FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Why do illegal immigrants in France make the notoriously dangerous crossing to the UK?
Why do illegal immigrants in France make the notoriously dangerous crossing to the UK?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I consider myself fairly left-wing and think immigrantion is generally a positive thing. However I've never understood why illegal immigrants in France, a 1st world country with roughly the same standard of living, wages and attitude to immigrants, would make the notoriously dangerous crossing to the UK. If the channel separated a country like Hungary and the UK (no offense to any Hungarians reading this, just an example of a less affluent European country with a reputation for being a bit less accepting to immigrants) then it would be understandable. But from an outsiders perspective it just seems the risks far outweighs any slight positives. Fair enough risking your life coming from somewhere like Somalia or Syria where you're literally going from the 3rd to the 1st world or fleeing a literal warzone, but what's the point in risking your life to get from one 1st world liberal democracy to another? Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious " Because of the welfare system,the NHS free medical treatment and up until recently we have been one of the countries that offer more freedom than most. The streets are paved with gold. The reality is far detached from the fairy tales told to entice the people to travel thousands of miles and risk their lives trying to get here. | |||
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) | |||
"I consider myself fairly left-wing and think immigrantion is generally a positive thing. However I've never understood why illegal immigrants in France, a 1st world country with roughly the same standard of living, wages and attitude to immigrants, would make the notoriously dangerous crossing to the UK. If the channel separated a country like Hungary and the UK (no offense to any Hungarians reading this, just an example of a less affluent European country with a reputation for being a bit less accepting to immigrants) then it would be understandable. But from an outsiders perspective it just seems the risks far outweighs any slight positives. Fair enough risking your life coming from somewhere like Somalia or Syria where you're literally going from the 3rd to the 1st world or fleeing a literal warzone, but what's the point in risking your life to get from one 1st world liberal democracy to another? Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious Because of the welfare system,the NHS free medical treatment and up until recently we have been one of the countries that offer more freedom than most. The streets are paved with gold. The reality is far detached from the fairy tales told to entice the people to travel thousands of miles and risk their lives trying to get here. " But France has free medical care and a welfare system as well. Also shares pretty much the same values we do as a country | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. " France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Conservatives preach the value of capitalism, and how you have to roll up your socks and work hard and do what it takes and you'll make it in life. Then they get cross when nasty foreigners come here to do exactly that. " Like I say I have no problem with immigration and as you say those immigrants do work hard. My question is why is it more appealing to them to do it here, given the risks involved of crossing the channel, then to stay in France which is pretty much just as wealthy and have the same standards of living | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I consider myself fairly left-wing and think immigrantion is generally a positive thing. However I've never understood why illegal immigrants in France, a 1st world country with roughly the same standard of living, wages and attitude to immigrants, would make the notoriously dangerous crossing to the UK. If the channel separated a country like Hungary and the UK (no offense to any Hungarians reading this, just an example of a less affluent European country with a reputation for being a bit less accepting to immigrants) then it would be understandable. But from an outsiders perspective it just seems the risks far outweighs any slight positives. Fair enough risking your life coming from somewhere like Somalia or Syria where you're literally going from the 3rd to the 1st world or fleeing a literal warzone, but what's the point in risking your life to get from one 1st world liberal democracy to another? Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious Because of the welfare system,the NHS free medical treatment and up until recently we have been one of the countries that offer more freedom than most. The streets are paved with gold. The reality is far detached from the fairy tales told to entice the people to travel thousands of miles and risk their lives trying to get here. But France has free medical care and a welfare system as well. Also shares pretty much the same values we do as a country" But the trafficking organisers can make extra money trying to get them across the channel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison" Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Conservatives preach the value of capitalism, and how you have to roll up your socks and work hard and do what it takes and you'll make it in life. Then they get cross when nasty foreigners come here to do exactly that. Like I say I have no problem with immigration and as you say those immigrants do work hard. My question is why is it more appealing to them to do it here, given the risks involved of crossing the channel, then to stay in France which is pretty much just as wealthy and have the same standards of living " It’s a combination but the biggest drivers are, language, existing family/friends , existing community, perceived work and wealth opportunities. The very last driver according to migrant monitors is benefits. They come to work and earn money for a better safer life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious " you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. " But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course)." for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post " No you didn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course).for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit " Why are you so angry and confused about my point of view on this topic, do you have a counter point based on any experience or information? I'm guessing as you look down on me for having spent time around different countries meeting people, you don't, but I could be wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post No you didn't. " My bad. Granted we should probably take in more refugees, but I'm still curious as to why if you're a refugee who's made it from somewhere like Syria to France you'd risk your life again for an extremely marginal benefit. Like I say can completely understand crossing the Mediterranean and making it to Europe, but what is so attractive about the UK compared to other wealthy western European countries that don't require you making another dangerous crossing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course).for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit Why are you so angry and confused about my point of view on this topic, do you have a counter point based on any experience or information? I'm guessing as you look down on me for having spent time around different countries meeting people, you don't, but I could be wrong. " im not angry this is your standard response to anyone who calls you out I just don’t believe you’ve traveled the world talking to people about the empire that’s long gone I doubt anyone else does either mate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ask anyone who is proud to be British and would never leave why they are so. Then ask why someone else wouldn't feel the same way, just because they were born elsewhere?" It's not about being born elsewhere though. Like I say it's not me complaining about the immigration levels. It's just strange that if you make it from a 3rd world or war torn country to a prosperous and safe one why you'd be too fussed about which one it is and make a death defying journey to reach it when you've already reached a better country | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course).for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit Why are you so angry and confused about my point of view on this topic, do you have a counter point based on any experience or information? I'm guessing as you look down on me for having spent time around different countries meeting people, you don't, but I could be wrong. im not angry this is your standard response to anyone who calls you out I just don’t believe you’ve traveled the world talking to people about the empire that’s long gone I doubt anyone else does either mate " I have been lucky enough to travel around lots of the world. And people often ask where you're from, talk about what the think about your country, and ask what you think of theirs. That you can't even imagine people travelling and speaking to eachother, seems weird to me. Anyway, so to be clear, you have no counter point, you're just confused? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course).for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit Why are you so angry and confused about my point of view on this topic, do you have a counter point based on any experience or information? I'm guessing as you look down on me for having spent time around different countries meeting people, you don't, but I could be wrong. " Not baiting you or trying to cause an argument with this question, just genuinely curious, what countries have you been to that have talked about the British empire? I've been to a fair few countries in South East Asia, Eastern Europe etc and whilst it's true you are given a sort of special reverence for being British I think the same thing happens to French and Germans. We're just 3 very wealthy countries compared to other places so when we talk to people in poorer countries they talk about how they've heard how great the UK, or France or Germany is to live, rather than the history of the empire. But that's just my experience | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ask anyone who is proud to be British and would never leave why they are so. Then ask why someone else wouldn't feel the same way, just because they were born elsewhere? It's not about being born elsewhere though. Like I say it's not me complaining about the immigration levels. It's just strange that if you make it from a 3rd world or war torn country to a prosperous and safe one why you'd be too fussed about which one it is and make a death defying journey to reach it when you've already reached a better country " Oh I completely understand, my point still stands. And that is we have plenty of people that have the means to live anywhere they want and they choose the UK. If this is true, why wouldn't people who are looking for a new life not see it is a preferable destination where they can have a better life. People will undergo many a risk if they think it will result in a better life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course).for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit Why are you so angry and confused about my point of view on this topic, do you have a counter point based on any experience or information? I'm guessing as you look down on me for having spent time around different countries meeting people, you don't, but I could be wrong. Not baiting you or trying to cause an argument with this question, just genuinely curious, what countries have you been to that have talked about the British empire? I've been to a fair few countries in South East Asia, Eastern Europe etc and whilst it's true you are given a sort of special reverence for being British I think the same thing happens to French and Germans. We're just 3 very wealthy countries compared to other places so when we talk to people in poorer countries they talk about how they've heard how great the UK, or France or Germany is to live, rather than the history of the empire. But that's just my experience " Not the history of the empire, I'm not saying that we discussed that (aside from in India). But that the UK is a rich country, partly because of the empire. Especially India, Nepal, Myanmar, South Africa, Etc. The whole point was that in my opinion, people seem to regard the UK as a richer country than say France, and part of that is because they understand somewhat of the history. Who knows if I am right, I was just contributing to a thread on a swingers forum speculating why the UK is attractive to people seeking asylum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently one of the reasons is that we don't have identity cards. This makes it much easier to slip into society unnoticed. Until relatively recently it was easy to find a job in the UK without needing ID. That has now changed, but it seems that word hasn't filtered back to those countries that people are running away from." In a way then when right-wing media write false or sensationalised stories about illegal immigrants being given mansions and 100k a year in benefits and shit, rather than keeping immigrants away like they intend, it actually entices them to come here because they've been sold a ridiculous lie about how good our welfare system is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently one of the reasons is that we don't have identity cards. This makes it much easier to slip into society unnoticed. Until relatively recently it was easy to find a job in the UK without needing ID. That has now changed, but it seems that word hasn't filtered back to those countries that people are running away from." RTW (right to work)documentation has been a requirement since around May 2004? It’s not a new phenomenon! It is a criminal offence to employ anyone without carrying out these checks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course).for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit Why are you so angry and confused about my point of view on this topic, do you have a counter point based on any experience or information? I'm guessing as you look down on me for having spent time around different countries meeting people, you don't, but I could be wrong. im not angry this is your standard response to anyone who calls you out I just don’t believe you’ve traveled the world talking to people about the empire that’s long gone I doubt anyone else does either mate I have been lucky enough to travel around lots of the world. And people often ask where you're from, talk about what the think about your country, and ask what you think of theirs. That you can't even imagine people travelling and speaking to eachother, seems weird to me. Anyway, so to be clear, you have no counter point, you're just confused?" iv traveled a fair bit myself mate spoke to lots different people and can assure you the British empire as never popped up same as the Roman Spanish french or any other bastard empire pmsl | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course).for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit Why are you so angry and confused about my point of view on this topic, do you have a counter point based on any experience or information? I'm guessing as you look down on me for having spent time around different countries meeting people, you don't, but I could be wrong. im not angry this is your standard response to anyone who calls you out I just don’t believe you’ve traveled the world talking to people about the empire that’s long gone I doubt anyone else does either mate I have been lucky enough to travel around lots of the world. And people often ask where you're from, talk about what the think about your country, and ask what you think of theirs. That you can't even imagine people travelling and speaking to eachother, seems weird to me. Anyway, so to be clear, you have no counter point, you're just confused?iv traveled a fair bit myself mate spoke to lots different people and can assure you the British empire as never popped up same as the Roman Spanish french or any other bastard empire pmsl " When did the ‘Bastard Empire’ reign | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course).for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit Why are you so angry and confused about my point of view on this topic, do you have a counter point based on any experience or information? I'm guessing as you look down on me for having spent time around different countries meeting people, you don't, but I could be wrong. im not angry this is your standard response to anyone who calls you out I just don’t believe you’ve traveled the world talking to people about the empire that’s long gone I doubt anyone else does either mate I have been lucky enough to travel around lots of the world. And people often ask where you're from, talk about what the think about your country, and ask what you think of theirs. That you can't even imagine people travelling and speaking to eachother, seems weird to me. Anyway, so to be clear, you have no counter point, you're just confused?iv traveled a fair bit myself mate spoke to lots different people and can assure you the British empire as never popped up same as the Roman Spanish french or any other bastard empire pmsl When did the ‘Bastard Empire’ reign " 2019 to 2022 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course).for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit Why are you so angry and confused about my point of view on this topic, do you have a counter point based on any experience or information? I'm guessing as you look down on me for having spent time around different countries meeting people, you don't, but I could be wrong. im not angry this is your standard response to anyone who calls you out I just don’t believe you’ve traveled the world talking to people about the empire that’s long gone I doubt anyone else does either mate I have been lucky enough to travel around lots of the world. And people often ask where you're from, talk about what the think about your country, and ask what you think of theirs. That you can't even imagine people travelling and speaking to eachother, seems weird to me. Anyway, so to be clear, you have no counter point, you're just confused?iv traveled a fair bit myself mate spoke to lots different people and can assure you the British empire as never popped up same as the Roman Spanish french or any other bastard empire pmsl When did the ‘Bastard Empire’ reign 2019 to 2022" Bravo  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course).for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit Why are you so angry and confused about my point of view on this topic, do you have a counter point based on any experience or information? I'm guessing as you look down on me for having spent time around different countries meeting people, you don't, but I could be wrong. im not angry this is your standard response to anyone who calls you out I just don’t believe you’ve traveled the world talking to people about the empire that’s long gone I doubt anyone else does either mate I have been lucky enough to travel around lots of the world. And people often ask where you're from, talk about what the think about your country, and ask what you think of theirs. That you can't even imagine people travelling and speaking to eachother, seems weird to me. Anyway, so to be clear, you have no counter point, you're just confused?iv traveled a fair bit myself mate spoke to lots different people and can assure you the British empire as never popped up same as the Roman Spanish french or any other bastard empire pmsl " So no counter point. Just confusion. Excellent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. " Just what do you have against Daily Mail readers, so cliche. Yawn! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. Just what do you have against Daily Mail readers, so cliche. Yawn! " We could go with GBNews viewers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What would you risk your life for OP? And why do you choose to live in this country? (If we are talking about those seeking to become legal parts of society) If we are talking true illegals, i'd also suggest it's easier to do illegal shit here. Buy nothing to do with benefits given illegals couldn't claim. " I didn't chose to live her, I was born here through a lottery of birth. As I say it's nothing against immigrants. I'm just curious why getting to the UK is seen as the ultimate destination for 'illegal' immigrants. If you've already made it to a 1st world country with good standards of living and a diverse and generally accepting country like France, why take another big risk to get here when there's no real difference in quality of life? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What would you risk your life for OP? And why do you choose to live in this country? (If we are talking about those seeking to become legal parts of society) If we are talking true illegals, i'd also suggest it's easier to do illegal shit here. Buy nothing to do with benefits given illegals couldn't claim. I didn't chose to live her, I was born here through a lottery of birth. As I say it's nothing against immigrants. I'm just curious why getting to the UK is seen as the ultimate destination for 'illegal' immigrants. If you've already made it to a 1st world country with good standards of living and a diverse and generally accepting country like France, why take another big risk to get here when there's no real difference in quality of life?" The UK isn't France, France isn't the UK And that is why. Some will stop in France, some won't. It is entirely down to the individual to decide where they think is best for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What would you risk your life for OP? And why do you choose to live in this country? (If we are talking about those seeking to become legal parts of society) If we are talking true illegals, i'd also suggest it's easier to do illegal shit here. Buy nothing to do with benefits given illegals couldn't claim. I didn't chose to live her, I was born here through a lottery of birth. As I say it's nothing against immigrants. I'm just curious why getting to the UK is seen as the ultimate destination for 'illegal' immigrants. If you've already made it to a 1st world country with good standards of living and a diverse and generally accepting country like France, why take another big risk to get here when there's no real difference in quality of life? The UK isn't France, France isn't the UK And that is why. Some will stop in France, some won't. It is entirely down to the individual to decide where they think is best for them." Yes I get that. But it's not them stopping off somewhere else on a cruise or bus tour. 39 people died last year making that crossing. What is so appealing about getting here, where there's nothing more on offer then in France, that you'd risk becoming another statistic? And the 39 is just people who've died crossing in dingies. There's also the people who've died or been injured whilst being stowed away in lorries. It's not me saying I don't want them here or they're not welcome, in fact the opposite. And if it's a language issue surely it's easier to learn French then do a notoriously dangerous crossing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What would you risk your life for OP? And why do you choose to live in this country? (If we are talking about those seeking to become legal parts of society) If we are talking true illegals, i'd also suggest it's easier to do illegal shit here. Buy nothing to do with benefits given illegals couldn't claim. I didn't chose to live her, I was born here through a lottery of birth. As I say it's nothing against immigrants. I'm just curious why getting to the UK is seen as the ultimate destination for 'illegal' immigrants. If you've already made it to a 1st world country with good standards of living and a diverse and generally accepting country like France, why take another big risk to get here when there's no real difference in quality of life? The UK isn't France, France isn't the UK And that is why. Some will stop in France, some won't. It is entirely down to the individual to decide where they think is best for them. Yes I get that. But it's not them stopping off somewhere else on a cruise or bus tour. 39 people died last year making that crossing. What is so appealing about getting here, where there's nothing more on offer then in France, that you'd risk becoming another statistic? And the 39 is just people who've died crossing in dingies. There's also the people who've died or been injured whilst being stowed away in lorries. It's not me saying I don't want them here or they're not welcome, in fact the opposite. And if it's a language issue surely it's easier to learn French then do a notoriously dangerous crossing? " They think it is worth the risk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What would you risk your life for OP? And why do you choose to live in this country? (If we are talking about those seeking to become legal parts of society) If we are talking true illegals, i'd also suggest it's easier to do illegal shit here. Buy nothing to do with benefits given illegals couldn't claim. I didn't chose to live her, I was born here through a lottery of birth. As I say it's nothing against immigrants. I'm just curious why getting to the UK is seen as the ultimate destination for 'illegal' immigrants. If you've already made it to a 1st world country with good standards of living and a diverse and generally accepting country like France, why take another big risk to get here when there's no real difference in quality of life? The UK isn't France, France isn't the UK And that is why. Some will stop in France, some won't. It is entirely down to the individual to decide where they think is best for them. Yes I get that. But it's not them stopping off somewhere else on a cruise or bus tour. 39 people died last year making that crossing. What is so appealing about getting here, where there's nothing more on offer then in France, that you'd risk becoming another statistic? And the 39 is just people who've died crossing in dingies. There's also the people who've died or been injured whilst being stowed away in lorries. It's not me saying I don't want them here or they're not welcome, in fact the opposite. And if it's a language issue surely it's easier to learn French then do a notoriously dangerous crossing? They think it is worth the risk." Surely we need to inform them it's really not. Especially with the current government in charge. France actually has a cap on its energy prices unlike we do | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. Just what do you have against Daily Mail readers, so cliche. Yawn! " It's just a handy catch all for close minded, easily outraged, easily distracted people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What would you risk your life for OP? And why do you choose to live in this country? (If we are talking about those seeking to become legal parts of society) If we are talking true illegals, i'd also suggest it's easier to do illegal shit here. Buy nothing to do with benefits given illegals couldn't claim. I didn't chose to live her, I was born here through a lottery of birth. As I say it's nothing against immigrants. I'm just curious why getting to the UK is seen as the ultimate destination for 'illegal' immigrants. If you've already made it to a 1st world country with good standards of living and a diverse and generally accepting country like France, why take another big risk to get here when there's no real difference in quality of life?" you choose to continue to live here. If someone gave you a free house in France would you go? If not, why not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What would you risk your life for OP? And why do you choose to live in this country? (If we are talking about those seeking to become legal parts of society) If we are talking true illegals, i'd also suggest it's easier to do illegal shit here. Buy nothing to do with benefits given illegals couldn't claim. I didn't chose to live her, I was born here through a lottery of birth. As I say it's nothing against immigrants. I'm just curious why getting to the UK is seen as the ultimate destination for 'illegal' immigrants. If you've already made it to a 1st world country with good standards of living and a diverse and generally accepting country like France, why take another big risk to get here when there's no real difference in quality of life?you choose to continue to live here. If someone gave you a free house in France would you go? If not, why not. " That's a completely different scenario though. I could just get the Eurostar or a flight across. I wouldn't have to get in a dingy with 50 other people and potentially drown to get there. They're not getting free houses either. Either put in detention centres or shitty b and bs. I've lived in other countries as well. Australia and New Zealand. There's really nothing special about this country | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What would you risk your life for OP? And why do you choose to live in this country? (If we are talking about those seeking to become legal parts of society) If we are talking true illegals, i'd also suggest it's easier to do illegal shit here. Buy nothing to do with benefits given illegals couldn't claim. I didn't chose to live her, I was born here through a lottery of birth. As I say it's nothing against immigrants. I'm just curious why getting to the UK is seen as the ultimate destination for 'illegal' immigrants. If you've already made it to a 1st world country with good standards of living and a diverse and generally accepting country like France, why take another big risk to get here when there's no real difference in quality of life?you choose to continue to live here. If someone gave you a free house in France would you go? If not, why not. That's a completely different scenario though. I could just get the Eurostar or a flight across. I wouldn't have to get in a dingy with 50 other people and potentially drown to get there. They're not getting free houses either. Either put in detention centres or shitty b and bs. I've lived in other countries as well. Australia and New Zealand. There's really nothing special about this country " interesting. Both English speaking. I'm not trying to trick you. I'm trying to give you ways of looking at your question so you can have a go at answering it yourself. Because clearly there is a reason. ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What would you risk your life for OP? And why do you choose to live in this country? (If we are talking about those seeking to become legal parts of society) If we are talking true illegals, i'd also suggest it's easier to do illegal shit here. Buy nothing to do with benefits given illegals couldn't claim. I didn't chose to live her, I was born here through a lottery of birth. As I say it's nothing against immigrants. I'm just curious why getting to the UK is seen as the ultimate destination for 'illegal' immigrants. If you've already made it to a 1st world country with good standards of living and a diverse and generally accepting country like France, why take another big risk to get here when there's no real difference in quality of life?you choose to continue to live here. If someone gave you a free house in France would you go? If not, why not. That's a completely different scenario though. I could just get the Eurostar or a flight across. I wouldn't have to get in a dingy with 50 other people and potentially drown to get there. They're not getting free houses either. Either put in detention centres or shitty b and bs. I've lived in other countries as well. Australia and New Zealand. There's really nothing special about this country interesting. Both English speaking. I'm not trying to trick you. I'm trying to give you ways of looking at your question so you can have a go at answering it yourself. Because clearly there is a reason. ... " Yeh not denying the language factor is obviously a draw. But like I said above, surely learning French is easier than doing something that could easily lead to your death | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What would you risk your life for OP? And why do you choose to live in this country? (If we are talking about those seeking to become legal parts of society) If we are talking true illegals, i'd also suggest it's easier to do illegal shit here. Buy nothing to do with benefits given illegals couldn't claim. I didn't chose to live her, I was born here through a lottery of birth. As I say it's nothing against immigrants. I'm just curious why getting to the UK is seen as the ultimate destination for 'illegal' immigrants. If you've already made it to a 1st world country with good standards of living and a diverse and generally accepting country like France, why take another big risk to get here when there's no real difference in quality of life?you choose to continue to live here. If someone gave you a free house in France would you go? If not, why not. That's a completely different scenario though. I could just get the Eurostar or a flight across. I wouldn't have to get in a dingy with 50 other people and potentially drown to get there. They're not getting free houses either. Either put in detention centres or shitty b and bs. I've lived in other countries as well. Australia and New Zealand. There's really nothing special about this country interesting. Both English speaking. I'm not trying to trick you. I'm trying to give you ways of looking at your question so you can have a go at answering it yourself. Because clearly there is a reason. ... Yeh not denying the language factor is obviously a draw. But like I said above, surely learning French is easier than doing something that could easily lead to your death" And they must disagree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The reason for leaving France to cross to the UK is simply that they’re trying to get to an area already settled by their own kind and where they’ll be made welcome. They possibly have family in place, and English will already be their second language. Those from ex-French colonies (Algerians have been mentioned) will have French as their second language and will head for Marseille or Lyon rather than Slough or Birmingham."