FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Illegal immigration getting worse pt2
Illegal immigration getting worse pt2
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"A reply to hives waffle "That a different angle imo. And I believe that the safe country bit is a consideration. It's just lower in importance than other things like if you have connections to the UK. I have no reason to think sensible checks aren't being done. Welcome evidence to the contrary. There does seem a distrust in the ppl / system doing our checks that we don't do a good job. Don't know where that comes from other than fear." It comes from documentaries by panorama etc where migrants are shown throwing ID overboard and phones. Around 98% have no passport at all. Yet managed to withdraw £5k to pay for a boat ride. But don't have a debit or credit card with their name on. and no other forms of ID This to me is very worrying as we can't then identify their home country, their belief, their backgrounds. We are just hoping they are nice people. If it is a case of just letting people in. Then I've no idea why any cou try would bother with passports for people on holiday. " my memory is hazy, but could it be shown that it was ID ? Phones I get. Anyway. If you truely believe that binning your ID allows you a free pass then you'd understand that any asylum seeker would be sensible to bin their ID. It no longer is a sign of faking it, but just common sense. | |||
| |||
| |||
"It would be so much more sensible if the government had offices on the continent to process both asylum seekers and economic migrants . Hello do you have skills or can you lift a shovel?? Good sign here and here’s your visa. We need all the workers we can get . No need for boat runners then. The few that would be rejected ( less than 5%) aren’t enough to keep the criminal gangs interested . Regarding ability of our immigration services, the closure of foreign offices has obviously had a negative effect and when you couple that with a staff shortage in the U.K. it is has to be negative. I’m not blaming the staff here I’m blaming the management or if you prefer their official name the government. " Would there be a limit? A total on how many you would allow? | |||
"It would be so much more sensible if the government had offices on the continent to process both asylum seekers and economic migrants . Hello do you have skills or can you lift a shovel?? Good sign here and here’s your visa. We need all the workers we can get . No need for boat runners then. The few that would be rejected ( less than 5%) aren’t enough to keep the criminal gangs interested . Regarding ability of our immigration services, the closure of foreign offices has obviously had a negative effect and when you couple that with a staff shortage in the U.K. it is has to be negative. I’m not blaming the staff here I’m blaming the management or if you prefer their official name the government. Would there be a limit? A total on how many you would allow? " if have a set of requirements that create a natural limit. That limit need to tefkect world conditions and seek to be a fair amount. And not ignore the issue because France is safe and we are an island. There other ways to manage this. Albanians are being groomed into believing the UK will solve their issues (and so fall into serv1tude). We can combat this if we were more transparent. I also think offshore camps would reduce the need to fall into the trap. Ppl can get to a Europe based site withoutbl spending Ks. It's teh final crossing that creates the need for gangs. | |||
| |||
"The thread title is misleading. Nobody is illegal unless their claim has been refused and they abscond. Until then they are asylum seekers. Anyone throwing the word "illegal" around has just bought into the lies spewed by most of the press and the government. " True  | |||
"A reply to hives waffle "That a different angle imo. And I believe that the safe country bit is a consideration. It's just lower in importance than other things like if you have connections to the UK. I have no reason to think sensible checks aren't being done. Welcome evidence to the contrary. There does seem a distrust in the ppl / system doing our checks that we don't do a good job. Don't know where that comes from other than fear." It comes from documentaries by panorama etc where migrants are shown throwing ID overboard and phones. Around 98% have no passport at all. Yet managed to withdraw £5k to pay for a boat ride. But don't have a debit or credit card with their name on. and no other forms of ID This to me is very worrying as we can't then identify their home country, their belief, their backgrounds. We are just hoping they are nice people. If it is a case of just letting people in. Then I've no idea why any cou try would bother with passports for people on holiday. my memory is hazy, but could it be shown that it was ID ? Phones I get. Anyway. If you truely believe that binning your ID allows you a free pass then you'd understand that any asylum seeker would be sensible to bin their ID. It no longer is a sign of faking it, but just common sense. " Yes. Most asylum seekers do bin their IDs 98% don't have a passport. We don't have the figures for other IDs. But it's why we struggle to deport. You can't deport some 1 to a country you simply suspect them from coming from, you need to verify which country they arrived from. It's why many claim to be from Iran. Yet can't speak the language. | |||
"It would be so much more sensible if the government had offices on the continent to process both asylum seekers and economic migrants . Hello do you have skills or can you lift a shovel?? Good sign here and here’s your visa. We need all the workers we can get . No need for boat runners then. The few that would be rejected ( less than 5%) aren’t enough to keep the criminal gangs interested . Regarding ability of our immigration services, the closure of foreign offices has obviously had a negative effect and when you couple that with a staff shortage in the U.K. it is has to be negative. I’m not blaming the staff here I’m blaming the management or if you prefer their official name the government. " The uk has official means of allowing people to enter. As stated I the previous thread. And highlighted to you. There are legal means of entering ofrom the continent. But most arrive because they don't have the right to enter these schemes. Many also come from areas of conflict where national security my be at risk. So background checks must be performed. More than 5% are rejected | |||
"It would be so much more sensible if the government had offices on the continent to process both asylum seekers and economic migrants . Hello do you have skills or can you lift a shovel?? Good sign here and here’s your visa. We need all the workers we can get . No need for boat runners then. The few that would be rejected ( less than 5%) aren’t enough to keep the criminal gangs interested . Regarding ability of our immigration services, the closure of foreign offices has obviously had a negative effect and when you couple that with a staff shortage in the U.K. it is has to be negative. I’m not blaming the staff here I’m blaming the management or if you prefer their official name the government. Would there be a limit? A total on how many you would allow? " Seemingly not | |||
"It would be so much more sensible if the government had offices on the continent to process both asylum seekers and economic migrants . Hello do you have skills or can you lift a shovel?? Good sign here and here’s your visa. We need all the workers we can get . No need for boat runners then. The few that would be rejected ( less than 5%) aren’t enough to keep the criminal gangs interested . Regarding ability of our immigration services, the closure of foreign offices has obviously had a negative effect and when you couple that with a staff shortage in the U.K. it is has to be negative. I’m not blaming the staff here I’m blaming the management or if you prefer their official name the government. Would there be a limit? A total on how many you would allow? if have a set of requirements that create a natural limit. That limit need to tefkect world conditions and seek to be a fair amount. And not ignore the issue because France is safe and we are an island. There other ways to manage this. Albanians are being groomed into believing the UK will solve their issues (and so fall into serv1tude). We can combat this if we were more transparent. I also think offshore camps would reduce the need to fall into the trap. Ppl can get to a Europe based site withoutbl spending Ks. It's teh final crossing that creates the need for gangs. " These camps existed for years the jungle etc. We even worked with the UN to find people I them from coutnries who had a right to apply for asylum in the uk. The problem is most of them do not have that right as they aren't from the 7 or so immediate countries we recognise as having a right. This is why 5k is paid. And they enter illegally. | |||
"A reply to hives waffle "That a different angle imo. And I believe that the safe country bit is a consideration. It's just lower in importance than other things like if you have connections to the UK. I have no reason to think sensible checks aren't being done. Welcome evidence to the contrary. There does seem a distrust in the ppl / system doing our checks that we don't do a good job. Don't know where that comes from other than fear." It comes from documentaries by panorama etc where migrants are shown throwing ID overboard and phones. Around 98% have no passport at all. Yet managed to withdraw £5k to pay for a boat ride. But don't have a debit or credit card with their name on. and no other forms of ID This to me is very worrying as we can't then identify their home country, their belief, their backgrounds. We are just hoping they are nice people. If it is a case of just letting people in. Then I've no idea why any cou try would bother with passports for people on holiday. my memory is hazy, but could it be shown that it was ID ? Phones I get. Anyway. If you truely believe that binning your ID allows you a free pass then you'd understand that any asylum seeker would be sensible to bin their ID. It no longer is a sign of faking it, but just common sense. Yes. Most asylum seekers do bin their IDs 98% don't have a passport. We don't have the figures for other IDs. But it's why we struggle to deport. You can't deport some 1 to a country you simply suspect them from coming from, you need to verify which country they arrived from. It's why many claim to be from Iran. Yet can't speak the language." like I said, it sounds rational if what you say is true. And so nothing can be infered from it in itself. Where did you get the Iran claim from ? And the 99pc without passports (although many people in the world don't so I can buy the direction of not the size of that claim) | |||
