FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > 7000 Boat people
7000 Boat people
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's all over the news " Must be true then, journos never exaggerate a story | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since the beginning of the year. That's 21,000 a year. A small town. How can we accommodate these numbers when nurses and police rely on food banks It's all over the news " By "all over the news" do you mean The Daily Heil or GBNazi? This "we're full" bullshit was getting old years ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since the beginning of the year. That's 21,000 a year. A small town. How can we accommodate these numbers when nurses and police rely on food banks It's all over the news By "all over the news" do you mean The Daily Heil or GBNazi? This "we're full" bullshit was getting old years ago. " Government figures | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since the beginning of the year. That's 21,000 a year. A small town. How can we accommodate these numbers when nurses and police rely on food banks It's all over the news By "all over the news" do you mean The Daily Heil or GBNazi? This "we're full" bullshit was getting old years ago. Government figures " Government figures...well yes let's believe what they say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since the beginning of the year. That's 21,000 a year. A small town. How can we accommodate these numbers when nurses and police rely on food banks It's all over the news By "all over the news" do you mean The Daily Heil or GBNazi? This "we're full" bullshit was getting old years ago. Government figures Government figures...well yes let's believe what they say. " Put your figure forward.. Let's guess,? 24 | |||
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) | |||
"Oh I see you are you just keeping a running count then? Best crack on, go get some more paper. Or you could stop frowning outwards and look to supporting your community positively " The point being ,,? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year" What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not " Maybe write that on the side of a London bus and drive around Calais. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not " So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes " What free food? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's little that this governing party hasn't messed up for 14 years, including this. £millioms wasted, millions of lives made worse. Rwanda is just a hateful waste of even more £millions and isn't an effective solution. A general election may start to turn management of catastrophes and policies driven by the frothing at the mouth lot, towards better practical solutions. Principally this must be addressed politically, in the name of the people, for the people here. This post should probably be in the politics section. " Yep. Bury it. That will solve everything | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since the beginning of the year. That's 21,000 a year. A small town. How can we accommodate these numbers when nurses and police rely on food banks It's all over the news " I see valuable additions to the gene pool. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since the beginning of the year. That's 21,000 a year. A small town. How can we accommodate these numbers when nurses and police rely on food banks It's all over the news " 7000 illegal economic migrants. 7000 potential terrorists. 7000 to work in organized crime. 7000 who will cost us all an extortionate amount as the liberal lefty civil service blob won't deport them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since the beginning of the year. That's 21,000 a year. A small town. How can we accommodate these numbers when nurses and police rely on food banks It's all over the news By "all over the news" do you mean The Daily Heil or GBNazi? This "we're full" bullshit was getting old years ago. " This looks like the 'fake news' manoeuvre. Even the esteemed Guardian concedes 5,000 crossings in the first 3 months of 2024, so Tom's number isn't far off. It's small wonder we can't arrive at a solution when some choose to ignore the facts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I heard two separate news reports on the radio claiming that more have crossed in the first 3 months of this year than all of last year combined. I keep saying this over and over. They need to be targeting the gang's organising it, at source probably many miles away from Calais. Targeting the charities encouraging people to travel vast distances to take the perilous journey. The news and Media outlets including social media painting a rosy picture of life in the UK, tighter border control at the country of origin. I mean look at the guy charged of murder last week he was an extremist who fled from Morocco, MOROCCO!! Not exactly a hotbed of tyranny so why the fuck was he seeking asylum in this country?" what I don't get with tje Moroccan cade us why he wwas waiting on a decision for three years despite having rejections from other countries. (I also don't get why the EU don't have a way of carrying over decisions from one country to the next, but that's for them) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is not just strain on housing and public services, but there are going to be criminals and terrorists in those boat loads of young military age men streaming in. It is putting our national security at risk and making working class areas even more dangerous. Before you clutch your pearls, if a stranger knocked at your door would you let them in to stay? Feed, clothe them, keep them sleeping in your home? Or would you feel unsafe and at risk taking that chance?…. Yes lets take in women and children from Ukraine, not fit young undocumented men from countries that hate everything about western society. Sorry had to be said, don’t care who it triggers "women and children sound like positive discrimination. Bit woke 
Assume we would allow women and child boat people in the same way.
I totally accept there will be criminals on board. Statistically likely given the numbers. And I accept that there will be those who turn to crime later. Again, probability compounded with where they will go in our socio exonomic system.
Less convinced by terrorism. I haven't seen any evidence of this. And if true, id have thought HMG would be pushing this.
Imo, the risk is second generation.
Agree the disproportionate males is a thing we need to look at. This is part of the reason the slow processing pisses me off. We don't know how valid or not these are because they are still hanging around.
