR to prevent small boats is the very definition of small thinking. I'm not sure you understand the underlying problem, because you are offering no argument or way forward that would take away the underlying problem. I can't emphasise this any more than I have, no alternative method of stopping illegal entry by small boat into the country exists. There is nothing we can do to manage a person who falsely claims to be in danger in their home country for any number of reasons, nothing at all. We could continue to go around this circus ring like clowns, but at some point the issues we have with outdated conventions will be closed without due diligence, because that is what the majority of the country want and someone will capitalise on that. Oh wait they already are, carry on as you were. Leaving the EHCR isn’t an option. Primarily because impacts on far more than simply bait crossings, but practically because it requires an act of parliament. Even if reform had enough support to push it through the commons (326 seats with no abstainers of ‘no’ votes from them). It then has to pass the lords. Chance of the lords passing it? 0%. Literally 0% - as we saw with Brexit, the lords are easily mocked but they absolutely will stand up when they have to. So in the absence of your fantasy politics, what do we do? So when did the House of Lords being able to stop legislation happen? You know the lords can delay and amend acts of Parliament, right? Ah okay, so they can’t stop legislation. I’m glad we have cleared that up. They can revise it to the point that there’s no point pressing ahead, correct? No. Ultimately if the Commons persists it gets its way. I think maybe you aren’t the constitutional expert you think you are. I’ve not pretended to be an expert, though I am right on the fact that we won’t leave the ECHR "Hmm yes some Labour shill on the internet who wants open borders says we won’t leave the ECHR. Game over. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications That reply tells me you are not thinking beyond a personal level. We need to consider a much wider perspective than that to move forward. Leaving the ECHR to prevent small boats is the very definition of small thinking. I'm not sure you understand the underlying problem, because you are offering no argument or way forward that would take away the underlying problem. I can't emphasise this any more than I have, no alternative method of stopping illegal entry by small boat into the country exists. There is nothing we can do to manage a person who falsely claims to be in danger in their home country for any number of reasons, nothing at all. We could continue to go around this circus ring like clowns, but at some point the issues we have with outdated conventions will be closed without due diligence, because that is what the majority of the country want and someone will capitalise on that. Oh wait they already are, carry on as you were. Leaving the EHCR isn’t an option. Primarily because impacts on far more than simply bait crossings, but practically because it requires an act of parliament. Even if reform had enough support to push it through the commons (326 seats with no abstainers of ‘no’ votes from them). It then has to pass the lords. Chance of the lords passing it? 0%. Literally 0% - as we saw with Brexit, the lords are easily mocked but they absolutely will stand up when they have to. So in the absence of your fantasy politics, what do we do? So when did the House of Lords being able to stop legislation happen? You know the lords can delay and amend acts of Parliament, right? Ah okay, so they can’t stop legislation. I’m glad we have cleared that up. They can revise it to the point that there’s no point pressing ahead, correct? No. Ultimately if the Commons persists it gets its way. I think maybe you aren’t the constitutional expert you think you are. I’ve not pretended to be an expert, though I am right on the fact that we won’t leave the ECHR
Hmm yes some Labour shill on the internet who wants open borders says we won’t leave the ECHR.
Game over."I mean be careful what you wish for. You have no idea what the hell you’re dealing with if you genuinely believe it’s a good idea. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know we could return anyone (including legal EU citizens) if they met criteria (such as a sustained period of unemployment, no means to support themselves etc)." That's correct, but only if they were registered and we knew where they were. There's a thriving black economy in the UK that keeps these people off the streets without the state getting involved. If they create ties here (such as having children), then they can't be sent back. Again, the numbers of returns under Dublin III can easily be found online, and they are very small numbers. People granted asylum in the EU *are* "legal EU citizens". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Hmm yes some Labour shill on the internet who wants open borders says we won’t leave the ECHR. Game over." Here’s a decent and easy to digest piece; https://consoc.org.uk/leaving-the-echr/ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications That reply tells me you are not thinking beyond a personal level. We need to consider a much wider perspective than that to move forward. Leaving the ECHR to prevent small boats is the very definition of small thinking. I'm not sure you understand the underlying problem, because you are offering no argument or way forward that would take away the underlying problem. I can't emphasise this any more than I have, no alternative method of stopping illegal entry by small boat into the country exists. There is nothing we can do to manage a person who falsely claims to be in danger in their home country for any number of reasons, nothing at all. We could continue to go around this circus ring like clowns, but at some point the issues we have with outdated conventions will be closed without due diligence, because that is what the majority of the country want and someone will capitalise on that. Oh wait they already are, carry on as you were. Leaving the EHCR isn’t an option. Primarily because impacts on far more than simply bait crossings, but practically because it requires an act of parliament. Even if reform had enough support to push it through the commons (326 seats with no abstainers of ‘no’ votes from them). It then has to pass the lords. Chance of the lords passing it? 0%. Literally 0% - as we saw with Brexit, the lords are easily mocked but they absolutely will stand up when they have to. So in the absence of your fantasy politics, what do we do? So when did the House of Lords being able to stop legislation happen? You know the lords can delay and amend acts of Parliament, right? Ah okay, so they can’t stop legislation. I’m glad we have cleared that up. They can revise it to the point that there’s no point pressing ahead, correct? No. Ultimately if the Commons persists it gets its way. I think maybe you aren’t the constitutional expert you think you are. I’ve not pretended to be an expert, though I am right on the fact that we won’t leave the ECHR
Hmm yes some Labour shill on the internet who wants open borders says we won’t leave the ECHR.
Game over.
I mean be careful what you wish for. You have no idea what the hell you’re dealing with if you genuinely believe it’s a good idea. "Lots of countries around the world are not in the ECHR and have no human rights issues. The ECHR is enforced by a political court which operates entirely outside of usual judicial norms and generally makes stuff up as it goes along. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. If we can achieve that we would need to write our own / or joint conventions that are fit for a modern day country. Only then will we be in a position to manage boat crossings effectively by having the tools to remove those who are playing the system and support those who genuinely need our help. This is the baseline we need to start from. Surely any new convention, joint or not will have to work with others..? As we do with trade etc.. How long do you think that might take? getting whatever through our own system then agreement with others will not happen overnight.. As we have found post Brexit where we are now outside the tent surely the better and quicker option is to work with what we have to amend it collectively? I mentioned that in a post a few up from this one. It would take many years, but the first step needs to be an understanding of the issues we have that are preventing us from developing a modern day response to exploited loopholes, and a baseline to remedy. Until then all suggestions are simply noise. Suggestions to leave the ECHR are nothing more than noise from those who have no understanding of the implications That reply tells me you are not thinking beyond a personal level. We need to consider a much wider perspective than that to move forward. Leaving the ECHR to prevent small boats is the very definition of small thinking. I'm not sure you understand the underlying problem, because you are offering no argument or way forward that would take away the underlying problem. I can't emphasise this any more than I have, no alternative method of stopping illegal entry by small boat into the country exists. There is nothing we can do to manage a person who falsely claims to be in danger in their home country for any number of reasons, nothing at all. We could continue to go around this circus ring like clowns, but at some point the issues we have with outdated conventions will be closed without due diligence, because that is what the majority of the country want and someone will capitalise on that. Oh wait they already are, carry on as you were. Leaving the EHCR isn’t an option. Primarily because impacts on far more than simply bait crossings, but practically because it requires an act of parliament. Even if reform had enough support to push it through the commons (326 seats with no abstainers of ‘no’ votes from them). It then has to pass the lords. Chance of the lords passing it? 0%. Literally 0% - as we saw with Brexit, the lords are easily mocked but they absolutely will stand up when they have to. So in the absence of your fantasy politics, what do we do? So when did the House of Lords being able to stop legislation happen? You know the lords can delay and amend acts of Parliament, right? Ah okay, so they can’t stop legislation. I’m glad we have cleared that up. They can revise it to the point that there’s no point pressing ahead, correct? No. Ultimately if the Commons persists it gets its way. I think maybe you aren’t the constitutional expert you think you are. I’ve not pretended to be an expert, though I am right on the fact that we won’t leave the ECHR
Hmm yes some Labour shill on the internet who wants open borders says we won’t leave the ECHR.
