|
Post by andystokey on Nov 16, 2021 23:55:54 GMT
I agree we don't we should make it clear they will be deported not back to France but back to their home country wherever that is. Unfortunately we are unable to do that because its against their human rights or whatever. Really interesting discussion on LBC with an lawyer, the asylum seekers destroy their papers so they can't be returned, most claim to be Syrian and while you can disprove this claim through asking questions about the town / country they claim to be born in they can't be returned as the home office don't know which country, those that can be identified they attempt to return but almost always last minute claims to try and frustrate this I guess if you are fleeing persecution getting hold of your documents as you leave in a hurry or even travelling with them carries a risk. In the 80s a work colleague escaped Iran and wouldn't dare show his passport until he got to the West he was terrified of being stopped in the middle East. I know quiet a lot of UK citizens that don't feel the need for a passport and given where some asylum seekers were born I suspect even more so. Recent history has shown us in Afghanistan having British papers and proving you helped HMG made not much difference to getting to the UK. It's a really tough one this but it would clearly be better if they could show "some" documents. The chances of the documents being kosher are probably zero given the trafficking market. Which still leads me to the conclusion that anyone who profits from trafficking human desperation should have the book thrown at them. It's odd it's an acceptable argument for drugs to go for the dealers but when it comes to asylum all we hear about is the punters.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 17, 2021 9:40:26 GMT
Really interesting discussion on LBC with an lawyer, the asylum seekers destroy their papers so they can't be returned, most claim to be Syrian and while you can disprove this claim through asking questions about the town / country they claim to be born in they can't be returned as the home office don't know which country, those that can be identified they attempt to return but almost always last minute claims to try and frustrate this I guess if you are fleeing persecution getting hold of your documents as you leave in a hurry or even travelling with them carries a risk. In the 80s a work colleague escaped Iran and wouldn't dare show his passport until he got to the West he was terrified of being stopped in the middle East. I know quiet a lot of UK citizens that don't feel the need for a passport and given where some asylum seekers were born I suspect even more so. Recent history has shown us in Afghanistan having British papers and proving you helped HMG made not much difference to getting to the UK. It's a really tough one this but it would clearly be better if they could show "some" documents. The chances of the documents being kosher are probably zero given the trafficking market. Which still leads me to the conclusion that anyone who profits from trafficking human desperation should have the book thrown at them. It's odd it's an acceptable argument for drugs to go for the dealers but when it comes to asylum all we hear about is the punters. I agree it's understandable people won't always have documents however it does seem some people are coached to destroy documents or refuse to say where they are from so unless you are prepared for people just being removed to the country they say they are from there really is not much that can be done. I am not much of a bleeding heart liberal but I would prefer we have a number taking the piss than sending a genuine asylum seeker back to their death. As for the traffickers again I agree I would throw the book at them confiscate every asset that is even remotely tied to them, I guess the problem is most of these people are based in France so not sure if we could legally charge them for breaking the law in another country.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Nov 17, 2021 12:32:49 GMT
I guess if you are fleeing persecution getting hold of your documents as you leave in a hurry or even travelling with them carries a risk. In the 80s a work colleague escaped Iran and wouldn't dare show his passport until he got to the West he was terrified of being stopped in the middle East. I know quiet a lot of UK citizens that don't feel the need for a passport and given where some asylum seekers were born I suspect even more so. Recent history has shown us in Afghanistan having British papers and proving you helped HMG made not much difference to getting to the UK. It's a really tough one this but it would clearly be better if they could show "some" documents. The chances of the documents being kosher are probably zero given the trafficking market. Which still leads me to the conclusion that anyone who profits from trafficking human desperation should have the book thrown at them. It's odd it's an acceptable argument for drugs to go for the dealers but when it comes to asylum all we hear about is the punters. I agree it's understandable people won't always have documents however it does seem some people are coached to destroy documents or refuse to say where they are from so unless you are prepared for people just being removed to the country they say they are from there really is not much that can be done. I am not much of a bleeding heart liberal but I would prefer we have a number taking the piss than sending a genuine asylum seeker back to their death. As for the traffickers again I agree I would throw the book at them confiscate every asset that is even remotely tied to them, I guess the problem is most of these people are based in France so not sure if we could legally charge them for breaking the law in another country. On the ITV news last night a chap was reporting from a French beach as one then a second boat took off for the UK, now I know its difficult but if an itv news reporter can find and film them then I'd question why the French authorities can't do likewise secondly I'd wonder why the reporter did not ring the police straight away and at least try and get those people stopped. The police turned up over 1hr later by which time they were out at sea and just stood there having a fag. I'm all for lawful asylum of those in need however I'm 100% against people coming to the uk unlawfully and would detain and deport to wherever they claim to be from no court cases no ifs or but straight back and not in 10yrs in ten hours.