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post " and that was the problem | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem "What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas. There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water. The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths. They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable. So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"symantics? the problem here is using the term illegal immigrants as a blanket term that also covers legal refugees, but don't let facts spoil the populist message hey." You could try being more inclusive and informative, rather than coming over as shouty. Others my then benefit from your wisdom | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course).for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit Why are you so angry and confused about my point of view on this topic, do you have a counter point based on any experience or information? I'm guessing as you look down on me for having spent time around different countries meeting people, you don't, but I could be wrong. im not angry this is your standard response to anyone who calls you out I just don’t believe you’ve traveled the world talking to people about the empire that’s long gone I doubt anyone else does either mate I have been lucky enough to travel around lots of the world. And people often ask where you're from, talk about what the think about your country, and ask what you think of theirs. That you can't even imagine people travelling and speaking to eachother, seems weird to me. Anyway, so to be clear, you have no counter point, you're just confused?iv traveled a fair bit myself mate spoke to lots different people and can assure you the British empire as never popped up same as the Roman Spanish french or any other bastard empire pmsl So no counter point. Just confusion. Excellent." where is my confusion mate I’m replying to your silly bullshit post about the empire ? And to comment on the op topic I believe a lot of these people risk there lives across the channel from France because they see the U.K. as a better country to live in than France | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course).for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit Why are you so angry and confused about my point of view on this topic, do you have a counter point based on any experience or information? I'm guessing as you look down on me for having spent time around different countries meeting people, you don't, but I could be wrong. im not angry this is your standard response to anyone who calls you out I just don’t believe you’ve traveled the world talking to people about the empire that’s long gone I doubt anyone else does either mate I have been lucky enough to travel around lots of the world. And people often ask where you're from, talk about what the think about your country, and ask what you think of theirs. That you can't even imagine people travelling and speaking to eachother, seems weird to me. Anyway, so to be clear, you have no counter point, you're just confused?iv traveled a fair bit myself mate spoke to lots different people and can assure you the British empire as never popped up same as the Roman Spanish french or any other bastard empire pmsl So no counter point. Just confusion. Excellent.where is my confusion mate I’m replying to your silly bullshit post about the empire ? And to comment on the op topic I believe a lot of these people risk there lives across the channel from France because they see the U.K. as a better country to live in than France " You said it's bullshit, then repeated my point. You can't even imagine people having discussions about where they're from when they're visiting places. That's the confusion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"symantics? the problem here is using the term illegal immigrants as a blanket term that also covers legal refugees, but don't let facts spoil the populist message hey. You could try being more inclusive and informative, rather than coming over as shouty. Others my then benefit from your wisdom" i have posted calm reasoning ... you're inference of shoutiness merely reflects on yourself and the way you chose to read the post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course).for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit Why are you so angry and confused about my point of view on this topic, do you have a counter point based on any experience or information? I'm guessing as you look down on me for having spent time around different countries meeting people, you don't, but I could be wrong. im not angry this is your standard response to anyone who calls you out I just don’t believe you’ve traveled the world talking to people about the empire that’s long gone I doubt anyone else does either mate I have been lucky enough to travel around lots of the world. And people often ask where you're from, talk about what the think about your country, and ask what you think of theirs. That you can't even imagine people travelling and speaking to eachother, seems weird to me. Anyway, so to be clear, you have no counter point, you're just confused?iv traveled a fair bit myself mate spoke to lots different people and can assure you the British empire as never popped up same as the Roman Spanish french or any other bastard empire pmsl So no counter point. Just confusion. Excellent.where is my confusion mate I’m replying to your silly bullshit post about the empire ? And to comment on the op topic I believe a lot of these people risk there lives across the channel from France because they see the U.K. as a better country to live in than France You said it's bullshit, then repeated my point. You can't even imagine people having discussions about where they're from when they're visiting places. That's the confusion. "and why would the empire come into a discussion when you tell people on your travels around the world where your from pmsl I think it’s you who’s imagining mate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"symantics? the problem here is using the term illegal immigrants as a blanket term that also covers legal refugees, but don't let facts spoil the populist message hey. You could try being more inclusive and informative, rather than coming over as shouty. Others my then benefit from your wisdom i have posted calm reasoning ... you're inference of shoutiness merely reflects on yourself and the way you chose to read the post." Sure thing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anybody who just turns up on our shores without proper documents or permission is as illegal as you can get and should receive the same treatment as any other criminal. And those that have enabled them should be treated even more harshly." that is quite incorrect. laughable to think that by your reasoning, a refugee would arrive at a country with documents all in order. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“the problem here is using the term illegal immigrants as a blanket term that also covers legal refugees” It’s not used in that sense by me nor anybody else with half a brain. Refugees have a legal status defined by the 1951 Convention, 1967 Protocol, EU Directives etc. Anybody who just turns up on our shores without proper documents or permission is as illegal as you can get and should receive the same treatment as any other criminal. And those that have enabled them should be treated even more harshly." unfortunately you can't always rock up with the proper documents of you are seeking asylum You enter illegaly (by necessity often), apply for asylum, and are so not punished. Once granted you become a refugee. People do use it all the time I'm afraid. We should imo use it to talk about intent (I will stay here illegally) not how one enters. If we use that definition of illegal, the thread is then based on a belief the boat people are intending to stay illegally. That needs to be shown first. But what we do know, is it won't be because of our generous benefits they are here. You need to be remaining here legally for that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course).for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit Why are you so angry and confused about my point of view on this topic, do you have a counter point based on any experience or information? I'm guessing as you look down on me for having spent time around different countries meeting people, you don't, but I could be wrong. im not angry this is your standard response to anyone who calls you out I just don’t believe you’ve traveled the world talking to people about the empire that’s long gone I doubt anyone else does either mate I have been lucky enough to travel around lots of the world. And people often ask where you're from, talk about what the think about your country, and ask what you think of theirs. That you can't even imagine people travelling and speaking to eachother, seems weird to me. Anyway, so to be clear, you have no counter point, you're just confused?iv traveled a fair bit myself mate spoke to lots different people and can assure you the British empire as never popped up same as the Roman Spanish french or any other bastard empire pmsl So no counter point. Just confusion. Excellent.where is my confusion mate I’m replying to your silly bullshit post about the empire ? And to comment on the op topic I believe a lot of these people risk there lives across the channel from France because they see the U.K. as a better country to live in than France You said it's bullshit, then repeated my point. You can't even imagine people having discussions about where they're from when they're visiting places. That's the confusion. and why would the empire come into a discussion when you tell people on your travels around the world where your from pmsl I think it’s you who’s imagining mate "I dunno, try travelling to ex parts of the empire. People discuss all kinds of things. In India for example, it shaped how their country is today. This was only a side part of my point, not sure why you're so angry and confused about this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“the problem here is using the term illegal immigrants as a blanket term that also covers legal refugees” It’s not used in that sense by me nor anybody else with half a brain. Refugees have a legal status defined by the 1951 Convention, 1967 Protocol, EU Directives etc. Anybody who just turns up on our shores without proper documents or permission is as illegal as you can get and should receive the same treatment as any other criminal. And those that have enabled them should be treated even more harshly. unfortunately you can't always rock up with the proper documents of you are seeking asylum You enter illegaly (by necessity often), apply for asylum, and are so not punished. Once granted you become a refugee. People do use it all the time I'm afraid. We should imo use it to talk about intent (I will stay here illegally) not how one enters. If we use that definition of illegal, the thread is then based on a belief the boat people are intending to stay illegally. That needs to be shown first. But what we do know, is it won't be because of our generous benefits they are here. You need to be remaining here legally for that. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“the problem here is using the term illegal immigrants as a blanket term that also covers legal refugees” It’s not used in that sense by me nor anybody else with half a brain. Refugees have a legal status defined by the 1951 Convention, 1967 Protocol, EU Directives etc. Anybody who just turns up on our shores without proper documents or permission is as illegal as you can get and should receive the same treatment as any other criminal. And those that have enabled them should be treated even more harshly. unfortunately you can't always rock up with the proper documents of you are seeking asylum You enter illegaly (by necessity often), apply for asylum, and are so not punished. Once granted you become a refugee. People do use it all the time I'm afraid. We should imo use it to talk about intent (I will stay here illegally) not how one enters. If we use that definition of illegal, the thread is then based on a belief the boat people are intending to stay illegally. That needs to be shown first. But what we do know, is it won't be because of our generous benefits they are here. You need to be remaining here legally for that. " For me I used the term illegal immigrant, not in an insulting way. I appreciate a lot of them will apply for refugee or asylum seeker status but have had to enter the country illegal initially because the refugee process takes too long or the country they're coming from has had its quote of refugees filled already | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“the problem here is using the term illegal immigrants as a blanket term that also covers legal refugees” It’s not used in that sense by me nor anybody else with half a brain. Refugees have a legal status defined by the 1951 Convention, 1967 Protocol, EU Directives etc. Anybody who just turns up on our shores without proper documents or permission is as illegal as you can get and should receive the same treatment as any other criminal. And those that have enabled them should be treated even more harshly. unfortunately you can't always rock up with the proper documents of you are seeking asylum You enter illegaly (by necessity often), apply for asylum, and are so not punished. Once granted you become a refugee. People do use it all the time I'm afraid. We should imo use it to talk about intent (I will stay here illegally) not how one enters. If we use that definition of illegal, the thread is then based on a belief the boat people are intending to stay illegally. That needs to be shown first. But what we do know, is it won't be because of our generous benefits they are here. You need to be remaining here legally for that. For me I used the term illegal immigrant, not in an insulting way. I appreciate a lot of them will apply for refugee or asylum seeker status but have had to enter the country illegal initially because the refugee process takes too long or the country they're coming from has had its quote of refugees filled already " refugee process take too long? Which process is this ? So we are talking about people who intend to live here legally? In which case i go back to family, language, community. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. "imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1... 
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !"Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million. These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies. That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs."The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“the problem here is using the term illegal immigrants as a blanket term that also covers legal refugees” It’s not used in that sense by me nor anybody else with half a brain. Refugees have a legal status defined by the 1951 Convention, 1967 Protocol, EU Directives etc. Anybody who just turns up on our shores without proper documents or permission is as illegal as you can get and should receive the same treatment as any other criminal. And those that have enabled them should be treated even more harshly. unfortunately you can't always rock up with the proper documents of you are seeking asylum You enter illegaly (by necessity often), apply for asylum, and are so not punished. Once granted you become a refugee. People do use it all the time I'm afraid. We should imo use it to talk about intent (I will stay here illegally) not how one enters. If we use that definition of illegal, the thread is then based on a belief the boat people are intending to stay illegally. That needs to be shown first. But what we do know, is it won't be because of our generous benefits they are here. You need to be remaining here legally for that. For me I used the term illegal immigrant, not in an insulting way. I appreciate a lot of them will apply for refugee or asylum seeker status but have had to enter the country illegal initially because the refugee process takes too long or the country they're coming from has had its quote of refugees filled already refugee process take too long? Which process is this ? So we are talking about people who intend to live here legally? In which case i go back to family, language, community. " Yeh applying for asylum or refuge whilst still in your country of origin can take months, with no guarantee you'll get it. So illegaly entering the country they want and getting out of the shitty situation they're in is quicker, but obviously a lot more dangerous | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open. "The gangs operate from country of origin, Iran, Iraq and Syria. They smuggle them over the Med for huge amounts and then once in Europe they disperse and it all goes underground. The gangs pick up the ones who have been targeted for the UK, again all underground, they have little risk, other than paying someone to drop off a unsuitable dingy (easily transported and hidden) along with some life jackets. If the boat or jackets get found on the beach, it is no big deal, they try again. A raid was carried out yesterday across 5 countries that are thought to behind the smuggling gangs, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I consider myself fairly left-wing and think immigrantion is generally a positive thing. However I've never understood why illegal immigrants in France, a 1st world country with roughly the same standard of living, wages and attitude to immigrants, would make the notoriously dangerous crossing to the UK. If the channel separated a country like Hungary and the UK (no offense to any Hungarians reading this, just an example of a less affluent European country with a reputation for being a bit less accepting to immigrants) then it would be understandable. But from an outsiders perspective it just seems the risks far outweighs any slight positives. Fair enough risking your life coming from somewhere like Somalia or Syria where you're literally going from the 3rd to the 1st world or fleeing a literal warzone, but what's the point in risking your life to get from one 1st world liberal democracy to another? Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious " Because of Brexit  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course).for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit Why are you so angry and confused about my point of view on this topic, do you have a counter point based on any experience or information? I'm guessing as you look down on me for having spent time around different countries meeting people, you don't, but I could be wrong. im not angry this is your standard response to anyone who calls you out I just don’t believe you’ve traveled the world talking to people about the empire that’s long gone I doubt anyone else does either mate I have been lucky enough to travel around lots of the world. And people often ask where you're from, talk about what the think about your country, and ask what you think of theirs. That you can't even imagine people travelling and speaking to eachother, seems weird to me. Anyway, so to be clear, you have no counter point, you're just confused?iv traveled a fair bit myself mate spoke to lots different people and can assure you the British empire as never popped up same as the Roman Spanish french or any other bastard empire pmsl So no counter point. Just confusion. Excellent.where is my confusion mate I’m replying to your silly bullshit post about the empire ? And to comment on the op topic I believe a lot of these people risk there lives across the channel from France because they see the U.K. as a better country to live in than France You said it's bullshit, then repeated my point. You can't even imagine people having discussions about where they're from when they're visiting places. That's the confusion. and why would the empire come into a discussion when you tell people on your travels around the world where your from pmsl I think it’s you who’s imagining mate
I dunno, try travelling to ex parts of the empire. People discuss all kinds of things. In India for example, it shaped how their country is today.