"The thread title is misleading. Nobody is illegal unless their claim has been refused and they abscond. Until then they are asylum seekers. Anyone throwing the word "illegal" around has just bought into the lies spewed by most of the press and the government. " I am using the title from another thread. Sadly you are mistaken. Entering a country through clandestine entry is illegal. It'd literally written in UK law | |||
| |||
"A reply to hives waffle "That a different angle imo. And I believe that the safe country bit is a consideration. It's just lower in importance than other things like if you have connections to the UK. I have no reason to think sensible checks aren't being done. Welcome evidence to the contrary. There does seem a distrust in the ppl / system doing our checks that we don't do a good job. Don't know where that comes from other than fear." It comes from documentaries by panorama etc where migrants are shown throwing ID overboard and phones. Around 98% have no passport at all. Yet managed to withdraw £5k to pay for a boat ride. But don't have a debit or credit card with their name on. and no other forms of ID This to me is very worrying as we can't then identify their home country, their belief, their backgrounds. We are just hoping they are nice people. If it is a case of just letting people in. Then I've no idea why any cou try would bother with passports for people on holiday. my memory is hazy, but could it be shown that it was ID ? Phones I get. Anyway. If you truely believe that binning your ID allows you a free pass then you'd understand that any asylum seeker would be sensible to bin their ID. It no longer is a sign of faking it, but just common sense. Yes. Most asylum seekers do bin their IDs 98% don't have a passport. We don't have the figures for other IDs. But it's why we struggle to deport. You can't deport some 1 to a country you simply suspect them from coming from, you need to verify which country they arrived from. It's why many claim to be from Iran. Yet can't speak the language.like I said, it sounds rational if what you say is true. And so nothing can be infered from it in itself. Where did you get the Iran claim from ? And the 99pc without passports (although many people in the world don't so I can buy the direction of not the size of that claim)" You can read the freedom of information release here for then98% I have previously put up a link in the old thread as to how to download data to see illegal migrant boat arrivals and country of origin https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2022/03/01/98-of-boat-migrants-have-no-passport#:~:text=As%20covered%20by%20the%20national,they%20arrive%20in%20the%20UK. | |||
"It would be so much more sensible if the government had offices on the continent to process both asylum seekers and economic migrants . Hello do you have skills or can you lift a shovel?? Good sign here and here’s your visa. We need all the workers we can get . No need for boat runners then. The few that would be rejected ( less than 5%) aren’t enough to keep the criminal gangs interested . Regarding ability of our immigration services, the closure of foreign offices has obviously had a negative effect and when you couple that with a staff shortage in the U.K. it is has to be negative. I’m not blaming the staff here I’m blaming the management or if you prefer their official name the government. Would there be a limit? A total on how many you would allow? Seemingly not " Is there a law stating that there has to be a limit? | |||
"It would be so much more sensible if the government had offices on the continent to process both asylum seekers and economic migrants . Hello do you have skills or can you lift a shovel?? Good sign here and here’s your visa. We need all the workers we can get . No need for boat runners then. The few that would be rejected ( less than 5%) aren’t enough to keep the criminal gangs interested . Regarding ability of our immigration services, the closure of foreign offices has obviously had a negative effect and when you couple that with a staff shortage in the U.K. it is has to be negative. I’m not blaming the staff here I’m blaming the management or if you prefer their official name the government. Would there be a limit? A total on how many you would allow? Seemingly not Is there a law stating that there has to be a limit? " No one said there was. | |||
"It would be so much more sensible if the government had offices on the continent to process both asylum seekers and economic migrants . Hello do you have skills or can you lift a shovel?? Good sign here and here’s your visa. We need all the workers we can get . No need for boat runners then. The few that would be rejected ( less than 5%) aren’t enough to keep the criminal gangs interested . Regarding ability of our immigration services, the closure of foreign offices has obviously had a negative effect and when you couple that with a staff shortage in the U.K. it is has to be negative. I’m not blaming the staff here I’m blaming the management or if you prefer their official name the government. Would there be a limit? A total on how many you would allow? Seemingly not Is there a law stating that there has to be a limit? No one said there was. " Ok, there is no limit, | |||
"It would be so much more sensible if the government had offices on the continent to process both asylum seekers and economic migrants . Hello do you have skills or can you lift a shovel?? Good sign here and here’s your visa. We need all the workers we can get . No need for boat runners then. The few that would be rejected ( less than 5%) aren’t enough to keep the criminal gangs interested . Regarding ability of our immigration services, the closure of foreign offices has obviously had a negative effect and when you couple that with a staff shortage in the U.K. it is has to be negative. I’m not blaming the staff here I’m blaming the management or if you prefer their official name the government. Would there be a limit? A total on how many you would allow? Seemingly not Is there a law stating that there has to be a limit? No one said there was. Ok, there is no limit, "Again. No 1 said there was. | |||
"It would be so much more sensible if the government had offices on the continent to process both asylum seekers and economic migrants . Hello do you have skills or can you lift a shovel?? Good sign here and here’s your visa. We need all the workers we can get . No need for boat runners then. The few that would be rejected ( less than 5%) aren’t enough to keep the criminal gangs interested . Regarding ability of our immigration services, the closure of foreign offices has obviously had a negative effect and when you couple that with a staff shortage in the U.K. it is has to be negative. I’m not blaming the staff here I’m blaming the management or if you prefer their official name the government. Would there be a limit? A total on how many you would allow? Seemingly not Is there a law stating that there has to be a limit? No one said there was. Ok, there is no limit,
Again. No 1 said there was." | |||
"A reply to hives waffle "That a different angle imo. And I believe that the safe country bit is a consideration. It's just lower in importance than other things like if you have connections to the UK. I have no reason to think sensible checks aren't being done. Welcome evidence to the contrary. There does seem a distrust in the ppl / system doing our checks that we don't do a good job. Don't know where that comes from other than fear." It comes from documentaries by panorama etc where migrants are shown throwing ID overboard and phones. Around 98% have no passport at all. Yet managed to withdraw £5k to pay for a boat ride. But don't have a debit or credit card with their name on. and no other forms of ID This to me is very worrying as we can't then identify their home country, their belief, their backgrounds. We are just hoping they are nice people. If it is a case of just letting people in. Then I've no idea why any cou try would bother with passports for people on holiday. my memory is hazy, but could it be shown that it was ID ? Phones I get. Anyway. If you truely believe that binning your ID allows you a free pass then you'd understand that any asylum seeker would be sensible to bin their ID. It no longer is a sign of faking it, but just common sense. Yes. Most asylum seekers do bin their IDs 98% don't have a passport. We don't have the figures for other IDs. But it's why we struggle to deport. You can't deport some 1 to a country you simply suspect them from coming from, you need to verify which country they arrived from. It's why many claim to be from Iran. Yet can't speak the language.like I said, it sounds rational if what you say is true. And so nothing can be infered from it in itself. Where did you get the Iran claim from ? And the 99pc without passports (although many people in the world don't so I can buy the direction of not the size of that claim) You can read the freedom of information release here for then98% I have previously put up a link in the old thread as to how to download data to see illegal migrant boat arrivals and country of origin https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2022/03/01/98-of-boat-migrants-have-no-passport#:~:text=As%20covered%20by%20the%20national,they%20arrive%20in%20the%20UK. " thx. Iirc the database didn't show how many Iraqis couldn't speak the language. But I'm on my phone so can't check. | |||
