Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hope everyone is ok! Human life is more important than you not liking asylum seekers " Then they shouldn’t be allowed to risk people’s lives by overloading unsafe boats for a channel crossing. Loads die trying to cross the channel, not aware of any dying on the French beaches. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hope everyone is ok! Human life is more important than you not liking asylum seekers " They were in waist high water, they were setting off across one of the busiest shipping channels Work out the risks  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only one 19,982 migrants arrived to the UK in small boats in the first six months of 2025 - a 48% increase on the same period in 2024. (Bbc)" Weather has also been better | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hope everyone is ok! Human life is more important than you not liking asylum seekers They were in waist high water, they were setting off across one of the busiest shipping channels Work out the risks "Considering the numbers that cross and the actual deaths that occur it's pretty small. Hence not even death in the channel is deterrent. I bet you lot belived in the Rwanda scam | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hope everyone is ok! Human life is more important than you not liking asylum seekers " As I'm sure you've just learned. Compassion for the lives of foreigners is a big no-no around here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"‘Slash the boats’" Three syllables. It works.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hope everyone is ok! Human life is more important than you not liking asylum seekers As I'm sure you've just learned. Compassion for the lives of foreigners is a big no-no around here. " Don't be stupid , the compassion was not allowing them to risk their lives in the channel | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hope everyone is ok! Human life is more important than you not liking asylum seekers As I'm sure you've just learned. Compassion for the lives of foreigners is a big no-no around here. " It seems to be rare everywhere these days | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hope everyone is ok! Human life is more important than you not liking asylum seekers As I'm sure you've just learned. Compassion for the lives of foreigners is a big no-no around here. Don't be stupid , the compassion was not allowing them to risk their lives in the channel "That's their choice, dressing hate up as concern is tedious. Be honest at least | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hope everyone is ok! Human life is more important than you not liking asylum seekers As I'm sure you've just learned. Compassion for the lives of foreigners is a big no-no around here. Don't be stupid , the compassion was not allowing them to risk their lives in the channel "Was it though? We've had people on here openly calling for the men women and children on boats to be shot, to be drowned, to be blown up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hope everyone is ok! Human life is more important than you not liking asylum seekers As I'm sure you've just learned. Compassion for the lives of foreigners is a big no-no around here. It seems to be rare everywhere these days " Just on line. There's lots of people with compassion out there in the real world. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hope everyone is ok! Human life is more important than you not liking asylum seekers As I'm sure you've just learned. Compassion for the lives of foreigners is a big no-no around here. Don't be stupid , the compassion was not allowing them to risk their lives in the channel
That's their choice, dressing hate up as concern is tedious.
Be honest at least "Ah ok, the French police should go back to observation and waving bom voyage then ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hope everyone is ok! Human life is more important than you not liking asylum seekers As I'm sure you've just learned. Compassion for the lives of foreigners is a big no-no around here. Don't be stupid , the compassion was not allowing them to risk their lives in the channel
That's their choice, dressing hate up as concern is tedious.
Be honest at least
Ah ok, the French police should go back to observation and waving bom voyage then ?
"The people who want to cross will cross. Their desire to reach the UK for safety knows no boundaries. We can either accept they will cross or create safe and legal routes, either way we have a duty to accept our fair share of the globally displaced. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hope everyone is ok! Human life is more important than you not liking asylum seekers As I'm sure you've just learned. Compassion for the lives of foreigners is a big no-no around here. Don't be stupid , the compassion was not allowing them to risk their lives in the channel
That's their choice, dressing hate up as concern is tedious.
Be honest at least
Ah ok, the French police should go back to observation and waving bom voyage then ?
The people who want to cross will cross.
Their desire to reach the UK for safety knows no boundaries.
We can either accept they will cross or create safe and legal routes, either way we have a duty to accept our fair share of the globally displaced."What's the issue then, the garden is rosy  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hope everyone is ok! Human life is more important than you not liking asylum seekers As I'm sure you've just learned. Compassion for the lives of foreigners is a big no-no around here. Don't be stupid , the compassion was not allowing them to risk their lives in the channel
That's their choice, dressing hate up as concern is tedious.
Be honest at least
Ah ok, the French police should go back to observation and waving bom voyage then ?
The people who want to cross will cross.
Their desire to reach the UK for safety knows no boundaries.
We can either accept they will cross or create safe and legal routes, either way we have a duty to accept our fair share of the globally displaced.
What's the issue then, the garden is rosy "I don't have an issue. The issue seems to be the cost created by the last governments failure to process asylum claims. And/or the conflation between people arriving irregularly and the hundreds of thousands coming for work and study regularly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The people who want to cross will cross. Their desire to reach the UK for safety knows no boundaries.." If they are coming from France they are already in a place of safety, and have probably travelled through several other countries that are safe, safety is not the reason they are heading to the UK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The people who want to cross will cross. Their desire to reach the UK for safety knows no boundaries.. If they are coming from France they are already in a place of safety, and have probably travelled through several other countries that are safe, safety is not the reason they are heading to the UK. " They aren't coming from France, they are coming through France. Like it or not our role in history playes a part, people speak our language, people have family here. You can deny our colonial past as much as you want but I bet when you go abroad you boast that you don't need any other languages because everyone speaks English | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The people who want to cross will cross. Their desire to reach the UK for safety knows no boundaries.. If they are coming from France they are already in a place of safety, and have probably travelled through several other countries that are safe, safety is not the reason they are heading to the UK. " Maybe it’s because English is the lingua Franca. You know, those heady days of Empire when a quarter of the globe was pink and we exploited other countries for their resources & so on? Maybe it’s payback time in a sense? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The people who want to cross will cross. Their desire to reach the UK for safety knows no boundaries.. If they are coming from France they are already in a place of safety, and have probably travelled through several other countries that are safe, safety is not the reason they are heading to the UK. Maybe it’s because English is the lingua Franca. You know, those heady days of Empire when a quarter of the globe was pink and we exploited other countries for their resources & so on? Maybe it’s payback time in a sense?" Lol....almost as if we weren't kind | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The people who want to cross will cross. Their desire to reach the UK for safety knows no boundaries.. If they are coming from France they are already in a place of safety, and have probably travelled through several other countries that are safe, safety is not the reason they are heading to the UK. They aren't coming from France, they are coming through France. Like it or not our role in history playes a part, people speak our language, people have family here. You can deny our colonial past as much as you want but I bet when you go abroad you boast that you don't need any other languages because everyone speaks English "Several points to pick out of your response, I quite clearly pointed out that they had traveled ‘through’ safe countries. At no point have I made any ‘denial’ of Britains colonial past, not sure where you got that comment from. You make an assumption that when I go abroad I boast about not needing to speak any other language than English, the reason I don’t need to speak any other language is because I don’t go abroad, I do not poses a passport. Try reading a post and then responding to what is written rather than making up stuff | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The people who want to cross will cross. Their desire to reach the UK for safety knows no boundaries.. If they are coming from France they are already in a place of safety, and have probably travelled through several other countries that are safe, safety is not the reason they are heading to the UK. Maybe it’s because English is the lingua Franca. You know, those heady days of Empire when a quarter of the globe was pink and we exploited other countries for their resources & so on? Maybe it’s payback time in a sense?" Maybe it’s for a number of reasons, but safety isn’t one of them and that is the point I was responding too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The people who want to cross will cross. Their desire to reach the UK for safety knows no boundaries.. If they are coming from France they are already in a place of safety, and have probably travelled through several other countries that are safe, safety is not the reason they are heading to the UK. Maybe it’s because English is the lingua Franca. You know, those heady days of Empire when a quarter of the globe was pink and we exploited other countries for their resources & so on? Maybe it’s payback time in a sense? Maybe it’s for a number of reasons, but safety isn’t one of them and that is the point I was responding too. "Like I said, safety is a nebulous term. People can argue what is and isn't safe. Ot is known that regional instability (bombs), language and historical and familial ties are the reasons people are drawn to Britain. I highly recommend getting a passport and traveling it broadens the mind, breaks down barriers and increases empathy with "other" humans | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"‘Slash the boats’" Would certainly be more effective than "smash the gangs". Now where is my Stanley knife? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The people who want to cross will cross. Their desire to reach the UK for safety knows no boundaries.. If they are coming from France they are already in a place of safety, and have probably travelled through several other countries that are safe, safety is not the reason they are heading to the UK. Maybe it’s because English is the lingua Franca. You know, those heady days of Empire when a quarter of the globe was pink and we exploited other countries for their resources & so on? Maybe it’s payback time in a sense? Maybe it’s for a number of reasons, but safety isn’t one of them and that is the point I was responding too.
Like I said, safety is a nebulous term.
People can argue what is and isn't safe.
Ot is known that regional instability (bombs), language and historical and familial ties are the reasons people are drawn to Britain.
I highly recommend getting a passport and traveling it broadens the mind, breaks down barriers and increases empathy with "other" humans "2 hemispheres, 5 continents, 36 country's, 3 dependencies and one grey area (plus 16 US states) I've been around the block a few times and would still slash the boats. Every last fucking one of them. I've zero empathy with 2 bob chancers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The people who want to cross will cross. Their desire to reach the UK for safety knows no boundaries.. If they are coming from France they are already in a place of safety, and have probably travelled through several other countries that are safe, safety is not the reason they are heading to the UK. Maybe it’s because English is the lingua Franca. You know, those heady days of Empire when a quarter of the globe was pink and we exploited other countries for their resources & so on? Maybe it’s payback time in a sense? Maybe it’s for a number of reasons, but safety isn’t one of them and that is the point I was responding too.
Like I said, safety is a nebulous term.
People can argue what is and isn't safe.
Ot is known that regional instability (bombs), language and historical and familial ties are the reasons people are drawn to Britain.
I highly recommend getting a passport and traveling it broadens the mind, breaks down barriers and increases empathy with "other" humans
2 hemispheres, 5 continents, 36 country's, 3 dependencies and one grey area (plus 16 US states)
I've been around the block a few times and would still slash the boats.