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Nov 17, 2021 13:21:44 GMT
Really interesting discussion on LBC with an lawyer, the asylum seekers destroy their papers so they can't be returned, most claim to be Syrian and while you can disprove this claim through asking questions about the town / country they claim to be born in they can't be returned as the home office don't know which country, those that can be identified they attempt to return but almost always last minute claims to try and frustrate this I guess if you are fleeing persecution getting hold of your documents as you leave in a hurry or even travelling with them carries a risk. In the 80s a work colleague escaped Iran and wouldn't dare show his passport until he got to the West he was terrified of being stopped in the middle East. I know quiet a lot of UK citizens that don't feel the need for a passport and given where some asylum seekers were born I suspect even more so. Recent history has shown us in Afghanistan having British papers and proving you helped HMG made not much difference to getting to the UK. It's a really tough one this but it would clearly be better if they could show "some" documents. The chances of the documents being kosher are probably zero given the trafficking market. Which still leads me to the conclusion that anyone who profits from trafficking human desperation should have the book thrown at them. It's odd it's an acceptable argument for drugs to go for the dealers but when it comes to asylum all we hear about is the punters. I’m glad they are fleeing worn torn France it must be such a dangerous country to claim asylum in
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 17, 2021 13:33:14 GMT
I guess if you are fleeing persecution getting hold of your documents as you leave in a hurry or even travelling with them carries a risk. In the 80s a work colleague escaped Iran and wouldn't dare show his passport until he got to the West he was terrified of being stopped in the middle East. I know quiet a lot of UK citizens that don't feel the need for a passport and given where some asylum seekers were born I suspect even more so. Recent history has shown us in Afghanistan having British papers and proving you helped HMG made not much difference to getting to the UK. It's a really tough one this but it would clearly be better if they could show "some" documents. The chances of the documents being kosher are probably zero given the trafficking market. Which still leads me to the conclusion that anyone who profits from trafficking human desperation should have the book thrown at them. It's odd it's an acceptable argument for drugs to go for the dealers but when it comes to asylum all we hear about is the punters. I’m glad they are fleeing worn torn France it must be such a dangerous country to claim asylum in There is no case to answer for the French taking their share. The UK has one of the lowest intakes in the world. www.nrc.no/shorthand/fr/a-few-countries-take-responsibility-for-most-of-the-worlds-refugees/index.html
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Nov 17, 2021 14:00:19 GMT
I would agree that the UK takes less than many others but once any refugee lands in Europe then they are no longer in danger from that they are fleeing from. That's if they're genuine asylum seekers. But what we have here is economic migrants looking for a better place to live rather than fleeing from danger. (I don't blame them but the difference between the two groups is one that has to be recognised when allowing them in.) This year there will be people dying in ambulances because our NHS is not fit for purpose for the people who already live here, and we have a severe housing shortage. We can't simply open the borders to all those who want to come here. I'm a radical and I know what the answer is to all this. Rich countries like ours should spend far more on making those migrants' homelands more prosperous and stable and they might not want to leave their homeland then. But if anyone hears that our overseas aid budget is to be raised, most people would be in arms about it. We can't have it both ways. Either 'We', and I'm talking about all relatively well-off nations, get investing in countries abroad to make it better for them or this will continue. And it will get far worse than what we're seeing now. When global warming makes some countries uninhabitable, there'll be millions and not thousands knocking on the doors. It's a massive problem that can't be swept under the carpet any longer. OS.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 17, 2021 14:16:36 GMT
I would agree that the UK takes less than many others but once any refugee lands in Europe then they are no longer in danger from that they are fleeing from. That's if they're genuine asylum seekers. But what we have here is economic migrants looking for a better place to live rather than fleeing from danger. (I don't blame them but the difference between the two groups is one that has to be recognised when allowing them in.) This year there will be people dying in ambulances because our NHS is not fit for purpose for the people who already live here, and we have a severe housing shortage. We can't simply open the borders to all those who want to come here. I'm a radical and I know what the answer is to all this. Rich countries like ours should spend far more on making those migrants' homelands more prosperous and stable and they might not want to leave their homeland then. But if anyone hears that our overseas aid budget is to be raised, most people would be in arms about it. We can't have it both ways. Either 'We', and I'm talking about all relatively well-off nations, get investing in countries abroad to make it better for them or this will continue. And it will get far worse than what we're seeing now. When global warming makes some countries uninhabitable, there'll be millions and not thousands knocking on the doors. It's a massive problem that can't be swept under the carpet any longer. OS. You're too sensible for the EEB, be off with you.