This was only a side part of my point, not sure why you're so angry and confused about this."pmsl there ya go with the angry and confused your standard response on here crack on with your stories mate it’s great entertainment lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course).for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit Why are you so angry and confused about my point of view on this topic, do you have a counter point based on any experience or information? I'm guessing as you look down on me for having spent time around different countries meeting people, you don't, but I could be wrong. im not angry this is your standard response to anyone who calls you out I just don’t believe you’ve traveled the world talking to people about the empire that’s long gone I doubt anyone else does either mate I have been lucky enough to travel around lots of the world. And people often ask where you're from, talk about what the think about your country, and ask what you think of theirs. That you can't even imagine people travelling and speaking to eachother, seems weird to me. Anyway, so to be clear, you have no counter point, you're just confused?iv traveled a fair bit myself mate spoke to lots different people and can assure you the British empire as never popped up same as the Roman Spanish french or any other bastard empire pmsl So no counter point. Just confusion. Excellent.where is my confusion mate I’m replying to your silly bullshit post about the empire ? And to comment on the op topic I believe a lot of these people risk there lives across the channel from France because they see the U.K. as a better country to live in than France You said it's bullshit, then repeated my point. You can't even imagine people having discussions about where they're from when they're visiting places. That's the confusion. and why would the empire come into a discussion when you tell people on your travels around the world where your from pmsl I think it’s you who’s imagining mate
I dunno, try travelling to ex parts of the empire. People discuss all kinds of things. In India for example, it shaped how their country is today.
This was only a side part of my point, not sure why you're so angry and confused about this.pmsl there ya go with the angry and confused your standard response on here crack on with your stories mate it’s great entertainment lol"Maybe go for a walk or something? I don't know what to tell you. This is actually an interesting thread for once. Maybe you could chill about whatever is upsetting you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open. "Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs. The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... surely it's easier to learn French then do a notoriously dangerous crossing? " Is it notorious? People that have never seen the sea don't realise how dangerous it can be. Looking at the channel from the beach, it often looks quite calm. It's only when you get out a mile that it starts to get really choppy. Maybe they just don't know how much of a risk they are taking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention."I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737"i read it that this can help divertbfrim other stories. Boris resigning ... Quick roll out Rwanda story. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737i read it that this can help divertbfrim other stories. Boris resigning ... Quick roll out Rwanda story. "More than likely it is that, my thinking cells don't work to well in this heat  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737i read it that this can help divertbfrim other stories. Boris resigning ... Quick roll out Rwanda story.
More than likely it is that, my thinking cells don't work to well in this heat "Politicians of both sides only ever pay lip service to immigration- legal or not . As far as they are concerned it improves their choice of ethnic restaurants and keeps a good cheap flow of au pairs and other house staff. They would soon act if boat loads of politicians were coming over. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737i read it that this can help divertbfrim other stories. Boris resigning ... Quick roll out Rwanda story.
More than likely it is that, my thinking cells don't work to well in this heat
Politicians of both sides only ever pay lip service to immigration- legal or not . As far as they are concerned it improves their choice of ethnic restaurants and keeps a good cheap flow of au pairs and other house staff. They would soon act if boat loads of politicians were coming over. "To be fair, I think we all would.. Water cannons at the ready | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737i read it that this can help divertbfrim other stories. Boris resigning ... Quick roll out Rwanda story.
More than likely it is that, my thinking cells don't work to well in this heat
Politicians of both sides only ever pay lip service to immigration- legal or not . As far as they are concerned it improves their choice of ethnic restaurants and keeps a good cheap flow of au pairs and other house staff. They would soon act if boat loads of politicians were coming over. "I suspect it's more they realise immigration is needed if we wish to support a British population that aging. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737"I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To annoy Daily Mail readers. Actually the truth is probably much as the above. There is a perception that Britain is a wealthy country, mainly due to the empire. France had a pretty big empire too though. And like I say surely if you're in a 3rd world country any western European country will seem wealthy in comparison Absolutely. But as your travel around the world. This is the preconception people have of Britain. The empire is what we're known for (among other things of course).for gods sake man when do you travel around the world and here people talking about British empire ffs stop with the bullshit Why are you so angry and confused about my point of view on this topic, do you have a counter point based on any experience or information? I'm guessing as you look down on me for having spent time around different countries meeting people, you don't, but I could be wrong. im not angry this is your standard response to anyone who calls you out I just don’t believe you’ve traveled the world talking to people about the empire that’s long gone I doubt anyone else does either mate I have been lucky enough to travel around lots of the world. And people often ask where you're from, talk about what the think about your country, and ask what you think of theirs. That you can't even imagine people travelling and speaking to eachother, seems weird to me. Anyway, so to be clear, you have no counter point, you're just confused?iv traveled a fair bit myself mate spoke to lots different people and can assure you the British empire as never popped up same as the Roman Spanish french or any other bastard empire pmsl So no counter point. Just confusion. Excellent.where is my confusion mate I’m replying to your silly bullshit post about the empire ? And to comment on the op topic I believe a lot of these people risk there lives across the channel from France because they see the U.K. as a better country to live in than France You said it's bullshit, then repeated my point. You can't even imagine people having discussions about where they're from when they're visiting places. That's the confusion. and why would the empire come into a discussion when you tell people on your travels around the world where your from pmsl I think it’s you who’s imagining mate
I dunno, try travelling to ex parts of the empire. People discuss all kinds of things. In India for example, it shaped how their country is today.
This was only a side part of my point, not sure why you're so angry and confused about this.pmsl there ya go with the angry and confused your standard response on here crack on with your stories mate it’s great entertainment lol
Maybe go for a walk or something? I don't know what to tell you.
This is actually an interesting thread for once. Maybe you could chill about whatever is upsetting you."pmsl mate you couldn’t upset me you entertain me I’m waiting for you to blame the torries for all the illegal crossings lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs."the British government or the french government? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs."Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.the British government or the french government?"Both. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.the British government or the french government?"The government with which we're currently discussing. I think I found the problem. You don't read the thread. Just pick up one word and then get annoyed. Any chance we could skip that nonsense from now on? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing? "No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.the British government or the french government?
The government with which we're currently discussing.
I think I found the problem. You don't read the thread. Just pick up one word and then get annoyed. Any chance we could skip that nonsense from now on?"Can’t you debate anything nicely? Try to learn from this: Kindness to others is the rent you pay for your space here on Earth. Who do we attribute that quote to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues."How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.the British government or the french government?
The government with which we're currently discussing.
I think I found the problem. You don't read the thread. Just pick up one word and then get annoyed. Any chance we could skip that nonsense from now on?
Can’t you debate anything nicely?
Try to learn from this:
Kindness to others is the rent you pay for your space here on Earth.
Who do we attribute that quote to? "Why are you having a go at me, instead of the person who keeps attacking me and detailing the thread? Any chance you guys could try to stop doing that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??"What happens whenever we have the latest government scandal? We suddenly get a raft of news stories about this. Otherwise I don't think the government cares either way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??"The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them. The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk. Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.the British government or the french government?
The government with which we're currently discussing.
I think I found the problem. You don't read the thread. Just pick up one word and then get annoyed. Any chance we could skip that nonsense from now on?
Can’t you debate anything nicely?
Try to learn from this:
Kindness to others is the rent you pay for your space here on Earth.
Who do we attribute that quote to?
Why are you having a go at me, instead of the person who keeps attacking me and detailing the thread?
Any chance you guys could try to stop doing that?"how am I attacking you it’s you who’s being rude to me as always I pulled you on a post about the empire that’s all arnt we allowed to ask questions now for gods sake it’s a forum iv stated many times on here in the past and now why I think the poor buggers risk there lives and I don’t agree it suits the government it’s suits the criminal gangs that use them and don’t care about the risk of life | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
What happens whenever we have the latest government scandal? We suddenly get a raft of news stories about this.
Otherwise I don't think the government cares either way."It would be far cheaper and less controversial to try and engage with the migrants as they migrate through Europe, than it is allowing them to risk their lives to be then shipped off to Rwanda. The message needs to be clearer than the lies the people smugglers are peddling to part them of their money and potentially their lives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
What happens whenever we have the latest government scandal? We suddenly get a raft of news stories about this.
Otherwise I don't think the government cares either way.
It would be far cheaper and less controversial to try and engage with the migrants as they migrate through Europe, than it is allowing them to risk their lives to be then shipped off to Rwanda.
The message needs to be clearer than the lies the people smugglers are peddling to part them of their money and potentially their lives.
"I agree. But I don't think the government care or have any interest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... surely it's easier to learn French then do a notoriously dangerous crossing? Is it notorious? People that have never seen the sea don't realise how dangerous it can be. Looking at the channel from the beach, it often looks quite calm. It's only when you get out a mile that it starts to get really choppy. Maybe they just don't know how much of a risk they are taking." True. And I guess if they've already crossed the med they think what an extra 25 miles? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it"Is this really a strategy that is being played out? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
"Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes. There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims. If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs. Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs. Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived." This is something that has been proposed in the past on the left. but the Right, specifically papers like the Daily Fail market it as "Soft on Crime" or "Abandoning our Borders" so it goes back to just being a talking point. [this has been an opinion] | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived."Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two?
"Why does anyone have to "take in" anyone? It's a pretty stupid argument to be honest. Let's do the equivalent argument regarding longer prison sentences for minor crime, if you are for this then you have to put up a prisoner in your shed. It doesn't make sense does it? The numbers won't alter, only those with proper cause will be staying, as now. Ultimately we need young healthy workers, willing to take on the tasks that are not getting done now. So there will always be immigration, and we have legal obligation towards any asylum seekers that end up here. To address your concern though, if we had a proper approach to social housing in this country it would help both native and non-native people. No one issue stands alone, you can't try to deal with one without addressing all the knock-on issues. Focusing on one talking point (where you can demonise people no born here) is simply a mechanism to distract and scare. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two? "this is the other uncomfortable truth. The high cost of the pirates helps act as a barrier. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out? "no it’s not it’s just BS | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two? this is the other uncomfortable truth. The high cost of the pirates helps act as a barrier. "I presume you have evidence to back this statement up? If it were true, then surely we wouldn't need the threat of sending people to Rwanda to "deter them" surely? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two? this is the other uncomfortable truth. The high cost of the pirates helps act as a barrier.
I presume you have evidence to back this statement up?
If it were true, then surely we wouldn't need the threat of sending people to Rwanda to "deter them" surely?"I don't. I also don't have any evidence to suggest that if we made crossing easier, there wouldn't be an increase from ybsoe who wish to apply here but can't afford the illegal ticket price. The price can be a barrier for some yet still not be high enough for the Tories for them to look at extra deterants. I don't see that my cybcial view is inconsistent with Rwanda. Indeed in many ways it alligned. Some don't want the UK to be attractive and want to keep numbers down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two? " there are over 600,000 empty homes in the UK, there is no reason why anyone should ever need to "take someone in" or for anyone be forced to live on the streets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two?