"A reply to hives waffle "That a different angle imo. And I believe that the safe country bit is a consideration. It's just lower in importance than other things like if you have connections to the UK. I have no reason to think sensible checks aren't being done. Welcome evidence to the contrary. There does seem a distrust in the ppl / system doing our checks that we don't do a good job. Don't know where that comes from other than fear." It comes from documentaries by panorama etc where migrants are shown throwing ID overboard and phones. Around 98% have no passport at all. Yet managed to withdraw £5k to pay for a boat ride. But don't have a debit or credit card with their name on. and no other forms of ID This to me is very worrying as we can't then identify their home country, their belief, their backgrounds. We are just hoping they are nice people. If it is a case of just letting people in. Then I've no idea why any cou try would bother with passports for people on holiday. my memory is hazy, but could it be shown that it was ID ? Phones I get. Anyway. If you truely believe that binning your ID allows you a free pass then you'd understand that any asylum seeker would be sensible to bin their ID. It no longer is a sign of faking it, but just common sense. Yes. Most asylum seekers do bin their IDs 98% don't have a passport. We don't have the figures for other IDs. But it's why we struggle to deport. You can't deport some 1 to a country you simply suspect them from coming from, you need to verify which country they arrived from. It's why many claim to be from Iran. Yet can't speak the language.like I said, it sounds rational if what you say is true. And so nothing can be infered from it in itself. Where did you get the Iran claim from ? And the 99pc without passports (although many people in the world don't so I can buy the direction of not the size of that claim) You can read the freedom of information release here for then98% I have previously put up a link in the old thread as to how to download data to see illegal migrant boat arrivals and country of origin https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2022/03/01/98-of-boat-migrants-have-no-passport#:~:text=As%20covered%20by%20the%20national,they%20arrive%20in%20the%20UK. thx. Iirc the database didn't show how many Iraqis couldn't speak the language. But I'm on my phone so can't check. " That link was just for the passports bit there is another foi I'll have to try and find where they ask about how often an interpreter was needed and the rejectction of the initial asylum decision based on the person not responding when that dialect of arabic(from iran) was used and the person couldn't speak it It was something I came across in 2019 when submitting my own foi. Sadly the foi website is a pain in the arse to use. | |||
"A reply to hives waffle "That a different angle imo. And I believe that the safe country bit is a consideration. It's just lower in importance than other things like if you have connections to the UK. I have no reason to think sensible checks aren't being done. Welcome evidence to the contrary. There does seem a distrust in the ppl / system doing our checks that we don't do a good job. Don't know where that comes from other than fear." It comes from documentaries by panorama etc where migrants are shown throwing ID overboard and phones. Around 98% have no passport at all. Yet managed to withdraw £5k to pay for a boat ride. But don't have a debit or credit card with their name on. and no other forms of ID This to me is very worrying as we can't then identify their home country, their belief, their backgrounds. We are just hoping they are nice people. If it is a case of just letting people in. Then I've no idea why any cou try would bother with passports for people on holiday. my memory is hazy, but could it be shown that it was ID ? Phones I get. Anyway. If you truely believe that binning your ID allows you a free pass then you'd understand that any asylum seeker would be sensible to bin their ID. It no longer is a sign of faking it, but just common sense. Yes. Most asylum seekers do bin their IDs 98% don't have a passport. We don't have the figures for other IDs. But it's why we struggle to deport. You can't deport some 1 to a country you simply suspect them from coming from, you need to verify which country they arrived from. It's why many claim to be from Iran. Yet can't speak the language.like I said, it sounds rational if what you say is true. And so nothing can be infered from it in itself. Where did you get the Iran claim from ? And the 99pc without passports (although many people in the world don't so I can buy the direction of not the size of that claim) You can read the freedom of information release here for then98% I have previously put up a link in the old thread as to how to download data to see illegal migrant boat arrivals and country of origin https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2022/03/01/98-of-boat-migrants-have-no-passport#:~:text=As%20covered%20by%20the%20national,they%20arrive%20in%20the%20UK. thx. Iirc the database didn't show how many Iraqis couldn't speak the language. But I'm on my phone so can't check. That link was just for the passports bit there is another foi I'll have to try and find where they ask about how often an interpreter was needed and the rejectction of the initial asylum decision based on the person not responding when that dialect of arabic(from iran) was used and the person couldn't speak it It was something I came across in 2019 when submitting my own foi. Sadly the foi website is a pain in the arse to use. " ah right. So there claim was at least rejected. That's encouraging. I always tjought that was an easy way if filtering. Sounds like the issue is of deportation rather than false claims being successful. | |||
"A reply to hives waffle "That a different angle imo. And I believe that the safe country bit is a consideration. It's just lower in importance than other things like if you have connections to the UK. I have no reason to think sensible checks aren't being done. Welcome evidence to the contrary. There does seem a distrust in the ppl / system doing our checks that we don't do a good job. Don't know where that comes from other than fear." It comes from documentaries by panorama etc where migrants are shown throwing ID overboard and phones. Around 98% have no passport at all. Yet managed to withdraw £5k to pay for a boat ride. But don't have a debit or credit card with their name on. and no other forms of ID This to me is very worrying as we can't then identify their home country, their belief, their backgrounds. We are just hoping they are nice people. If it is a case of just letting people in. Then I've no idea why any cou try would bother with passports for people on holiday. my memory is hazy, but could it be shown that it was ID ? Phones I get. Anyway. If you truely believe that binning your ID allows you a free pass then you'd understand that any asylum seeker would be sensible to bin their ID. It no longer is a sign of faking it, but just common sense. Yes. Most asylum seekers do bin their IDs 98% don't have a passport. We don't have the figures for other IDs. But it's why we struggle to deport. You can't deport some 1 to a country you simply suspect them from coming from, you need to verify which country they arrived from. It's why many claim to be from Iran. Yet can't speak the language.like I said, it sounds rational if what you say is true. And so nothing can be infered from it in itself. Where did you get the Iran claim from ? And the 99pc without passports (although many people in the world don't so I can buy the direction of not the size of that claim) You can read the freedom of information release here for then98% I have previously put up a link in the old thread as to how to download data to see illegal migrant boat arrivals and country of origin https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2022/03/01/98-of-boat-migrants-have-no-passport#:~:text=As%20covered%20by%20the%20national,they%20arrive%20in%20the%20UK. thx. Iirc the database didn't show how many Iraqis couldn't speak the language. But I'm on my phone so can't check. That link was just for the passports bit there is another foi I'll have to try and find where they ask about how often an interpreter was needed and the rejectction of the initial asylum decision based on the person not responding when that dialect of arabic(from iran) was used and the person couldn't speak it It was something I came across in 2019 when submitting my own foi. Sadly the foi website is a pain in the arse to use. ah right. So there claim was at least rejected. That's encouraging. I always tjought that was an easy way if filtering. Sounds like the issue is of deportation rather than false claims being successful. " There's initial and then follow up rejections. The problem lies in. You can't deport them. If they don't tell you where they're from. You can't simply drop them off at another country. You're stuck with them so inevitably the challenge is put through the courts because you can't detain them indefinitely. | |||
"A reply to hives waffle "That a different angle imo. And I believe that the safe country bit is a consideration. It's just lower in importance than other things like if you have connections to the UK. I have no reason to think sensible checks aren't being done. Welcome evidence to the contrary. There does seem a distrust in the ppl / system doing our checks that we don't do a good job. Don't know where that comes from other than fear." It comes from documentaries by panorama etc where migrants are shown throwing ID overboard and phones. Around 98% have no passport at all. Yet managed to withdraw £5k to pay for a boat ride. But don't have a debit or credit card with their name on. and no other forms of ID This to me is very worrying as we can't then identify their home country, their belief, their backgrounds. We are just hoping they are nice people. If it is a case of just letting people in. Then I've no idea why any cou try would bother with passports for people on holiday. my memory is hazy, but could it be shown that it was ID ? Phones I get. Anyway. If you truely believe that binning your ID allows you a free pass then you'd understand that any asylum seeker would be sensible to bin their ID. It no longer is a sign of faking it, but just common sense. Yes. Most asylum seekers do bin their IDs 98% don't have a passport. We don't have the figures for other IDs. But it's why we struggle to deport. You can't deport some 1 to a country you simply suspect them from coming from, you need to verify which country they arrived from. It's why many claim to be from Iran. Yet can't speak the language.like I said, it sounds rational if what you say is true. And so nothing can be infered from it in itself. Where did you get the Iran