Imo having "acceptance rates of 30oc for xyz makes" will deter more than a few thou to Rwanda.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://news.sky.com/story/uk-will-not-take-back-asylum-seekers-from-ireland-until-france-takes-back-channel-migrants-13125515 UK will 'not take back asylum seekers from Ireland until France takes back Channel migrants' "The UK will not take back asylum seekers who cross the border into Ireland "until the EU accepts that we can send them back to France", according to a government source." Well, we kind of knew this already . . . But the interesting bit is this. . . ***As the row deepened on Sunday night, Irish prime minister Simon Harris vowed the country would "not provide a loophole for anybody else's migration challenges**** Can he not hear the contradiction of his own sentence? It will, be the same one used against him by the Brtish Government. "I'm expecting common travel agreement to be the reason why an exception is agreed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes " Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is not just strain on housing and public services, but there are going to be criminals and terrorists in those boat loads of young military age men streaming in. It is putting our national security at risk and making working class areas even more dangerous. Before you clutch your pearls, if a stranger knocked at your door would you let them in to stay? Feed, clothe them, keep them sleeping in your home? Or would you feel unsafe and at risk taking that chance?…. Yes lets take in women and children from Ukraine, not fit young undocumented men from countries that hate everything about western society. Sorry had to be said, don’t care who it triggers "It must be awful spending your entire life being scared, I feel sorry for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom?" Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? " So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? " ** Albanian people smuggler jailed over small boats crossings Organised immigration crime people smuggling An Albanian man who organised small boats crossings for migrants, including children as young as five, has been jailed after a National Crime Agency investigation. ** Four Vietnamese nationals have been arrested following an investigation into an alleged people smuggling operation . ** Five High Value Targets arrested as one of the largest networks smuggling migrants across the English Channel halted French and Belgian judicial orders executed in Germany led to 19 arrests and 28 locations raided following an 18-month-long joint investigation under Europol’s Operational Task Force Wave in an action coordinated by Eurojust. ** Three men who organised people smuggling crossings from France and Belgium to the UK have been sentenced to a total of more than 14 years' imprisonment. The sentences follow work by our specialist Marine Unit, which stopped a boat on the River Colne, near Brightlingsea, in October 2022. ** Calais people-smuggling gang broken up with 19 arrests, says Europol Year-long investigation leads to arrests of Iraqi Kurdish gang leader and five key organisers in Germany. Just a quick search There are many more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal?" If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no?" Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not?" I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either." So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later?" In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this." The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies." That's because the rules are too lax, and they are applied generously. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies. That's because the rules are too lax, and they are applied generously." Do you have any evidence of that or merely giving an opinion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies." this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. Thing is, we just don't know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. Thing is, we just don't know. " It’s almost as if the government finds it useful to have a backlog of asylum seekers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. Thing is, we just don't know. It’s almost as if the government finds it useful to have a backlog of asylum seekers."
The amount of people on Fab who have a massive boner for the anti immigrant rhetoric is astonishing. Just goes to show how much of a useful tool it is for them to maintain the current situation with immigration and asylum seekers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. Thing is, we just don't know. It’s almost as if the government finds it useful to have a backlog of asylum seekers." I'm not sure. Maybe it would be as useful to say that only 20pc of Albanian males (say) get asylum. I think they may prefer big gestures rather than boring process. Especially in election year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. Thing is, we just don't know. It’s almost as if the government finds it useful to have a backlog of asylum seekers.I'm not sure. Maybe it would be as useful to say that only 20pc of Albanian males (say) get asylum. I think they may prefer big gestures rather than boring process. Especially in election year. " There should be zero Albanian males getting asylum. Albania is a safe country, if they have got involved in gangs ir "family feuds" as many claim then it is their own fault. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. Thing is, we just don't know. It’s almost as if the government finds it useful to have a backlog of asylum seekers.I'm not sure. Maybe it would be as useful to say that only 20pc of Albanian males (say) get asylum. I think they may prefer big gestures rather than boring process. Especially in election year. " It’s very useful for the current government to have a large amount of people awaiting claims because it keeps a focus on foreign people being the issue, and not the failed policies of those in charge. In a country with 900,000+ job vacancies, it would seem logical that investing in processing asylum claims more quickly so those granted can move into the job market, and those not approved can be returned to their country of origin. However the government seems more keen on paying millions per day to house asylum seekers, it does seem to be working for them though, so it’s (OUR) money well spent for the Conservative Party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. Thing is, we just don't know. It’s almost as if the government finds it useful to have a backlog of asylum seekers.I'm not sure. Maybe it would be as useful to say that only 20pc of Albanian males (say) get asylum. I think they may prefer big gestures rather than boring process. Especially in election year. There should be zero Albanian males getting asylum. Albania is a safe country, if they have got involved in gangs ir "family feuds" as many claim then it is their own fault." Albanian blood feuds last multiple generations, it’s not your fault if you are targeted because of something that happened decades before your birth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. Thing is, we just don't know. It’s almost as if the government finds it useful to have a backlog of asylum seekers.I'm not sure. Maybe it would be as useful to say that only 20pc of Albanian males (say) get asylum. I think they may prefer big gestures rather than boring process. Especially in election year. There should be zero Albanian males getting asylum. Albania is a safe country, if they have got involved in gangs ir "family feuds" as many claim then it is their own