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Nov 17, 2021 15:00:40 GMT
Let’s hope we keep it that way 🤞
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Nov 17, 2021 15:01:59 GMT
I would agree that the UK takes less than many others but once any refugee lands in Europe then they are no longer in danger from that they are fleeing from. That's if they're genuine asylum seekers. But what we have here is economic migrants looking for a better place to live rather than fleeing from danger. (I don't blame them but the difference between the two groups is one that has to be recognised when allowing them in.) This year there will be people dying in ambulances because our NHS is not fit for purpose for the people who already live here, and we have a severe housing shortage. We can't simply open the borders to all those who want to come here. I'm a radical and I know what the answer is to all this. Rich countries like ours should spend far more on making those migrants' homelands more prosperous and stable and they might not want to leave their homeland then. But if anyone hears that our overseas aid budget is to be raised, most people would be in arms about it. We can't have it both ways. Either 'We', and I'm talking about all relatively well-off nations, get investing in countries abroad to make it better for them or this will continue. And it will get far worse than what we're seeing now. When global warming makes some countries uninhabitable, there'll be millions and not thousands knocking on the doors. It's a massive problem that can't be swept under the carpet any longer. OS. I’m reporting you to admin for telling the truth 😉
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Nov 17, 2021 15:02:58 GMT
I would agree that the UK takes less than many others but once any refugee lands in Europe then they are no longer in danger from that they are fleeing from. That's if they're genuine asylum seekers. But what we have here is economic migrants looking for a better place to live rather than fleeing from danger. (I don't blame them but the difference between the two groups is one that has to be recognised when allowing them in.) This year there will be people dying in ambulances because our NHS is not fit for purpose for the people who already live here, and we have a severe housing shortage. We can't simply open the borders to all those who want to come here. I'm a radical and I know what the answer is to all this. Rich countries like ours should spend far more on making those migrants' homelands more prosperous and stable and they might not want to leave their homeland then. But if anyone hears that our overseas aid budget is to be raised, most people would be in arms about it. We can't have it both ways. Either 'We', and I'm talking about all relatively well-off nations, get investing in countries abroad to make it better for them or this will continue. And it will get far worse than what we're seeing now. When global warming makes some countries uninhabitable, there'll be millions and not thousands knocking on the doors. It's a massive problem that can't be swept under the carpet any longer. OS. You're too sensible for the EEB, be off with you. I'm going. I'll be off to FB to see who had what for dinner last night or to see how many couldn't find any Walker's Crisps in Aldi. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/KYqg3pYeaerc5lD_P7BR.gif) OS.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 17, 2021 15:11:10 GMT
I agree it's understandable people won't always have documents however it does seem some people are coached to destroy documents or refuse to say where they are from so unless you are prepared for people just being removed to the country they say they are from there really is not much that can be done. I am not much of a bleeding heart liberal but I would prefer we have a number taking the piss than sending a genuine asylum seeker back to their death. As for the traffickers again I agree I would throw the book at them confiscate every asset that is even remotely tied to them, I guess the problem is most of these people are based in France so not sure if we could legally charge them for breaking the law in another country. On the ITV news last night a chap was reporting from a French beach as one then a second boat took off for the UK, now I know its difficult but if an itv news reporter can find and film them then I'd question why the French authorities can't do likewise secondly I'd wonder why the reporter did not ring the police straight away and at least try and get those people stopped. The police turned up over 1hr later by which time they were out at sea and just stood there having a fag. I'm all for lawful asylum of those in need however I'm 100% against people coming to the uk unlawfully and would detain and deport to wherever they claim to be from no court cases no ifs or but straight back and not in 10yrs in ten hours. Read a report the smugglers make £350k a boat I doubt even if the French were more bothered they could stop them, the French blame us for creating the attraction they give them tents we put them up in hotels, there is no simple solution and at the moment not sure there is a legal solution now as we have seen with covid the law can be changed at will but we have also seen how bad some of that law introduced in haste can be. To be honest I think there are far bigger problems than this with us and coming.