claim from ? And the 99pc without passports (although many people in the world don't so I can buy the direction of not the size of that claim) You can read the freedom of information release here for then98% I have previously put up a link in the old thread as to how to download data to see illegal migrant boat arrivals and country of origin https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2022/03/01/98-of-boat-migrants-have-no-passport#:~:text=As%20covered%20by%20the%20national,they%20arrive%20in%20the%20UK. thx. Iirc the database didn't show how many Iraqis couldn't speak the language. But I'm on my phone so can't check. That link was just for the passports bit there is another foi I'll have to try and find where they ask about how often an interpreter was needed and the rejectction of the initial asylum decision based on the person not responding when that dialect of arabic(from iran) was used and the person couldn't speak it It was something I came across in 2019 when submitting my own foi. Sadly the foi website is a pain in the arse to use. ah right. So there claim was at least rejected. That's encouraging. I always tjought that was an easy way if filtering. Sounds like the issue is of deportation rather than false claims being successful. There's initial and then follow up rejections. The problem lies in. You can't deport them. If they don't tell you where they're from. You can't simply drop them off at another country. You're stuck with them so inevitably the challenge is put through the courts because you can't detain them indefinitely. " that is the challenge. A different one to the one usually posed in these threads. | |||
"The thread title is misleading. Nobody is illegal unless their claim has been refused and they abscond. Until then they are asylum seekers. Anyone throwing the word "illegal" around has just bought into the lies spewed by most of the press and the government. " Total nonsense | |||
| |||
"The thread title is misleading. Nobody is illegal unless their claim has been refused and they abscond. Until then they are asylum seekers. Anyone throwing the word "illegal" around has just bought into the lies spewed by most of the press and the government. Total nonsense" it's an interesting semantic point. It is people entering illegaly (or irregularly). Illegal immigrants could be seen to dehumanise. If you speed, you are driving illegally. We don't tend to say illegal drivers. | |||
"The thread title is misleading. Nobody is illegal unless their claim has been refused and they abscond. Until then they are asylum seekers. Anyone throwing the word "illegal" around has just bought into the lies spewed by most of the press and the government. Total nonsenseit's an interesting semantic point. It is people entering illegaly (or irregularly). Illegal immigrants could be seen to dehumanise. If you speed, you are driving illegally. We don't tend to say illegal drivers. " Exactly, they are not illegal and they are not immigrants, they are asylum seekers who become immigrants when they are granted asylum | |||
"The thread title is misleading. Nobody is illegal unless their claim has been refused and they abscond. Until then they are asylum seekers. Anyone throwing the word "illegal" around has just bought into the lies spewed by most of the press and the government. Total nonsenseit's an interesting semantic point. It is people entering illegaly (or irregularly). Illegal immigrants could be seen to dehumanise. If you speed, you are driving illegally. We don't tend to say illegal drivers. " Has any of these poor unfortunate people been prosecuted for entering ‘illegally’ | |||
"The thread title is misleading. Nobody is illegal unless their claim has been refused and they abscond. Until then they are asylum seekers. Anyone throwing the word "illegal" around has just bought into the lies spewed by most of the press and the government. Total nonsenseit's an interesting semantic point. It is people entering illegaly (or irregularly). Illegal immigrants could be seen to dehumanise. If you speed, you are driving illegally. We don't tend to say illegal drivers. Has any of these poor unfortunate people been prosecuted for entering ‘illegally’ " Have | |||
"The thread title is misleading. Nobody is illegal unless their claim has been refused and they abscond. Until then they are asylum seekers. Anyone throwing the word "illegal" around has just bought into the lies spewed by most of the press and the government. " This isn't washing with Daily Mail types. | |||
"The thread title is misleading. Nobody is illegal unless their claim has been refused and they abscond. Until then they are asylum seekers. Anyone throwing the word "illegal" around has just bought into the lies spewed by most of the press and the government. This isn't washing with Daily Mail types." Clearly proving then that ‘Daily Mail types’? are intellectually superior. | |||
"The thread title is misleading. Nobody is illegal unless their claim has been refused and they abscond. Until then they are asylum seekers. Anyone throwing the word "illegal" around has just bought into the lies spewed by most of the press and the government. This isn't washing with Daily Mail types." Radicalised pensioners?? | |||
| |||
"You can only be an asylum seeker if you are seeking asylum for your safety. Eg. Gender discrimination, war. Political affiliations etc. So immigrants travelling without the proper visa and/or clearance ARE illegally entering another country. This includes economic immigrants." So the only illegals immigrants are those denied asylum | |||
"You can only be an asylum seeker if you are seeking asylum for your safety. Eg. Gender discrimination, war. Political affiliations etc. So immigrants travelling without the proper visa and/or clearance ARE illegally entering another country. This includes economic immigrants." I am sure if Ryan Air had flights into the UK from places like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria etc that the asylum seekers would happily fly over on a tourist visa and then on arriving in the UK claim asylum as is their right in international law. Except of course they can’t. There are no flights. They need a passport. The airline can refuse to carry them, indeed are required to refuse carriage, if they suspect someone is not travelling purely as a tourist. The country they are escaping will of course need to be happy to allow this persecuted person to leave the country, give them access to the airport etc. | |||
| |||
"The thread title is misleading. Nobody is illegal unless their claim has been refused and they abscond. Until then they are asylum seekers. Anyone throwing the word "illegal" around has just bought into the lies spewed by most of the press and the government. This isn't washing with Daily Mail types. Clearly proving then that ‘Daily Mail types’? are intellectually superior. " If you class "intellectually superior" as being confused, angry and outraged about foriegners, then yes sure. | |||
"The thread title is misleading. Nobody is illegal unless their claim has been refused and they abscond. Until then they are asylum seekers. Anyone throwing the word "illegal" around has just bought into the lies spewed by most of the press and the government. This isn't washing with Daily Mail types. Clearly proving then that ‘Daily Mail types’? are intellectually superior. If you class "intellectually superior" as being confused, angry and outraged about foriegners, then yes sure." But nobody is. | |||
"Can we please dispense with the myth That the channel crossing illegal immigration crisis is caused by asylum seekers. Surely the Albanian issue, yet another scam in a long line of scams to gain entry to the UK has destroyed that myth. " Agreed. The "crisis" is caused by years of piss poor planning. The issues aren't new for 2021/2022 The recent upyock is because of asylum seekers. Afaik not many people coming over aren't applying for asylum. Happy to be corrected with stats. Now, I suspect what you are suggesting is that many don't have a valid claim. I have no idea about that. Even if we use acceptance rates today, those are likely for those who entered the system two years ago. It doesn't tell us anything about those claiming today. | |||
"Can we please dispense with the myth That the channel crossing illegal immigration crisis is caused by asylum seekers. Surely the Albanian issue, yet another scam in a long line of scams to gain entry to the UK has destroyed that myth. " Have you realised that you are consistently and persistently spouting the same kind of heresy that populist newspapers spout in a bid to keep their readers angry and outrages. Illegal immigration from Albania can be resolved quickly and easily by sending them back. They do not have protected status. | |||
"The thread title is misleading. Nobody is illegal unless their claim has been refused and they abscond. Until then they are asylum seekers. Anyone throwing the word "illegal" around has just bought into the lies spewed by most of the press and the government. This isn't washing with Daily Mail types. Clearly proving then that ‘Daily Mail types’? are intellectually superior. If you class "intellectually superior" as being confused, angry and outraged about foriegners, then yes sure. But nobody is." Here's an example of a chap constantly expressing anger and confusion about foriegners. .https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1377711 | |||
"The thread title is misleading. Nobody is illegal unless their claim has been refused and they abscond. Until then they are asylum seekers. Anyone throwing the word "illegal" around has just bought into the lies spewed by most of the press and the government. This isn't washing with Daily Mail types. Clearly proving then that ‘Daily Mail types’? are intellectually superior. If you class "intellectually superior" as being confused, angry and outraged about foriegners, then yes sure. But nobody is. Here's an example of a chap constantly expressing anger and confusion about foriegners. .https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1377711" Except it’s not. Have you been radicalised by a cult that preaches ‘knobism’ | |||