Why does anyone have to "take in" anyone? It's a pretty stupid argument to be honest. Let's do the equivalent argument regarding longer prison sentences for minor crime, if you are for this then you have to put up a prisoner in your shed. It doesn't make sense does it?
The numbers won't alter, only those with proper cause will be staying, as now.
Ultimately we need young healthy workers, willing to take on the tasks that are not getting done now. So there will always be immigration, and we have legal obligation towards any asylum seekers that end up here.
To address your concern though, if we had a proper approach to social housing in this country it would help both native and non-native people.
No one issue stands alone, you can't try to deal with one without addressing all the knock-on issues. Focusing on one talking point (where you can demonise people no born here) is simply a mechanism to distract and scare."Interesting. I’ve put you down as a ‘no’ then. Same answer that everyone gave the other week at a pro immigration rally in London | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting. I’ve put you down as a ‘no’ then. Same answer that everyone gave the other week at a pro immigration rally in London" But like I pointed out, it is a faulty question, there is no need for anyone to take anyone in. It is a strawman argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived."This could actually make a difference, but not exactly in the way you may have intended. If the passage is free, the gangs can't fill their heads with the promise of work, housing and an easy asylum application. The money drops out of the gangs, who ultimately find another soft target... But what would be the actual outcome? Would the migrant still want to travel here with no lies and promises, feeding into the decision? I think it would give the migrant more to consider, and thinking about it, I think a lot of people might be surprised that having all the facts and being treated like a human, could mean they actually turn their backs on us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two? "How many homeless veterans have you taken in? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two?
How many homeless veterans have you taken in? "None. And I’ve no idea why you should ask. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two?
How many homeless veterans have you taken in?
None. And I’ve no idea why you should ask. "Why not? Don’t you care about them? How many abused children have you fostered? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two?
How many homeless veterans have you taken in?
None. And I’ve no idea why you should ask.
Why not? Don’t you care about them? How many abused children have you fostered? "how many have you ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two?
How many homeless veterans have you taken in?
None. And I’ve no idea why you should ask.
Why not? Don’t you care about them? How many abused children have you fostered? how many have you ?"None, does that mean I don’t care about the situation they are in? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two?
How many homeless veterans have you taken in?
None. And I’ve no idea why you should ask.
Why not? Don’t you care about them? How many abused children have you fostered? how many have you ?
None, does that mean I don’t care about the situation they are in? "it means you care as much as anyone tbf but I thought you mite of seems as you work with the homeless and volunteer in a soup kitchen | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two?
How many homeless veterans have you taken in?
None. And I’ve no idea why you should ask.
Why not? Don’t you care about them? How many abused children have you fostered? how many have you ?
None, does that mean I don’t care about the situation they are in? it means you care as much as anyone tbf but I thought you mite of seems as you work with the homeless and volunteer in a soup kitchen "I try and help , but I haven’t housed any , do you care about homeless veterans? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I consider myself fairly left-wing and think immigrantion is generally a positive thing. However I've never understood why illegal immigrants in France, a 1st world country with roughly the same standard of living, wages and attitude to immigrants, would make the notoriously dangerous crossing to the UK. If the channel separated a country like Hungary and the UK (no offense to any Hungarians reading this, just an example of a less affluent European country with a reputation for being a bit less accepting to immigrants) then it would be understandable. But from an outsiders perspective it just seems the risks far outweighs any slight positives. Fair enough risking your life coming from somewhere like Somalia or Syria where you're literally going from the 3rd to the 1st world or fleeing a literal warzone, but what's the point in risking your life to get from one 1st world liberal democracy to another? Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious " Do not underestimate the draw of family and a community of your compatriots when starting a new life from scratch. Having an existing community who speaks your language, can explain the system, where you can buy and eat familiar foods is a huge deal. That tied with being able to speak English a little, or even very well, is probably enough. There are British expat communities who have done this for decades. Having made the decision to flee their homeland and completed the enormous trip to France, another "few" miles across the Channel probably doesn't seem like much. Imagine travelling a thousand miles and feeling alone and isolated when you could travel 1022 and feel like you are in a community. I don't understand why it's such a mystery. I feel sure that everyone can empathise with this but perhaps it's just my experience of being born to immigrants and hearing their stories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two? "Can we put you down to take in some homeless veterans, foster some abused children, guard some prisoners in your shed or take in someone from Hong Kong? Perhaps you could set up a hospital bed in the study? Absurd and simple minded "argument". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“the problem here is using the term illegal immigrants as a blanket term that also covers legal refugees” It’s not used in that sense by me nor anybody else with half a brain. Refugees have a legal status defined by the 1951 Convention, 1967 Protocol, EU Directives etc. Anybody who just turns up on our shores without proper documents or permission is as illegal as you can get and should receive the same treatment as any other criminal. And those that have enabled them should be treated even more harshly. unfortunately you can't always rock up with the proper documents of you are seeking asylum You enter illegaly (by necessity often), apply for asylum, and are so not punished. Once granted you become a refugee. People do use it all the time I'm afraid. We should imo use it to talk about intent (I will stay here illegally) not how one enters. If we use that definition of illegal, the thread is then based on a belief the boat people are intending to stay illegally. That needs to be shown first. But what we do know, is it won't be because of our generous benefits they are here. You need to be remaining here legally for that. For me I used the term illegal immigrant, not in an insulting way. I appreciate a lot of them will apply for refugee or asylum seeker status but have had to enter the country illegal initially because the refugee process takes too long or the country they're coming from has had its quote of refugees filled already " There is no way to apply to be a refugee until you arrive on the UK. The only route is to apply for a tourist or business visa (and therefore lie) before claiming asylum on arrival. No doubt people will debate if lying on a visa application is "legal" or not. Impossible if you have no documentation as a refugee who has fled their country. Everyone applying for asylum is "illegal". That's deliberate demonisation. There is no "quota" unless there has been a news item which has forced some action and these schemes are often called something else and bypass the existing, deliberately dysfunctional, "system". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. "How do you know that anyone has been "fed lies" and "believe 100%"? That's an assumption. They probably know very well that it will be difficult, but it will be better than what they have left. Is it not possible to believe that the risk is worth it to them? Some of them may not know how dangerous the final crossing is, but many will have crossed the Med from North Africa or Turkey so understand very well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“the problem here is using the term illegal immigrants as a blanket term that also covers legal refugees” It’s not used in that sense by me nor anybody else with half a brain. Refugees have a legal status defined by the 1951 Convention, 1967 Protocol, EU Directives etc. Anybody who just turns up on our shores without proper documents or permission is as illegal as you can get and should receive the same treatment as any other criminal. And those that have enabled them should be treated even more harshly." What "legal" route is there to claim asylum in the UK? What "proper documentation" do you have if you have fled your home in panic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two?
Can we put you down to take in some homeless veterans, foster some abused children, guard some prisoners in your shed or take in someone from Hong Kong?
Perhaps you could set up a hospital bed in the study?
Absurd and simple minded "argument"."Here we go, same old tosh from the same old protagonists. The hypocrisy has passed you by as it doesn’t suit your cause. I want to welcome illegal people from wherever to these shores , I can’t help though as I don’t have room. Oh, and off the record, please don’t put them anywhere near me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I mentioned before how there are 600,000 empty homes in the country showing that housing is not an issue. Add into this that when offered a legal route into this country The money generated by Immigrants into the economy greatly overshadows the money taken out of the economy by them. In short in my opinion the only arguments against more immigration are xenophobic or racist. Immigrant helped build this country, without them we would have never recovered from WW2 in the shape we did. [this has been an opinion]" So, you can’t house them but you want them to go and take over someone else’s property? By the way, immigrants who without we would never have recovered from WW2, explain that one please | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two?
Can we put you down to take in some homeless veterans, foster some abused children, guard some prisoners in your shed or take in someone from Hong Kong?
Perhaps you could set up a hospital bed in the study?
Absurd and simple minded "argument".
Here we go, same old tosh from the same old protagonists.
The hypocrisy has passed you by as it doesn’t suit your cause. I want to welcome illegal people from wherever to these shores , I can’t help though as I don’t have room. Oh, and off the record, please don’t put them anywhere near me. ""Illegal people". That's certainly a view of the world. House them next door to me and I will treat them like actual people. How do you claim asylum in the UK as a refugee "legally"? Do you really not understand the foolishness of demanding that people should house asylum seekers in their own home if they show some compassion but the same is not demanded of those who show compassion to homeless veterans. If you care enough about the problem take them in. Right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two?
Can we put you down to take in some homeless veterans, foster some abused children, guard some prisoners in your shed or take in someone from Hong Kong?
Perhaps you could set up a hospital bed in the study?
Absurd and simple minded "argument".
Here we go, same old tosh from the same old protagonists.
The hypocrisy has passed you by as it doesn’t suit your cause. I want to welcome illegal people from wherever to these shores , I can’t help though as I don’t have room. Oh, and off the record, please don’t put them anywhere near me.
"Illegal people".
That's certainly a view of the world.
House them next door to me and I will treat them like actual people.
How do you claim asylum in the UK as a refugee "legally"?
Do you really not understand the foolishness of demanding that people should house asylum seekers in their own home if they show some compassion but the same is not demanded of those who show compassion to homeless veterans. If you care enough about the problem take them in. Right?"The OP was about illegal immigrants | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I mentioned before how there are 600,000 empty homes in the country showing that housing is not an issue. Add into this that when offered a legal route into this country The money generated by Immigrants into the economy greatly overshadows the money taken out of the economy by them. In short in my opinion the only arguments against more immigration are xenophobic or racist. Immigrant helped build this country, without them we would have never recovered from WW2 in the shape we did. [this has been an opinion] So, you can’t house them but you want them to go and take over someone else’s property? By the way, immigrants who without we would never have recovered from WW2, explain that one please" No-one ever said anything about letting them take over anything. Google the Windrush generation, their immigration from the colonies rebuilt this country. Back in the days when we encouraged people to come here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I mentioned before how there are 600,000 empty homes in the country showing that housing is not an issue. Add into this that when offered a legal route into this country The money generated by Immigrants into the economy greatly overshadows the money taken out of the economy by them. In short in my opinion the only arguments against more immigration are xenophobic or racist. Immigrant helped build this country, without them we would have never recovered from WW2 in the shape we did. [this has been an opinion] So, you can’t house them but you want them to go and take over someone else’s property? By the way, immigrants who without we would never have recovered from WW2, explain that one please No-one ever said anything about letting them take over anything. Google the Windrush generation, their immigration from the colonies rebuilt this country. Back in the days when we encouraged people to come here." Rubbish. Several Caribbean islands had concerns of growing male unemployment and asked the UK to help. History has been twisted that we needed them as BJS drivers and nurses. I think we would have got by. They were never meant to settle here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two?
Can we put you down to take in some homeless veterans, foster some abused children, guard some prisoners in your shed or take in someone from Hong Kong?
Perhaps you could set up a hospital bed in the study?
Absurd and simple minded "argument".
Here we go, same old tosh from the same old protagonists.
The hypocrisy has passed you by as it doesn’t suit your cause. I want to welcome illegal people from wherever to these shores , I can’t help though as I don’t have room. Oh, and off the record, please don’t put them anywhere near me.
"Illegal people".
That's certainly a view of the world.
House them next door to me and I will treat them like actual people.
How do you claim asylum in the UK as a refugee "legally"?
Do you really not understand the foolishness of demanding that people should house asylum seekers in their own home if they show some compassion but the same is not demanded of those who show compassion to homeless veterans. If you care enough about the problem take them in. Right?
The OP was about illegal immigrants "That's the limit of your ability to discuss a topic? Make an unreasonable demand without any reference to reality and not accept the comparison with an equally foolish demand. It merely demonstrates that you haven't made a useful point with your comment other than using "illegal people" as a way to label human beings. How do you "legally" obtain asylum in the UK? That helps explain how someone becomes an "illegal" asylum seeker. In fact, an irregular immigrant is the correct and non-emotive term. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again this isn't intended as an anti-immigration post. Just genuinely curious you've blurred the language between refugees and illegal immigrants. if that was unitentional, then those that are anti-immigration have succeeded in using you as a conduit by getting you to use the lexicon of their xenopbobia unwittingly to transmit their agenda to a wider audience. But I didn't mention anything about refugees in this post and that was the problem
What I see as the problem with this thread is: it started off with a genuine question that then got influenced by semantics and agendas.