|
|
|
Post by thepremierbanksy on Nov 17, 2021 15:34:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Nov 17, 2021 16:24:23 GMT
I would agree that the UK takes less than many others but once any refugee lands in Europe then they are no longer in danger from that they are fleeing from. That's if they're genuine asylum seekers. But what we have here is economic migrants looking for a better place to live rather than fleeing from danger. (I don't blame them but the difference between the two groups is one that has to be recognised when allowing them in.) This year there will be people dying in ambulances because our NHS is not fit for purpose for the people who already live here, and we have a severe housing shortage. We can't simply open the borders to all those who want to come here. I'm a radical and I know what the answer is to all this. Rich countries like ours should spend far more on making those migrants' homelands more prosperous and stable and they might not want to leave their homeland then. But if anyone hears that our overseas aid budget is to be raised, most people would be in arms about it. We can't have it both ways. Either 'We', and I'm talking about all relatively well-off nations, get investing in countries abroad to make it better for them or this will continue. And it will get far worse than what we're seeing now. When global warming makes some countries uninhabitable, there'll be millions and not thousands knocking on the doors. It's a massive problem that can't be swept under the carpet any longer. OS. Climate migration to the northern hemisphere will make this look what it truly is, a drop in the ocean. How do you think a country like Lebanon copes with 20% increase in population from migration? The defence planning number one threat is climate migration by nation states in the next 50 years. Its not dinghies we should be worried about but 3 dozen Chinese aircraft carriers full. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 17, 2021 17:30:31 GMT
I would agree that the UK takes less than many others but once any refugee lands in Europe then they are no longer in danger from that they are fleeing from. That's if they're genuine asylum seekers. But what we have here is economic migrants looking for a better place to live rather than fleeing from danger. (I don't blame them but the difference between the two groups is one that has to be recognised when allowing them in.) This year there will be people dying in ambulances because our NHS is not fit for purpose for the people who already live here, and we have a severe housing shortage. We can't simply open the borders to all those who want to come here. I'm a radical and I know what the answer is to all this. Rich countries like ours should spend far more on making those migrants' homelands more prosperous and stable and they might not want to leave their homeland then. But if anyone hears that our overseas aid budget is to be raised, most people would be in arms about it. We can't have it both ways. Either 'We', and I'm talking about all relatively well-off nations, get investing in countries abroad to make it better for them or this will continue. And it will get far worse than what we're seeing now. When global warming makes some countries uninhabitable, there'll be millions and not thousands knocking on the doors. It's a massive problem that can't be swept under the carpet any longer. OS. Climate migration to the northern hemisphere will make this look what it truly is, a drop in the ocean. How do you think a country like Lebanon copes with 20% increase in population from migration? The defence planning number one threat is climate migration by nation states in the next 50 years. Its not dinghies we should be worried about but 3 dozen Chinese aircraft carriers full. :-) Indeed so. Get ready for Polish/Belarus type border issues on a regular basis at the borders of most countries all around the developed world.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 17, 2021 19:38:17 GMT
I would agree that the UK takes less than many others but once any refugee lands in Europe then they are no longer in danger from that they are fleeing from. That's if they're genuine asylum seekers. But what we have here is economic migrants looking for a better place to live rather than fleeing from danger. (I don't blame them but the difference between the two groups is one that has to be recognised when allowing them in.) This year there will be people dying in ambulances because our NHS is not fit for purpose for the people who already live here, and we have a severe housing shortage. We can't simply open the borders to all those who want to come here. I'm a radical and I know what the answer is to all this. Rich countries like ours should spend far more on making those migrants' homelands more prosperous and stable and they might not want to leave their homeland then. But if anyone hears that our overseas aid budget is to be raised, most people would be in arms about it. We can't have it both ways. Either 'We', and I'm talking about all relatively well-off nations, get investing in countries abroad to make it better for them or this will continue. And it will get far worse than what we're seeing now. When global warming makes some countries uninhabitable, there'll be millions and not thousands knocking on the doors. It's a massive problem that can't be swept under the carpet any longer. OS. Excellent post. For the majority isn’t the issue those ruling the country and their corrupt and murderous ways. That clearly isn’t going to be as easy to solve as Afghanistan proved.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 17, 2021 19:50:06 GMT