"The thread title is misleading. Nobody is illegal unless their claim has been refused and they abscond. Until then they are asylum seekers. Anyone throwing the word "illegal" around has just bought into the lies spewed by most of the press and the government. This isn't washing with Daily Mail types. Clearly proving then that ‘Daily Mail types’? are intellectually superior. If you class "intellectually superior" as being confused, angry and outraged about foriegners, then yes sure. But nobody is. Here's an example of a chap constantly expressing anger and confusion about foriegners. .https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1377711 Except it’s not. Have you been radicalised by a cult that preaches ‘knobism’" Are all non-xenophobic people part of this knonbism cult? | |||
"You can only be an asylum seeker if you are seeking asylum for your safety. Eg. Gender discrimination, war. Political affiliations etc. So immigrants travelling without the proper visa and/or clearance ARE illegally entering another country. This includes economic immigrants. I am sure if Ryan Air had flights into the UK from places like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria etc that the asylum seekers would happily fly over on a tourist visa and then on arriving in the UK claim asylum as is their right in international law. Except of course they can’t. There are no flights. They need a passport. The airline can refuse to carry them, indeed are required to refuse carriage, if they suspect someone is not travelling purely as a tourist. The country they are escaping will of course need to be happy to allow this persecuted person to leave the country, give them access to the airport etc." And your point is? | |||
"Can we please dispense with the myth That the channel crossing illegal immigration crisis is caused by asylum seekers. Surely the Albanian issue, yet another scam in a long line of scams to gain entry to the UK has destroyed that myth. " This is the sad thing that genuine people who are fleeing for their life's are suffering because others are bucking the system | |||
| |||
"In other news the UK economy is tanking, interest rates are rising and because of this unemployment is expected to rise (according to BoE), people are going to struggle with increased mortgages or rents, can’t afford their gas/electric, can’t get in to see a GP or get their hospital appointment, have massively increased food bank usage, etc etc but hey look over here at these bloody immigrants!" The issue here is how people prioritise issues facing themselves and the country. Some will put channel crossings and immigration at the top of their list others fuel prices. You may disagree with this but it is their preference, not always a distraction tactic, simply peoples prioritising of issues. | |||
"Can we please dispense with the myth That the channel crossing illegal immigration crisis is caused by asylum seekers. Surely the Albanian issue, yet another scam in a long line of scams to gain entry to the UK has destroyed that myth. This is the sad thing that genuine people who are fleeing for their life's are suffering because others are bucking the system" I agree with you. Others on here will now attack and ridicule you for thinking this. They say that ‘ all illegal immigrants are honest hard working people coming here to help rebuild broken Britain and that we should be grateful’. I wonder what people that have gone through the correct immigration process to come and live here legally make of this total bollocks? | |||
"It's very clear folks. If someone enters the UK by irregular means they should be labeled as illegal immigrants. Their action is who they are. If someone commits an act of terrorism, they should be referred to as a pensioner with mental health issues. Their actions are because of who they are. " Just watching BBC news who show the police class him as a terrorist. Although he may have had mental issues this was not the overriding factor | |||
"In other news the UK economy is tanking, interest rates are rising and because of this unemployment is expected to rise (according to BoE), people are going to struggle with increased mortgages or rents, can’t afford their gas/electric, can’t get in to see a GP or get their hospital appointment, have massively increased food bank usage, etc etc but hey look over here at these bloody immigrants! The issue here is how people prioritise issues facing themselves and the country. Some will put channel crossings and immigration at the top of their list others fuel prices. You may disagree with this but it is their preference, not always a distraction tactic, simply peoples prioritising of issues. " Compared to say the government handing £billions to their pals for their PPE start ups, immigration is an extremely unimportant issue. The problem is, it's on the front page of so many news papers constantly, that people start to think that it's way worse than it is, (as per one poster on here who is obsessed). None of which is a problem in itself, but then when it's used as a tool to make people vote out of fear and confusion, we end up with the brexit clusterfuck. | |||
"In other news the UK economy is tanking, interest rates are rising and because of this unemployment is expected to rise (according to BoE), people are going to struggle with increased mortgages or rents, can’t afford their gas/electric, can’t get in to see a GP or get their hospital appointment, have massively increased food bank usage, etc etc but hey look over here at these bloody immigrants! The issue here is how people prioritise issues facing themselves and the country. Some will put channel crossings and immigration at the top of their list others fuel prices. You may disagree with this but it is their preference, not always a distraction tactic, simply peoples prioritising of issues. Compared to say the government handing £billions to their pals for their PPE start ups, immigration is an extremely unimportant issue. The problem is, it's on the front page of so many news papers constantly, that people start to think that it's way worse than it is, (as per one poster on here who is obsessed). None of which is a problem in itself, but then when it's used as a tool to make people vote out of fear and confusion, we end up with the brexit clusterfuck. " It could be on the front page of news papers because people want to know about it. | |||
"In other news the UK economy is tanking, interest rates are rising and because of this unemployment is expected to rise (according to BoE), people are going to struggle with increased mortgages or rents, can’t afford their gas/electric, can’t get in to see a GP or get their hospital appointment, have massively increased food bank usage, etc etc but hey look over here at these bloody immigrants! The issue here is how people prioritise issues facing themselves and the country. Some will put channel crossings and immigration at the top of their list others fuel prices. You may disagree with this but it is their preference, not always a distraction tactic, simply peoples prioritising of issues. Compared to say the government handing £billions to their pals for their PPE start ups, immigration is an extremely unimportant issue. The problem is, it's on the front page of so many news papers constantly, that people start to think that it's way worse than it is, (as per one poster on here who is obsessed). None of which is a problem in itself, but then when it's used as a tool to make people vote out of fear and confusion, we end up with the brexit clusterfuck. It could be on the front page of news papers because people want to know about it." It could be. But it's not. It's fear of different people being used as a tool for control. Same as has been used throughout the ages. | |||
"In other news the UK economy is tanking, interest rates are rising and because of this unemployment is expected to rise (according to BoE), people are going to struggle with increased mortgages or rents, can’t afford their gas/electric, can’t get in to see a GP or get their hospital appointment, have massively increased food bank usage, etc etc but hey look over here at these bloody immigrants! The issue here is how people prioritise issues facing themselves and the country. Some will put channel crossings and immigration at the top of their list others fuel prices. You may disagree with this but it is their preference, not always a distraction tactic, simply peoples prioritising of issues. Compared to say the government handing £billions to their pals for their PPE start ups, immigration is an extremely unimportant issue. The problem is, it's on the front page of so many news papers constantly, that people start to think that it's way worse than it is, (as per one poster on here who is obsessed). None of which is a problem in itself, but then when it's used as a tool to make people vote out of fear and confusion, we end up with the brexit clusterfuck. It could be on the front page of news papers because people want to know about it. It could be. But it's not. It's fear of different people being used as a tool for control. Same as has been used throughout the ages. " Do you believe a news outlet would run stories as main stories of people were not interested in the story? | |||
"In other news the UK economy is tanking, interest rates are rising and because of this unemployment is expected to rise (according to BoE), people are going to struggle with increased mortgages or rents, can’t afford their gas/electric, can’t get in to see a GP or get their hospital appointment, have massively increased food bank usage, etc etc but hey look over here at these bloody immigrants! The issue here is how people prioritise issues facing themselves and the country. Some will put channel crossings and immigration at the top of their list others fuel prices. You may disagree with this but it is their preference, not always a distraction tactic, simply peoples prioritising of issues. Compared to say the government handing £billions to their pals for their PPE start ups, immigration is an extremely unimportant issue. The problem is, it's on the front page of so many news papers constantly, that people start to think that it's way worse than it is, (as per one poster on here who is obsessed). None of which is a problem in itself, but then when it's used as a tool to make people vote out of fear and confusion, we end up with the brexit clusterfuck. " Actually the truth is that it was being under reported. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story though. | |||