fault. Albanian blood feuds last multiple generations, it’s not your fault if you are targeted because of something that happened decades before your birth." It isn't a valid reason for asylum then if it has been going on for generations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. Thing is, we just don't know. It’s almost as if the government finds it useful to have a backlog of asylum seekers.I'm not sure. Maybe it would be as useful to say that only 20pc of Albanian males (say) get asylum. I think they may prefer big gestures rather than boring process. Especially in election year. There should be zero Albanian males getting asylum. Albania is a safe country, if they have got involved in gangs ir "family feuds" as many claim then it is their own fault. Albanian blood feuds last multiple generations, it’s not your fault if you are targeted because of something that happened decades before your birth. It isn't a valid reason for asylum then if it has been going on for generations." Why not? We could say that Jews have been persecuted for centuries so they wouldn’t have a valid reason for asylum, following your ‘logic’. I’m not sure if the reason you might be murdered being an old one makes it any less likely you will be murdered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. Thing is, we just don't know. It’s almost as if the government finds it useful to have a backlog of asylum seekers.I'm not sure. Maybe it would be as useful to say that only 20pc of Albanian males (say) get asylum. I think they may prefer big gestures rather than boring process. Especially in election year. It’s very useful for the current government to have a large amount of people awaiting claims because it keeps a focus on foreign people being the issue, and not the failed policies of those in charge. In a country with 900,000+ job vacancies, it would seem logical that investing in processing asylum claims more quickly so those granted can move into the job market, and those not approved can be returned to their country of origin. However the government seems more keen on paying millions per day to house asylum seekers, it does seem to be working for them though, so it’s (OUR) money well spent for the Conservative Party." . We should be using any means possible to deter asylum seekers from coming here. The majority of the population have enough common sense to realise the numerous problems created by asylum seekers ( or those who are falsely claiming asylum ). There is already a housing crisis in the UK plus the NH#S is pushed to capacity. There are sufficient UK based residents to fill job demand. Only a fool would encourage imported labour which only compounds our problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. Thing is, we just don't know. It’s almost as if the government finds it useful to have a backlog of asylum seekers.I'm not sure. Maybe it would be as useful to say that only 20pc of Albanian males (say) get asylum. I think they may prefer big gestures rather than boring process. Especially in election year. It’s very useful for the current government to have a large amount of people awaiting claims because it keeps a focus on foreign people being the issue, and not the failed policies of those in charge. In a country with 900,000+ job vacancies, it would seem logical that investing in processing asylum claims more quickly so those granted can move into the job market, and those not approved can be returned to their country of origin. However the government seems more keen on paying millions per day to house asylum seekers, it does seem to be working for them though, so it’s (OUR) money well spent for the Conservative Party.. We should be using any means possible to deter asylum seekers from coming here. The majority of the population have enough common sense to realise the numerous problems created by asylum seekers ( or those who are falsely claiming asylum ). There is already a housing crisis in the UK plus the NH#S is pushed to capacity. There are sufficient UK based residents to fill job demand. Only a fool would encourage imported labour which only compounds our problem. " Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In a country with 900,000+ job vacancies, it would seem logical that investing in processing asylum claims more quickly so those granted can move into the job market, and those not approved can be returned to their country of origin. However the government seems more keen on paying millions per day to house asylum seekers, it does seem to be working for them though, so it’s (OUR) money well spent for the Conservative Party." The employment rate of asylum seekers who have been granted refugee status and hence right to work is about 52% and even the ones who work earn less and work lesser hours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. Thing is, we just don't know. It’s almost as if the government finds it useful to have a backlog of asylum seekers.I'm not sure. Maybe it would be as useful to say that only 20pc of Albanian males (say) get asylum. I think they may prefer big gestures rather than boring process. Especially in election year. It’s very useful for the current government to have a large amount of people awaiting claims because it keeps a focus on foreign people being the issue, and not the failed policies of those in charge. In a country with 900,000+ job vacancies, it would seem logical that investing in processing asylum claims more quickly so those granted can move into the job market, and those not approved can be returned to their country of origin. However the government seems more keen on paying millions per day to house asylum seekers, it does seem to be working for them though, so it’s (OUR) money well spent for the Conservative Party.. We should be using any means possible to deter asylum seekers from coming here. The majority of the population have enough common sense to realise the numerous problems created by asylum seekers ( or those who are falsely claiming asylum ). There is already a housing crisis in the UK plus the NH#S is pushed to capacity. There are sufficient UK based residents to fill job demand. Only a fool would encourage imported labour which only compounds our problem. Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs?" Cut their benefits until they get off their arses and work? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. Thing is, we just don't know. It’s almost as if the government finds it useful to have a backlog of asylum seekers.I'm not sure. Maybe it would be as useful to say that only 20pc of Albanian males (say) get asylum. I think they may prefer big gestures rather than boring process. Especially in election year. It’s very useful for the current government to have a large amount of people awaiting claims because it keeps a focus on foreign people being the issue, and not the failed policies of those in charge. In a country with 900,000+ job vacancies, it would seem logical that investing in processing asylum claims more quickly so those granted can move into the job market, and those not approved can be returned to their country of origin. However the government seems more keen on paying millions per day to house asylum seekers, it does seem to be working for them though, so it’s (OUR) money well spent for the Conservative Party.. We should be using any means possible to deter asylum seekers from coming here. The majority of the population have enough common sense to realise the numerous problems created by asylum seekers ( or those who are falsely claiming asylum ). There is already a housing crisis in the UK plus the NH#S is pushed to capacity. There are sufficient UK based residents to fill job demand. Only a fool would encourage imported labour which only compounds our problem. Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs? Cut their benefits until they get off their arses and work?" Ah ok, so what happens if the vacancies aren’t in the areas where unemployed people are? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's great until companies realise they can exploit cheaper labour by employing migrant worker's then start laying off British nationals. It's pre Brexit days all over again?" Net immigration pre Brexit was usually around 200,000, post Brexit it’s risen to 745,000. Has this caused a reduction in wages? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs? Cut their benefits until they get off their arses and work? Ah ok, so what happens if the vacancies aren’t in the areas where unemployed people are?" Move their arses to the place that gives them jobs. You can't live in a corner of the country and expect jobs to be delivered in a platter just next to your home. No society in the world works that way. People move to places which give them good jobs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs? Cut their benefits until they get off their arses and work? Ah ok, so what happens if the vacancies aren’t in the areas where unemployed people are? Move their arses to the place that gives them jobs. You can't live in a corner of the country and expect jobs to be delivered in a platter just next to your home. No society in the world works that way. People move to places which give them good jobs." There used to be jobs for life in one place. Is Tony Blair to blame here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs? Cut their benefits until they get off their arses and work? Ah ok, so what happens if the vacancies aren’t in the areas where unemployed people are? Move their arses to the place that gives them jobs. You can't live in a corner of the country and expect jobs to be delivered in a platter just next to your home. No society in the world works that way. People move to places which give them good jobs. There used to be jobs for life in one place. Is Tony Blair to blame here " no, Maggie. (No idea, but figured the game is to throw out names) Probably asylum seekers tbf. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is not just strain on housing and public services, but there are going to be criminals and terrorists in those boat loads of young military age men streaming in. It is putting our national security at risk and making working class areas even more dangerous. Before you clutch your pearls, if a stranger knocked at your door would you let them in to stay? Feed, clothe them, keep them sleeping in your home? Or would you feel unsafe and at risk taking that chance?…. Yes lets take in women and children from Ukraine, not fit young undocumented men from countries that hate everything about western society. Sorry had to be said, don’t care who it triggers "why women and children from ukraine,but nowhere else ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since the beginning of the year. That's 21,000 a year. A small town. How can we accommodate these numbers when nurses and police rely on food banks It's all over the news 7000 illegal economic migrants. 7000 potential terrorists. 7000 to work in organized crime. 7000 who will cost us all an extortionate amount as the liberal lefty civil service blob won't deport them." See, when I read this all I hear is Nazi Farage talking, or GBNazi and in the background I hear Deutschland Deutschland Uber Alles sung by a chorus of Blackshirts. Read a fucking history book and don't suck up everything Farage and GBNazi feeds you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since the beginning of the year. That's 21,000 a year. A small town. How can we accommodate these numbers when nurses and police rely on food banks It's all over the news 7000 illegal economic migrants. 7000 potential terrorists. 7000 to work in organized crime. 7000 who will cost us all an extortionate amount as the liberal lefty civil service blob won't deport them. See, when I read this all I hear is Nazi Farage talking, or GBNazi and in the background I hear Deutschland Deutschland Uber Alles sung by a chorus of Blackshirts. Read a fucking history book and don't suck up everything Farage and GBNazi feeds you. " This is the UK on 2024. The culture in this country is as hateful as it's been in my lifetime. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs? Cut their benefits until they get off their arses and work? Ah ok, so what happens if the vacancies aren’t in the areas where unemployed people are? Move their arses to the place that gives them jobs. You can't live in a corner of the country and expect jobs to be delivered in a platter just next to your home. No society in the world works that way. People move to places which give them good jobs." Who will come up with the thousands of pounds necessary for these unemployed people to move from one area of the country to another? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since the beginning of the year. That's 21,000 a year. A small town. How can we accommodate these numbers when nurses and police rely on food banks It's all over the news 7000 illegal economic migrants. 7000 potential terrorists. 7000 to work in organized crime. 7000 who will cost us all an extortionate amount as the liberal lefty civil service blob won't deport them. See, when I read this all I hear is Nazi Farage talking, or GBNazi and in the background I hear Deutschland Deutschland Uber Alles sung by a chorus of Blackshirts. Read a fucking history book and don't suck up everything Farage and GBNazi feeds you. " Bit step Farage and GB news are no Nazi, sure neither has killed 6 million people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs? Cut their benefits until they get off their arses and work? Ah ok, so what happens if the vacancies aren’t in the areas where unemployed people are? Move their arses to the place that gives them jobs. You can't live in a corner of the country and expect jobs to be delivered in a platter just next to your home. No society in the world works that way. People move to places which give them good jobs. Who will come up with the thousands of pounds necessary for these unemployed people to move from one area of the country to another?" How many thousands of pounds are needed to move from one area to another? They already get benefits. They should have saved at least a bit. IF it's hard to shift the entire family immediately, let the person who got the job alone move and live in a shared accommodation for a couple of months to get some cash in hand and then move the family. Seriously, this is the most ridiculous excuse I have heard for not taking a job and reeks of entitlement. No one is obligated to follow wherever they and give them a job. If they want to be a contributing member to the society, they are the ones who should go looking for opportunities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wokerati who shout the loudest in favour are often not living where these thousands of young men from dangerous countries are placed. You find the woke types are from places like Devon, Dorset, Cornwall, parts of Wiltshire and Staffordshire, parts of Wales and Scotland. All places that are no where near on the front line like London, Kent, parts of midlands and some northern towns. It is insane to be taking these undocumented men in from such countries, WAKE UP" If you think they're not in Dorset, you clearly haven't visited recently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since the beginning of the year. That's 21,000 a year. A small town. How can we accommodate these numbers when nurses and police rely on food banks It's all over the news 7000 illegal economic migrants. 