Every last fucking one of them.
I've zero empathy with 2 bob chancers."Seem at ease with your self | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The people who want to cross will cross. Their desire to reach the UK for safety knows no boundaries.. If they are coming from France they are already in a place of safety, and have probably travelled through several other countries that are safe, safety is not the reason they are heading to the UK. Maybe it’s because English is the lingua Franca. You know, those heady days of Empire when a quarter of the globe was pink and we exploited other countries for their resources & so on? Maybe it’s payback time in a sense? Maybe it’s for a number of reasons, but safety isn’t one of them and that is the point I was responding too.
Like I said, safety is a nebulous term.
People can argue what is and isn't safe.
Ot is known that regional instability (bombs), language and historical and familial ties are the reasons people are drawn to Britain.
I highly recommend getting a passport and traveling it broadens the mind, breaks down barriers and increases empathy with "other" humans
2 hemispheres, 5 continents, 36 country's, 3 dependencies and one grey area (plus 16 US states)
I've been around the block a few times and would still slash the boats.
Every last fucking one of them.
I've zero empathy with 2 bob chancers."Your English is very good for a Spaniard. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The people who want to cross will cross. Their desire to reach the UK for safety knows no boundaries.. If they are coming from France they are already in a place of safety, and have probably travelled through several other countries that are safe, safety is not the reason they are heading to the UK. Maybe it’s because English is the lingua Franca. You know, those heady days of Empire when a quarter of the globe was pink and we exploited other countries for their resources & so on? Maybe it’s payback time in a sense? Maybe it’s for a number of reasons, but safety isn’t one of them and that is the point I was responding too.
Like I said, safety is a nebulous term.
People can argue what is and isn't safe.
Ot is known that regional instability (bombs), language and historical and familial ties are the reasons people are drawn to Britain.
I highly recommend getting a passport and traveling it broadens the mind, breaks down barriers and increases empathy with "other" humans
2 hemispheres, 5 continents, 36 country's, 3 dependencies and one grey area (plus 16 US states)
I've been around the block a few times and would still slash the boats.
Every last fucking one of them.
I've zero empathy with 2 bob chancers.
Your English is very good for a Spaniard."Bloody hell Jonny. If that's the best you can do it must have been a long day. You'll be calling me Grandpa next. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The people who want to cross will cross. Their desire to reach the UK for safety knows no boundaries.. If they are coming from France they are already in a place of safety, and have probably travelled through several other countries that are safe, safety is not the reason they are heading to the UK. Maybe it’s because English is the lingua Franca. You know, those heady days of Empire when a quarter of the globe was pink and we exploited other countries for their resources & so on? Maybe it’s payback time in a sense? Maybe it’s for a number of reasons, but safety isn’t one of them and that is the point I was responding too.
Like I said, safety is a nebulous term.
People can argue what is and isn't safe.
Ot is known that regional instability (bombs), language and historical and familial ties are the reasons people are drawn to Britain.
I highly recommend getting a passport and traveling it broadens the mind, breaks down barriers and increases empathy with "other" humans
2 hemispheres, 5 continents, 36 country's, 3 dependencies and one grey area (plus 16 US states)
I've been around the block a few times and would still slash the boats.
Every last fucking one of them.
I've zero empathy with 2 bob chancers.
Your English is very good for a Spaniard.
Bloody hell Jonny.
If that's the best you can do it must have been a long day.
You'll be calling me Grandpa next.
"Just making a friendly point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How long has that taken them? 10 years? The French are playing us over channel crossings, and no UK party has the balls to take decisive action. Whether we like it or not, this is paving the way to a Reform government." Why, what do the anti-immigrant brigade think that Reform are actually going to do? They're the political party with the least interest in doing anything to reduce immigration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How long has that taken them? 10 years? The French are playing us over channel crossings, and no UK party has the balls to take decisive action. Whether we like it or not, this is paving the way to a Reform government. Why, what do the anti-immigrant brigade think that Reform are actually going to do? They're the political party with the least interest in doing anything to reduce immigration." It's a good point - what would Reform do that's different? I took a peek at their 2024 Manifesto pledges, which has has two strands. 1) Fast processing and return of illegal asylum seekers 2) leave the ECHR. It's a moot point whether either of those are attainable in practice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How long has that taken them? 10 years? The French are playing us over channel crossings, and no UK party has the balls to take decisive action. Whether we like it or not, this is paving the way to a Reform government. Why, what do the anti-immigrant brigade think that Reform are actually going to do? They're the political party with the least interest in doing anything to reduce immigration." Does it matter what they will or won't do? Who knows where the country will be in 3/4 years time? Unlike the previous and current governments at least they will be seen to be trying to do something. If they fail it won't be much different than now. But even the smallest success would be a vast improvement. It really can't get much worse. Unless you are an illegal riding a Deliveroo bike of course.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How long has that taken them? 10 years? The French are playing us over channel crossings, and no UK party has the balls to take decisive action. Whether we like it or not, this is paving the way to a Reform government. Why, what do the anti-immigrant brigade think that Reform are actually going to do? They're the political party with the least interest in doing anything to reduce immigration. It's a good point - what would Reform do that's different? I took a peek at their 2024 Manifesto pledges, which has has two strands. 1) Fast processing and return of illegal asylum seekers 2) leave the ECHR. It's a moot point whether either of those are attainable in practice." 1. It's not illegal to claim asylum here. 2. Scrapping human rights is a terrible idea all round. Reform voters seem to be extremely easily impressed/conned. I'm assuming they're the same people who voted for Farage's other endeavours. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How long has that taken them? 10 years? The French are playing us over channel crossings, and no UK party has the balls to take decisive action. Whether we like it or not, this is paving the way to a Reform government. Why, what do the anti-immigrant brigade think that Reform are actually going to do? They're the political party with the least interest in doing anything to reduce immigration. Does it matter what they will or won't do? Who knows where the country will be in 3/4 years time? Unlike the previous and current governments at least they will be seen to be trying to do something. If they fail it won't be much different than now. But even the smallest success would be a vast improvement. It really can't get much worse. Unless you are an illegal riding a Deliveroo bike of course. "People aren't illegal. If it was such an easy fix, surely previous governments would have succeeded. There's an interesting article on infomigrants.net The migration Observatory also has some very good data. It's a shame people don't educate themselves, instead of accepting sensationalist media headlines. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How long has that taken them? 10 years? The French are playing us over channel crossings, and no UK party has the balls to take decisive action. Whether we like it or not, this is paving the way to a Reform government. Why, what do the anti-immigrant brigade think that Reform are actually going to do? They're the political party with the least interest in doing anything to reduce immigration. It's a good point - what would Reform do that's different? I took a peek at their 2024 Manifesto pledges, which has has two strands. 1) Fast processing and return of illegal asylum seekers 2) leave the ECHR. It's a moot point whether either of those are attainable in practice. 1. It's not illegal to claim asylum here. 2. Scrapping human rights is a terrible idea all round. Reform voters seem to be extremely easily impressed/conned. I'm assuming they're the same people who voted for Farage's other endeavours." 1. But what if the 'asylum' seekers are bogus, merely fodder for criminal smuggling gangs? 2. But what if the ECHR is being abused and leaves a country impotent to manage criminality? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only way to stop the boats is by making sure that it isn’t worthwhile coming here. Change the law to specifically ignore international maritime laws for those that deliberately place themselves in danger to break immigration laws. Prosecute anyone who picks up migrants at sea and brings them to the UK, including the RNLI. Life should be much more unpleasant for the illegal immigrants who make it to land. Lock them up in tented camps with basic facilities, not hotels where they are free to roam. They should be made to work on menial tasks making things to offset the cost of their keep. Claims should be processed quickly and, if people have destroyed their documents this should count against them. For those without documents tooth or hair samples should be taken to determine the most likely country of origin. Very few should be allowed to stay as the reasons given in asylum claims are mostly spurious. The rest should be deported to the most likely countries of origin irrespective of the “safety” of that country. Extreme pressure should be placed on countries to accept deportees - aid / sanctions / visa restrictions etc. " Making it illegal to save drowning kids if their foreign. Amazing. What a time to be alive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How long has that taken them? 10 years? The French are playing us over channel crossings, and no UK party has the balls to take decisive action. Whether we like it or not, this is paving the way to a Reform government. Why, what do the anti-immigrant brigade think that Reform are actually going to do? They're the political party with the least interest in doing anything to reduce immigration. It's a good point - what would Reform do that's different? I took a peek at their 2024 Manifesto pledges, which has has two strands. 1) Fast processing and return of illegal asylum seekers 2) leave the ECHR. It's a moot point whether either of those are attainable in practice. 1. It's not illegal to claim asylum here. 2. Scrapping human rights is a terrible idea all round. Reform voters seem to be extremely easily impressed/conned. I'm assuming they're the same people who voted for Farage's other endeavours. 1. But what if the 'asylum' seekers are bogus, merely fodder for criminal smuggling gangs? 2. But what if the ECHR is being abused and leaves a country impotent to manage criminality?" 1. That would be determined the same way during the processing, regardless of Reform voters not understanding that it's not illegal to claim asylum. 2. Yes, I think this is the kind of misunderstanding that Reform voters have. Maybe some better resources available so they can read about human rights, and why they're important? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only way to stop the boats is by making sure that it isn’t worthwhile coming here. Change the law to specifically ignore international maritime laws for those that deliberately place themselves in danger to break immigration laws. Prosecute anyone who picks up migrants at sea and brings them to the UK, including the RNLI. Life should be much more unpleasant for the illegal immigrants who make it to land. Lock them up in tented camps with basic facilities, not hotels where they are free to roam. They should be made to work on menial tasks making things to offset the cost of their keep. Claims should be processed quickly and, if people have destroyed their documents this should count against them. For those without documents tooth or hair samples should be taken to determine the most likely country of origin. Very few should be allowed to stay as the reasons given in asylum claims are mostly spurious. The rest should be deported to the most likely countries of origin irrespective of the “safety” of that country. Extreme pressure should be placed on countries to accept deportees - aid / sanctions / visa restrictions etc. " Whilst I agree that we shouldn't make the UK seem like a tempting place to travel to. People still deserve the right to be treated like human beings not animals. Purpose made facilities designed to house people whilst claim's are processed,with modern clean welfare facilities, education facilities for children, healthcare and places to carry on with religious practices. In a safe comfortable environment. Like many other countries have done Turkey being a good example. Not as you have suggested treated like cattle. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only way to stop the boats is by making sure that it isn’t worthwhile coming here. Change the law to specifically ignore international maritime laws for those that deliberately place themselves in danger to break immigration laws. Prosecute anyone who picks up migrants at sea and brings them to the UK, including the RNLI. Life should be much more unpleasant for the illegal immigrants who make it to land. Lock them up in tented camps with basic facilities, not hotels where they are free to roam. They should be made to work on menial tasks making things to offset the cost of their keep. Claims should be processed quickly and, if people have destroyed their documents this should count against them. For those without documents tooth or hair samples should be taken to determine the most likely country of origin. Very few should be allowed to stay as the reasons given in asylum claims are mostly spurious. The rest should be deported to the most likely countries of origin irrespective of the “safety” of that country. Extreme pressure should be placed on countries to accept deportees - aid / sanctions / visa restrictions etc. Making it illegal to save drowning kids if their foreign. Amazing. What a time to be alive. " Yes such a shame for those grey haired 14 year olds. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only way to stop the boats is by making sure that it isn’t worthwhile coming here. Change the law to specifically ignore international maritime laws for those that deliberately place themselves in danger to break immigration laws. Prosecute anyone who picks up migrants at sea and brings them to the UK, including the RNLI. Life should be much more unpleasant for the illegal immigrants who make it to land. Lock them up in tented camps with basic facilities, not hotels where they are free to roam. They should be made to work on menial tasks making things to offset the cost of their keep. Claims should be processed quickly and, if people have destroyed their documents this should count against them. For those without documents tooth or hair samples should be taken to determine the most likely country of origin. Very few should be allowed to stay as the reasons given in asylum claims are mostly spurious. The rest should be deported to the most likely countries of origin irrespective of the “safety” of that country. Extreme pressure should be placed on countries to accept deportees - aid / sanctions / visa restrictions etc. Making it illegal to save drowning kids if their foreign. Amazing. What a time to be alive. Yes such a shame for those grey haired 14 year olds." I'll be completely honest, I don't want the RNLI to let elderly people drown either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If someone can give me actual real evidence that 100% proves that every single person entering this country illegally is genuinely fleeing from a clear and present danger of imminent death,then yeah let's give them somewhere to live TEMPORARILY until the situation is resolved in their own country. But you cannot tell me every single person travelling thousands of miles by one means or another is doing it for the above reasons. Most are economic migrants seeking free housing, healthcare and support. If I lived in a country that was in a state of civil war and I was in danger,I certainly wouldn't fuck off and leave my family to defend for themselves whilst I travel thousands of miles to the UK to seek safety for myself, that's cowardly. We are seen as a soft touch and easy prey by people scamming the compassionate nature of the system designed to help those who are ACTUALLY in danger. A quick Google search shows that 70% of those arriving are single males over 18. That's an awful lot of people who could stay and fight for their families and country. As for the UK taking it's fair share, compared to other countries we may not have taken as many but for the size of this country compared to others we have. Lastly For the most part this is NOT about people seeking political asylum it's about organised crime people being lied to fed information by criminal gang's who are the ones who are responsible for the fear, convincing people to travel to other countries and making huge profits from it. Stop the gangs first put then once they are gone,put effort into supporting people in their own country be safe and well reducing the need to travel to other countries." It's why we have an asylum process. You know to see who has a genuine claim and who doesn't | |||
(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 |
"It wouldn't be so bad if all the placard waving " refugees welcome here" took them in,fed them,paid for their driving lessons,health care,phones etc. I'm renting,I've got no room is all you hear,surely not all of them are renting or have no room. They just want to make themselves look good but like me they don't want any refugees living with or near them. Meanwhile our country's high streets are awash with criminal activity from mostly foreign gang members who employ hotel dwellers cash in hand. " This old chestnut 'non-racists should take them in', has the be the stupidest gotcha of all time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If someone can give me actual real evidence that 100% proves that every single person entering this country illegally is genuinely fleeing from a clear and present danger of imminent death,then yeah let's give them somewhere to live TEMPORARILY until the situation is resolved in their own country. But you cannot tell me every single person travelling thousands of miles by one means or another is doing it for the above reasons. Most are economic migrants seeking free housing, healthcare and support. If I lived in a country that was in a state of civil war and I was in danger,I certainly wouldn't fuck off and leave my family to defend for themselves whilst I travel thousands of miles to the UK to seek safety for myself, that's cowardly. We are seen as a soft touch and easy prey by people scamming the compassionate nature of the system designed to help those who are ACTUALLY in danger. A quick Google search shows that 70% of those arriving are single males over 18. That's an awful lot of people who could stay and fight for their families and country. As for the UK taking it's fair share, compared to other countries we may not have taken as many but for the size of this country compared to others we have. Lastly For the most part this is NOT about people seeking political asylum it's about organised crime people being lied to fed information by criminal gang's who are the ones who are responsible for the fear, convincing people to travel to other countries and making huge profits from it. Stop the gangs first put then once they are gone,put effort into supporting people in their own country be safe and well reducing the need to travel to other countries. It's why we have an asylum process. You know to see who has a genuine claim and who doesn't "Patronising virtue signalling aside, have you got any actual contributions to the thread apart from arguing with everyone? Or is your stance literally: Let's take everyone in no questions asked and anyone who doesn't agree with you is a right wing reform voter who's opinions aren't valid?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It wouldn't be so bad if all the placard waving " refugees welcome here" took them in,fed them,paid for their driving lessons,health care,phones etc. I'm renting,I've got no room is all you hear,surely not all of them are renting or have no room. They just want to make themselves look good but like me they don't want any refugees living with or near them. Meanwhile our country's high streets are awash with criminal activity from mostly foreign gang members who employ hotel dwellers cash in hand. This old chestnut 'non-racists should take them in', has the be the stupidest gotcha of all time." Why? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It wouldn't be so bad if all the placard waving " refugees welcome here" took them in,fed them,paid for their driving lessons,health care,phones etc. I'm renting,I've got no room is all you hear,surely not all of them are renting or have no room. They just want to make themselves look good but like me they don't want any refugees living with or near them. Meanwhile our country's high streets are awash with criminal activity from mostly foreign gang members who employ hotel dwellers cash in hand. This old chestnut 'non-racists should take them in', has the be the stupidest gotcha of all time. Why?" Come on. Think about what you're saying. You can do it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Love how people who don't want to pay for thousands of unvetted men illegally entering our country are labelled racist." But once they have been vetted and granted leave to remain, they become refugees, eligible to work and pay into the system that provides for everyone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Or set up a shop on the high street selling illegal contraband,or work tax free delivering food,or set up a barbers shop to launder money from drugs. If they've nothing to hide use the proper channels to enter our country." Have you read about the asylum process? There are SOME safe and legal routes, but for many people, they actually have to be in the country to apply for asylum in that country. I wonder how many non-immigrants sell contraband, money launder, avoid paying taxes........ Its not exclusive to one group of people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If someone can give me actual real evidence that 100% proves that every single person entering this country illegally is genuinely fleeing from a clear and present danger of imminent death,then yeah let's give them somewhere to live TEMPORARILY until the situation is resolved in their own country. But you cannot tell me every single person travelling thousands of miles by one means or another is doing it for the above reasons. Most are economic migrants seeking free housing, healthcare and support. If I lived in a country that was in a state of civil war and I was in danger,I certainly wouldn't fuck off and leave my family to defend for themselves whilst I travel thousands of miles to the UK to seek safety for myself, that's cowardly. We are seen as a soft touch and easy prey by people scamming the compassionate nature of the system designed to help those who are ACTUALLY in danger. A quick Google search shows that 70% of those arriving are single males over 18. That's an awful lot of people who could stay and fight for their families and country. As for the UK taking it's fair share, compared to other countries we may not have taken as many but for the size of this country compared to others we have. Lastly For the most part this is NOT about people seeking political asylum it's about organised crime people being lied to fed information by criminal gang's who are the ones who are responsible for the fear, convincing people to travel to other countries and making huge profits from it. Stop the gangs first put then once they are gone,put effort into supporting people in their own country be safe and well reducing the need to travel to other countries. It's why we have an asylum process. You know to see who has a genuine claim and who doesn't
Patronising virtue signalling aside, have you got any actual contributions to the thread apart from arguing with everyone?