Game over.
I mean be careful what you wish for. You have no idea what the hell you’re dealing with if you genuinely believe it’s a good idea.
Lots of countries around the world are not in the ECHR and have no human rights issues.
The ECHR is enforced by a political court which operates entirely outside of usual judicial norms and generally makes stuff up as it goes along.
"Not being in the ECHR is *very* different from leaving the ECHR - the article linked above is a simple resource. Also, your end paragraph is abject nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem we have is that some don’t even want an effective asylum system. They want no migrants at all. Oh dear, lose the argument, cue the abuse.🤦 That’s not abuse - it’s literally been said in this very thread. I’m still waiting for anyone to suggest a system that retains our responsibilities to international law and conventions. It has been suggested already you have not excepted the answer. We need to leave the ECHR, this will allow is to then remove ourselves from the 1951 refugee convention. Sorry, I should have specified: I’m still waiting for someone to offer a *realistic* system. Do a deal with Ukraine They need young men of fighting age. 1000 a week. They will soon get the message. " These men deserted their own country, they ain’t never gonna fight for someone else’s | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just privatise immigration like in UAE, works well , there’s zero illegal immigration’s. These people have a lot of money to get all the way here , many have property in their own land & they will happily work in the care and food sectors for min wage. Real asylum seekers can’t afford to get here , but when you make legal immigration hard, they will come this way instead. " The UAE do accept asylum seekers, not in great numbers but they accept them - because that’s what a decent asylum system does. If we had one, we could do the same. Grant asylum to those deserving. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just privatise immigration like in UAE, works well , there’s zero illegal immigration’s. These people have a lot of money to get all the way here , many have property in their own land & they will happily work in the care and food sectors for min wage. Real asylum seekers can’t afford to get here , but when you make legal immigration hard, they will come this way instead. The UAE do accept asylum seekers, not in great numbers but they accept them - because that’s what a decent asylum system does. If we had one, we could do the same. Grant asylum to those deserving." No one bothers , it’s so easy to get in the legal way , plus there’s no concept of benefits or free health/education so only good hard working smart people come | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Not really, asylum applications could then be duly assessed on the merits of the applicant. I’m not sure if you’re serious here. What do you think asylum claims are? " Well since the majority of arrivees are being smuggled by criminals, I'd say the asylum claims are mostly bogus. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just privatise immigration like in UAE, works well , there’s zero illegal immigration’s. These people have a lot of money to get all the way here , many have property in their own land & they will happily work in the care and food sectors for min wage. Real asylum seekers can’t afford to get here , but when you make legal immigration hard, they will come this way instead. The UAE do accept asylum seekers, not in great numbers but they accept them - because that’s what a decent asylum system does. If we had one, we could do the same. Grant asylum to those deserving. No one bothers , it’s so easy to get in the legal way , plus there’s no concept of benefits or free health/education so only good hard working smart people come " Well some definitely bother, because I just read the data on it. Like I say, no reason we can’t have a more effective asylum system. Just needs the will and the money throwing at it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Not really, asylum applications could then be duly assessed on the merits of the applicant. I’m not sure if you’re serious here. What do you think asylum claims are? Well since the majority of arrivees are being smuggled by criminals, I'd say the asylum claims are mostly bogus." Shows what you know then, since aside from a couple of nations, the only way to arrive here is by small boat - including for genuine asylum seekers. Why do you think I suggest making it possible to apply from abroad? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Not really, asylum applications could then be duly assessed on the merits of the applicant. I’m not sure if you’re serious here. What do you think asylum claims are? Well since the majority of arrivees are being smuggled by criminals, I'd say the asylum claims are mostly bogus. Shows what you know then, since aside from a couple of nations, the only way to arrive here is by small boat - including for genuine asylum seekers. Why do you think I suggest making it possible to apply from abroad? " It should be possible, but as I said earlier, the volume of bogus claimants abusing the system has meant normal procedures are curtailed. It's the criminality that has to be stopped, even if that means tough measures. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just privatise immigration like in UAE, works well , there’s zero illegal immigration’s. These people have a lot of money to get all the way here , many have property in their own land & they will happily work in the care and food sectors for min wage. Real asylum seekers can’t afford to get here , but when you make legal immigration hard, they will come this way instead. The UAE do accept asylum seekers, not in great numbers but they accept them - because that’s what a decent asylum system does. If we had one, we could do the same. Grant asylum to those deserving. No one bothers , it’s so easy to get in the legal way , plus there’s no concept of benefits or free health/education so only good hard working smart people come Well some definitely bother, because I just read the data on it. Like I say, no reason we can’t have a more effective asylum system. Just needs the will and the money throwing at it." You’re advocating for more money spent in this area? I agree with your “apply in your own country” idea tho, but whatever the system there’s always abuse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just privatise immigration like in UAE, works well , there’s zero illegal immigration’s. These people have a lot of money to get all the way here , many have property in their own land & they will happily work in the care and food sectors for min wage. Real asylum seekers can’t afford to get here , but when you make legal immigration hard, they will come this way instead. The UAE do accept asylum seekers, not in great numbers but they accept them - because that’s what a decent asylum system does. If we had one, we could do the same. Grant asylum to those deserving. No one bothers , it’s so easy to get in the legal way , plus there’s no concept of benefits or free health/education so only good hard working smart people come Well some definitely bother, because I just read the data on it. Like I say, no reason we can’t have a more effective asylum system. Just needs the will and the money throwing at it. You’re advocating for more money spent in this area?" More money spent on effective asylum processing = less money spent on hotels | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ideas like set up asylum processing abroad will not work unless we set up maximum limits on immigration" Everyone has the right to apply for asylum. Not everyone has to have asylum granted | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ideas like set up asylum processing abroad will not work unless we set up maximum limits on immigration Everyone has the right to apply for asylum. Not everyone has to have asylum granted " How many people do you think UK can realistically take in every year? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ideas like set up asylum processing abroad will not work unless we set up maximum limits on immigration Everyone has the right to apply for asylum. Not everyone has to have asylum granted How many people do you think UK can realistically take in every year?" I have no idea - but that’s not the question. The question is how do we uphold our commitments to international law and the refugee convention whilst still stopping dangerous boat crossings? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ideas like set up asylum processing abroad will not work unless we set up maximum limits on immigration Everyone has the right to apply for asylum. Not everyone has to have asylum granted How many people do you think UK can realistically take in every year? I have no idea - but that’s not the question. The question is how do we uphold our commitments to international law and the refugee convention whilst still stopping dangerous boat crossings? " That's indeed the question. I mentioned in my earlier post that the refugee conventions are emotionally written documents which aren't fit for modern day. The international conventions are stupid. If we go and create asylum centres in all these countries, you will get millions of refugees getting into the country. It will cause both economic and social issues in the country. Unless countries can set maximum limits to how many refugees they can take, building asylum centres abroad and taking every application is an act of self destruction. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just privatise immigration like in UAE, works well , there’s zero illegal immigration’s. These people have a lot of money to get all the way here , many have property in their own land & they will happily work in the care and food sectors for min wage. Real asylum seekers can’t afford to get here , but when you make legal immigration hard, they will come this way instead. The UAE do accept asylum seekers, not in great numbers but they accept them - because that’s what a decent asylum system does. If we had one, we could do the same. Grant asylum to those deserving. No one bothers , it’s so easy to get in the legal way , plus there’s no concept of benefits or free health/education so only good hard working smart people come Well some definitely bother, because I just read the data on it. Like I say, no reason we can’t have a more effective asylum system. Just needs the will and the money throwing at it. You’re advocating for more money spent in this area? More money spent on effective asylum processing = less money spent on hotels " I’m not sure that would be true. If we need to spend £100k a day on more home office staff, more centres, etc to save £100k on hotels, we’ve gained nothing. But I agree the process needs speeding up There’s also the consideration of where are they housed once approved, because in the short term at least, the public purse pays for that too. Yes £1000 a month is better than £145 a day, but as we all know there just isn’t the housing. Even if they build the 1.5 million homes they promised, in 4 years time we will still have the same problem because we’ve got 2-3 million more people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ideas like set up asylum processing abroad will not work unless we set up maximum limits on immigration Everyone has the right to apply for asylum. Not everyone has to have asylum granted How many people do you think UK can realistically take in every year? I have no idea - but that’s not the question. The question is how do we uphold our commitments to international law and the refugee convention whilst still stopping dangerous boat crossings? That's indeed the question. I mentioned in my earlier post that the refugee conventions are emotionally written documents which aren't fit for modern day. The international conventions are stupid. If we go and create asylum centres in all these countries, you will get millions of refugees getting into the country. It will cause both economic and social issues in the country. Unless countries can set maximum limits to how many refugees they can take, building asylum centres abroad and taking every application is an act of self destruction." Who needs to build asylum centres? Apply online or at an embassy. And who says you accept every application? You’d accept those who pass the criteria that *you* set | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ideas like set up asylum processing abroad will not work unless we set up maximum limits on immigration Everyone has the right to apply for asylum. Not everyone has to have asylum granted How many people do you think UK can realistically take in every year? I have no idea - but that’s not the question. The question is how do we uphold our commitments to international law and the refugee convention whilst still stopping dangerous boat crossings? That's indeed the question. I mentioned in my earlier post that the refugee conventions are emotionally written documents which aren't fit for modern day. The international conventions are stupid. If we go and create asylum centres in all these countries, you will get millions of refugees getting into the country. It will cause both economic and social issues in the country. Unless countries can set maximum limits to how many refugees they can take, building asylum centres abroad and taking every application is an act of self destruction. Who needs to build asylum centres? Apply online or at an embassy. And who says you accept every application? You’d accept those who pass the criteria that *you* set " If we set the criteria as only lesbian females, will you be fine with it or throw tantrums about it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The most effective way to smash the gangs would be to put them out of business with safe routes and asylum claims made from abroad - but we’re not ready to have that conversation yet. The quickest way to stop illegal immigration……is to make it all legal! Genius!" He didn't say that. Take another quick peek at the post. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ideas like set up asylum processing abroad will not work unless we set up maximum limits on immigration Everyone has the right to apply for asylum. Not everyone has to have asylum granted How many people do you think UK can realistically take in every year? I have no idea - but that’s not the question. The question is how do we uphold our commitments to international law and the refugee convention whilst still stopping dangerous boat crossings? That's indeed the question. I mentioned in my earlier post that the refugee conventions are emotionally written documents which aren't fit for modern day. The international conventions are stupid. If we go and create asylum centres in all these countries, you will get millions of refugees getting into the country. It will cause both economic and social issues in the country. Unless countries can set maximum limits to how many refugees they can take, building asylum centres abroad and taking every application is an act of self destruction. Who needs to build asylum centres? Apply online or at an embassy. And who says you accept every application? You’d accept those who pass the criteria that *you* set If we set the criteria as only lesbian females, will you be fine with it or throw tantrums about it?" I’m not sure I’ve thrown any tantrums tbf, so that’s a bit of a strange comment. Still, you do you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ideas like set up asylum processing abroad will not work unless we set up maximum limits on immigration Everyone has the right to apply for asylum. Not everyone has to have asylum granted How many people do you think UK can realistically take in every year? I have no idea - but that’s not the question. The question is how do we uphold our commitments to international law and the refugee convention whilst still stopping dangerous boat crossings? That's indeed the question. I mentioned in my earlier post that the refugee conventions are emotionally written documents which aren't fit for modern day. The international conventions are stupid. If we go and create asylum centres in all these countries, you will get millions of refugees getting into the country. It will cause both economic and social issues in the country. Unless countries can set maximum limits to how many refugees they can take, building asylum centres abroad and taking every application is an act of self destruction. Who needs to build asylum centres? Apply online or at an embassy. And who says you accept every application? You’d accept those who pass the criteria that *you* set If we set the criteria as only lesbian females, will you be fine with it or throw tantrums about it? I’m not sure I’ve thrown any tantrums tbf, so that’s a bit of a strange comment. Still, you do you. " So you will be fine with setting a rule like that? You weren't happy when I said that countries should be able to set limits on maximum numbers of asylum seekers they can take and you weren't happy because apparently that breaks "international law". This is the situation: - No country can take unlimited numbers of refugees without that resulting in economic and social turmoil. - If UK processes asylum requests in each country, there will be numerous applications and there is no way this country can take that many people. So UK is better off not doing that - And it wouldn't solve the boat problem because failed asylum seekers will still come in by boats So this whole "why don't we process asylum requests in those countries?" is a silly idea. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ideas like set up asylum processing abroad will not work unless we set up maximum limits on immigration Everyone has the right to apply for asylum. Not everyone has to have asylum granted How many people do you think UK can realistically take in every year? I have no idea - but that’s not the question. The question is how do we uphold our commitments to international law and the refugee convention whilst still stopping dangerous boat crossings? That's indeed the question. I mentioned in my earlier post that the refugee conventions are emotionally written documents which aren't fit for modern day. The international conventions are stupid. If we go and create asylum centres in all these countries, you will get millions of refugees getting into the country. It will cause both economic and social issues in the country. Unless countries can set maximum limits to how many refugees they can take, building asylum centres abroad and taking every application is an act of self destruction. Who needs to build asylum centres? Apply online or at an embassy. And who says you accept every application? You’d accept those who pass the criteria that *you* set If we set the criteria as only lesbian females, will you be fine with it or throw tantrums about it? I’m not sure I’ve thrown any tantrums tbf, so that’s a bit of a strange comment. Still, you do you. So you will be fine with setting a rule like that? You weren't happy when I said that countries should be able to set limits on maximum numbers of asylum seekers they can take and you weren't happy because apparently that breaks "international law". This is the situation: - No country can take unlimited numbers of refugees without that resulting in economic and social turmoil. - If UK processes asylum requests in each country, there will be numerous applications and there is no way this country can take that many people. So UK is better off not doing that - And it wouldn't solve the boat problem because failed asylum seekers will still come in by boats So this whole "why don't we process asylum requests in those countries?" is a silly idea." Quite. I can’t see how I would apply in my own country as presumably it is so dangerous I would already have fled for my life somewhere else. So I apply online in another country. I may or may not give a real name. My claim is turned down. So I just go elsewhere and apply again with another false name and with a whole new set of “facts”. And as you say if all that fails I just get on a dinghy. Apparently then the UK authorities are going to send me back to….well where exactly….. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ideas like set up asylum processing abroad will not work unless we set up maximum limits on immigration Everyone has the right to apply for asylum. Not everyone has to have asylum granted How many people do you think UK can realistically take in every year? I have no idea - but that’s not the question. The question is how do we uphold our commitments to international law and the refugee convention whilst still stopping dangerous boat crossings? That's indeed the question. I mentioned in my earlier post that the refugee conventions are emotionally written documents which aren't fit for modern day. The international conventions are stupid. If we go and create asylum centres in all these countries, you will get millions of refugees getting into the country. It will cause both economic and social issues in the country. Unless countries can set maximum limits to how many refugees they can take, building asylum centres abroad and taking every application is an act of self destruction. Who needs to build asylum centres? Apply online or at an embassy. And who says you accept every application? You’d accept those who pass the criteria that *you* set If we set the criteria as only lesbian females, will you be fine with it or throw tantrums about it? I’m not sure I’ve thrown any tantrums tbf, so that’s a bit of a strange comment. Still, you do you. So you will be fine with setting a rule like that? You weren't happy when I said that countries should be able to set limits on maximum numbers of asylum seekers they can take and you weren't happy because apparently that breaks "international law". This is the situation: - No country can take unlimited numbers of refugees without that resulting in economic and social turmoil. - If UK processes asylum requests in each country, there will be numerous applications and there is no way this country can take that many people. So UK is better off not doing that - And it wouldn't solve the boat problem because failed asylum seekers will still come in by boats So this whole "why don't we process asylum requests in those countries?" is a silly idea." If there’s access to asylum from abroad, that won’t increase the number of eligible asylum seekers, so you’re arguing from a false premise. There may be increased phoney claims, but they’ll be rejected, because they’re phoney claims. And it will solve the small boats largely, because landing by small boat won’t be a means of claiming asylum - it’ll be immediate detention with no opportunity to stay. You think it’s a silly idea but your only reason e in these threads is always ‘we can’t take unlimited numbers’ which a) nobody is disputing, and b) doesn’t actually add to the conversation | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ideas like set up asylum processing abroad will not work unless we set up maximum limits on immigration Everyone has the right to apply for asylum. Not everyone has to have asylum granted How many people do you think UK can realistically take in every year? I have no idea - but that’s not the question. The question is how do we uphold our commitments to international law and the refugee convention whilst still stopping dangerous boat crossings? That's indeed the question. I mentioned in my earlier post that the refugee conventions are emotionally written documents which aren't fit for modern day. The international conventions are stupid. If we go and create asylum centres in all these countries, you will get millions of refugees getting into the country. It will cause both economic and social issues in the country. Unless countries can set maximum limits to how many refugees they can take, building asylum centres abroad and taking every application is an act of self destruction. Who needs to build asylum centres? Apply online or at an embassy. And who says you accept every application? You’d accept those who pass the criteria that *you* set If we set the criteria as only lesbian females, will you be fine with it or throw tantrums about it? I’m not sure I’ve thrown any tantrums tbf, so that’s a bit of a strange comment. Still, you do you. So you will be fine with setting a rule like that? You weren't happy when I said that countries should be able to set limits on maximum numbers of asylum seekers they can take and you weren't happy because apparently that breaks "international law". This is the situation: - No country can take unlimited numbers of refugees without that resulting in economic and social turmoil. - If UK processes asylum requests in each country, there will be numerous applications and there is no way this country can take that many people. So UK is better off not doing that - And it wouldn't solve the boat problem because failed asylum seekers will still come in by boats So this whole "why don't we process asylum requests in those countries?" is a silly idea. Quite. I can’t see how I would apply in my own country as presumably it is so dangerous I would already have fled for my life somewhere else. So I apply online in another country. I may or may not give a real name. My claim is turned down. So I just go elsewhere and apply again with another false name and with a whole new set of “facts”. And as you say if all that fails I just get on a dinghy. Apparently then the UK authorities are going to send me back to….well where exactly….." If you’re a genuine asylum seeker, why are you using a false name? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ideas like set up asylum processing abroad will not work unless we set up maximum limits on immigration Everyone has the right to apply for asylum. Not everyone has to have asylum granted How many people do you think UK can realistically take in every year? I have no idea - but that’s not the question. The question is how do we uphold our commitments to international law and the refugee convention whilst still stopping dangerous boat crossings? That's indeed the question. I mentioned in my earlier post that the refugee conventions are emotionally written documents which aren't fit for modern day. The international conventions are stupid. If we go and create asylum centres in all these countries, you will get millions of refugees getting into the country. It will cause both economic and social issues in the country. Unless countries can set maximum limits to how many refugees they can take, building asylum centres abroad and taking every application is an act of self destruction. Who needs to build asylum centres? Apply online or at an embassy. And who says you accept every application? You’d accept those who pass the criteria that *you* set If we set the criteria as only lesbian females, will you be fine with it or throw tantrums about it? I’m not sure I’ve thrown any tantrums tbf, so that’s a bit of a strange comment. Still, you do you. So you will be fine with setting a rule like that? You weren't happy when I said that countries should be able to set limits on maximum numbers of asylum seekers they can take and you weren't happy because apparently that breaks "international law". This is the situation: - No country can take unlimited numbers of refugees without that resulting in economic and social turmoil. - If UK processes asylum requests in each country, there will be numerous applications and there is no way this country can take that many people. So UK is better off not doing that - And it wouldn't solve the boat problem because failed asylum seekers will still come in by boats So this whole "why don't we process asylum requests in those countries?" is a silly idea. Quite. I can’t see how I would apply in my own country as presumably it is so dangerous I would already have fled for my life somewhere else. So I apply online in another country. I may or may not give a real name. My claim is turned down. So I just go elsewhere and apply again with another false name and with a whole new set of “facts”. And as you say if all that fails I just get on a dinghy. Apparently then the UK authorities are going to send me back to….well where exactly….." Exactly! The refugee conventions have basically created an open border system. Those conventions have to be changed. "Stop the boats", "smash the gangs" and "process those requests quickly" aren't really solutions | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ideas like set up asylum processing abroad will not work unless we set up maximum limits on immigration Everyone has the right to apply for asylum. Not everyone has to have asylum granted How many people do you think UK can realistically take in every year? I have no idea - but that’s not the question. The question is how do we uphold our commitments to international law and the refugee convention whilst still stopping dangerous boat crossings? That's indeed the question. I mentioned in my earlier post that the refugee conventions are emotionally written documents which aren't fit for modern day. The international conventions are stupid. If we go and create asylum centres in all these countries, you will get millions of refugees getting into the country. It will cause both economic and social issues in the country. Unless countries can set maximum limits to how many refugees they can take, building asylum centres abroad and taking every application is an act of self destruction. Who needs to build asylum centres? Apply online or at an embassy. And who says you accept every application? You’d accept those who pass the criteria that *you* set If we set the criteria as only lesbian females, will you be fine with it or throw tantrums about it? I’m not sure I’ve thrown any tantrums tbf, so that’s a bit of a strange comment. Still, you do