7000 potential terrorists. 7000 to work in organized crime. 7000 who will cost us all an extortionate amount as the liberal lefty civil service blob won't deport them. See, when I read this all I hear is Nazi Farage talking, or GBNazi and in the background I hear Deutschland Deutschland Uber Alles sung by a chorus of Blackshirts. Read a fucking history book and don't suck up everything Farage and GBNazi feeds you. " Are you just here to call people Nazis? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs? Cut their benefits until they get off their arses and work? Ah ok, so what happens if the vacancies aren’t in the areas where unemployed people are? Move their arses to the place that gives them jobs. You can't live in a corner of the country and expect jobs to be delivered in a platter just next to your home. No society in the world works that way. People move to places which give them good jobs. Who will come up with the thousands of pounds necessary for these unemployed people to move from one area of the country to another? How many thousands of pounds are needed to move from one area to another? They already get benefits. They should have saved at least a bit. IF it's hard to shift the entire family immediately, let the person who got the job alone move and live in a shared accommodation for a couple of months to get some cash in hand and then move the family. Seriously, this is the most ridiculous excuse I have heard for not taking a job and reeks of entitlement. No one is obligated to follow wherever they and give them a job. If they want to be a contributing member to the society, they are the ones who should go looking for opportunities. " just don't cross a border | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs? Cut their benefits until they get off their arses and work? Ah ok, so what happens if the vacancies aren’t in the areas where unemployed people are? Move their arses to the place that gives them jobs. You can't live in a corner of the country and expect jobs to be delivered in a platter just next to your home. No society in the world works that way. People move to places which give them good jobs. Who will come up with the thousands of pounds necessary for these unemployed people to move from one area of the country to another? How many thousands of pounds are needed to move from one area to another? They already get benefits. They should have saved at least a bit. IF it's hard to shift the entire family immediately, let the person who got the job alone move and live in a shared accommodation for a couple of months to get some cash in hand and then move the family. Seriously, this is the most ridiculous excuse I have heard for not taking a job and reeks of entitlement. No one is obligated to follow wherever they and give them a job. If they want to be a contributing member to the society, they are the ones who should go looking for opportunities. just don't cross a border "If you play your cards right, you might get a circular trip across three European countries though  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wokerati who shout the loudest in favour are often not living where these thousands of young men from dangerous countries are placed. You find the woke types are from places like Devon, Dorset, Cornwall, parts of Wiltshire and Staffordshire, parts of Wales and Scotland. All places that are no where near on the front line like London, Kent, parts of midlands and some northern towns. It is insane to be taking these undocumented men in from such countries, WAKE UP" There's lots of non-racists everywhere. Which is generally a good thing. There's loads of xenophobic knuckle draggers in the west country too. We're not immune from that kind of ignorance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs? Cut their benefits until they get off their arses and work? Ah ok, so what happens if the vacancies aren’t in the areas where unemployed people are? Move their arses to the place that gives them jobs. You can't live in a corner of the country and expect jobs to be delivered in a platter just next to your home. No society in the world works that way. People move to places which give them good jobs. Who will come up with the thousands of pounds necessary for these unemployed people to move from one area of the country to another? How many thousands of pounds are needed to move from one area to another? They already get benefits. They should have saved at least a bit. IF it's hard to shift the entire family immediately, let the person who got the job alone move and live in a shared accommodation for a couple of months to get some cash in hand and then move the family. Seriously, this is the most ridiculous excuse I have heard for not taking a job and reeks of entitlement. No one is obligated to follow wherever they and give them a job. If they want to be a contributing member to the society, they are the ones who should go looking for opportunities. " Say I have a family with a wife and an early teens boy and girl. The average 3 bedroom house in Manchester costs £2200 a month (as per August 2023). According to the Citizen's Advice Bureau I would have to pay approximately 4-6 weeks rent as deposit, and 1-2 months rent in advance. So that's anywhere from £4400 to £7700. I would also need money to live on while I waited for my first pay packet, so another £200 or so, then money to buy new school uniforms for the kids £300 or so, removal company costs about £500. The bare minimum would be £5500. Given that 34% of people in the UK have less than £1000 in savings, how long do you think it would take someone on benefits to save up £5500? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs? Cut their benefits until they get off their arses and work? Ah ok, so what happens if the vacancies aren’t in the areas where unemployed people are? Move their arses to the place that gives them jobs. You can't live in a corner of the country and expect jobs to be delivered in a platter just next to your home. No society in the world works that way. People move to places which give them good jobs. Who will come up with the thousands of pounds necessary for these unemployed people to move from one area of the country to another? How many thousands of pounds are needed to move from one area to another? They already get benefits. They should have saved at least a bit. IF it's hard to shift the entire family immediately, let the person who got the job alone move and live in a shared accommodation for a couple of months to get some cash in hand and then move the family. Seriously, this is the most ridiculous excuse I have heard for not taking a job and reeks of entitlement. No one is obligated to follow wherever they and give them a job. If they want to be a contributing member to the society, they are the ones who should go looking for opportunities. Say I have a family with a wife and an early teens boy and girl. The average 3 bedroom house in Manchester costs £2200 a month (as per August 2023). According to the Citizen's Advice Bureau I would have to pay approximately 4-6 weeks rent as deposit, and 1-2 months rent in advance. So that's anywhere from £4400 to £7700. I would also need money to live on while I waited for my first pay packet, so another £200 or so, then money to buy new school uniforms for the kids £300 or so, removal company costs about £500. The bare minimum would be £5500. Given that 34% of people in the UK have less than £1000 in savings, how long do you think it would take someone on benefits to save up £5500?" The problem with raking the first thing you find on Google is, it isn't an accurate reflection. Rent for a 3 bed property in Manchester can easily be achieved for half of your figure. The rent would be something they would be paying anyway, regardless of location. 