Or is your stance literally:
Let's take everyone in no questions asked and anyone who doesn't agree with you is a right wing reform voter who's opinions aren't valid??"We have an asylum process. Those questions are asked during the process. The rest is you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Love how people who don't want to pay for thousands of unvetted men illegally entering our country are labelled racist." They are vetted during the asylum process | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Or set up a shop on the high street selling illegal contraband,or work tax free delivering food,or set up a barbers shop to launder money from drugs. If they've nothing to hide use the proper channels to enter our country." Seeking asylum is a proper channel to enter our country because we have all but closed safe and legal routes. The refugee convention 1951 sets all this out. I suggest reading and becoming informed of our role. Not form opinions based on lies from right wing press | |||
(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 |
"Love how people who don't want to pay for thousands of unvetted men illegally entering our country are labelled racist. But once they have been vetted and granted leave to remain, they become refugees, eligible to work and pay into the system that provides for everyone. " Being eligible and actually working are 2 different things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Exactly, the first thing they do is break our laws,not a good start is it?" Irregular means is not equivocal to illegal. Please read up on the asylum process. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Love how people who don't want to pay for thousands of unvetted men illegally entering our country are labelled racist. But once they have been vetted and granted leave to remain, they become refugees, eligible to work and pay into the system that provides for everyone. Being eligible and actually working are 2 different things. " Just like many UK born residents! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Love how people who don't want to pay for thousands of unvetted men illegally entering our country are labelled racist. But once they have been vetted and granted leave to remain, they become refugees, eligible to work and pay into the system that provides for everyone. Being eligible and actually working are 2 different things. Just like many UK born residents! " Oh dear... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Exactly, the first thing they do is break our laws,not a good start is it?" It's not illegal to enter irregularly Read the refugee convention | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Love how people who don't want to pay for thousands of unvetted men illegally entering our country are labelled racist. But once they have been vetted and granted leave to remain, they become refugees, eligible to work and pay into the system that provides for everyone. Being eligible and actually working are 2 different things. Just like many UK born residents! Oh dear..." Quite. Trying to blame the ills of society on a group of people that makes up a very small percentage of the population is very disheartening. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes,we have enough criminals of our own,why add to them?" Why is there an assumption that every asylum seeker is a criminal? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm having a wild guess here but im thinking you don't house any in your home?" Such a weird flex. I pay my taxes and part of that is the asylum process. I do however, know many even fuck them. So... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My point being the people who have no objection to them being here pay towards their upkeep. " We do. Everyone who pays tax. That includes you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My point being the people who have no objection to them being here pay towards their upkeep. " It's about £7 a day mate obese people cost more! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The 1951 refugee convention is not fit for the modern day. It has loopholes that are exploited by criminals, which in turn is putting great strain on the infrastructure and economy of the country. The people who campaign and support those that arrive here through irregular means are the people that will through their support and actions, will eventually take us out of the ECHR or force a re-write. Those same people will be up in arms over that but will not recognise their uncompromising involvement was a leading factor in the decision. " What your upset about is that it's effecting the UK which the people who wrote the act never thought it would. If the government opened up safe and legal routes from the countries deemed most unsafe or the countries we accept most from it would reduce your upset greatly because those images would be greatly reduced. I doubt you'll stop them because some English speaking country ravaged by climate change will always find away. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Source?" Plenty. Including Gov.com | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Source?" .gov All this is easily accessible They have about £7 a day to live on about £49.18 a week. Or £8 a week if their in full board accommodation | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Link?" Try Google. I hear its very good. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Dosen't take into account all the businesses suffering in vicinity of the illegals in hotels,cafes, restaurants etc." They are not illegal! At least use the correct terminology! What's your source and can you please provide a link? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Dosen't take into account all the businesses suffering in vicinity of the illegals in hotels,cafes, restaurants etc." Your making stuff up. What are they suffering from? That they have brown people in the area? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Standard reply." If you were motivated to find out, you would. Not ask others for the benefit of their research. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's do a survey. How many reading this thread actually house illegal immigrants in their own property?" Again, you say illegal. They're not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People avoid the area due to gangs of unvetted men hanging around. " Source? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's do a survey. How many reading this thread actually house illegal immigrants in their own property?" What point do you think this proves? Remember when your lot accused Gary lineker of not taking refugees in and then he did??? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People avoid the area due to gangs of unvetted men hanging around. " Their being vetted though, it's the asylum process. It's part of being a civilised nation and our taxes pay for it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Until they are assessed they are still illegal hence they aren't allowed to work,although some do,cash in hand." No, they are not illegal. They have arrived by irregular means. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm having a wild guess here but im thinking you don't house any in your home?" This was covered multiple times. It's the shittest 'gotya' of all time, makes no sense, and only highlights that the person saying it has absolutely no idea how the asylum process works, or what happens afterwards. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Until they are assessed they are still illegal hence they aren't allowed to work,although some do,cash in hand." Nope, never illegal and the government could change that and allow them to work. But apparently the right wing press see that as an extra pull so cruella saw to it that the asylum system broke down to anger racist meat heads | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Until they are assessed they are still illegal hence they aren't allowed to work,although some do,cash in hand." This is factually incorrect. It's not illegal to claim asylum, in fact it would be illegal for someone to do it when not physically present in the country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given the spread of immigrants across many countries around the world, there can't be many people actually left in Syria now? " Population of Syria around 23 million | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have you seen the Scottish proposal from 2024, regarding asylum seekers and employment. At first glance, some interesting points! " No, this has passed me by? Any good? The SNP seem to be a lot more progressive and braver than Welsh labour and definitely UK labour | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have you seen the Scottish proposal from 2024, regarding asylum seekers and employment. At first glance, some interesting points! No, this has passed me by? Any good? The SNP seem to be a lot more progressive and braver than Welsh labour and definitely UK labour " Very good. Pokes holes in the use of the MAC study. I've only skimmed the first section, I'll read it fully when I have time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No scheme will work to stop the small boat crossings. Any scheme will require proof of identity and will also include fingerprinting and face recognition, which will prevent them making a trip by small boat in the future should their application fail. In simple terms nothing would have changed legally and it is far easier to obtain refugee status by following the smuggling gangs step by step process for acceptance, which is all part of the service along with a small boat crossing. " So Reform are talking bollocks in their manifesto. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No scheme will work to stop the small boat crossings. Any scheme will require proof of identity and will also include fingerprinting and face recognition, which will prevent them making a trip by small boat in the future should their application fail. In simple terms nothing would have changed legally and it is far easier to obtain refugee status by following the smuggling gangs step by step process for acceptance, which is all part of the service along with a small boat crossing. So Reform are talking bollocks in their manifesto." If they claim that they can stop small boat crossings without leaving or changing the 1951 refugee convention, which would also mean leaving ECHR, yes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) (2024) projects hypothetical migrants’ lifetime fiscal impact, and also finds that earnings are a crucial factor (Figure 1). They find that a migrant arriving at age 25 and earning the UK average earnings has a more positive lifetime fiscal contribution than a UK-born worker on the same salary, because the UK does not pay the cost of education and other public services they received during childhood. However, they found that low-wage workers had a negative lifetime fiscal impact, while high-wage workers had a positive one ____________ From the Migration Observatory. " So it comes down to people being paid low wages again, frequently having to be topped up by state benefits. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) (2024) projects hypothetical migrants’ lifetime fiscal impact, and also finds that earnings are a crucial factor (Figure 1). They find that a migrant arriving at age 25 and earning the UK average earnings has a more positive lifetime fiscal contribution than a UK-born worker on the same salary, because the UK does not pay the cost of education and other public services they received during childhood. However, they found that low-wage workers had a negative lifetime fiscal impact, while high-wage workers had a positive one ____________ From the Migration Observatory. " This is mixing together those that arrive for work on Visa's, in roles that are needed to be filled by resources outside of the country. Those arriving by small boat are not those people and contribute very little. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) (2024) projects hypothetical migrants’ lifetime fiscal impact, and also finds that earnings are a crucial factor (Figure 1). They find that a migrant arriving at age 25 and earning the UK average earnings has a more positive lifetime fiscal contribution than a UK-born worker on the same salary, because the UK does not pay the cost of education and other public services they received during childhood. However, they found that low-wage workers had a negative lifetime fiscal impact, while high-wage workers had a positive one ____________ From the Migration Observatory. This is mixing together those that arrive for work on Visa's, in roles that are needed to be filled by resources outside of the country. Those arriving by small boat are not those people and contribute very little." The point is that asylum seekers who become refugees are able to work and contribute to the economy. They are in those figures as well. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Those arriving by small boat are not those people and contribute very little." Well, yes, certainly whilst they aren’t allowed to work. If they have gone on to be granted asylum have you got a source which confirms the above? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The argument that only X arrive per year which is smaller than Y is not a true reflection of the whole picture. The numbers arriving are unknown and can't be budgeted for, new arrivals have never paid into the welfare or tax system and once accepted the vast majority will be on benefits for the longterm. The numbers quoted are usually yearly, to minimise the impact, when in fact as we know the refugees are reliant mainly on benefits, this should be presented as a cumulative number year on year. As an example it more realistic to say. Since 2018, tax payers are now supporting the equivalent of a typical mid sized town who have not contributed to the system. I think it is the skewing of figures and underplaying the reality that has opened the door so widely for Reform. " This is utter nonsense, refugees want to work and do work. They actually cost less to the state because we haven't payed for their mother during pregnancy, we haven't payed for any schooling or any injuries they might have had during those years. We actually benefit from their health and ability to work. Without immigration either irregular or regular we will not be able to pay for the NHS or pension Capitalism is essentially a massive ponsy scheme and we need an ever growing population especially with an ever growing OAP class. It isn't less immigration we need but more, unless, you want to start telling people to breed more! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) (2024) projects hypothetical migrants’ lifetime fiscal impact, and also finds that earnings are a crucial factor (Figure 1). They find that a migrant arriving at age 25 and earning the UK average earnings has a more positive lifetime fiscal contribution than a UK-born worker on the same salary, because the UK does not pay the cost of education and other public services they received during childhood. However, they found that low-wage workers had a negative lifetime fiscal impact, while high-wage workers had a positive one ____________ From the Migration Observatory. So it comes down to people being paid low wages again, frequently having to be topped up by state benefits. " But hey, bend the knee to the greedy millionaires | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) (2024) projects hypothetical migrants’ lifetime fiscal impact, and also finds that earnings are a crucial factor (Figure 1). They find that a migrant arriving at age 25 and earning the UK average earnings has a more positive lifetime fiscal contribution than a UK-born worker on the same salary, because the UK does not pay the cost of education and other public services they received during childhood. However, they found that low-wage workers had a negative lifetime fiscal impact, while high-wage workers had a positive one ____________ From the Migration Observatory. This is mixing together those that arrive for work on Visa's, in roles that are needed to be filled by resources outside of the country. Those arriving by small boat are not those people and contribute very little." You want to believe that. They do contribute, they have chosen this country as their safe haven they want to be British, they like our liberal ways, they want their children to go through the British systems. You've created your own bogey man | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not illegal to enter irregularly Read the refugee convention" It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, in that it's contrary to section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. The 1951 Convention states that it is not permitted to prosecute refugees for offences committed during their arrival. This doesn't mean that the offence wasn't committed, just that the refugee can't be jailed for doing so. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not illegal to enter irregularly Read the refugee convention It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, in that it's contrary to section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. The 1951 Convention states that it is not permitted to prosecute refugees for offences committed during their arrival. This doesn't mean that the offence wasn't committed, just that the refugee can't be jailed for doing so. Entering the UK without permission is illegal." No it isn't. If it was it's not hotels they'd be kept in but prisons. They have to arrive on our shores to claim asylum. Please understand the refugee convention and not spread further misinformation | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) (2024) projects hypothetical migrants’ lifetime fiscal impact, and also finds that earnings are a crucial factor (Figure 1). They find that a migrant arriving at age 25 and earning the UK average earnings has a more positive lifetime fiscal contribution than a UK-born worker on the same salary, because the UK does not pay the cost of education and other public services they received during childhood. However, they found that low-wage workers had a negative lifetime fiscal impact, while high-wage workers had a positive one ____________ From the Migration Observatory. This is mixing together those that arrive for work on Visa's, in roles that are needed to be filled by resources outside of the country. Those arriving by small boat are not those people and contribute very little. The point is that asylum seekers who become refugees are able to work and contribute to the economy. They are in those figures as well. " They can work, yes but employment figures for those who arrived via small boats are very low, especially in the first few years. After around 18 months, only about 25% are in work, and even after two years it’s around 30%. Their skillsets also lead them to low paying roles. A small proportion eventually contribute, the majority remain dependent on public support for years, which is where the economic burden lies. When we look at "standard" visa holders, they work from day one and are paid the "standard minimum salary" of £38700, this is rising to £41700 July 22nd. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not illegal to enter irregularly Read the refugee convention It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, in that it's contrary to section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. The 1951 Convention states that it is not permitted to prosecute refugees for offences committed during their arrival. This doesn't mean that the offence wasn't committed, just that the refugee can't be jailed for doing so. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. No it isn't. If it was it's not hotels they'd be kept in but prisons. They have to arrive on our shores to claim asylum. Please understand the refugee convention and not spread further misinformation " Entry without leave is a breach of section 3(1)(a) and therefore constitutes illegal entry as defined by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended by the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not illegal to enter irregularly Read the refugee convention It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, in that it's contrary to section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. The 1951 Convention states that it is not permitted to prosecute refugees for offences committed during their arrival. This doesn't mean that the offence wasn't committed, just that the refugee can't be jailed for doing so. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. No it isn't. If it was it's not hotels they'd be kept in but prisons. They have to arrive on our shores to claim asylum. Please understand the refugee convention and not spread further misinformation Entry without leave is a breach of section 3(1)(a) and therefore constitutes illegal entry as defined by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended by the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act)." None of it changes the simple fact, that upon arrival to UK shores you seek asylum. That is a legal protection what those acts are more about are people who enter and don't seek asylum, overstay visas and employment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not illegal to enter irregularly Read the refugee convention It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, in that it's contrary to section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. The 1951 Convention states that it is not permitted to prosecute refugees for offences committed during their arrival. This doesn't mean that the offence wasn't committed, just that the refugee can't be jailed for doing so. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. No it isn't. If it was it's not hotels they'd be kept in but prisons. They have to arrive on our shores to claim asylum. Please understand the refugee convention and not spread further misinformation Entry without leave is a breach of section 3(1)(a) and therefore constitutes illegal entry as defined by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended by the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act)." There should be a fact sheet that outlines many of these things, pointing out what is and isn't legal and any mitigation. It would stop a lot of arguing and people being given the wrong information. It could only help in my opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not illegal to enter irregularly Read the refugee convention It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, in that it's contrary to section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. The 1951 Convention states that it is not permitted to prosecute refugees for offences committed during their arrival. This doesn't mean that the offence wasn't committed, just that the refugee can't be jailed for doing so. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. No it isn't. If it was it's not hotels they'd be kept in but prisons. They have to arrive on our shores to claim asylum. Please understand the refugee convention and not spread further misinformation Entry without leave is a breach of section 3(1)(a) and therefore constitutes illegal entry as defined by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended by the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act). There should be a fact sheet that outlines many of these things, pointing out what is and isn't legal and any mitigation. It would stop a lot of arguing and people being given the wrong information. It could only help in my opinion. " What would that resolve? Lawyers make their money about arguing the toss about the interpretation of a laws. That's not going to stop bad actors such as the right wing press and terrible human beings like Farage scapegoating people exercising their legal right. And dull individuals who dislike black and brown people arriving believe a simple narrative | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not illegal to enter irregularly Read the refugee convention It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, in that it's contrary to section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. The 1951 Convention states that it is not permitted to prosecute refugees for offences committed during their arrival. This doesn't mean that the offence wasn't committed, just that the refugee can't be jailed for doing so. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. No it isn't. If it was it's not hotels they'd be kept in but prisons. They have to arrive on our shores to claim asylum. Please understand the refugee convention and not spread further misinformation Entry without leave is a breach of section 3(1)(a) and therefore constitutes illegal entry as defined by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended by the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act). None of it changes the simple fact, that upon arrival to UK shores you seek asylum. That is a legal protection what those acts are more about are people who enter and don't seek asylum, overstay visas and employment. " Sounds a good ruse to me. The smuggling gangs clearly give sound legal advice in addition to channel crossings. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not illegal to enter irregularly Read the refugee convention It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, in that it's contrary to section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. The 1951 Convention states that it is not permitted to prosecute refugees for offences committed during their arrival. This doesn't mean that the offence wasn't committed, just that the refugee can't be jailed for doing so. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. No it isn't. If it was it's not hotels they'd be kept in but prisons. They have to arrive on our shores to claim asylum. Please understand the refugee convention and not spread further misinformation Entry without leave is a breach of section 3(1)(a) and therefore constitutes illegal entry as defined by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended by the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act). None of it changes the simple fact, that upon arrival to UK shores you seek asylum. That is a legal protection what those acts are more about are people who enter and don't seek asylum, overstay visas and employment. Sounds a good ruse to me. The smuggling gangs clearly give sound legal advice in addition to channel crossings." They don't need to, you know they can read and have the internet! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know, it would make things a lot easier IF you could go to any country's embassy, regardless of where it was in the world, and claim asylum to that nation at the embassy. Complete the forms, hand over contact info, then go home and wait to be called with their answer. Obviously if fleeing persecution you might not have a home to return to, but having registered an application, that embassy is now responsible for your welfare and has to arrange something for you." Julian Assange likes this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know, it would make things a lot easier IF you could go to any country's embassy, regardless of where it was in the world, and claim asylum to that nation at the embassy. Complete the forms, hand over contact info, then go home and wait to be called with their answer. Obviously if fleeing persecution you might not have a home to return to, but having registered an application, that embassy is now responsible for your welfare and has to arrange something for you." How many war torn countries have active embassies? Don't we recall our staff and close embassies when countries became unsafe? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not illegal to enter irregularly Read the refugee convention" "It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, in that it's contrary to section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. The 1951 Convention states that it is not permitted to prosecute refugees for offences committed during their arrival. This doesn't mean that the offence wasn't committed, just that the refugee can't be jailed for doing so. Entering the UK without permission is illegal." "No it isn't. If it was it's not hotels they'd be kept in but prisons. They have to arrive on our shores to claim asylum. Please understand the refugee convention and not spread further misinformation" "Entry without leave is a breach of section 3(1)(a) and therefore constitutes illegal entry as defined by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended by the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act)." "None of it changes the simple fact, that upon arrival to UK shores you seek asylum. That is a legal protection what those acts are more about are people who enter and don't seek asylum, overstay visas and employment." I see you've changed your language. Yes, refugees have a legal protection from prosecution if they are granted asylum (or are in the process). That doesn't mean that the crime didn't happen. If they enter without permission, that crime is listed in their criminal record, and will be used against them if they apply for those occupations that require a clean record. It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, regardless if whether you subsequently claim asylum. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not illegal to enter irregularly Read the refugee convention It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, in that it's contrary to section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. The 1951 Convention states that it is not permitted to prosecute refugees for offences committed during their arrival. This doesn't mean that the offence wasn't committed, just that the refugee can't be jailed for doing so. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. No it isn't. If it was it's not hotels they'd be kept in but prisons. They have to arrive on our shores to claim asylum. Please understand the refugee convention and not spread further misinformation Entry without leave is a breach of section 3(1)(a) and therefore constitutes illegal entry as defined by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended by the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act). None of it changes the simple fact, that upon arrival to UK shores you seek asylum. That is a legal protection what those acts are more about are people who enter and don't seek asylum, overstay visas and employment. I see you've changed your language. Yes, refugees have a legal protection from prosecution if they are granted asylum (or are in the process). That doesn't mean that the crime didn't happen. If they enter without permission, that crime is listed in their criminal record, and will be used against them if they apply for those occupations that require a clean record. It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, regardless if whether you subsequently claim asylum." No it does not, claiming asylum on arrival is not illegal and will not appear on your criminal record!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not illegal to enter irregularly Read the refugee convention It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, in that it's contrary to section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. The 1951 Convention states that it is not permitted to prosecute refugees for offences committed during their arrival. This doesn't mean that the offence wasn't committed, just that the refugee can't be jailed for doing so. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. No it isn't. If it was it's not hotels they'd be kept in but prisons. They have to arrive on our shores to claim asylum. Please understand the refugee convention and not spread further misinformation Entry without leave is a breach of section 3(1)(a) and therefore constitutes illegal entry as defined by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended by the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act). None of it changes the simple fact, that upon arrival to UK shores you seek asylum. That is a legal protection what those acts are more about are people who enter and don't seek asylum, overstay visas and employment. I see you've changed your language. Yes, refugees have a legal protection from prosecution if they are granted asylum (or are in the process). That doesn't mean that the crime didn't happen. If they enter without permission, that crime is listed in their criminal record, and will be used against them if they apply for those occupations that require a clean record. It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, regardless if whether you subsequently claim asylum." Your conflating people who do claim asylum on arrival and people who don't. Deliberately and for your own nefarious reasons. Claiming asylum on arrival is legal and will not appear on your criminal record. If you don't claim asylum as soon as you reach UK shores then it can appear on your criminal record if granted leave to remain, however, that is very unlikely because the vast majority of people who don't, don't actually have a choice and their actually apart of modern day sl@very | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see you've changed your language. Yes, refugees have a legal protection from prosecution if they are granted asylum (or are in the process). That doesn't mean that the crime didn't happen. If they enter without permission, that crime is listed in their criminal record, and will be used against them if they apply for those occupations that require a clean record. It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, regardless of whether you subsequently claim asylum." "No it does not, claiming asylum on arrival is not illegal and will not appear on your criminal record!!" You should learn to read what people actually wrote, not what you think they did. Claiming asylum is not illegal. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. If a person enters the UK without permission, and then claims asylum, they have committed the crime of entering the UK illegally. They can't be prosecuted for that crime, because their asylum status gives them protection, but the crime of entering the UK illegally is still on their record. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see you've changed your language. Yes, refugees have a legal protection from prosecution if they are granted asylum (or are in the process). That doesn't mean that the crime didn't happen. If they enter without permission, that crime is listed in their criminal record, and will be used against them if they apply for those occupations that require a clean record. It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, regardless of whether you subsequently claim asylum. No it does not, claiming asylum on arrival is not illegal and will not appear on your criminal record!! You should learn to read what people actually wrote, not what you think they did. Claiming asylum is not illegal. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. If a person enters the UK without permission, and then claims asylum, they have committed the crime of entering the UK illegally. They can't be prosecuted for that crime, because their asylum status gives them protection, but the crime of entering the UK illegally is still on their record." No it isn't!! Your nearly their , but still wrong | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see you've changed your language. Yes, refugees have a legal protection from prosecution if they are granted asylum (or are in the process). That doesn't mean that the crime didn't happen. If they enter without permission, that crime is listed in their criminal record, and will be used against them if they apply for those occupations that require a clean record. It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, regardless of whether you subsequently claim asylum. No it does not, claiming asylum on arrival is not illegal and will not appear on your criminal record!! You should learn to read what people actually wrote, not what you think they did. Claiming asylum is not illegal. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. If a person enters the UK without permission, and then claims asylum, they have committed the crime of entering the UK illegally. They can't be prosecuted for that crime, because their asylum status gives them protection, but the crime of entering the UK illegally is still on their record." You should pay attention to the absolute rhubarb the other chap was spouting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see you've changed your language. Yes, refugees have a legal protection from prosecution if they are granted asylum (or are in the process). That doesn't mean that the crime didn't happen. If they enter without permission, that crime is listed in their criminal record, and will be used against them if they apply for those occupations that require a clean record. It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, regardless of whether you subsequently claim asylum." "No it does not, claiming asylum on arrival is not illegal and will not appear on your criminal record!!" "You should learn to read what people actually wrote, not what you think they did. Claiming asylum is not illegal. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. If a person enters the UK without permission, and then claims asylum, they have committed the crime of entering the UK illegally. They can't be prosecuted for that crime, because their asylum status gives them protection, but the crime of entering the UK illegally is still on their record." "No it isn't!! Your nearly their , but still wrong " Please enlighten us all by telling me which bit you think I have wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see you've changed your language. Yes, refugees have a legal protection from prosecution if they are granted asylum (or are in the process). That doesn't mean that the crime didn't happen. If they enter without permission, that crime is listed in their criminal record, and will be used against them if they apply for those occupations that require a clean record. It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, regardless of whether you subsequently claim asylum. No it does not, claiming asylum on arrival is not illegal and will not appear on your criminal record!! You should learn to read what people actually wrote, not what you think they did. Claiming asylum is not illegal. Entering the UK without permission is illegal. If a person enters the UK without permission, and then claims asylum, they have committed the crime of entering the UK illegally. They can't be prosecuted for that crime, because their asylum status gives them protection, but the crime of entering the UK illegally is still on their record. No it isn't!! Your nearly their , but still wrong Please enlighten us all by telling me which bit you think I have wrong." Blimey read above! Claiming asylum is legal, you have to reach UK shores to claim asylum! When granted refugee status it doesn't appear on your criminal record. Because, if your granted asylum you've done nothing wrong!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Blimey read above! Claiming asylum is legal, you have to reach UK shores to claim asylum! When granted refugee status it doesn't appear on your criminal record. Because, if your granted asylum you've done nothing wrong!!" I suggest you read above. Nowhere have I said that claiming asylum is illegal. In fact I very clearly stated that it isn't illegal. However entering the UK without permission *is* illegal. And it remains illegal, even if you claim, and are granted, asylum. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Blimey read above! Claiming asylum is legal, you have to reach UK shores to claim asylum! When granted refugee status it doesn't appear on your criminal record. Because, if your granted asylum you've done nothing wrong!! I suggest you read above. Nowhere have I said that claiming asylum is illegal. In fact I very clearly stated that it isn't illegal. However entering the UK without permission *is* illegal. And it remains illegal, even if you claim, and are granted, asylum." No it isn't, it's only illegal if you don't! Your misinterpreting the law | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Entering the UK illegally is a criminal offence under Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. Specifically, knowingly entering the UK without the required permission (entry clearance) is a criminal offence. Whilst criminal prosecutions are not the most common way to handle such cases, individuals who enter illegally can face detention, removal from the UK, and potential prosecution." " And when found to have entered legally via the refugee convention it is no longer illegal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Entering the UK illegally is a criminal offence under Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. Specifically, knowingly entering the UK without the required permission (entry clearance) is a criminal offence. Whilst criminal prosecutions are not the most common way to handle such cases, individuals who enter illegally can face detention, removal from the UK, and potential prosecution." " I repeat If the small boats have contacted the authorities before making landfall and have been directed to proceed to a given beach or marina to be met by first responders, they are to be treated as arriving passengers, in line with those rescued and brought ashore. If the migrants have not contacted the authorities beforehand and are either waiting on the beach to present themselves to the first responders when they arrive or make no attempt to evade officers who have arrived before they make landfall, they are to be treated as compliant arriving passengers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Entering the UK illegally is a criminal offence under Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. Specifically, knowingly entering the UK without the required permission (entry clearance) is a criminal offence. Whilst criminal prosecutions are not the most common way to handle such cases, individuals who enter illegally can face detention, removal from the UK, and potential prosecution." I repeat If the small boats have contacted the authorities before making landfall and have been directed to proceed to a given beach or marina to be met by first responders, they are to be treated as arriving passengers, in line with those rescued and brought ashore. If the migrants have not contacted the authorities beforehand and are either waiting on the beach to present themselves to the first responders when they arrive or make no attempt to evade officers who have arrived before they make landfall, they are to be treated as compliant arriving passengers." Exactly