you. So you will be fine with setting a rule like that? You weren't happy when I said that countries should be able to set limits on maximum numbers of asylum seekers they can take and you weren't happy because apparently that breaks "international law". This is the situation: - No country can take unlimited numbers of refugees without that resulting in economic and social turmoil. - If UK processes asylum requests in each country, there will be numerous applications and there is no way this country can take that many people. So UK is better off not doing that - And it wouldn't solve the boat problem because failed asylum seekers will still come in by boats So this whole "why don't we process asylum requests in those countries?" is a silly idea. Quite. I can’t see how I would apply in my own country as presumably it is so dangerous I would already have fled for my life somewhere else. So I apply online in another country. I may or may not give a real name. My claim is turned down. So I just go elsewhere and apply again with another false name and with a whole new set of “facts”. And as you say if all that fails I just get on a dinghy. Apparently then the UK authorities are going to send me back to….well where exactly….. If you’re a genuine asylum seeker, why are you using a false name?" How would you know whether my name is false or not? Aren’t I escaping from a country where there is no longer any civil society or functioning government? I have fled for my life in fear of being killed. There wasn’t time to bring papers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ideas like set up asylum processing abroad will not work unless we set up maximum limits on immigration Everyone has the right to apply for asylum. Not everyone has to have asylum granted How many people do you think UK can realistically take in every year? I have no idea - but that’s not the question. The question is how do we uphold our commitments to international law and the refugee convention whilst still stopping dangerous boat crossings? That's indeed the question. I mentioned in my earlier post that the refugee conventions are emotionally written documents which aren't fit for modern day. The international conventions are stupid. If we go and create asylum centres in all these countries, you will get millions of refugees getting into the country. It will cause both economic and social issues in the country. Unless countries can set maximum limits to how many refugees they can take, building asylum centres abroad and taking every application is an act of self destruction. Who needs to build asylum centres? Apply online or at an embassy. And who says you accept every application? You’d accept those who pass the criteria that *you* set If we set the criteria as only lesbian females, will you be fine with it or throw tantrums about it? I’m not sure I’ve thrown any tantrums tbf, so that’s a bit of a strange comment. Still, you do you. So you will be fine with setting a rule like that? You weren't happy when I said that countries should be able to set limits on maximum numbers of asylum seekers they can take and you weren't happy because apparently that breaks "international law". This is the situation: - No country can take unlimited numbers of refugees without that resulting in economic and social turmoil. - If UK processes asylum requests in each country, there will be numerous applications and there is no way this country can take that many people. So UK is better off not doing that - And it wouldn't solve the boat problem because failed asylum seekers will still come in by boats So this whole "why don't we process asylum requests in those countries?" is a silly idea. Quite. I can’t see how I would apply in my own country as presumably it is so dangerous I would already have fled for my life somewhere else. So I apply online in another country. I may or may not give a real name. My claim is turned down. So I just go elsewhere and apply again with another false name and with a whole new set of “facts”. And as you say if all that fails I just get on a dinghy. Apparently then the UK authorities are going to send me back to….well where exactly….. If you’re a genuine asylum seeker, why are you using a false name? How would you know whether my name is false or not? Aren’t I escaping from a country where there is no longer any civil society or functioning government? I have fled for my life in fear of being killed. There wasn’t time to bring papers. " No problem, we’ll process your application and see whether you qualify. You should be warned that if you fail and still try to enter the UK, you’ll be returned to this very location and may be liable for detention, fine or other course of action. Have a good day. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is the situation: - No country can take unlimited numbers of refugees without that resulting in economic and social turmoil. - If UK processes asylum requests in each country, there will be numerous applications and there is no way this country can take that many people. So UK is better off not doing that - And it wouldn't solve the boat problem because failed asylum seekers will still come in by boats So this whole "why don't we process asylum requests in those countries?" is a silly idea. If there’s access to asylum from abroad, that won’t increase the number of eligible asylum seekers, so you’re arguing from a false premise. " If we start taking asylum requests from every war torn country and every country in civil war, it wouldn't result in increase in asylum seekers? If we even accept that ridiculous premise, why shouldn't country be able to set maximum limits? It shouldn't affect anyone right? " And it will solve the small boats largely, because landing by small boat won’t be a means of claiming asylum - it’ll be immediate detention with no opportunity to stay. " You will break the "international law" today if you do that. " You think it’s a silly idea but your only reason e in these threads is always ‘we can’t take unlimited numbers’ which a) nobody is disputing, and b) doesn’t actually add to the conversation " If nobody is disputing that we can't take unlimited numbers, why don't you agree that countries should be able to set maximum limits? If UK can set maximum limits as 20,000, then UK can process asylum requests from abroad without having to worry about increasing numbers and throw anyone who comes by boat into detention. But none of these are possible under the refugee conventions today. This is an important part of the conversation. People are scared of taking too many asylum seekers, for the right reason. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is the situation: - No country can take unlimited numbers of refugees without that resulting in economic and social turmoil. - If UK processes asylum requests in each country, there will be numerous applications and there is no way this country can take that many people. So UK is better off not doing that - And it wouldn't solve the boat problem because failed asylum seekers will still come in by boats So this whole "why don't we process asylum requests in those countries?" is a silly idea. If there’s access to asylum from abroad, that won’t increase the number of eligible asylum seekers, so you’re arguing from a false premise. If we start taking asylum requests from every war torn country and every country in civil war, it wouldn't result in increase in asylum seekers? If we even accept that ridiculous premise, why shouldn't country be able to set maximum limits? It shouldn't affect anyone right? And it will solve the small boats largely, because landing by small boat won’t be a means of claiming asylum - it’ll be immediate detention with no opportunity to stay. You will break the "international law" today if you do that. You think it’s a silly idea but your only reason e in these threads is always ‘we can’t take unlimited numbers’ which a) nobody is disputing, and b) doesn’t actually add to the conversation If nobody is disputing that we can't take unlimited numbers, why don't you agree that countries should be able to set maximum limits? If UK can set maximum limits as 20,000, then UK can process asylum requests from abroad without having to worry about increasing numbers and throw anyone who comes by boat into detention. But none of these are possible under the refugee conventions today. This is an important part of the conversation. People are scared of taking too many asylum seekers, for the right reason." Did I say we can’t set maximum limits? Wanna show me where I said that? I said anyone is free to apply. A statement of fact I also said that we don’t have to accept everyone that applies. Again, a statement of fact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ideas like set up asylum processing abroad will not work unless we set up maximum limits on immigration Everyone has the right to apply for asylum. Not everyone has to have asylum granted How many people do you think UK can realistically take in every year? I have no idea - but that’s not the question. The question is how do we uphold our commitments to international law and the refugee convention whilst still stopping dangerous boat crossings? That's indeed the question. I mentioned in my earlier post that the refugee conventions are emotionally written documents which aren't fit for modern day. The international conventions are stupid. If we go and create asylum centres in all these countries, you will get millions of refugees getting into the country. It will cause both economic and social issues in the country. Unless countries can set maximum limits to how many refugees they can take, building asylum centres abroad and taking every application is an act of self destruction. Who needs to build asylum centres? Apply online or at an embassy. And who says you accept every application? You’d accept those who pass the criteria that *you* set If we set the criteria as only lesbian females, will you be fine with it or throw tantrums about it? I’m