There are a lot of reasons people will risk their lives to cross the channel in a boat that I wouldn't go paddling in a stream with. Some will be travelling to the UK after being fuelled on lies, others will be genuinely trying to get here for their own reasons, but whatever the reason, they should not risk their lives or their families lives to cross 25 miles of notoriously dangerous water.
The vast majority of migrants travelling across the channel have been fed lies on the ease of being granted asylum in the UK, the prospect of work, the best pay in Europe being in the UK, access to accommodation and many more untruths.
They will pay up to £2000 to people smugglers, who fill them with lies that make the UK sound like the land of dreams. The people smuggling gangs make no further money from migrants who arrive on mainland Europe and decide to go no further, so they coerce them into the one last trip, the final part of their journey to wealth and prospects beyond their wildest dreams. These gangs begin the sales process in the countries of origin, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc when they are being paid to get them across the Mediterranean. They are then picked back up as they cross Europe and at every stage the gangs are looking to extort them of their savings, at a time when they are most vulnerable.
So, who and why are the people travelling across the Channel risking their lives and losing their money to people smugglers? They are the people who have been led to believe a better life waits ahead of them, and all they need is the money to pay for for the crossing. The majority travelling here believe 100% of the lies of the smuggling gangs are peddling to them. imagine being suckered into thinking yeh world will be rosier by thise who are just looking after number 1...
This angle is interesting. It's funny that we don't know this. That feels key in building a sensible approach to managing asylum seekers. But it's a fair point I hadn't considered. After all, many people here would say its because of our benefit system ... Which suggests they believe it's vastky superior to France ... And we have information to hand !
Consider the crossing as organised criminality, which at £2000 per head and 10000 crossing already this year, has the potential return of £20million.
These gangs are killing people, putting their lives in danger, with the victims paying for the pleasure, in cash they can't afford to pay, based on a web of lies.
That is why people risk their live to come here, lies based on millions of £'s, fulled by gangs.
The thing that puzzles me is why the authorities can’t end the people trafficking. It’s been going on for decades. It’s only a short piece of coastline after all and pretty open.
Probably because they have no interest in tacking the people trafficking gangs.
The government and press love pointing at this stuff whenever they need to divert attention.
I'm not following your comment? You seem to be saying that the people smuggling gangs are a diversionary part of the problem that is used as a narrative for the government and not the driving force behind the problem of people in unseaworthy boats crossing the channel? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62054737
I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have any motivation to do anything about the smuggling gangs.
Why do you think that? Is it a case of no motivation or no way of influencing?
No motivation. It's much more useful to them if this continues.
How is it? I can't see how anyone gains other than the gangs??
The right gets more out of the fact the crossings are happening than by actually stopping them.
The left gets crucified by the right if they actually do more than just talk.
Both sides get more political muscle out of talking about it
Is this really a strategy that is being played out?
Well when the solution is a simple as providing a dedicated ferry every day, yes.
There would be no reason for the gangs then, and the stories they tell the victims.
If we accept that one way or another they are coming let's make it safe, and take the money away from the gangs.
Once here, they can be processed as they would be however they arrived.
Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two?
How many homeless veterans have you taken in?
None. And I’ve no idea why you should ask.
Why not? Don’t you care about them? How many abused children have you fostered? how many have you ?
None, does that mean I don’t care about the situation they are in? it means you care as much as anyone tbf but I thought you mite of seems as you work with the homeless and volunteer in a soup kitchen
I try and help , but I haven’t housed any , do you care about homeless veterans? "yes about as much as you no change that as they are veterans I don’t suppose you do | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I mentioned before how there are 600,000 empty homes in the country showing that housing is not an issue. Add into this that when offered a legal route into this country The money generated by Immigrants into the economy greatly overshadows the money taken out of the economy by them. In short in my opinion the only arguments against more immigration are xenophobic or racist. Immigrant helped build this country, without them we would have never recovered from WW2 in the shape we did. [this has been an opinion] So, you can’t house them but you want them to go and take over someone else’s property? By the way, immigrants who without we would never have recovered from WW2, explain that one please No-one ever said anything about letting them take over anything. Google the Windrush generation, their immigration from the colonies rebuilt this country. Back in the days when we encouraged people to come here. Rubbish. Several Caribbean islands had concerns of growing male unemployment and asked the UK to help. History has been twisted that we needed them as BJS drivers and nurses. I think we would have got by. They were never meant to settle here. " Really? How intriguing. So the UK government just decided to help them out because they were generally so obliging? Did the South Asian Commonwealth countries make the same request? The UK wanted people to cross the world, do a bit of work and then go home? Intriguing. Do you mean that when the Royal Commission on Population felt that immigrants of "good stock" would be welcomed "without reserve" that some did not meet the grade and should go home? What was the British Nationality Act for then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In short in my opinion the only arguments against more immigration are xenophobic or racist. [this has been an opinion]" Thats a bit reductive isn't it? Yes generally immigration is positive. But it's not racist to point out that 'mass immigration' can create some negatives. Strain on infrastructure and lowering of wages for working class people being the main 2. In no way is that the fault of immigrants, but you have to have some control on immigration to balance the economy. Yes you could argue any strain on the NHS or other infrastructures could be relieved by increasing government spending and wages could be kept level with stronger Unions and Employment Laws, but we don't live in an ideal world, especially not with a Conservative government in charge. Labeling anyone who presents an argument against more immigration as racist seems needlessly antagonistic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In short in my opinion the only arguments against more immigration are xenophobic or racist. [this has been an opinion] Thats a bit reductive isn't it? Yes generally immigration is positive. But it's not racist to point out that 'mass immigration' can create some negatives. Strain on infrastructure and lowering of wages for working class people being the main 2. In no way is that the fault of immigrants, but you have to have some control on immigration to balance the economy. Yes you could argue any strain on the NHS or other infrastructures could be relieved by increasing government spending and wages could be kept level with stronger Unions and Employment Laws, but we don't live in an ideal world, especially not with a Conservative government in charge. Labeling anyone who presents an argument against more immigration as racist seems needlessly antagonistic " Agreed, but nobody is advocating uncontrolled immigration, although it does seem that is how those who are not quite as antagonistic to the concept are portrayed. We have very high levels of immigration. Irregular immigration is a small proportion of the total but is given huge focus and ironically resource. You will have noted that it seems to be a struggle for those opposed to accepting refugees to explain the "legal" process. Did you have a look? It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? Do we take the most vulnerable only? They would "cost" us more but we may well do more good. Instead, all routes are shut, they are branded "illegal" and demonised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every country has imigration control it’s normal that’s why we have borders all across the world " Who's saying we shouldn't have any? Are you choosing to understand something different to what is being discussed? Do you believe that all refugees from everywhere in the world want to come here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In short in my opinion the only arguments against more immigration are xenophobic or racist. [this has been an opinion] Thats a bit reductive isn't it? Yes generally immigration is positive. But it's not racist to point out that 'mass immigration' can create some negatives. Strain on infrastructure and lowering of wages for working class people being the main 2. In no way is that the fault of immigrants, but you have to have some control on immigration to balance the economy. Yes you could argue any strain on the NHS or other infrastructures could be relieved by increasing government spending and wages could be kept level with stronger Unions and Employment Laws, but we don't live in an ideal world, especially not with a Conservative government in charge. Labeling anyone who presents an argument against more immigration as racist seems needlessly antagonistic Agreed, but nobody is advocating uncontrolled immigration, although it does seem that is how those who are not quite as antagonistic to the concept are portrayed. We have very high levels of immigration. Irregular immigration is a small proportion of the total but is given huge focus and ironically resource. You will have noted that it seems to be a struggle for those opposed to accepting refugees to explain the "legal" process. Did you have a look? It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? Do we take the most vulnerable only? They would "cost" us more but we may well do more good. Instead, all routes are shut, they are branded "illegal" and demonised." Yeh I was just applying to the comment saying anyone arguing against more immigration is racist. Think them saying something like that is actually harmful to any debate and just needlessly polarises people. Yeh I genuinely didn't know about actually having to physically be in the country to request asylum. I thought it could be done from abroad. I fully support taking in refugees and like I say immigration has a net positive effect on our economy and culture. I'm not saying you do this, but I feel like some people just stifle any debate around immigration by shouting racist at anyone who says maybe we should discuss the limits. I think both sides of the argument actually thrive off each other in some weird symbiotic relationship. The far-left label anyone having any concerns about immigration as a racist and the far-right label people who supports allowing more immigrants as a hippy or someone wanting to destroy British culture, because it sells more papers than reasoned debate around the issue does | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? " With visa based immigration, the country gets the people for roles that are really needed. That's not the case with refugees. As of 2019, the employment rate of refugees granted asylum status was at 51% It's hard to say if the 51% are jobs which are in demand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? With visa based immigration, the country gets the people for roles that are really needed. That's not the case with refugees. As of 2019, the employment rate of refugees granted asylum status was at 51% It's hard to say if the 51% are jobs which are in demand." Be fair, it is equally hard to say they are not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The xenophobic and racist arguments are against more immigration, I stand by this. You went on to touch on controlled immigration, this is not the same discussion." You just said anyone against more immigration is a racist or xenophobe though. You didn't say anyone against allowing immigrants in is a racist. Did you mean more as in anymore at all or more as in increasing the number of immigrants we legally allow? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? With visa based immigration, the country gets the people for roles that are really needed. That's not the case with refugees. As of 2019, the employment rate of refugees granted asylum status was at 51% It's hard to say if the 51% are jobs which are in demand. Be fair, it is equally hard to say they are not." That's true. But job visa based migration can be guaranteed to be based on demand at that time. It's only logical to assume that's not the ratio with jobs taken by refugees. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The xenophobic and racist arguments are against more immigration, I stand by this. You went on to touch on controlled immigration, this is not the same discussion. You just said anyone against more immigration is a racist or xenophobe though. You didn't say anyone against allowing immigrants in is a racist. Did you mean more as in anymore at all or more as in increasing the number of immigrants we legally allow?" That is fair and I can see how my words may have been confusing. I am talking about people saying no more immigration full stop, shut the borders etc... There isn't a non xenophobic/racist argument to support that stance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The xenophobic and racist arguments are against more immigration, I stand by this. You went on to touch on controlled immigration, this is not the same discussion. You just said anyone against more immigration is a racist or xenophobe though. You didn't say anyone against allowing immigrants in is a racist. Did you mean more as in anymore at all or more as in increasing the number of immigrants we legally allow? That is fair and I can see how my words may have been confusing. I am talking about people saying no more immigration full stop, shut the borders etc... There isn't a non xenophobic/racist argument to support that stance." That's quite a blanket statement. Almost every country did that during covid | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? With visa based immigration, the country gets the people for roles that are really needed. That's not the case with refugees. As of 2019, the employment rate of refugees granted asylum status was at 51% It's hard to say if the 51% are jobs which are in demand. Be fair, it is equally hard to say they are not. That's true. But job visa based migration can be guaranteed to be based on demand at that time. It's only logical to assume that's not the ratio with jobs taken by refugees." But considering many of the jobs that are in demand in this country, that do not have skill requirements and/or specialist education to perform, there's no reason why a visa system is needed for that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The xenophobic and racist arguments are against more immigration, I stand by this. You went on to touch on controlled immigration, this is not the same discussion. You just said anyone against more immigration is a racist or xenophobe though. You didn't say anyone against allowing immigrants in is a racist. Did you mean more as in anymore at all or more as in increasing the number of immigrants we legally allow? That is fair and I can see how my words may have been confusing. I am talking about people saying no more immigration full stop, shut the borders etc... There isn't a non xenophobic/racist argument to support that stance. That's quite a blanket statement. Almost every country did that during covid "Those were Public Health laws, not Immigration ones. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? With visa based immigration, the country gets the people for roles that are really needed. That's not the case with refugees. As of 2019, the employment rate of refugees granted asylum status was at 51% It's hard to say if the 51% are jobs which are in demand." The rest of the summary beyond the raw statistic is also interesting: " Dr Carlos Vargas-Silva, COMPAS Research Director and Principal Investigator of the project said: “Naturally, we found that asylum migrants – who have often fled conflict and other trauma - are more likely to suffer long-lasting health problems that affect their ability to work than people born in the UK and other migrants. So an important recommendation is that when allocating funding geared towards the economic integration of asylum migrants, governments should first address health issues that impede work performance, including mental health. This could lead to better labour market outcomes for this group in the future. “One encouraging finding is that those individuals who came to the UK for asylum reasons are more likely than the UK born or other migrants to be in self-employment and to employ other people – though their businesses are often small. Policy interventions directed at boosting entrepreneurial potential among refugees and post-asylum settled migrants should consider the factors that limit the growth of these businesses – such as limited access to finance”. The report also suggests that unemployed asylum migrants rely heavily on public agencies – notably job centres - for their job searches, but that this is not particularly effective. Future analysis should investigate how agencies could serve asylum migrants more effectively, for example, through employment advisers providing specialist support and careers guidance. The research also identified that lengthy legal restrictions to access the labour market while asylum claims are being evaluated can have adverse long-term consequences for mental health. Support from voluntary agencies could identify training and support programmes to help address these issues." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? With visa based immigration, the country gets the people for roles that are really needed. That's not the case with refugees. As of 2019, the employment rate of refugees granted asylum status was at 51% It's hard to say if the 51% are jobs which are in demand. Be fair, it is equally hard to say they are not. That's true. But job visa based migration can be guaranteed to be based on demand at that time. It's only logical to assume that's not the ratio with jobs taken by refugees. But considering many of the jobs that are in demand in this country, that do not have skill requirements and/or specialist education to perform, there's no reason why a visa system is needed for that." If refugees can easily fill up the roles, the unemployment rate among them wouldn't be that high. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The xenophobic and racist arguments are against more immigration, I stand by this. You went on to touch on controlled immigration, this is not the same discussion. You just said anyone against more immigration is a racist or xenophobe though. You didn't say anyone against allowing immigrants in is a racist. Did you mean more as in anymore at all or more as in increasing the number of immigrants we legally allow? That is fair and I can see how my words may have been confusing. I am talking about people saying no more immigration full stop, shut the borders etc... There isn't a non xenophobic/racist argument to support that stance. That's quite a blanket statement. Almost every country did that during covid
Those were Public Health laws, not Immigration ones."Immigrant law citing public health as a reason | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? With visa based immigration, the country gets the people for roles that are really needed. That's not the case with refugees. As of 2019, the employment rate of refugees granted asylum status was at 51% It's hard to say if the 51% are jobs which are in demand. Be fair, it is equally hard to say they are not. That's true. But job visa based migration can be guaranteed to be based on demand at that time. It's only logical to assume that's not the ratio with jobs taken by refugees." It cannot be guaranteed to do anything of the sort when the demand is to fill low paid jobs and there is, ironically, a salary bar which means you can only employ immigrants to "take" unfilled high wage jobs. Look at where the shortages are and where the visas are allocated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? With visa based immigration, the country gets the people for roles that are really needed. That's not the case with refugees. As of 2019, the employment rate of refugees granted asylum status was at 51% It's hard to say if the 51% are jobs which are in demand. The rest of the summary beyond the raw statistic is also interesting: " Dr Carlos Vargas-Silva, COMPAS Research Director and Principal Investigator of the project said: “Naturally, we found that asylum migrants – who have often fled conflict and other trauma - are more likely to suffer long-lasting health problems that affect their ability to work than people born in the UK and other migrants. So an important recommendation is that when allocating funding geared towards the economic integration of asylum migrants, governments should first address health issues that impede work performance, including mental health. This could lead to better labour market outcomes for this group in the future. “One encouraging finding is that those individuals who came to the UK for asylum reasons are more likely than the UK born or other migrants to be in self-employment and to employ other people – though their businesses are often small. Policy interventions directed at boosting entrepreneurial potential among refugees and post-asylum settled migrants should consider the factors that limit the growth of these businesses – such as limited access to finance”. The report also suggests that unemployed asylum migrants rely heavily on public agencies – notably job centres - for their job searches, but that this is not particularly effective. Future analysis should investigate how agencies could serve asylum migrants more effectively, for example, through employment advisers providing specialist support and careers guidance. The research also identified that lengthy legal restrictions to access the labour market while asylum claims are being evaluated can have adverse long-term consequences for mental health. Support from voluntary agencies could identify training and support programmes to help address these issues."" Yes there could be lot there could be done. But everything needs some amount of investment. I was commenting about your comparison between visa based immigration and filling jobs with refugees. Both are not the same. In visa based immigration, people are having the skills and already have a job in hand. Among refugees, the country has to spend money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The xenophobic and racist arguments are against more immigration, I stand by this. You went on to touch on controlled immigration, this is not the same discussion. You just said anyone against more immigration is a racist or xenophobe though. You didn't say anyone against allowing immigrants in is a racist. Did you mean more as in anymore at all or more as in increasing the number of immigrants we legally allow? That is fair and I can see how my words may have been confusing. I am talking about people saying no more immigration full stop, shut the borders etc... There isn't a non xenophobic/racist argument to support that stance. That's quite a blanket statement. Almost every country did that during covid
Those were Public Health laws, not Immigration ones.
Immigrant law citing public health as a reason "Coronavirus Legislation affecting Immigration policy would be a far more accurate term. and a simple google would have found you that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? With visa based immigration, the country gets the people for roles that are really needed. That's not the case with refugees. As of 2019, the employment rate of refugees granted asylum status was at 51% It's hard to say if the 51% are jobs which are in demand. Be fair, it is equally hard to say they are not. That's true. But job visa based migration can be guaranteed to be based on demand at that time. It's only logical to assume that's not the ratio with jobs taken by refugees. It cannot be guaranteed to do anything of the sort when the demand is to fill low paid jobs and there is, ironically, a salary bar which means you can only employ immigrants to "take" unfilled high wage jobs. Look at where the shortages are and where the visas are allocated." If you are going to hire someone from another country, the company must publish the job add for a few months here and only after proving that they cannot hire here, they can hire from outside. So the jobs filled based on visa are all in-demand. But not all in-demand jobs are filled through visas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? With visa based immigration, the country gets the people for roles that are really needed. That's not the case with refugees. As of 2019, the employment rate of refugees granted asylum status was at 51% It's hard to say if the 51% are jobs which are in demand. The rest of the summary beyond the raw statistic is also interesting: " Dr Carlos Vargas-Silva, COMPAS Research Director and Principal Investigator of the project said: “Naturally, we found that asylum migrants – who have often fled conflict and other trauma - are more likely to suffer long-lasting health problems that affect their ability to work than people born in the UK and other migrants. So an important recommendation is that when allocating funding geared towards the economic integration of asylum migrants, governments should first address health issues that impede work performance, including mental health. This could lead to better labour market outcomes for this group in the future. “One encouraging finding is that those individuals who came to the UK for asylum reasons are more likely than the UK born or other migrants to be in self-employment and to employ other people – though their businesses are often small. Policy interventions directed at boosting entrepreneurial potential among refugees and post-asylum settled migrants should consider the factors that limit the growth of these businesses – such as limited access to finance”. The report also suggests that unemployed asylum migrants rely heavily on public agencies – notably job centres - for their job searches, but that this is not particularly effective. Future analysis should investigate how agencies could serve asylum migrants more effectively, for example, through employment advisers providing specialist support and careers guidance. The research also identified that lengthy legal restrictions to access the labour market while asylum claims are being evaluated can have adverse long-term consequences for mental health. Support from voluntary agencies could identify training and support programmes to help address these issues." Yes there could be lot there could be done. But everything needs some amount of investment. I was commenting about your comparison between visa based immigration and filling jobs with refugees. Both are not the same. In visa based immigration, people are having the skills and already have a job in hand. Among refugees, the country has to spend money. " So, to clarify, it would be possible to fill some of the highly skilled roles with refugees with the appropriate skills. The country would not have to spend any more money and could help some people in dire need. That would not prevent us from having a broader discussion about who else in need we could accommodate. If we were better at foreign aid or diplomacy we could even reduce or prevent the problem in the first place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? With visa based immigration, the country gets the people for roles that are really needed. That's not the case with refugees. As of 2019, the employment rate of refugees granted asylum status was at 51% It's hard to say if the 51% are jobs which are in demand. Be fair, it is equally hard to say they are not. That's true. But job visa based migration can be guaranteed to be based on demand at that time. It's only logical to assume that's not the ratio with jobs taken by refugees. It cannot be guaranteed to do anything of the sort when the demand is to fill low paid jobs and there is, ironically, a salary bar which means you can only employ immigrants to "take" unfilled high wage jobs. Look at where the shortages are and where the visas are allocated. If you are going to hire someone from another country, the company must publish the job add for a few months here and only after proving that they cannot hire here, they can hire from outside. So the jobs filled based on visa are all in-demand. But not all in-demand jobs are filled through visas." What difference does advertising for two months make of a refugee or an "economic migrant" fills the position? Lots of in demand jobs are not filled at all. Both high and low skilled. What point are you making? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two? " I love it when far righties think this is some kind of *check mate*. As if the only options for refugees arriving here are. A. Staying at a non-racists house. B. Being Human trafficked to Rwanda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? With visa based immigration, the country gets the people for roles that are really needed. That's not the case with refugees. As of 2019, the employment rate of refugees granted asylum status was at 51% It's hard to say if the 51% are jobs which are in demand. The rest of the summary beyond the raw statistic is also interesting: " Dr Carlos Vargas-Silva, COMPAS Research Director and Principal Investigator of the project said: “Naturally, we found that asylum migrants – who have often fled conflict and other trauma - are more likely to suffer long-lasting health problems that affect their ability to work than people born in the UK and other migrants. So an important recommendation is that when allocating funding geared towards the economic integration of asylum migrants, governments should first address health issues that impede work performance, including mental health. This could lead to better labour market outcomes for this group in the future. “One encouraging finding is that those individuals who came to the UK for asylum reasons are more likely than the UK born or other migrants to be in self-employment and to employ other people – though their businesses are often small. Policy interventions directed at boosting entrepreneurial potential among refugees and post-asylum settled migrants should consider the factors that limit the growth of these businesses – such as limited access to finance”. The report also suggests that unemployed asylum migrants rely heavily on public agencies – notably job centres - for their job searches, but that this is not particularly effective. Future analysis should investigate how agencies could serve asylum migrants more effectively, for example, through employment advisers providing specialist support and careers guidance. The research also identified that lengthy legal restrictions to access the labour market while asylum claims are being evaluated can have adverse long-term consequences for mental health. Support from voluntary agencies could identify training and support programmes to help address these issues." Yes there could be lot there could be done. But everything needs some amount of investment. I was commenting about your comparison between visa based immigration and filling jobs with refugees. Both are not the same. In visa based immigration, people are having the skills and already have a job in hand. Among refugees, the country has to spend money. So, to clarify, it would be possible to fill some of the highly skilled roles with refugees with the appropriate skills. The country would not have to spend any more money and could help some people in dire need. That would not prevent us from having a broader discussion about who else in need we could accommodate. If we were better at foreign aid or diplomacy we could even reduce or prevent the problem in the first place." Some roles. Going by employment percentage, it's just around 50% and many of those jobs aren't highly skilled as their salaries are much lower. Again, my answer was to your original question which is far from what you are discussing right now- "We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway?" Charity is a valid argument for taking in refugees. But claiming that it's similar to other immigration routes is not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? With visa based immigration, the country gets the people for roles that are really needed. That's not the case with refugees. As of 2019, the employment rate of refugees granted asylum status was at 51% It's hard to say if the 51% are jobs which are in demand. Be fair, it is equally hard to say they are not. That's true. But job visa based migration can be guaranteed to be based on demand at that time. It's only logical to assume that's not the ratio with jobs taken by refugees. It cannot be guaranteed to do anything of the sort when the demand is to fill low paid jobs and there is, ironically, a salary bar which means you can only employ immigrants to "take" unfilled high wage jobs. Look at where the shortages are and where the visas are allocated. If you are going to hire someone from another country, the company must publish the job add for a few months here and only after proving that they cannot hire here, they can hire from outside. So the jobs filled based on visa are all in-demand. But not all in-demand jobs are filled through visas. What difference does advertising for two months make of a refugee or an "economic migrant" fills the position? Lots of in demand jobs are not filled at all. Both high and low skilled. What point are you making?" You made this statement -It cannot be guaranteed to do anything of the sort when the demand is to fill low paid jobs and there is, ironically, a salary bar Highly paid jobs are also in demand. The advertisement process makes sure that they aren't overlooking local people. Is the point clear or should I start from teaching alphabets? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? With visa based immigration, the country gets the people for roles that are really needed. That's not the case with refugees. As of 2019, the employment rate of refugees granted asylum status was at 51% It's hard to say if the 51% are jobs which are in demand. The rest of the summary beyond the raw statistic is also interesting: " Dr Carlos Vargas-Silva, COMPAS Research Director and Principal Investigator of the project said: “Naturally, we found that asylum migrants – who have often fled conflict and other trauma - are more likely to suffer long-lasting health problems that affect their ability to work than people born in the UK and other migrants. So an important recommendation is that when allocating funding geared towards the economic integration of asylum migrants, governments should first address health issues that impede work performance, including mental health. This could lead to better labour market outcomes for this group in the future. “One encouraging finding is that those individuals who came to the UK for asylum reasons are more likely than the UK born or other migrants to be in self-employment and to employ other people – though their businesses are often small. Policy interventions directed at boosting entrepreneurial potential among refugees and post-asylum settled migrants should consider the factors that limit the growth of these businesses – such as limited access to finance”. The report also suggests that unemployed asylum migrants rely heavily on public agencies – notably job centres - for their job searches, but that this is not particularly effective. Future analysis should investigate how agencies could serve asylum migrants more effectively, for example, through employment advisers providing specialist support and careers guidance. The research also identified that lengthy legal restrictions to access the labour market while asylum claims are being evaluated can have adverse long-term consequences for mental health. Support from voluntary agencies could identify training and support programmes to help address these issues." Yes there could be lot there could be done. But everything needs some amount of investment. I was commenting about your comparison between visa based immigration and filling jobs with refugees. Both are not the same. In visa based immigration, people are having the skills and already have a job in hand. Among refugees, the country has to spend money. So, to clarify, it would be possible to fill some of the highly skilled roles with refugees with the appropriate skills. The country would not have to spend any more money and could help some people in dire need. That would not prevent us from having a broader discussion about who else in need we could accommodate. If we were better at foreign aid or diplomacy we could even reduce or prevent the problem in the first place. Some roles. Going by employment percentage, it's just around 50% and many of those jobs aren't highly skilled as their salaries are much lower. Again, my answer was to your original question which is far from what you are discussing right now- "We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway?" Charity is a valid argument for taking in refugees. But claiming that it's similar to other immigration routes is not." How many different ways can I write that refugees also have the skills that are needed to fulfill work visa requirements? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? With visa based immigration, the country gets the people for roles that are really needed. That's not the case with refugees. As of 2019, the employment rate of refugees granted asylum status was at 51% It's hard to say if the 51% are jobs which are in demand. Be fair, it is equally hard to say they are not. That's true. But job visa based migration can be guaranteed to be based on demand at that time. It's only logical to assume that's not the ratio with jobs taken by refugees. It cannot be guaranteed to do anything of the sort when the demand is to fill low paid jobs and there is, ironically, a salary bar which means you can only employ immigrants to "take" unfilled high wage jobs. Look at where the shortages are and where the visas are allocated. If you are going to hire someone from another country, the company must publish the job add for a few months here and only after proving that they cannot hire here, they can hire from outside. So the jobs filled based on visa are all in-demand. But not all in-demand jobs are filled through visas. What difference does advertising for two months make of a refugee or an "economic migrant" fills the position? Lots of in demand jobs are not filled at all. Both high and low skilled. What point are you making? You made this statement -It cannot be guaranteed to do anything of the sort when the demand is to fill low paid jobs and there is, ironically, a salary bar Highly paid jobs are also in demand. The advertisement process makes sure that they aren't overlooking local people. Is the point clear or should I start from teaching alphabets?" What are you talking about? Job needed. Advertised. Not filled. Hire from abroad. Can be filled by refugee or non refugee. No reason not to fill it with a refugee. Clear? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I mentioned before how there are 600,000 empty homes in the country showing that housing is not an issue." There may be 600,000 empty houses in the UK, but there aren't 600,000 available houses. The vast majority of that 600,000 are currently empty because they are uninhabitable, or are tied up for legal reasons. I own one myself. My parents died last year, leaving me the house. It has been empty since then while I wait for the Probate Service to issue a grant of probate, which will allow me to sell the place. These 600,000 empty houses are problems for the owners. They won't become a solution for refugees. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? With visa based immigration, the country gets the people for roles that are really needed. That's not the case with refugees. As of 2019, the employment rate of refugees granted asylum status was at 51% It's hard to say if the 51% are jobs which are in demand. The rest of the summary beyond the raw statistic is also interesting: " Dr Carlos Vargas-Silva, COMPAS Research Director and Principal Investigator of the project said: “Naturally, we found that asylum migrants – who have often fled conflict and other trauma - are more likely to suffer long-lasting health problems that affect their ability to work than people born in the UK and other migrants. So an important recommendation is that when allocating funding geared towards the economic integration of asylum migrants, governments should first address health issues that impede work performance, including mental health. This could lead to better labour market outcomes for this group in the future. “One encouraging finding is that those individuals who came to the UK for asylum reasons are more likely than the UK born or other migrants to be in self-employment and to employ other people – though their businesses are often small. Policy interventions directed at boosting entrepreneurial potential among refugees and post-asylum settled migrants should consider the factors that limit the growth of these businesses – such as limited access to finance”. The report also suggests that unemployed asylum migrants rely heavily on public agencies – notably job centres - for their job searches, but that this is not particularly effective. Future analysis should investigate how agencies could serve asylum migrants more effectively, for example, through employment advisers providing specialist support and careers guidance. The research also identified that lengthy legal restrictions to access the labour market while asylum claims are being evaluated can have adverse long-term consequences for mental health. Support from voluntary agencies could identify training and support programmes to help address these issues." Yes there could be lot there could be done. But everything needs some amount of investment. I was commenting about your comparison between visa based immigration and filling jobs with refugees. Both are not the same. In visa based immigration, people are having the skills and already have a job in hand. Among refugees, the country has to spend money. So, to clarify, it would be possible to fill some of the highly skilled roles with refugees with the appropriate skills. The country would not have to spend any more money and could help some people in dire need. That would not prevent us from having a broader discussion about who else in need we could accommodate. If we were better at foreign aid or diplomacy we could even reduce or prevent the problem in the first place. Some roles. Going by employment percentage, it's just around 50% and many of those jobs aren't highly skilled as their salaries are much lower. Again, my answer was to your original question which is far from what you are discussing right now- "We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway?" Charity is a valid argument for taking in refugees. But claiming that it's similar to other immigration routes is not. How many different ways can I write that refugees also have the skills that are needed to fulfill work visa requirements?" Do you know them all personally? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... but nobody is advocating uncontrolled immigration ..." Someone up above proposed putting on a daily ferry service to make the immigrant journey safer. They didn't say "just for a couple of months" or "only for certain groups of people". That would be uncontrolled immigration. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two? I love it when far righties think this is some kind of *check mate*. As if the only options for refugees arriving here are. A. Staying at a non-racists house. B. Being Human trafficked to Rwanda. " Again, you chose to avoid the hypocrisy. No mention of the Mail? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The xenophobic and racist arguments are against more immigration, I stand by this. You went on to touch on controlled immigration, this is not the same discussion. You just said anyone against more immigration is a racist or xenophobe though. You didn't say anyone against allowing immigrants in is a racist. Did you mean more as in anymore at all or more as in increasing the number of immigrants we legally allow? That is fair and I can see how my words may have been confusing. I am talking about people saying no more immigration full stop, shut the borders etc... There isn't a non xenophobic/racist argument to support that stance." Who is saying that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many different ways can I write that refugees also have the skills that are needed to fulfill work visa requirements?" They do? Do they have all their qualification certificates with them? Are these the same refugees that you earlier said couldn't get a visa because they "have no documentation as a refugee who has fled their country"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two? I love it when far righties think this is some kind of *check mate*. As if the only options for refugees arriving here are. A. Staying at a non-racists house. B. Being Human trafficked to Rwanda. Again, you chose to avoid the hypocrisy. No mention of the Mail? " What hypocrisy? Obsessed with the Daily Mail, let it go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two? I love it when far righties think this is some kind of *check mate*. As if the only options for refugees arriving here are. A. Staying at a non-racists house. B. Being Human trafficked to Rwanda. " Why do you assume that valid immigration concerns are right wing? What of the millions of Labour voters that deserted their party of choice to vote Brexit ( mistakenly in my book) then backed Boris in 2019? Right wing or thick Sun reading xenophobes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two? I love it when far righties think this is some kind of *check mate*. As if the only options for refugees arriving here are. A. Staying at a non-racists house. B. Being Human trafficked to Rwanda. Again, you chose to avoid the hypocrisy. No mention of the Mail? What hypocrisy? Obsessed with the Daily Mail, let it go.
I’m starting to think that you’re not that bright?"Unable to make your point, so resorting to personal insults. Poor show | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It would be far more civilised to actually discuss what numbers would we accept? We know we need immigration as we provide many routes, so why not similar channels for refugees who fill the roles we want anyway? With visa based immigration, the country gets the people for roles that are really needed. That's not the case with refugees. As of 2019, the employment rate of refugees granted asylum status was at 51% It's hard to say if the 51% are jobs which are in demand. The rest of the summary beyond the raw statistic is also interesting: " Dr Carlos Vargas-Silva, COMPAS Research Director and Principal Investigator of the project said: “Naturally, we found that asylum migrants – who have often fled conflict and other trauma - are more likely to suffer long-lasting health problems that affect their ability to work than people born in the UK and other migrants. So an important recommendation is that when allocating funding geared towards the economic integration of asylum migrants, governments should first address health issues that impede work performance, including mental health. This could lead to better labour market outcomes for this group in the future. “One encouraging finding is that those individuals who came to the UK for asylum reasons are more likely than the UK born or other migrants to be in self-employment and to employ other people – though their businesses are often small. Policy interventions directed at boosting entrepreneurial potential among refugees and post-asylum settled migrants should consider the factors that limit the growth of these businesses – such as limited access to finance”. The report also suggests that unemployed asylum migrants rely heavily on public agencies – notably job centres - for their job searches, but that this is not particularly effective. Future analysis should investigate how agencies could serve asylum migrants more effectively, for example, through employment advisers providing specialist support and careers guidance. The research also identified that lengthy legal restrictions to access the labour market while asylum claims are being evaluated can have adverse long-term consequences for mental health. Support from voluntary agencies could identify training and support programmes to help address these issues."" Why isn’t this guy running the world? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Can we put you down to take in and house one, or two? I love it when far righties think this is some kind of *check mate*. As if the only options for refugees arriving here are. A. Staying at a non-racists house. B. Being Human trafficked to Rwanda. Why do you assume that valid immigration concerns are right wing? What of the millions of Labour voters that deserted their party of choice to vote Brexit ( mistakenly in my book) then backed Boris in 2019? Right wing or thick Sun reading xenophobes? " Nope, but I assume people who say moronic things like -if you don't hate refugees maybe they should live in your house, are far right leaning. You haven't expressed any valid immigration concerns. You've just parroted far right nonsense. Not sure how you're linking people who are confused about brexit with people who have are as confused about immigration as you. But hey. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