"In other news the UK economy is tanking, interest rates are rising and because of this unemployment is expected to rise (according to BoE), people are going to struggle with increased mortgages or rents, can’t afford their gas/electric, can’t get in to see a GP or get their hospital appointment, have massively increased food bank usage, etc etc but hey look over here at these bloody immigrants! The issue here is how people prioritise issues facing themselves and the country. Some will put channel crossings and immigration at the top of their list others fuel prices. You may disagree with this but it is their preference, not always a distraction tactic, simply peoples prioritising of issues. Compared to say the government handing £billions to their pals for their PPE start ups, immigration is an extremely unimportant issue. The problem is, it's on the front page of so many news papers constantly, that people start to think that it's way worse than it is, (as per one poster on here who is obsessed). None of which is a problem in itself, but then when it's used as a tool to make people vote out of fear and confusion, we end up with the brexit clusterfuck. It could be on the front page of news papers because people want to know about it." I'm not sure the formula if any that news outlets use to determine how much attention to give to different situations but it seems the tv news channels all led with it. At the Moment on BBC they have returned to the fire bomb attack story. Should this be toned down as it keeps the story going? Or should it be dropped?. Personally I think the situation in the channel and the fire bomb attack should not be hushed up or left out of reports. In today's age of technology I think it would come out anyway and be at more risk of being misreported | |||
"In other news the UK economy is tanking, interest rates are rising and because of this unemployment is expected to rise (according to BoE), people are going to struggle with increased mortgages or rents, can’t afford their gas/electric, can’t get in to see a GP or get their hospital appointment, have massively increased food bank usage, etc etc but hey look over here at these bloody immigrants! The issue here is how people prioritise issues facing themselves and the country. Some will put channel crossings and immigration at the top of their list others fuel prices. You may disagree with this but it is their preference, not always a distraction tactic, simply peoples prioritising of issues. Compared to say the government handing £billions to their pals for their PPE start ups, immigration is an extremely unimportant issue. The problem is, it's on the front page of so many news papers constantly, that people start to think that it's way worse than it is, (as per one poster on here who is obsessed). None of which is a problem in itself, but then when it's used as a tool to make people vote out of fear and confusion, we end up with the brexit clusterfuck. It could be on the front page of news papers because people want to know about it. It could be. But it's not. It's fear of different people being used as a tool for control. Same as has been used throughout the ages. Do you believe a news outlet would run stories as main stories of people were not interested in the story?" They've been conditioned to be interested in it. They control what people see. Literally. | |||
"In other news the UK economy is tanking, interest rates are rising and because of this unemployment is expected to rise (according to BoE), people are going to struggle with increased mortgages or rents, can’t afford their gas/electric, can’t get in to see a GP or get their hospital appointment, have massively increased food bank usage, etc etc but hey look over here at these bloody immigrants! The issue here is how people prioritise issues facing themselves and the country. Some will put channel crossings and immigration at the top of their list others fuel prices. You may disagree with this but it is their preference, not always a distraction tactic, simply peoples prioritising of issues. Compared to say the government handing £billions to their pals for their PPE start ups, immigration is an extremely unimportant issue. The problem is, it's on the front page of so many news papers constantly, that people start to think that it's way worse than it is, (as per one poster on here who is obsessed). None of which is a problem in itself, but then when it's used as a tool to make people vote out of fear and confusion, we end up with the brexit clusterfuck. Actually the truth is that it was being under reported. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story though. " This post is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. | |||
"In other news the UK economy is tanking, interest rates are rising and because of this unemployment is expected to rise (according to BoE), people are going to struggle with increased mortgages or rents, can’t afford their gas/electric, can’t get in to see a GP or get their hospital appointment, have massively increased food bank usage, etc etc but hey look over here at these bloody immigrants! The issue here is how people prioritise issues facing themselves and the country. Some will put channel crossings and immigration at the top of their list others fuel prices. You may disagree with this but it is their preference, not always a distraction tactic, simply peoples prioritising of issues. " Ah but as has been said before, the quantitative impact should dictate priorities. People genuinely think the immigrations issues are bigger than many of these other things. They aren’t. | |||
"In other news the UK economy is tanking, interest rates are rising and because of this unemployment is expected to rise (according to BoE), people are going to struggle with increased mortgages or rents, can’t afford their gas/electric, can’t get in to see a GP or get their hospital appointment, have massively increased food bank usage, etc etc but hey look over here at these bloody immigrants! The issue here is how people prioritise issues facing themselves and the country. Some will put channel crossings and immigration at the top of their list others fuel prices. You may disagree with this but it is their preference, not always a distraction tactic, simply peoples prioritising of issues. Compared to say the government handing £billions to their pals for their PPE start ups, immigration is an extremely unimportant issue. The problem is, it's on the front page of so many news papers constantly, that people start to think that it's way worse than it is, (as per one poster on here who is obsessed). None of which is a problem in itself, but then when it's used as a tool to make people vote out of fear and confusion, we end up with the brexit clusterfuck. It could be on the front page of news papers because people want to know about it. It could be. But it's not. It's fear of different people being used as a tool for control. Same as has been used throughout the ages. Do you believe a news outlet would run stories as main stories of people were not interested in the story?" You obviously do not understand how editorial and proprietors work. They set the agenda through the steady drip drip drip. For an obviously intelligent person that is an incredibly naive statement. | |||
"In other news the UK economy is tanking, interest rates are rising and because of this unemployment is expected to rise (according to BoE), people are going to struggle with increased mortgages or rents, can’t afford their gas/electric, can’t get in to see a GP or get their hospital appointment, have massively increased food bank usage, etc etc but hey look over here at these bloody immigrants! The issue here is how people prioritise issues facing themselves and the country. Some will put channel crossings and immigration at the top of their list others fuel prices. You may disagree with this but it is their preference, not always a distraction tactic, simply peoples prioritising of issues. Compared to say the government handing £billions to their pals for their PPE start ups, immigration is an extremely unimportant issue. The problem is, it's on the front page of so many news papers constantly, that people start to think that it's way worse than it is, (as per one poster on here who is obsessed). None of which is a problem in itself, but then when it's used as a tool to make people vote out of fear and confusion, we end up with the brexit clusterfuck. Actually the truth is that it was being under reported. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story though. " It wasn’t but keep telling yourself that Seb. | |||
| |||
"In other news the UK economy is tanking, interest rates are rising and because of this unemployment is expected to rise (according to BoE), people are going to struggle with increased mortgages or rents, can’t afford their gas/electric, can’t get in to see a GP or get their hospital appointment, have massively increased food bank usage, etc etc but hey look over here at these bloody immigrants! The issue here is how people prioritise issues facing themselves and the country. Some will put channel crossings and immigration at the top of their list others fuel prices. You may disagree with this but it is their preference, not always a distraction tactic, simply peoples prioritising of issues. Ah but as has been said before, the quantitative impact should dictate priorities. People genuinely think the immigrations issues are bigger than many of these other things. They aren’t." Indeed. In fact figures reported this week and discussed on LBC show that actual numbers of asylum claims since the 1970s have remained relatively stable. What has changed are the nationality of the claimants (affected by wherever is in conflict at the time - Bosnia, Syria, Afghanistan etc), and the routes taken for travel. 40 years ago nobody came by small boat because it was stupidly dangerous and other routes were available. Now it's the only option because the government have closed all others. This is the very definition of a self-made problem. This government created this issue and are now using words like invasion to distract us from their own incompetence and inhumanity. | |||