not sure I’ve thrown any tantrums tbf, so that’s a bit of a strange comment. Still, you do you. So you will be fine with setting a rule like that? You weren't happy when I said that countries should be able to set limits on maximum numbers of asylum seekers they can take and you weren't happy because apparently that breaks "international law". This is the situation: - No country can take unlimited numbers of refugees without that resulting in economic and social turmoil. - If UK processes asylum requests in each country, there will be numerous applications and there is no way this country can take that many people. So UK is better off not doing that - And it wouldn't solve the boat problem because failed asylum seekers will still come in by boats So this whole "why don't we process asylum requests in those countries?" is a silly idea. Quite. I can’t see how I would apply in my own country as presumably it is so dangerous I would already have fled for my life somewhere else. So I apply online in another country. I may or may not give a real name. My claim is turned down. So I just go elsewhere and apply again with another false name and with a whole new set of “facts”. And as you say if all that fails I just get on a dinghy. Apparently then the UK authorities are going to send me back to….well where exactly….. If you’re a genuine asylum seeker, why are you using a false name? How would you know whether my name is false or not? Aren’t I escaping from a country where there is no longer any civil society or functioning government? I have fled for my life in fear of being killed. There wasn’t time to bring papers. No problem, we’ll process your application and see whether you qualify. You should be warned that if you fail and still try to enter the UK, you’ll be returned to this very location and may be liable for detention, fine or other course of action. Have a good day. " I see. So if I tell you I’m gay or I’ve converted to Christianity and I’ve had to flee from Afghanistan or Iran and you decide my application is false you are going to put me on a plane back to Iran or Afghanistan? Of course that’s going to happen….. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ideas like set up asylum processing abroad will not work unless we set up maximum limits on immigration Everyone has the right to apply for asylum. Not everyone has to have asylum granted How many people do you think UK can realistically take in every year? I have no idea - but that’s not the question. The question is how do we uphold our commitments to international law and the refugee convention whilst still stopping dangerous boat crossings? That's indeed the question. I mentioned in my earlier post that the refugee conventions are emotionally written documents which aren't fit for modern day. The international conventions are stupid. If we go and create asylum centres in all these countries, you will get millions of refugees getting into the country. It will cause both economic and social issues in the country. Unless countries can set maximum limits to how many refugees they can take, building asylum centres abroad and taking every application is an act of self destruction. Who needs to build asylum centres? Apply online or at an embassy. And who says you accept every application? You’d accept those who pass the criteria that *you* set If we set the criteria as only lesbian females, will you be fine with it or throw tantrums about it? I’m not sure I’ve thrown any tantrums tbf, so that’s a bit of a strange comment. Still, you do you. So you will be fine with setting a rule like that? You weren't happy when I said that countries should be able to set limits on maximum numbers of asylum seekers they can take and you weren't happy because apparently that breaks "international law". This is the situation: - No country can take unlimited numbers of refugees without that resulting in economic and social turmoil. - If UK processes asylum requests in each country, there will be numerous applications and there is no way this country can take that many people. So UK is better off not doing that - And it wouldn't solve the boat problem because failed asylum seekers will still come in by boats So this whole "why don't we process asylum requests in those countries?" is a silly idea. Quite. I can’t see how I would apply in my own country as presumably it is so dangerous I would already have fled for my life somewhere else. So I apply online in another country. I may or may not give a real name. My claim is turned down. So I just go elsewhere and apply again with another false name and with a whole new set of “facts”. And as you say if all that fails I just get on a dinghy. Apparently then the UK authorities are going to send me back to….well where exactly….. If you’re a genuine asylum seeker, why are you using a false name? How would you know whether my name is false or not? Aren’t I escaping from a country where there is no longer any civil society or functioning government? I have fled for my life in fear of being killed. There wasn’t time to bring papers. No problem, we’ll process your application and see whether you qualify. You should be warned that if you fail and still try to enter the UK, you’ll be returned to this very location and may be liable for detention, fine or other course of action. Have a good day. I see. So if I tell you I’m gay or I’ve converted to Christianity and I’ve had to flee from Afghanistan or Iran and you decide my application is false you are going to put me on a plane back to Iran or Afghanistan? Of course that’s going to happen….." You haven’t got here, because you’ve applied abroad. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is the situation: - No country can take unlimited numbers of refugees without that resulting in economic and social turmoil. - If UK processes asylum requests in each country, there will be numerous applications and there is no way this country can take that many people. So UK is better off not doing that - And it wouldn't solve the boat problem because failed asylum seekers will still come in by boats So this whole "why don't we process asylum requests in those countries?" is a silly idea. If there’s access to asylum from abroad, that won’t increase the number of eligible asylum seekers, so you’re arguing from a false premise. If we start taking asylum requests from every war torn country and every country in civil war, it wouldn't result in increase in asylum seekers? If we even accept that ridiculous premise, why shouldn't country be able to set maximum limits? It shouldn't affect anyone right? And it will solve the small boats largely, because landing by small boat won’t be a means of claiming asylum - it’ll be immediate detention with no opportunity to stay. You will break the "international law" today if you do that. You think it’s a silly idea but your only reason e in these threads is always ‘we can’t take unlimited numbers’ which a) nobody is disputing, and b) doesn’t actually add to the conversation If nobody is disputing that we can't take unlimited numbers, why don't you agree that countries should be able to set maximum limits? If UK can set maximum limits as 20,000, then UK can process asylum requests from abroad without having to worry about increasing numbers and throw anyone who comes by boat into detention. But none of these are possible under the refugee conventions today. This is an important part of the conversation. People are scared of taking too many asylum seekers, for the right reason. Did I say we can’t set maximum limits? Wanna show me where I said that? I said anyone is free to apply. A statement of fact I also said that we don’t have to accept everyone that applies. Again, a statement of fact. " You have been beating around the bush here. When I originally asked the question, you said that we have to uphold the international law. The international law doesn't allow us to have maximum limits. So now tell me honestly. The biggest problem with having asylum processing elsewhere is the fear of too many requests. Are you fine with setting a maximum limits? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is the situation: - No country can take unlimited numbers of refugees without that resulting in economic and social turmoil. - If UK processes asylum requests in each country, there will be numerous applications and there is no way this country can take that many people. So UK is better off not doing that - And it wouldn't solve the boat problem because failed asylum seekers will still come in by boats So this whole "why don't we process asylum requests in those countries?" is a silly idea. If there’s access to asylum from abroad, that won’t increase the number of eligible asylum seekers, so you’re arguing from a false premise. If we start taking asylum requests from every war torn country and every country in civil war, it wouldn't result in increase in asylum seekers? If we even accept that ridiculous premise, why shouldn't country be able to set maximum limits? It shouldn't affect anyone right? And it will solve the small boats largely, because landing by small boat won’t be a means of claiming asylum - it’ll be immediate detention with no opportunity to stay. You will break the "international law" today if you do that. You think it’s a silly idea but your only reason e in these threads is always ‘we can’t take unlimited numbers’ which a) nobody is disputing, and b) doesn’t actually add to the conversation If nobody is disputing that we can't take unlimited numbers, why don't you agree that countries should be able to set maximum limits? If UK can set maximum limits as 20,000, then UK can process asylum requests from abroad without having to worry about increasing numbers and throw anyone who comes by boat into detention. But none of these are possible under the refugee conventions today. This is an important part of the conversation. People are scared of taking too many asylum seekers, for the right reason. Did I say we can’t set maximum limits? Wanna