If you present yourself to the authorities you are legal refugees | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reform would achieve feck all. Turning the dinghies around & sending them back to France may have populist appeal as an idea but the French certainly won’t stand for it. They could block port access, rip up trade cooperation, stop our border checks operating on French soil. We’ll have migrants coming over on the trains & ferries. Much better for the richer nations to collectively tackle the root cause, which is global inequality." I thought the cause was meant to be fear of death and torture? Or perhaps civil war? But I agree with you, the cause is people wanting a better life. But let’s stop for one minute and think. Assuming we want to help them all, how is that possible? They come here with nothing, so to give them just half of the life they want, we have to give them half of the life we have. Someone posted a few days ago that there’s 5 million people in this country living in poverty. If that’s true, they can’t give anything they need some help themselves, right? How many people live in poverty in Asia and Africa? A billion? Even if we wanted to we can’t help them all. So the question becomes how many do we help? Socialists will argue “as many as possible”. A noble answer but how many is that? Where do we draw the line and say no more? When the population reaches 70 million? 80? 100? There is a finite amount of land for housing, we need to grow food. As does the rest of Western Europe. As with all line drawing exercises people never agree. Some people think we are at the point now where we have to say no, those people get called far right racists. When the population reaches 80 million and we have hundreds of thousands sleeping in the streets of every major city, will we still be calling the people who want to cut migration, far right nazis? The hotels are full to overflowing. Soon they will be getting social housing. And we can’t build housing fast enough to keep up. So whether you like it or not, the line has to be drawn somewhere, sooner or later. If you can’t see that then you’re living in a dream world. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reform would achieve feck all. Turning the dinghies around & sending them back to France may have populist appeal as an idea but the French certainly won’t stand for it. They could block port access, rip up trade cooperation, stop our border checks operating on French soil. We’ll have migrants coming over on the trains & ferries. Much better for the richer nations to collectively tackle the root cause, which is global inequality. I thought the cause was meant to be fear of death and torture? Or perhaps civil war? But I agree with you, the cause is people wanting a better life. But let’s stop for one minute and think. Assuming we want to help them all, how is that possible? They come here with nothing, so to give them just half of the life they want, we have to give them half of the life we have. Someone posted a few days ago that there’s 5 million people in this country living in poverty. If that’s true, they can’t give anything they need some help themselves, right? How many people live in poverty in Asia and Africa? A billion? Even if we wanted to we can’t help them all. So the question becomes how many do we help? Socialists will argue “as many as possible”. A noble answer but how many is that? Where do we draw the line and say no more? When the population reaches 70 million? 80? 100? There is a finite amount of land for housing, we need to grow food. As does the rest of Western Europe. As with all line drawing exercises people never agree. Some people think we are at the point now where we have to say no, those people get called far right racists. When the population reaches 80 million and we have hundreds of thousands sleeping in the streets of every major city, will we still be calling the people who want to cut migration, far right nazis? The hotels are full to overflowing. Soon they will be getting social housing. And we can’t build housing fast enough to keep up. So whether you like it or not, the line has to be drawn somewhere, sooner or later. If you can’t see that then you’re living in a dream world. " Most go to neighbouring countries. Jordan and Türkiye do more than their fair share. We accept at most 40,000 a year about Wembley stadium. About the size of Cardiff signs on each year. I'd support telling the fat twats to get to work over our responsibilities to accept refugees!! They cost less and have a better work ethic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Blimey read above! Claiming asylum is legal, you have to reach UK shores to claim asylum! When granted refugee status it doesn't appear on your criminal record. Because, if your granted asylum you've done nothing wrong!!" "I suggest you read above. Nowhere have I said that claiming asylum is illegal. In fact I very clearly stated that it isn't illegal. However entering the UK without permission *is* illegal. And it remains illegal, even if you claim, and are granted, asylum." "No it isn't, it's only illegal if you don't! Your misinterpreting the law" The person misunderstanding the law is you. If claiming asylum were a defence to a charge of entering the UK illegally, it would be mentioned as a motigating factor in the Immigration Act 1971. If you care to read it, you'll find that it isn't mentioned. Making an asylum claim gives you immunity from prosecution for immigration offences. It does not erase those immigration offences. Re-read the 1951 Convention, and you see that the wording does not state that refugees should be forgiven for immigration offences, it just says that they cannot be prosecuted for them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reform would achieve feck all. Turning the dinghies around & sending them back to France may have populist appeal as an idea but the French certainly won’t stand for it. They could block port access, rip up trade cooperation, stop our border checks operating on French soil. We’ll have migrants coming over on the trains & ferries. Much better for the richer nations to collectively tackle the root cause, which is global inequality. I thought the cause was meant to be fear of death and torture? Or perhaps civil war? But I agree with you, the cause is people wanting a better life. But let’s stop for one minute and think. Assuming we want to help them all, how is that possible? They come here with nothing, so to give them just half of the life they want, we have to give them half of the life we have. Someone posted a few days ago that there’s 5 million people in this country living in poverty. If that’s true, they can’t give anything they need some help themselves, right? How many people live in poverty in Asia and Africa? A billion? Even if we wanted to we can’t help them all. So the question becomes how many do we help? Socialists will argue “as many as possible”. A noble answer but how many is that? Where do we draw the line and say no more? When the population reaches 70 million? 80? 100? There is a finite amount of land for housing, we need to grow food. As does the rest of Western Europe. As with all line drawing exercises people never agree. Some people think we are at the point now where we have to say no, those people get called far right racists. When the population reaches 80 million and we have hundreds of thousands sleeping in the streets of every major city, will we still be calling the people who want to cut migration, far right nazis? The hotels are full to overflowing. Soon they will be getting social housing. And we can’t build housing fast enough to keep up. So whether you like it or not, the line has to be drawn somewhere, sooner or later. If you can’t see that then you’re living in a dream world. Most go to neighbouring countries. Jordan and Türkiye do more than their fair share. We accept at most 40,000 a year about Wembley stadium. About the size of Cardiff signs on each year. I'd support telling the fat twats to get to work over our responsibilities to accept refugees!! They cost less and have a better work ethic " 40,000? The net migration figure for 2023 was 906,000 Initial estimates are putting the number for 2024 as going down on the previous year but that’s helped by the number of people leaving the UK increasing by over 50,000. I wonder how many of the people leaving were tax payers and how many were claiming benefits. Can’t seem to find that figure | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reform would achieve feck all. Turning the dinghies around & sending them back to France may have populist appeal as an idea but the French certainly won’t stand for it. They could block port access, rip up trade cooperation, stop our border checks operating on French soil. We’ll have migrants coming over on the trains & ferries. Much better for the richer nations to collectively tackle the root cause, which is global inequality. I thought the cause was meant to be fear of death and torture? Or perhaps civil war? But I agree with you, the cause is people wanting a better life. But let’s stop for one minute and think. Assuming we want to help them all, how is that possible? They come here with nothing, so to give them just half of the life they want, we have to give them half of the life we have. Someone posted a few days ago that there’s 5 million people in this country living in poverty. If that’s true, they can’t give anything they need some help themselves, right? How many people live in poverty in Asia and Africa? A billion? Even if we wanted to we can’t help them all. So the question becomes how many do we help? Socialists will argue “as many as possible”. A noble answer but how many is that? Where do we draw the line and say no more? When the population reaches 70 million? 80? 100? There is a finite amount of land for housing, we need to grow food. As does the rest of Western Europe. As with all line drawing exercises people never agree. Some people think we are at the point now where we have to say no, those people get called far right racists. When the population reaches 80 million and we have hundreds of thousands sleeping in the streets of every major city, will we still be calling the people who want to cut migration, far right nazis? The hotels are full to overflowing. Soon they will be getting social housing. And we can’t build housing fast enough to keep up. So whether you like it or not, the line has to be drawn somewhere, sooner or later. If you can’t see that then you’re living in a dream world. " Very good post.
I would just pick up on your first sentence.
"I thought the cause was meant to be fear of death and torture? Or perhaps civil war?"
The cause is whatever suits the lefties as any given time.
This week, civil war. Last week, torture. Next week, persecution. Next month, whatever pops into their heads.
However one irrefutable fact remains.
The migrants are running away from a supposedly civil war torn, torture chamber of a country.
FRANCE!
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Blimey read above! Claiming asylum is legal, you have to reach UK shores to claim asylum! When granted refugee status it doesn't appear on your criminal record. Because, if your granted asylum you've done nothing wrong!! I suggest you read above. Nowhere have I said that claiming asylum is illegal. In fact I very clearly stated that it isn't illegal. However entering the UK without permission *is* illegal. And it remains illegal, even if you claim, and are granted, asylum. No it isn't, it's only illegal if you don't! Your misinterpreting the law The person misunderstanding the law is you. If claiming asylum were a defence to a charge of entering the UK illegally, it would be mentioned as a motigating factor in the Immigration Act 1971. If you care to read it, you'll find that it isn't mentioned. Making an asylum claim gives you immunity from prosecution for immigration offences. It does not erase those immigration offences. Re-read the 1951 Convention, and you see that the wording does not state that refugees should be forgiven for immigration offences, it just says that they cannot be prosecuted for them." This is all covered by excellent Home Office guidance notes :Irregular or unlawful entry and arrival. The notes explain the interaction between the Immigration Act of 1971 and Asylum Act 1999, and also the nuanced difference between illegal and unlawful. It seems to me the Asylum Act is outdated in the current circumstance of widespread abuse of asylum provisions by criminal gangs. But the government's hands are tied by the ECHR, and also by uncooperative neighbours, principally France. Right now, Labour seem to have no more clue how to solve the problem than their predecessors, and sabre rattling aside nor do Reform. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reform would achieve feck all. Turning the dinghies around & sending them back to France may have populist appeal as an idea but the French certainly won’t stand for it. They could block port access, rip up trade cooperation, stop our border checks operating on French soil. We’ll have migrants coming over on the trains & ferries. Much better for the richer nations to collectively tackle the root cause, which is global inequality. I thought the cause was meant to be fear of death and torture? Or perhaps civil war? But I agree with you, the cause is people wanting a better life. But let’s stop for one minute and think. Assuming we want to help them all, how is that possible? They come here with nothing, so to give them just half of the life they want, we have to give them half of the life we have. Someone posted a few days ago that there’s 5 million people in this country living in poverty. If that’s true, they can’t give anything they need some help themselves, right? How many people live in poverty in Asia and Africa? A billion? Even if we wanted to we can’t help them all. So the question becomes how many do we help? Socialists will argue “as many as possible”. A noble answer but how many is that? Where do we draw the line and say no more? When the population reaches 70 million? 80? 100? There is a finite amount of land for housing, we need to grow food. As does the rest of Western Europe. As with all line drawing exercises people never agree. Some people think we are at the point now where we have to say no, those people get called far right racists. When the population reaches 80 million and we have hundreds of thousands sleeping in the streets of every major city, will we still be calling the people who want to cut migration, far right nazis? The hotels are full to overflowing. Soon they will be getting social housing. And we can’t build housing fast enough to keep up. So whether you like it or not, the line has to be drawn somewhere, sooner or later. If you can’t see that then you’re living in a dream world. Very good post.
I would just pick up on your first sentence.
"I thought the cause was meant to be fear of death and torture? Or perhaps civil war?"
The cause is whatever suits the lefties as any given time.
This week, civil war. Last week, torture. Next week, persecution. Next month, whatever pops into their heads.
However one irrefutable fact remains.
The migrants are running away from a supposedly civil war torn, torture chamber of a country.
FRANCE!