"The thread title is misleading. Nobody is illegal unless their claim has been refused and they abscond. Until then they are asylum seekers. Anyone throwing the word "illegal" around has just bought into the lies spewed by most of the press and the government. Total nonsenseit's an interesting semantic point. It is people entering illegaly (or irregularly). Illegal immigrants could be seen to dehumanise. If you speed, you are driving illegally. We don't tend to say illegal drivers. Exactly, they are not illegal and they are not immigrants, they are asylum seekers who become immigrants when they are granted asylum " As stated please read the government paper. Its illegal. For example you are confusing 2 things.actuslly people found to have spread can be found tk have breached the law if over 100 mph or caught by police and taken to court. You are confusing different scenarios. There are such thing sas illegal drivers. | |||
"The thread title is misleading. Nobody is illegal unless their claim has been refused and they abscond. Until then they are asylum seekers. Anyone throwing the word "illegal" around has just bought into the lies spewed by most of the press and the government. This isn't washing with Daily Mail types. Clearly proving then that ‘Daily Mail types’? are intellectually superior. " Sadly he has not arguments left.conly labels. | |||
"You can only be an asylum seeker if you are seeking asylum for your safety. Eg. Gender discrimination, war. Political affiliations etc. So immigrants travelling without the proper visa and/or clearance ARE illegally entering another country. This includes economic immigrants." Exactly true...as set out in the government paper I linked to | |||
"You can only be an asylum seeker if you are seeking asylum for your safety. Eg. Gender discrimination, war. Political affiliations etc. So immigrants travelling without the proper visa and/or clearance ARE illegally entering another country. This includes economic immigrants. I am sure if Ryan Air had flights into the UK from places like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria etc that the asylum seekers would happily fly over on a tourist visa and then on arriving in the UK claim asylum as is their right in international law. Except of course they can’t. There are no flights. They need a passport. The airline can refuse to carry them, indeed are required to refuse carriage, if they suspect someone is not travelling purely as a tourist. The country they are escaping will of course need to be happy to allow this persecuted person to leave the country, give them access to the airport etc." You were given a full government document of how we work eith the un to give them the right to come.. You chose not to reply on the thread. | |||
"In other news the UK economy is tanking, interest rates are rising and because of this unemployment is expected to rise (according to BoE), people are going to struggle with increased mortgages or rents, can’t afford their gas/electric, can’t get in to see a GP or get their hospital appointment, have massively increased food bank usage, etc etc but hey look over here at these bloody immigrants! The issue here is how people prioritise issues facing themselves and the country. Some will put channel crossings and immigration at the top of their list others fuel prices. You may disagree with this but it is their preference, not always a distraction tactic, simply peoples prioritising of issues. Ah but as has been said before, the quantitative impact should dictate priorities. People genuinely think the immigrations issues are bigger than many of these other things. They aren’t. Indeed. In fact figures reported this week and discussed on LBC show that actual numbers of asylum claims since the 1970s have remained relatively stable. What has changed are the nationality of the claimants (affected by wherever is in conflict at the time - Bosnia, Syria, Afghanistan etc), and the routes taken for travel. 40 years ago nobody came by small boat because it was stupidly dangerous and other routes were available. Now it's the only option because the government have closed all others. This is the very definition of a self-made problem. This government created this issue and are now using words like invasion to distract us from their own incompetence and inhumanity." How is it a self made problem for this government and not for any other government before it? | |||
"In other news the UK economy is tanking, interest rates are rising and because of this unemployment is expected to rise (according to BoE), people are going to struggle with increased mortgages or rents, can’t afford their gas/electric, can’t get in to see a GP or get their hospital appointment, have massively increased food bank usage, etc etc but hey look over here at these bloody immigrants! The issue here is how people prioritise issues facing themselves and the country. Some will put channel crossings and immigration at the top of their list others fuel prices. You may disagree with this but it is their preference, not always a distraction tactic, simply peoples prioritising of issues. Ah but as has been said before, the quantitative impact should dictate priorities. People genuinely think the immigrations issues are bigger than many of these other things. They aren’t. Indeed. In fact figures reported this week and discussed on LBC show that actual numbers of asylum claims since the 1970s have remained relatively stable. What has changed are the nationality of the claimants (affected by wherever is in conflict at the time - Bosnia, Syria, Afghanistan etc), and the routes taken for travel. 40 years ago nobody came by small boat because it was stupidly dangerous and other routes were available. Now it's the only option because the government have closed all others. This is the very definition of a self-made problem. This government created this issue and are now using words like invasion to distract us from their own incompetence and inhumanity." Sorry but no. Even the last 20 years highlight your /lbcs claim as demonstrably untrue. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-june-2022/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to#:~:text=There%20were%2063%2C089%20asylum%20applications,number%20for%20almost%20two%20decades. Seriously people basic Google searches are your friend. | |||
"In other news the UK economy is tanking, interest rates are rising and because of this unemployment is expected to rise (according to BoE), people are going to struggle with increased mortgages or rents, can’t afford their gas/electric, can’t get in to see a GP or get their hospital appointment, have massively increased food bank usage, etc etc but hey look over here at these bloody immigrants! The issue here is how people prioritise issues facing themselves and the country. Some will put channel crossings and immigration at the top of their list others fuel prices. You may disagree with this but it is their preference, not always a distraction tactic, simply peoples prioritising of issues. Compared to say the government handing £billions to their pals for their PPE start ups, immigration is an extremely unimportant issue. The problem is, it's on the front page of so many news papers constantly, that people start to think that it's way worse than it is, (as per one poster on here who is obsessed). None of which is a problem in itself, but then when it's used as a tool to make people vote out of fear and confusion, we end up with the brexit clusterfuck. It could be on the front page of news papers because people want to know about it. It could be. But it's not. It's fear of different people being used as a tool for control. Same as has been used throughout the ages. Do you believe a news outlet would run stories as main stories of people were not interested in the story? You obviously do not understand how editorial and proprietors work. They set the agenda through the steady drip drip drip. For an obviously intelligent person that is an incredibly naive statement." Are you suggesting media outlets are not targeting their readership / viewership by keeping them engaged through news items they would be interested in? Numbers = advertisers = ££££ You might not like the white van man, but certain advertisers do, they can target their products, as you know. I understand the government will steer the narrative where possible, but do not under estimate the lure of the corporate sell on our media, it is far more lucrative than a politician or political parties. | |||
"You can only be an asylum seeker if you are seeking asylum for your safety. Eg. Gender discrimination, war. Political affiliations etc. So immigrants travelling without the proper visa and/or clearance ARE illegally entering another country. This includes economic immigrants. I am sure if Ryan Air had flights into the UK from places like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria etc that the asylum seekers would happily fly over on a tourist visa and then on arriving in the UK claim asylum as is their right in international law. Except of course they can’t. There are no flights. They need a passport. The airline can refuse to carry them, indeed are required to refuse carriage, if they suspect someone is not travelling purely as a tourist. The country they are escaping will of course need to be happy to allow this persecuted person to leave the country, give them access to the airport etc. You were given a full government document of how we work eith the un to give them the right to come.. You chose not to reply on the thread." 1. Chose not to reply as plenty of others already had so what else to say? 2. The tone you were taking was generally patronising, condescending, and aggressive. So I won’t bother engaging. 3. Clearly something is broken because if these “legal channels” were effective or properly operational there would be no need for anyone attempting to cross the channel and the people traffickers would be out of business. | |||