show me where I said that? I said anyone is free to apply. A statement of fact I also said that we don’t have to accept everyone that applies. Again, a statement of fact. You have been beating around the bush here. When I originally asked the question, you said that we have to uphold the international law. The international law doesn't allow us to have maximum limits. So now tell me honestly. The biggest problem with having asylum processing elsewhere is the fear of too many requests. Are you fine with setting a maximum limits? " No, that’s your suggestion that it’s the biggest problem. I’m concerned with stopping dangerous boat crossings primarily, rather than counting how many applications we receive. You seem to think that asylum processing abroad will increase the number of asylum seekers - this has no logic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is the situation: - No country can take unlimited numbers of refugees without that resulting in economic and social turmoil. - If UK processes asylum requests in each country, there will be numerous applications and there is no way this country can take that many people. So UK is better off not doing that - And it wouldn't solve the boat problem because failed asylum seekers will still come in by boats So this whole "why don't we process asylum requests in those countries?" is a silly idea. If there’s access to asylum from abroad, that won’t increase the number of eligible asylum seekers, so you’re arguing from a false premise. If we start taking asylum requests from every war torn country and every country in civil war, it wouldn't result in increase in asylum seekers? If we even accept that ridiculous premise, why shouldn't country be able to set maximum limits? It shouldn't affect anyone right? And it will solve the small boats largely, because landing by small boat won’t be a means of claiming asylum - it’ll be immediate detention with no opportunity to stay. You will break the "international law" today if you do that. You think it’s a silly idea but your only reason e in these threads is always ‘we can’t take unlimited numbers’ which a) nobody is disputing, and b) doesn’t actually add to the conversation If nobody is disputing that we can't take unlimited numbers, why don't you agree that countries should be able to set maximum limits? If UK can set maximum limits as 20,000, then UK can process asylum requests from abroad without having to worry about increasing numbers and throw anyone who comes by boat into detention. But none of these are possible under the refugee conventions today. This is an important part of the conversation. People are scared of taking too many asylum seekers, for the right reason. Did I say we can’t set maximum limits? Wanna show me where I said that? I said anyone is free to apply. A statement of fact I also said that we don’t have to accept everyone that applies. Again, a statement of fact. You have been beating around the bush here. When I originally asked the question, you said that we have to uphold the international law. The international law doesn't allow us to have maximum limits. So now tell me honestly. The biggest problem with having asylum processing elsewhere is the fear of too many requests. Are you fine with setting a maximum limits? " Also I’ve not been beating around the bush - you’re the one claiming I’ve said things I haven’t | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is the situation: - No country can take unlimited numbers of refugees without that resulting in economic and social turmoil. - If UK processes asylum requests in each country, there will be numerous applications and there is no way this country can take that many people. So UK is better off not doing that - And it wouldn't solve the boat problem because failed asylum seekers will still come in by boats So this whole "why don't we process asylum requests in those countries?" is a silly idea. If there’s access to asylum from abroad, that won’t increase the number of eligible asylum seekers, so you’re arguing from a false premise. If we start taking asylum requests from every war torn country and every country in civil war, it wouldn't result in increase in asylum seekers? If we even accept that ridiculous premise, why shouldn't country be able to set maximum limits? It shouldn't affect anyone right? And it will solve the small boats largely, because landing by small boat won’t be a means of claiming asylum - it’ll be immediate detention with no opportunity to stay. You will break the "international law" today if you do that. You think it’s a silly idea but your only reason e in these threads is always ‘we can’t take unlimited numbers’ which a) nobody is disputing, and b) doesn’t actually add to the conversation If nobody is disputing that we can't take unlimited numbers, why don't you agree that countries should be able to set maximum limits? If UK can set maximum limits as 20,000, then UK can process asylum requests from abroad without having to worry about increasing numbers and throw anyone who comes by boat into detention. But none of these are possible under the refugee conventions today. This is an important part of the conversation. People are scared of taking too many asylum seekers, for the right reason. Did I say we can’t set maximum limits? Wanna show me where I said that? I said anyone is free to apply. A statement of fact I also said that we don’t have to accept everyone that applies. Again, a statement of fact. You have been beating around the bush here. When I originally asked the question, you said that we have to uphold the international law. The international law doesn't allow us to have maximum limits. So now tell me honestly. The biggest problem with having asylum processing elsewhere is the fear of too many requests. Are you fine with setting a maximum limits? No, that’s your suggestion that it’s the biggest problem. I’m concerned with stopping dangerous boat crossings primarily, rather than counting how many applications we receive. You seem to think that asylum processing abroad will increase the number of asylum seekers - this has no logic." That's not just my problem. That's the problem for most of the population in this country. People of scared of taking in too many asylum seekers. Allowing countries to have maximum limits would mitigate this concern and allow us to open asylum processing elsewhere. So, I am asking you for hundredth time. Would you be fine with setting maximum limits? According to you, the numbers shouldn't increase anyway. So setting a maximum limits shouldn't really concern you right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is the situation: - No country can take unlimited numbers of refugees without that resulting in economic and social turmoil. - If UK processes asylum requests in each country, there will be numerous applications and there is no way this country can take that many people. So UK is better off not doing that - And it wouldn't solve the boat problem because failed asylum seekers will still come in by boats So this whole "why don't we process asylum requests in those countries?" is a silly idea. If there’s access to asylum from abroad, that won’t increase the number of eligible asylum seekers, so you’re arguing from a false premise. If we start taking asylum requests from every war torn country and every country in civil war, it wouldn't result in increase in asylum seekers? If we even accept that ridiculous premise, why shouldn't country be able to set maximum limits? It shouldn't affect anyone right? And it will solve the small boats largely, because landing by small boat won’t be a means of claiming asylum - it’ll be immediate detention with no opportunity to stay. You will break the "international law" today if you do that. You think it’s a silly idea but your only reason e in these threads is always ‘we can’t take unlimited numbers’ which a) nobody is disputing, and b) doesn’t actually add to the conversation If nobody is disputing that we can't take unlimited numbers, why don't you agree that countries should be able to set maximum limits? If UK can set maximum limits as 20,000, then UK can process asylum requests from abroad without having to worry about increasing numbers and throw anyone who comes by boat into detention. But none of these are possible under the refugee conventions today. This is an important part of the conversation. People are scared of taking too many asylum seekers, for the right reason. Did I say we can’t set maximum limits? Wanna show me where I said that? I said anyone is free to apply. A statement of fact I also said that we don’t have to accept everyone that applies. Again, a statement of fact. You have been beating around the bush here. When I originally asked the question, you said that we have to uphold the international law. The international law doesn't allow us to have maximum limits. So now tell me honestly. The biggest problem with having asylum processing elsewhere is the fear of too many requests. Are you fine with setting a maximum limits? No, that’s your suggestion that it’s the biggest problem. I’m concerned with stopping dangerous boat crossings primarily, rather than counting how many applications we receive. You seem to think that asylum processing abroad will increase the number of asylum seekers - this has no logic. That's not just my problem. That's the problem for most of the population in this country. People of scared of taking in too many asylum seekers. Allowing countries to have maximum limits would mitigate this concern and allow us to open asylum processing elsewhere. So, I am asking you for hundredth time. Would you be fine with setting maximum limits? According to you, the numbers shouldn't increase anyway. So setting a maximum limits shouldn't really concern you right?" If the numbers won’t increase (and given we take in so many fewer than other equivalent nations) there’s no problem. No need for increased legislation
Now ask yourself why people are scared of asylum seekers (genuine ones)?