'Money to live' is needed wherever you are. They'll also receive their deposit back from current property which will cover the next one. I'll give you 'moving costs and cost of uniform' but try to be a bit more genuine and it could well be a decent discussion. At the heart of it, _ostindreams is right, if you really want to better yourself, then you go to where the opportunities are. Or you could sit around complaining, but don't expect any sympathy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs? Cut their benefits until they get off their arses and work? Ah ok, so what happens if the vacancies aren’t in the areas where unemployed people are? Move their arses to the place that gives them jobs. You can't live in a corner of the country and expect jobs to be delivered in a platter just next to your home. No society in the world works that way. People move to places which give them good jobs. Who will come up with the thousands of pounds necessary for these unemployed people to move from one area of the country to another? How many thousands of pounds are needed to move from one area to another? They already get benefits. They should have saved at least a bit. IF it's hard to shift the entire family immediately, let the person who got the job alone move and live in a shared accommodation for a couple of months to get some cash in hand and then move the family. Seriously, this is the most ridiculous excuse I have heard for not taking a job and reeks of entitlement. No one is obligated to follow wherever they and give them a job. If they want to be a contributing member to the society, they are the ones who should go looking for opportunities. Say I have a family with a wife and an early teens boy and girl. The average 3 bedroom house in Manchester costs £2200 a month (as per August 2023). According to the Citizen's Advice Bureau I would have to pay approximately 4-6 weeks rent as deposit, and 1-2 months rent in advance. So that's anywhere from £4400 to £7700. I would also need money to live on while I waited for my first pay packet, so another £200 or so, then money to buy new school uniforms for the kids £300 or so, removal company costs about £500. The bare minimum would be £5500. Given that 34% of people in the UK have less than £1000 in savings, how long do you think it would take someone on benefits to save up £5500? The problem with raking the first thing you find on Google is, it isn't an accurate reflection. Rent for a 3 bed property in Manchester can easily be achieved for half of your figure. The rent would be something they would be paying anyway, regardless of location. 'Money to live' is needed wherever you are. They'll also receive their deposit back from current property which will cover the next one. I'll give you 'moving costs and cost of uniform' but try to be a bit more genuine and it could well be a decent discussion. At the heart of it, _ostindreams is right, if you really want to better yourself, then you go to where the opportunities are. Or you could sit around complaining, but don't expect any sympathy. " answer is probably between these two. The rent is likely higher where there are jobs, so the return of deposit will cover some of the new deposit. There's also hidden costs. If you rely on family ATM, you may lose that if you move. You may see a rent uptick as many tend to implement inflation increases on a change of tennant. And that's before you account for any strain from being between pay packets and I'd hazard a guess unexpected UC impacts. So while I agree in theory worker mobility may work, in practice it's a lot harder. And that's before any unintended consequences on both the old and new areas (eg strain on local services/reduced demand in old area) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs? Cut their benefits until they get off their arses and work? Ah ok, so what happens if the vacancies aren’t in the areas where unemployed people are? Move their arses to the place that gives them jobs. You can't live in a corner of the country and expect jobs to be delivered in a platter just next to your home. No society in the world works that way. People move to places which give them good jobs. Who will come up with the thousands of pounds necessary for these unemployed people to move from one area of the country to another? How many thousands of pounds are needed to move from one area to another? They already get benefits. They should have saved at least a bit. IF it's hard to shift the entire family immediately, let the person who got the job alone move and live in a shared accommodation for a couple of months to get some cash in hand and then move the family. Seriously, this is the most ridiculous excuse I have heard for not taking a job and reeks of entitlement. No one is obligated to follow wherever they and give them a job. If they want to be a contributing member to the society, they are the ones who should go looking for opportunities. Say I have a family with a wife and an early teens boy and girl. The average 3 bedroom house in Manchester costs £2200 a month (as per August 2023). According to the Citizen's Advice Bureau I would have to pay approximately 4-6 weeks rent as deposit, and 1-2 months rent in advance. So that's anywhere from £4400 to £7700. I would also need money to live on while I waited for my first pay packet, so another £200 or so, then money to buy new school uniforms for the kids £300 or so, removal company costs about £500. The bare minimum would be £5500. Given that 34% of people in the UK have less than £1000 in savings, how long do you think it would take someone on benefits to save up £5500? The problem with raking the first thing you find on Google is, it isn't an accurate reflection. Rent for a 3 bed property in Manchester can easily be achieved for half of your figure. The rent would be something they would be paying anyway, regardless of location. 'Money to live' is needed wherever you are. They'll also receive their deposit back from current property which will cover the next one. I'll give you 'moving costs and cost of uniform' but try to be a bit more genuine and it could well be a decent discussion. At the heart of it, _ostindreams is right, if you really want to better yourself, then you go to where the opportunities are. Or you could sit around complaining, but don't expect any sympathy. answer is probably between these two. The rent is likely higher where there are jobs, so the return of deposit will cover some of the new deposit. There's also hidden costs. If you rely on family ATM, you may lose that if you move. You may see a rent uptick as many tend to implement inflation increases on a change of tennant. And that's before you account for any strain from being between pay packets and I'd hazard a guess unexpected UC impacts. So while I agree in theory worker mobility may work, in practice it's a lot harder. And that's before any unintended consequences on both the old and new areas (eg strain on local services/reduced demand in old area) " I just searched 'Manchester' to know that 3 bedroom properties are achievable for half of the stated figure. Properties that are currently on rightmove, at current rental prices. There is no need to 'worry' about inflationary increases seeing as they are live figures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs? Cut their benefits until they get off their arses and work? Ah ok, so what happens if the vacancies aren’t in the areas where unemployed people are? Move their arses to