I would agree that the UK takes less than many others but once any refugee lands in Europe then they are no longer in danger from that they are fleeing from. That's if they're genuine asylum seekers. But what we have here is economic migrants looking for a better place to live rather than fleeing from danger. (I don't blame them but the difference between the two groups is one that has to be recognised when allowing them in.) This year there will be people dying in ambulances because our NHS is not fit for purpose for the people who already live here, and we have a severe housing shortage. We can't simply open the borders to all those who want to come here. I'm a radical and I know what the answer is to all this. Rich countries like ours should spend far more on making those migrants' homelands more prosperous and stable and they might not want to leave their homeland then. But if anyone hears that our overseas aid budget is to be raised, most people would be in arms about it. We can't have it both ways. Either 'We', and I'm talking about all relatively well-off nations, get investing in countries abroad to make it better for them or this will continue. And it will get far worse than what we're seeing now. When global warming makes some countries uninhabitable, there'll be millions and not thousands knocking on the doors. It's a massive problem that can't be swept under the carpet any longer. OS. Bravo 👏🏻
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 17, 2021 21:05:25 GMT
I don't know how reliable this Turkish broadcaster is, but they state that most of the boat people crossing are genuine refugees. www.trtworld.com/magazine/most-people-getting-into-the-uk-by-boat-are-refugees-not-economic-migrants-51756That being the case I feel we must as a society stretch ourselves to give succour to these people. I have no personal contact with them, but a member of the church I attend works tirelessly collecting clothing etc. for a centre near York. There are centres all over the country, helping refugees to assimilate into British society. This country has been a refuge for such people as well as economic migrants for 1000s of years. We should not say "can't" but step up to look after these people. Most of them take jobs people born here do not want to do. The NHS could not function without immigrants at all levels. We have over a million job vacancies. All of us are immigrants if you go back far enough. Only the Romans left the British Isles, every other incoming peoples have stayed, integrated, and spread around the world. These people are only doing what our forfathers have done.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Nov 17, 2021 22:44:42 GMT
I don't know how reliable this Turkish broadcaster is, but they state that most of the boat people crossing are genuine refugees. www.trtworld.com/magazine/most-people-getting-into-the-uk-by-boat-are-refugees-not-economic-migrants-51756That being the case I feel we must as a society stretch ourselves to give succour to these people. I have no personal contact with them, but a member of the church I attend works tirelessly collecting clothing etc. for a centre near York. There are centres all over the country, helping refugees to assimilate into British society. This country has been a refuge for such people as well as economic migrants for 1000s of years. We should not say "can't" but step up to look after these people. Most of them take jobs people born here do not want to do. The NHS could not function without immigrants at all levels. We have over a million job vacancies. All of us are immigrants if you go back far enough. Only the Romans left the British Isles, every other incoming peoples have stayed, integrated, and spread around the world. These people are only doing what our forfathers have done. Although I agree with some of what you wrote, Mr Coke, I couldn't disagree more with some of it. I'm a multiculturalist and welcome anyone who wants to come here and work hard providing we have the infrastructure to take them in. Getting on in years, I visit the hospital more times these days in one year than I did in decades in the past. Invariably, I'm seen and cared for by people of many creeds and nationalities. Do we need more like them? Of course we do but unless we build the infrastructure to cater for more of them here then we're just piling misery upon misery because we already don't have the infrastructure for those who already live here. I always try to use common sense analogies to weigh up a situation and right now this immigration issue is like four males and four females living in a 3 bedroomed house and then someone, wanting to solve the housing crisis, rather than building new homes, decides that we should be made to add one more male and one more female to live in that house. That's solving nothing and is making things worse. As for those who set up charities to help immigrants, I see them as being no different to Mother Teresa. She buggers off to look after starving people in underdeveloped countries and at the same time preaches that they shouldn't use contraceptives to control population growth because it's against her faith. It's bloody criminal! All she was doing was creating a larger population to starve to death. Same goes for those who promote immigration. Offering to make immigrants lives better over here with 'sweeties', which will make them even more determined to get here, is condemning even more people to 'die in ambulances outside hospitals'. All this might make me seem to be anti-immigration. Nothing could be further from the truth, but before we take more people in, we need to build a larger extension to the already overcrowded house they're going to live in. Either that or 'we' build lovely houses for them in their countries where they are now so they don't want to come here in the first place. I'm a pragmatist, a realist, and not an idealist. I'm also a socialist, but I'm not so stupid to think that we don't live in a dog-eat-dog world where socialism only works when capitalists want to use it to bail them out of the shit. And without a world revolution of the people, it isn't going to change. Alea iacta est. OS.