Is it because the media and those with vested interest stoke up division based upon criminal activity carried out by a minority? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is the situation: - No country can take unlimited numbers of refugees without that resulting in economic and social turmoil. - If UK processes asylum requests in each country, there will be numerous applications and there is no way this country can take that many people. So UK is better off not doing that - And it wouldn't solve the boat problem because failed asylum seekers will still come in by boats So this whole "why don't we process asylum requests in those countries?" is a silly idea. If there’s access to asylum from abroad, that won’t increase the number of eligible asylum seekers, so you’re arguing from a false premise. If we start taking asylum requests from every war torn country and every country in civil war, it wouldn't result in increase in asylum seekers? If we even accept that ridiculous premise, why shouldn't country be able to set maximum limits? It shouldn't affect anyone right? And it will solve the small boats largely, because landing by small boat won’t be a means of claiming asylum - it’ll be immediate detention with no opportunity to stay. You will break the "international law" today if you do that. You think it’s a silly idea but your only reason e in these threads is always ‘we can’t take unlimited numbers’ which a) nobody is disputing, and b) doesn’t actually add to the conversation If nobody is disputing that we can't take unlimited numbers, why don't you agree that countries should be able to set maximum limits? If UK can set maximum limits as 20,000, then UK can process asylum requests from abroad without having to worry about increasing numbers and throw anyone who comes by boat into detention. But none of these are possible under the refugee conventions today. This is an important part of the conversation. People are scared of taking too many asylum seekers, for the right reason. Did I say we can’t set maximum limits? Wanna show me where I said that? I said anyone is free to apply. A statement of fact So, I am asking you for hundredth time. Would you be fine with setting maximum limits? According to you, the numbers shouldn't increase anyway. So setting a maximum limits shouldn't really concern you right? If the numbers won’t increase (and given we take in so many fewer than other equivalent nations) there’s no problem. No need for increased legislation
"But it will alleviate the people's concerns and would make the society more open to the idea. So I ask you for the 101st time. Will you be supportive of setting maximum limits? Pretty sure you wouldn't answer that. " Now ask yourself why people are scared of asylum seekers (genuine ones)? " Economic and social concerns. The employment rate of refugees granted asylum and rights to work is 51%. The ones who work too earn much less. So we are footing their bill. Then there are social issues. You definitely do not want millions of people from a cultures where homosexuality has death penalty and women who show their face or even parts of the body are evil women who deserve to face violence. You just have to look at Lebanon to see what happens when you take so many refugees. " Is it because the media and those with vested interest stoke up division based upon criminal activity carried out by a minority?" In pretty much every country that has published crime reports based on nationality, there are clear trends seen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In pretty much every country that has published crime reports based on nationality, there are clear trends seen." There are also trends between socioeconomic/wealth factors and crime, are there not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In pretty much every country that has published crime reports based on nationality, there are clear trends seen. There are also trends between socioeconomic/wealth factors and crime, are there not? " You still haven't answered my question about setting maximum limits. If you stop beating around the bush on that, I will give you an answer for this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In pretty much every country that has published crime reports based on nationality, there are clear trends seen. There are also trends between socioeconomic/wealth factors and crime, are there not? You still haven't answered my question about setting maximum limits. If you stop beating around the bush on that, I will give you an answer for this." Except you won’t, because we’ve been on this merry-go-round. I’ve already said there’s no need for limits as we’d be nowhere near them anyway. Now if legislation passed that allowed them, then so be it, I wouldn’t cry - but they’re not necessary. Now on crime - Charlie Kirk, the idiot’s smart man, often talks about black people committing more crime than white peopel, whilst ignoring socioeconomic factors. That sounds awfully like what you’re claiming with asylum seekers. Can you reassure us that asylum seekers are not predisposed to crime? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Except you won’t, because we’ve been on this merry-go-round. I’ve already said there’s no need for limits as we’d be nowhere near them anyway. Now if legislation passed that allowed them, then so be it, I wouldn’t cry - but they’re not necessary. " And I answered this question by saying that people are scared of taking too many refugees for valid reasons. See Lebanon. So setting maximum limits would alleviate people's concerns. I mentioned this multiple times and you have conveniently ignored this. " Now on crime - Charlie Kirk, the idiot’s smart man, often talks about black people committing more crime than white peopel, whilst ignoring socioeconomic factors. That sounds awfully like what you’re claiming with asylum seekers. Can you reassure us that asylum seekers are not predisposed to crime? " In both Germany and Sweden, some of the few countries who have published crimes based on nationality, men from middle Eastern countries contribute to vast majority of sexual crimes. Do you really think socioeconomic factors are the reason why men commit sexual assault? Did the men do mass sexual assault in New years eve in Cologne because they were poor and hungry? Or is it because... they grew up in a culture where they were told that women who don't cover their bodies fully are sluts and you can do anything to them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over 1,000 illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today, the highest this year. The Coastguard was forced to enlist help from fishing boats as it couldn’t cope with the numbers. The French and British authorities together deployed 11 boats and two aircraft to deal with the migrants. At what financial cost to taxpayers? This year illegal crossings are up 30% on the same time last year. Is this what “smashing the gangs” looks like? The illegal arrivals seem to be commuting more and more with some eye watering numbers especially given the danger involved. It was a hit topic long before the GE and the Tories made lots of claims of how they would stop it. Their Rwanda plan got bogged down in legal challenges and they lost political ground due to not fulfilling their promises. Labour promised their plan of smashing the gangs would work but so far the situation seems to be getting worse. They are nearly 1 year into their term now so still have time but must be aware failure on this topic does not go down well with the electorate Once again, more deportations under Labour than any govt. Since 2018." As is clear, my post was about Labour's promise to smash the gangs, to prevent the illegal crossings in the first place. It was not in any way about deporting failed claimants. So far the problem has continued to decline with over 1000 people arriving in a single day just the other day. Smashing the gangs to stop the boats is what they promised and this is what they will be judged on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