"People seeking asylum can pass through as many 'safe' countries as they wish. Germany accepts more asylum seekers than the UK. There's plenty of information available, if you care to look. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People seeking asylum can pass through as many 'safe' countries as they wish. Germany accepts more asylum seekers than the UK. There's plenty of information available, if you care to look. " You're confusing the law with common sense. You are 100% right, I'm that the law allows for that. That doesn't mean that most people believe that should be the case, according to common sense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People seeking asylum can pass through as many 'safe' countries as they wish. Germany accepts more asylum seekers than the UK. There's plenty of information available, if you care to look. You're confusing the law with common sense. You are 100% right, I'm that the law allows for that. That doesn't mean that most people believe that should be the case, according to common sense." Again, do a bit of research around migration. I've posted plenty of organisations that have huge amounts of data, plus agencies that work directly with asylum seekers and refugees. The information is out there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reform would achieve feck all. Turning the dinghies around & sending them back to France may have populist appeal as an idea but the French certainly won’t stand for it. They could block port access, rip up trade cooperation, stop our border checks operating on French soil. We’ll have migrants coming over on the trains & ferries. Much better for the richer nations to collectively tackle the root cause, which is global inequality. I thought the cause was meant to be fear of death and torture? Or perhaps civil war? But I agree with you, the cause is people wanting a better life. But let’s stop for one minute and think. Assuming we want to help them all, how is that possible? They come here with nothing, so to give them just half of the life they want, we have to give them half of the life we have. Someone posted a few days ago that there’s 5 million people in this country living in poverty. If that’s true, they can’t give anything they need some help themselves, right? How many people live in poverty in Asia and Africa? A billion? Even if we wanted to we can’t help them all. So the question becomes how many do we help? Socialists will argue “as many as possible”. A noble answer but how many is that? Where do we draw the line and say no more? When the population reaches 70 million? 80? 100? There is a finite amount of land for housing, we need to grow food. As does the rest of Western Europe. As with all line drawing exercises people never agree. Some people think we are at the point now where we have to say no, those people get called far right racists. When the population reaches 80 million and we have hundreds of thousands sleeping in the streets of every major city, will we still be calling the people who want to cut migration, far right nazis? The hotels are full to overflowing. Soon they will be getting social housing. And we can’t build housing fast enough to keep up. So whether you like it or not, the line has to be drawn somewhere, sooner or later. If you can’t see that then you’re living in a dream world. " You may be correct in your assessment that there ‘just isn’t enough wealth’ to go around for everyone. Things could definitely become ‘more equal’ than they currently are though. One example would be that we have ‘fair trade goods’ for sale which still seem to be exceptions rather than the norm. ..and I would suggest that maybe you don’t cut Foreign Aid as Reform propose? I’m really not sure the impregnable brick wall approach could work personally. But hey, maybe Farage can prove me wrong if he gets the chance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reform would achieve feck all. Turning the dinghies around & sending them back to France may have populist appeal as an idea but the French certainly won’t stand for it. They could block port access, rip up trade cooperation, stop our border checks operating on French soil. We’ll have migrants coming over on the trains & ferries. Much better for the richer nations to collectively tackle the root cause, which is global inequality. I thought the cause was meant to be fear of death and torture? Or perhaps civil war? But I agree with you, the cause is people wanting a better life. But let’s stop for one minute and think. Assuming we want to help them all, how is that possible? They come here with nothing, so to give them just half of the life they want, we have to give them half of the life we have. Someone posted a few days ago that there’s 5 million people in this country living in poverty. If that’s true, they can’t give anything they need some help themselves, right? How many people live in poverty in Asia and Africa? A billion? Even if we wanted to we can’t help them all. So the question becomes how many do we help? Socialists will argue “as many as possible”. A noble answer but how many is that? Where do we draw the line and say no more? When the population reaches 70 million? 80? 100? There is a finite amount of land for housing, we need to grow food. As does the rest of Western Europe. As with all line drawing exercises people never agree. Some people think we are at the point now where we have to say no, those people get called far right racists. When the population reaches 80 million and we have hundreds of thousands sleeping in the streets of every major city, will we still be calling the people who want to cut migration, far right nazis? The hotels are full to overflowing. Soon they will be getting social housing. And we can’t build housing fast enough to keep up. So whether you like it or not, the line has to be drawn somewhere, sooner or later. If you can’t see that then you’re living in a dream world. Very good post.
I would just pick up on your first sentence.
"I thought the cause was meant to be fear of death and torture? Or perhaps civil war?"
The cause is whatever suits the lefties as any given time.
This week, civil war. Last week, torture. Next week, persecution. Next month, whatever pops into their heads.
However one irrefutable fact remains.
The migrants are running away from a supposedly civil war torn, torture chamber of a country.
FRANCE!
"Yeah they head to the UK through France. Why are you ignoring the fact that continental Europe takes its fair share though? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People seeking asylum can pass through as many 'safe' countries as they wish. Germany accepts more asylum seekers than the UK. There's plenty of information available, if you care to look. You're confusing the law with common sense. You are 100% right, I'm that the law allows for that. That doesn't mean that most people believe that should be the case, according to common sense. Again, do a bit of research around migration. I've posted plenty of organisations that have huge amounts of data, plus agencies that work directly with asylum seekers and refugees. The information is out there. " Sorry, what information? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People seeking asylum can pass through as many 'safe' countries as they wish. Germany accepts more asylum seekers than the UK. There's plenty of information available, if you care to look. You're confusing the law with common sense. You are 100% right, I'm that the law allows for that. That doesn't mean that most people believe that should be the case, according to common sense." So, someone fleeing persecution does not have the freedom to choose where they settle? Where they think they'll feel safe, having been persecuted? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yeah they head to the UK through France. Why are you ignoring the fact that continental Europe takes its fair share though? " The UK can and should take a "fair share". How do you define this, though? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reform would achieve feck all. Turning the dinghies around & sending them back to France may have populist appeal as an idea but the French certainly won’t stand for it. They could block port access, rip up trade cooperation, stop our border checks operating on French soil. We’ll have migrants coming over on the trains & ferries. Much better for the richer nations to collectively tackle the root cause, which is global inequality. I thought the cause was meant to be fear of death and torture? Or perhaps civil war? But I agree with you, the cause is people wanting a better life. But let’s stop for one minute and think. Assuming we want to help them all, how is that possible? They come here with nothing, so to give them just half of the life they want, we have to give them half of the life we have. Someone posted a few days ago that there’s 5 million people in this country living in poverty. If that’s true, they can’t give anything they need some help themselves, right? How many people live in poverty in Asia and Africa? A billion? Even if we wanted to we can’t help them all. So the question becomes how many do we help? Socialists will argue “as many as possible”. A noble answer but how many is that? Where do we draw the line and say no more? When the population reaches 70 million? 80? 100? There is a finite amount of land for housing, we need to grow food. As does the rest of Western Europe. As with all line drawing exercises people never agree. Some people think we are at the point now where we have to say no, those people get called far right racists. When the population reaches 80 million and we have hundreds of thousands sleeping in the streets of every major city, will we still be calling the people who want to cut migration, far right nazis? The hotels are full to overflowing. Soon they will be getting social housing. And we can’t build housing fast enough to keep up. So whether you like it or not, the line has to be drawn somewhere, sooner or later. If you can’t see that then you’re living in a dream world. Very good post.
I would just pick up on your first sentence.
"I thought the cause was meant to be fear of death and torture? Or perhaps civil war?"
The cause is whatever suits the lefties as any given time.
This week, civil war. Last week, torture. Next week, persecution. Next month, whatever pops into their heads.
However one irrefutable fact remains.
The migrants are running away from a supposedly civil war torn, torture chamber of a country.
FRANCE!
People seeking asylum can pass through as many 'safe' countries as they wish. Germany accepts more asylum seekers than the UK.
There's plenty of information available, if you care to look. "Germany is much bigger by land area and a far richer economy. But what I found most interesting is you advocating that economic migrants can go anywhere they want, settle anywhere they want and that county basically has to bend over and take it up the arse. May I ask you, where do we draw the line? We can’t take unlimited numbers, so at what point do we say no? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 40,000? The net migration figure for 2023 was 906,000 " 40k / 906k…you are conflating the boats & legit migration. The vast majority of migration is completely above board & legal. Small boats make up a small percentage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reform would achieve feck all. Turning the dinghies around & sending them back to France may have populist appeal as an idea but the French certainly won’t stand for it. They could block port access, rip up trade cooperation, stop our border checks operating on French soil. We’ll have migrants coming over on the trains & ferries. Much better for the richer nations to collectively tackle the root cause, which is global inequality. I thought the cause was meant to be fear of death and torture? Or perhaps civil war? But I agree with you, the cause is people wanting a better life. But let’s stop for one minute and think. Assuming we want to help them all, how is that possible? They come here with nothing, so to give them just half of the life they want, we have to give them half of the life we have. Someone posted a few days ago that there’s 5 million people in this country living in poverty. If that’s true, they can’t give anything they need some help themselves, right? How many people live in poverty in Asia and Africa? A billion? Even if we wanted to we can’t help them all. So the question becomes how many do we help? Socialists will argue “as many as possible”. A noble answer but how many is that? Where do we draw the line and say no more? When the population reaches 70 million? 80? 100? There is a finite amount of land for housing, we need to grow food. As does the rest of Western Europe. As with all line drawing exercises people never agree. Some people think we are at the point now where we have to say no, those people get called far right racists. When the population reaches 80 million and we have hundreds of thousands sleeping in the streets of every major city, will we still be calling the people who want to cut migration, far right nazis? The hotels are full to overflowing. Soon they will be getting social housing. And we can’t build housing fast enough to keep up. So whether you like it or not, the line has to be drawn somewhere, sooner or later. If you can’t see that then you’re living in a dream world. Very good post.
I would just pick up on your first sentence.
"I thought the cause was meant to be fear of death and torture? Or perhaps civil war?"
The cause is whatever suits the lefties as any given time.
This week, civil war. Last week, torture. Next week, persecution. Next month, whatever pops into their heads.
However one irrefutable fact remains.
The migrants are running away from a supposedly civil war torn, torture chamber of a country.
FRANCE!
Yeah they head to the UK through France.
Why are you ignoring the fact that continental Europe takes its fair share though?
"I'm not ignoring anything. I'm well aware that "some" of continental Europe does take a lot of migrants. Although a fair chunk of it doesn't. However when I hear the same old line of desperate people escaping war and persecution and all that guff I just ask how that applies to France? Surely these desperate people would be more than happy in a safe western EU country if that was all they were running away from. So let's get it right. They are leaving one safe country because they prefer another and paying handsomely for the privilege. And let's not forget that compared to other European country's Britain takes more than its fair share of legal migrants. Thick end of a million last year I believe. Undocumented migrants about whom we know very little (if anything at all) have to be stopped. No matter what sob story they come up with for leaving a safe country. What next, they don't like the smell of Garlic? We've already had Chicken Nuggets so nothing would surprise me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