|
|
|
Post by Little Gary Patel on Nov 18, 2021 0:18:11 GMT
I would agree that the UK takes less than many others but once any refugee lands in Europe then they are no longer in danger from that they are fleeing from. That's if they're genuine asylum seekers. But what we have here is economic migrants looking for a better place to live rather than fleeing from danger. (I don't blame them but the difference between the two groups is one that has to be recognised when allowing them in.) This year there will be people dying in ambulances because our NHS is not fit for purpose for the people who already live here, and we have a severe housing shortage. We can't simply open the borders to all those who want to come here. I'm a radical and I know what the answer is to all this. Rich countries like ours should spend far more on making those migrants' homelands more prosperous and stable and they might not want to leave their homeland then. But if anyone hears that our overseas aid budget is to be raised, most people would be in arms about it. We can't have it both ways. Either 'We', and I'm talking about all relatively well-off nations, get investing in countries abroad to make it better for them or this will continue. And it will get far worse than what we're seeing now. When global warming makes some countries uninhabitable, there'll be millions and not thousands knocking on the doors. It's a massive problem that can't be swept under the carpet any longer. OS. Bravo 👏🏻 we know what we voted for
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 18, 2021 0:37:40 GMT
I don't know how reliable this Turkish broadcaster is, but they state that most of the boat people crossing are genuine refugees. www.trtworld.com/magazine/most-people-getting-into-the-uk-by-boat-are-refugees-not-economic-migrants-51756That being the case I feel we must as a society stretch ourselves to give succour to these people. I have no personal contact with them, but a member of the church I attend works tirelessly collecting clothing etc. for a centre near York. There are centres all over the country, helping refugees to assimilate into British society. This country has been a refuge for such people as well as economic migrants for 1000s of years. We should not say "can't" but step up to look after these people. Most of them take jobs people born here do not want to do. The NHS could not function without immigrants at all levels. We have over a million job vacancies. All of us are immigrants if you go back far enough. Only the Romans left the British Isles, every other incoming peoples have stayed, integrated, and spread around the world. These people are only doing what our forfathers have done. Although I agree with some of what you wrote, Mr Coke, I couldn't disagree more with some of it. I'm a multiculturalist and welcome anyone who wants to come here and work hard providing we have the infrastructure to take them in. Getting on in years, I visit the hospital more times these days in one year than I did in decades in the past. Invariably, I'm seen and cared for by people of many creeds and nationalities. Do we need more like them? Of course we do but unless we build the infrastructure to cater for more of them here then we're just piling misery upon misery because we already don't have the infrastructure for those who already live here. I always try to use common sense analogies to weigh up a situation and right now this immigration issue is like four males and four females living in a 3 bedroomed house and then someone, wanting to solve the housing crisis, rather than building new homes, decides that we should be made to add one more male and one more female to live in that house. That's solving nothing and is making things worse. As for those who set up charities to help immigrants, I see them as being no different to Mother Teresa. She buggers off to look after starving people in underdeveloped countries and at the same time preaches that they shouldn't use contraceptives to control population growth because it's against her faith. It's bloody criminal! All she was doing was creating a larger population to starve to death. Same goes for those who promote immigration. Offering to make immigrants lives better over here with 'sweeties', which will make them even more determined to get here, is condemning even more people to 'die in ambulances outside hospitals'. All this might make me seem to be anti-immigration. Nothing could be further from the truth, but before we take more people in, we need to build a larger extension to the already overcrowded house they're going to live in. Either that or 'we' build lovely houses for them in their countries where they are now so they don't want to come here in the first place. I'm a pragmatist, a realist, and not an idealist. I'm also a socialist, but I'm not so stupid to think that we don't live in a dog-eat-dog world where socialism only works when capitalists want to use it to bail them out of the shit. And without a world revolution of the people, it isn't going to change. Alea iacta est. OS. Can we agree that now we have left the EU the number of immigrants is limited to those who are on the list for filling shortage occupations and as such are granted work visa, or settlement, or they are dependants? This totals 200,000 for non EU citizens alone so it dwarfs the number crossing the Channel. www.gov.uk/government/publications/skilled-worker-visa-shortage-occupationsI think you will find these stats illuminating: commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06077/The following is taken from the government website for asylums seekers and refugees: The UK offered protection, in the form of asylum, humanitarian protection, alternative forms of leave and resettlement, to 10,725 people (including dependants) in the year ending June 2021. Of these: 82% were granted refugee status following an asylum application (‘asylum’)