the place that gives them jobs. You can't live in a corner of the country and expect jobs to be delivered in a platter just next to your home. No society in the world works that way. People move to places which give them good jobs. Who will come up with the thousands of pounds necessary for these unemployed people to move from one area of the country to another? How many thousands of pounds are needed to move from one area to another? They already get benefits. They should have saved at least a bit. IF it's hard to shift the entire family immediately, let the person who got the job alone move and live in a shared accommodation for a couple of months to get some cash in hand and then move the family. Seriously, this is the most ridiculous excuse I have heard for not taking a job and reeks of entitlement. No one is obligated to follow wherever they and give them a job. If they want to be a contributing member to the society, they are the ones who should go looking for opportunities. Say I have a family with a wife and an early teens boy and girl. The average 3 bedroom house in Manchester costs £2200 a month (as per August 2023). According to the Citizen's Advice Bureau I would have to pay approximately 4-6 weeks rent as deposit, and 1-2 months rent in advance. So that's anywhere from £4400 to £7700. I would also need money to live on while I waited for my first pay packet, so another £200 or so, then money to buy new school uniforms for the kids £300 or so, removal company costs about £500. The bare minimum would be £5500. Given that 34% of people in the UK have less than £1000 in savings, how long do you think it would take someone on benefits to save up £5500? The problem with raking the first thing you find on Google is, it isn't an accurate reflection. Rent for a 3 bed property in Manchester can easily be achieved for half of your figure. The rent would be something they would be paying anyway, regardless of location. 'Money to live' is needed wherever you are. They'll also receive their deposit back from current property which will cover the next one. I'll give you 'moving costs and cost of uniform' but try to be a bit more genuine and it could well be a decent discussion. At the heart of it, _ostindreams is right, if you really want to better yourself, then you go to where the opportunities are. Or you could sit around complaining, but don't expect any sympathy. " Even if the rent is less that does not address the issue of cash flow. You are going from a situation where people's rent is paid via housing benefit directly to the landlord, to a situation where they are having to find thousands of pounds to pay a deposit and 2 months rent in advance. Also, people in social housing tend not to have to pay deposits, for the reasons outlined above. If the job someone is going to pays monthly then people may have to go 2 months with no income whatsoever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs? Cut their benefits until they get off their arses and work? Ah ok, so what happens if the vacancies aren’t in the areas where unemployed people are? Move their arses to the place that gives them jobs. You can't live in a corner of the country and expect jobs to be delivered in a platter just next to your home. No society in the world works that way. People move to places which give them good jobs. Who will come up with the thousands of pounds necessary for these unemployed people to move from one area of the country to another? How many thousands of pounds are needed to move from one area to another? They already get benefits. They should have saved at least a bit. IF it's hard to shift the entire family immediately, let the person who got the job alone move and live in a shared accommodation for a couple of months to get some cash in hand and then move the family. Seriously, this is the most ridiculous excuse I have heard for not taking a job and reeks of entitlement. No one is obligated to follow wherever they and give them a job. If they want to be a contributing member to the society, they are the ones who should go looking for opportunities. Say I have a family with a wife and an early teens boy and girl. The average 3 bedroom house in Manchester costs £2200 a month (as per August 2023). According to the Citizen's Advice Bureau I would have to pay approximately 4-6 weeks rent as deposit, and 1-2 months rent in advance. So that's anywhere from £4400 to £7700. I would also need money to live on while I waited for my first pay packet, so another £200 or so, then money to buy new school uniforms for the kids £300 or so, removal company costs about £500. The bare minimum would be £5500. Given that 34% of people in the UK have less than £1000 in savings, how long do you think it would take someone on benefits to save up £5500? The problem with raking the first thing you find on Google is, it isn't an accurate reflection. Rent for a 3 bed property in Manchester can easily be achieved for half of your figure. The rent would be something they would be paying anyway, regardless of location. 'Money to live' is needed wherever you are. They'll also receive their deposit back from current property which will cover the next one. I'll give you 'moving costs and cost of uniform' but try to be a bit more genuine and it could well be a decent discussion. At the heart of it, _ostindreams is right, if you really want to better yourself, then you go to where the opportunities are. Or you could sit around complaining, but don't expect any sympathy. Even if the rent is less that does not address the issue of cash flow. You are going from a situation where people's rent is paid via housing benefit directly to the landlord, to a situation where they are having to find thousands of pounds to pay a deposit and 2 months rent in advance. Also, people in social housing tend not to have to pay deposits, for the reasons outlined above. If the job someone is going to pays monthly then people may have to go 2 months with no income whatsoever." You're still being disingenuous. There are: - rent or deposit guarantee schemes - a discretionary housing payment, if you get Housing Benefit or Universal Credit Universal credit will not end until you have earned your wages so no one will be going 2 months without income. Still, what's a short temporary hardship for long term gain? Millions of people make that very decision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs? Cut their benefits until they get off their arses and work? Ah ok, so what happens if the vacancies aren’t in the areas where unemployed people are? Move their arses to the place that gives them jobs. You can't live in a corner of the country and expect jobs to be delivered in a platter just next to your home. No society in the world works that way. People move to places which give them good jobs. Who will come up with the thousands of pounds necessary for these unemployed people to move from one area of the country to another? How many thousands of pounds are needed to move from one area to another? They already get benefits. They should have saved at least a bit. IF it's hard to shift the entire family immediately, let the person who got the job alone move and live in a shared accommodation for a couple of months to get some cash in hand and then move the family. Seriously, this is the most ridiculous excuse I have heard for not taking a job and reeks of entitlement. No one is obligated to follow wherever they and give them a job. If they want to be a contributing member to the society, they are the ones who should go looking for opportunities. Say I have a family with a wife and an early teens boy and girl. The average 3 bedroom house in Manchester costs £2200 a month (as per August 2023). According to the Citizen's Advice Bureau I would have to pay approximately 4-6 weeks rent as deposit, and 1-2 months rent in advance. So that's anywhere from £4400 to £7700. I would also need money to live on while I waited for my first pay packet, so another £200 or so, then money to buy new school uniforms for the kids £300 or so, removal company costs about £500. The bare minimum would be £5500. Given that 34% of people in the UK have less than £1000 in savings, how long do you think it would take someone on benefits to save up £5500? The problem with raking the first thing you find on Google is, it isn't an accurate reflection. Rent for a 3 bed property in Manchester can easily be achieved for half of your figure. The rent would be something they would be paying anyway, regardless of location. 