"In other news the UK economy is tanking, interest rates are rising and because of this unemployment is expected to rise (according to BoE), people are going to struggle with increased mortgages or rents, can’t afford their gas/electric, can’t get in to see a GP or get their hospital appointment, have massively increased food bank usage, etc etc but hey look over here at these bloody immigrants! The issue here is how people prioritise issues facing themselves and the country. Some will put channel crossings and immigration at the top of their list others fuel prices. You may disagree with this but it is their preference, not always a distraction tactic, simply peoples prioritising of issues. Compared to say the government handing £billions to their pals for their PPE start ups, immigration is an extremely unimportant issue. The problem is, it's on the front page of so many news papers constantly, that people start to think that it's way worse than it is, (as per one poster on here who is obsessed). None of which is a problem in itself, but then when it's used as a tool to make people vote out of fear and confusion, we end up with the brexit clusterfuck. It could be on the front page of news papers because people want to know about it. It could be. But it's not. It's fear of different people being used as a tool for control. Same as has been used throughout the ages. Do you believe a news outlet would run stories as main stories of people were not interested in the story? You obviously do not understand how editorial and proprietors work. They set the agenda through the steady drip drip drip. For an obviously intelligent person that is an incredibly naive statement. Are you suggesting media outlets are not targeting their readership / viewership by keeping them engaged through news items they would be interested in? Numbers = advertisers = ££££ You might not like the white van man, but certain advertisers do, they can target their products, as you know. I understand the government will steer the narrative where possible, but do not under estimate the lure of the corporate sell on our media, it is far more lucrative than a politician or political parties. " A fair challenge and the answer is both yes and no. Easier to pick one paper specifically. The Daily Mail Companies want to advertise in the DM (and very importantly the online equivalents) due to circulation figures/unique visitors and the demographics of that audience. The DM is the paper with the largest physical circulation figures and the suite of DM websites are the most visited in the UK (although there is some very clever affiliate marketing going on to drive traffic). The proprietor and editors of the DM very clearly have a right wing agenda that has been continually nurtured over a century. Viscount (Lord) Rothermere and family and the DM were outspoken supporters of the Nazis and Oswald Mosley in the 30s, they were also critical of German Jews escaping pre-war Germany and coming to the UK as immigrants. The readership of the DM have been “groomed” (can’t think of a better word) to be interested and outraged by the issues that are determined by Rothermere. If, a big IF, they pushed it too far then absolutely there is a chance brands/companies would disassociate and use their £££ to force the DM to tone it down/pull back. But the DM is too clever for that and always tread a careful line between outright extremist views and a tone of voice indicating moral indignation and seemingly reasonable views...”disgusted of Tunbridge Wells” Everyone who works in Advertising knows exactly what the Daily Mail is and what it stands for. However, the audience demographic skews ABC1 and 50+ and are therefore an advertisers prime target group for many products. So it is self fulfilling. The DM tells the readers they should be outraged about issue X. They have spent months or years or decades subtly, or even overtly, raising issue X, to the extent that the readers are now indeed outraged about issue X (but in some cases don’t really know why and could explain any counter viewpoint). So the audience is getting what they (think) they want and keep coming back for more. That maintains numbers and demographics and keeps the advertisers coming back. | |||
| |||
"You can only be an asylum seeker if you are seeking asylum for your safety. Eg. Gender discrimination, war. Political affiliations etc." Let's get this clear again. A person is only guaranteed asylum if they have a "well founded fear of persecution". So gender discrimination or political affiliations, yes. Not war. The 1951 convention does not guarantee asylum to people fleeing their country because of war. | |||
"You can only be an asylum seeker if you are seeking asylum for your safety. Eg. Gender discrimination, war. Political affiliations etc. Let's get this clear again. A person is only guaranteed asylum if they have a "well founded fear of persecution". So gender discrimination or political affiliations, yes. Not war. The 1951 convention does not guarantee asylum to people fleeing their country because of war." True, the vast majority (over 70%) are granted asylum | |||
"You can only be an asylum seeker if you are seeking asylum for your safety. Eg. Gender discrimination, war. Political affiliations etc. Let's get this clear again. A person is only guaranteed asylum if they have a "well founded fear of persecution". So gender discrimination or political affiliations, yes. Not war. The 1951 convention does not guarantee asylum to people fleeing their country because of war." I assumed (wrongly it would seem) that war was a big reason for claiming asylum. So if I travelled to the UK I cannot claim asylum because there is a war in my home country? Perhaps a war that the UK had a hand in starting? | |||
"You can only be an asylum seeker if you are seeking asylum for your safety. Eg. Gender discrimination, war. Political affiliations etc. Let's get this clear again. A person is only guaranteed asylum if they have a "well founded fear of persecution". So gender discrimination or political affiliations, yes. Not war. The 1951 convention does not guarantee asylum to people fleeing their country because of war. I assumed (wrongly it would seem) that war was a big reason for claiming asylum. So if I travelled to the UK I cannot claim asylum because there is a war in my home country? Perhaps a war that the UK had a hand in starting?" Presumably if the individual can show they would be persecuted as a result of the war, then they can still claim asylum. So, for example, when ISIS took over territory in Syria, then anyone who was not muslim or not orthodox muslim was in danger. | |||
"You can only be an asylum seeker if you are seeking asylum for your safety. Eg. Gender discrimination, war. Political affiliations etc." "Let's get this clear again. A person is only guaranteed asylum if they have a "well founded fear of persecution". So gender discrimination or political affiliations, yes. Not war. The 1951 convention does not guarantee asylum to people fleeing their country because of war." "I assumed (wrongly it would seem) that war was a big reason for claiming asylum." At the risk of being accused of pedantry, you're right, war is a big reason for claiming asylum. Lots of people think as you do, and believe fleeing war is a good reason for an asylum claim. Those people end up being very disappointed when their claim is rejected. The confusion come from the use of the word 'refugee'. The 1951 Convention defines it very tightly, whereas the media and the public use 'refugee' to describe anyone taking refuge for any reason. Asylum is not something that a country gives, or awards. It's a human right that a country must follow if a person meets the criteria. "So if I travelled to the UK I cannot claim asylum because there is a war in my home country? Perhaps a war that the UK had a hand in starting?" If you are being specifically targeted for your beliefs or your heritage, then you probably have a right to asylum. If you are in general danger from violence, then no, you don't have the right to asylum. I imagine that if the UK started the war, then you'd be even less likely to be judged to have a valid claim. | |||
"Presumably if the individual can show they would be persecuted as a result of the war, then they can still claim asylum. So, for example, when ISIS took over territory in Syria, then anyone who was not muslim or not orthodox muslim was in danger." Correct. | |||
"You can only be an asylum seeker if you are seeking asylum for your safety. Eg. Gender discrimination, war. Political affiliations etc. Let's get this clear again. A person is only guaranteed asylum if they have a "well founded fear of persecution". So gender discrimination or political affiliations, yes. Not war. The 1951 convention does not guarantee asylum to people fleeing their country because of war. I assumed (wrongly it would seem) that war was a big reason for claiming asylum. So if I travelled to the UK I cannot claim asylum because there is a war in my home country? Perhaps a war that the UK had a hand in starting? Presumably if the individual can show they would be persecuted as a result of the war, then they can still claim asylum. So, for example, when ISIS took over territory in Syria, then anyone who was not muslim or not orthodox muslim was in danger." I too would presume that in the ISIS scenario you give but to presume is not always accurate. I thought just the fact your home country was at war was enough but seems this is not the case. | |||
"You can only be an asylum seeker if you are seeking asylum for your safety. Eg. Gender discrimination, war. Political affiliations etc. Let's get this clear again. A person is only guaranteed asylum if they have a "well founded fear of persecution". So gender discrimination or political affiliations, yes. Not war. The 1951 convention does not guarantee asylum to people fleeing their country because of war. I assumed (wrongly it would seem) that war was a big reason for claiming asylum. At the risk of being accused of pedantry, you're right, war is a big reason for claiming asylum. Lots of people think as you do, and believe fleeing war is a good reason for an asylum claim. Those people end up being very disappointed when their claim is rejected. The confusion come from the use of the word 'refugee'. The 1951 Convention defines it very tightly, whereas the media and the public use 'refugee' to describe anyone taking refuge for any reason. Asylum is not something that a country gives, or awards. It's a human right that a country must follow if a person meets the criteria. So if I travelled to the UK I cannot claim asylum because there is a war in my home country? Perhaps a war that the UK had a hand in starting? If you are being specifically targeted for your beliefs or your heritage, then you probably have a right to asylum. If you are in general danger from violence, then no, you don't have the right to asylum. I imagine that if the UK started the war, then you'd be even less likely to be judged to have a valid claim." Thank you, very clear and concise | |||