8% were granted humanitarian protection
4% were granted alternative forms of leave (such as discretionary leave, UASC leave)
6% were granted refugee status through resettlement schemes, although this proportion was lower than in recent years due to measures taken as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic
Additionally, 6,449 partners and children of refugees living in the UK were granted entry to the UK through family reunion visas, 2% more than the previous year. In the year ending March 2021, Germany received the highest number of asylum applicants (129,985) in the EU+, followed by France (86,340). When compared with the EU+ member states for the year ending March 2021, the UK received the 4th largest number of applicants (33,046). This equates to 7% of the total asylum applicants across the EU+ and UK combined over that period, or the 17th largest intake when measured per head of population.
So we are really not taking many refugees compared with other countries. In fact other countries may feel the UK is not taking its share.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 18, 2021 9:57:27 GMT
I don't know how reliable this Turkish broadcaster is, but they state that most of the boat people crossing are genuine refugees. www.trtworld.com/magazine/most-people-getting-into-the-uk-by-boat-are-refugees-not-economic-migrants-51756That being the case I feel we must as a society stretch ourselves to give succour to these people. I have no personal contact with them, but a member of the church I attend works tirelessly collecting clothing etc. for a centre near York. There are centres all over the country, helping refugees to assimilate into British society. This country has been a refuge for such people as well as economic migrants for 1000s of years. We should not say "can't" but step up to look after these people. Most of them take jobs people born here do not want to do. The NHS could not function without immigrants at all levels. We have over a million job vacancies. All of us are immigrants if you go back far enough. Only the Romans left the British Isles, every other incoming peoples have stayed, integrated, and spread around the world. These people are only doing what our forfathers have done. Although I agree with some of what you wrote, Mr Coke, I couldn't disagree more with some of it. I'm a multiculturalist and welcome anyone who wants to come here and work hard providing we have the infrastructure to take them in. Getting on in years, I visit the hospital more times these days in one year than I did in decades in the past. Invariably, I'm seen and cared for by people of many creeds and nationalities. Do we need more like them? Of course we do but unless we build the infrastructure to cater for more of them here then we're just piling misery upon misery because we already don't have the infrastructure for those who already live here. I always try to use common sense analogies to weigh up a situation and right now this immigration issue is like four males and four females living in a 3 bedroomed house and then someone, wanting to solve the housing crisis, rather than building new homes, decides that we should be made to add one more male and one more female to live in that house. That's solving nothing and is making things worse. As for those who set up charities to help immigrants, I see them as being no different to Mother Teresa. She buggers off to look after starving people in underdeveloped countries and at the same time preaches that they shouldn't use contraceptives to control population growth because it's against her faith. It's bloody criminal! All she was doing was creating a larger population to starve to death. Same goes for those who promote immigration. Offering to make immigrants lives better over here with 'sweeties', which will make them even more determined to get here, is condemning even more people to 'die in ambulances outside hospitals'. All this might make me seem to be anti-immigration. Nothing could be further from the truth, but before we take more people in, we need to build a larger extension to the already overcrowded house they're going to live in. Either that or 'we' build lovely houses for them in their countries where they are now so they don't want to come here in the first place. I'm a pragmatist, a realist, and not an idealist. I'm also a socialist, but I'm not so stupid to think that we don't live in a dog-eat-dog world where socialism only works when capitalists want to use it to bail them out of the shit. And without a world revolution of the people, it isn't going to change. Alea iacta est. OS. I have slept on this subject and had additional thoughts. Firstly I think we are mixing up different issues: immigration, refugees, over loaded NHS and other services like education, and insufficient housing. I think we are agreed that the NHS is dependant on immigration, and that the UK would be unable to meet the demand for staff with our indigenous population. By indigenous I include all people born in the UK or brought as children to the UK by the immigrant parents. They are as much British as you and me, who have been here for well over half a century. We are agreed that the NHS is overloaded. It is overloaded because of many factors. Increasing population, aging population, insufficient funding, increased testing and treatment methods, etc. The link below shows the age profile of the NHS hospital patients pre pandemic. Ambulances are queuing due to lack of beds/treatment largely for patients over 55*. In the under 55s, it is only women of a child bearing age that figure significantly. I accept that many of the over 55s will be immigrants, but I suggest to you that the overriding reason for ambulances queuing is the indigenous old population suffering heart attacks, strokes, cancers, etc. digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-admitted-patient-care-activity/2019-20/summary-reports---apc---patientI contend that if the UK were to curb immigration it would actually be more damaging to the NHS by cutting off the source of many employees than it would be beneficial by reducing demand. I also contend that refugees only place a minimal extra burden on our society. There are typically 800,000 come to this country each year and 500,000 leave (pre pandemic). Of that 300,000 net difference, refugees represent a small part. And, as I posted above, since Brexit those that do come are coming to carry out jobs that need filling, not taking the jobs that can be filled by UK citizens. * I am aware that at this point in time the pandemic is distorting the normal situation and today there is a huge number of under 55s in hospital due to Covid.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 18, 2021 10:42:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 18, 2021 11:28:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 18, 2021 12:46:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Nov 18, 2021 12:56:30 GMT
Bombing countries indiscriminately through a policy of imperialism has consequences. Could be worse I suppose we could be Germany with 4 times as many refugees despite playing no part in the aforementioned clusterfuck. Let's hope we learn in the future for everyone's sake........
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Nov 18, 2021 13:14:10 GMT
Who would trust the Albanians 😉
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Nov 18, 2021 15:02:13 GMT
Mr Coke, when it's all boiled down, we don't really disagree with much but I tend to look at a more holistic/worldwide picture than yourself. I'm going to leave this particular discussion at that because once I get on my soapbox about politics and religion, and especially with my propensity to deal with things in a realistic and brutal way, I often get misjudged with what I say. To paraphrase stuff, I would welcome any person to these shores providing they contribute to society but not until we've rebuilt the infrastructure so that, along with the indigenous population, they're assured of a good standard of life when they get here.
OS.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 18, 2021 15:49:38 GMT
Maybe those who really struggle with the rise in asylum seekers could stop and think that it probably wouldn't be so bad if we handn't bombed or funded/armed the shit out of their respective homelands in the first place. Just a thought like.....
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 18, 2021 16:15:37 GMT
Bombing countries indiscriminately through a policy of imperialism has consequences. Could be worse I suppose we could be Germany with 4 times as many refugees despite playing no part in the aforementioned clusterfuck. Let's hope we learn in the future for everyone's sake........ That seems to be your answer all the time, when did we last bomb a lot of these countries where they are coming from ? The ones I saw on the TV yesterday were from Kazakhstan, when did we bomb them ? They'd sold their house to pay to get here, who sold them the promises of riches when they get here, that's the problems that need sorting out isn't it ?
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Nov 18, 2021 17:10:56 GMT
Bombing countries indiscriminately through a policy of imperialism has consequences. Could be worse I suppose we could be Germany with 4 times as many refugees despite playing no part in the aforementioned clusterfuck. Let's hope we learn in the future for everyone's sake........ That seems to be your answer all the time, when did we last bomb a lot of these countries where they are coming from ? The ones I saw on the TV yesterday were from Kazakhstan, when did we bomb them ? They'd sold their house to pay to get here, who sold them the promises of riches when they get here, that's the problems that need sorting out isn't it ? Have you need seen the state of the region, in particular the countries left decimated by Western intervention? I'm sorry if my answer is consistent with the issues we've help create over the last 30 years in particular. I can't comment on a small sample of Kazakh's without knowing more about them......
|
|