'Money to live' is needed wherever you are. They'll also receive their deposit back from current property which will cover the next one. I'll give you 'moving costs and cost of uniform' but try to be a bit more genuine and it could well be a decent discussion. At the heart of it, _ostindreams is right, if you really want to better yourself, then you go to where the opportunities are. Or you could sit around complaining, but don't expect any sympathy. Even if the rent is less that does not address the issue of cash flow. You are going from a situation where people's rent is paid via housing benefit directly to the landlord, to a situation where they are having to find thousands of pounds to pay a deposit and 2 months rent in advance. Also, people in social housing tend not to have to pay deposits, for the reasons outlined above. If the job someone is going to pays monthly then people may have to go 2 months with no income whatsoever. You're still being disingenuous. There are: - rent or deposit guarantee schemes - a discretionary housing payment, if you get Housing Benefit or Universal Credit Universal credit will not end until you have earned your wages so no one will be going 2 months without income. Still, what's a short temporary hardship for long term gain? Millions of people make that very decision. "
You covered everything. Just to add, if a business is really struggling to fill up a job and transfer cost is the only reason that they are struggling to hire, they will gladly make some arrangements for it. After all, they are hiring numerous foreigners going through a process that requires a humongous visa fee and also cost of flight tickets. If they can find workers from the same country, it's a blessing for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cool, so how are we going to get people to take up the jobs? Cut their benefits until they get off their arses and work? Ah ok, so what happens if the vacancies aren’t in the areas where unemployed people are? Move their arses to the place that gives them jobs. You can't live in a corner of the country and expect jobs to be delivered in a platter just next to your home. No society in the world works that way. People move to places which give them good jobs. Who will come up with the thousands of pounds necessary for these unemployed people to move from one area of the country to another? How many thousands of pounds are needed to move from one area to another? They already get benefits. They should have saved at least a bit. IF it's hard to shift the entire family immediately, let the person who got the job alone move and live in a shared accommodation for a couple of months to get some cash in hand and then move the family. Seriously, this is the most ridiculous excuse I have heard for not taking a job and reeks of entitlement. No one is obligated to follow wherever they and give them a job. If they want to be a contributing member to the society, they are the ones who should go looking for opportunities. Say I have a family with a wife and an early teens boy and girl. The average 3 bedroom house in Manchester costs £2200 a month (as per August 2023). According to the Citizen's Advice Bureau I would have to pay approximately 4-6 weeks rent as deposit, and 1-2 months rent in advance. So that's anywhere from £4400 to £7700. I would also need money to live on while I waited for my first pay packet, so another £200 or so, then money to buy new school uniforms for the kids £300 or so, removal company costs about £500. The bare minimum would be £5500. Given that 34% of people in the UK have less than £1000 in savings, how long do you think it would take someone on benefits to save up £5500? The problem with raking the first thing you find on Google is, it isn't an accurate reflection. Rent for a 3 bed property in Manchester can easily be achieved for half of your figure. The rent would be something they would be paying anyway, regardless of location. 'Money to live' is needed wherever you are. They'll also receive their deposit back from current property which will cover the next one. I'll give you 'moving costs and cost of uniform' but try to be a bit more genuine and it could well be a decent discussion. At the heart of it, _ostindreams is right, if you really want to better yourself, then you go to where the opportunities are. Or you could sit around complaining, but don't expect any sympathy. Even if the rent is less that does not address the issue of cash flow. You are going from a situation where people's rent is paid via housing benefit directly to the landlord, to a situation where they are having to find thousands of pounds to pay a deposit and 2 months rent in advance. Also, people in social housing tend not to have to pay deposits, for the reasons outlined above. If the job someone is going to pays monthly then people may have to go 2 months with no income whatsoever. You're still being disingenuous. There are: - rent or deposit guarantee schemes - a discretionary housing payment, if you get Housing Benefit or Universal Credit Universal credit will not end until you have earned your wages so no one will be going 2 months without income. Still, what's a short temporary hardship for long term gain? Millions of people make that very decision.
You covered everything. Just to add, if a business is really struggling to fill up a job and transfer cost is the only reason that they are struggling to hire, they will gladly make some arrangements for it. After all, they are hiring numerous foreigners going through a process that requires a humongous visa fee and also cost of flight tickets. If they can find workers from the same country, it's a blessing for them. "are the vacancies in roles that can be filled by visas ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" are the vacancies in roles that can be filled by visas ? " Hard to say. From a business perspective, I find it hard to imagine someone desperate to hire but can't even make arrangements to transfer someone within different cities. But the whole argument is based on a theory I have never heard anywhere else - That people aren't taking up jobs because the jobs are in a different place. I would like to see some statistics supporting that theory too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since the beginning of the year. That's 21,000 a year. A small town. How can we accommodate these numbers when nurses and police rely on food banks It's all over the news " Doesn't even fill a main stand of most football clubs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since the beginning of the year. That's 21,000 a year. A small town. How can we accommodate these numbers when nurses and police rely on food banks It's all over the news " We shouldn't have to. They're queue-jumping criminals - violent to French police on occasion - who throw their documents into the sea. They're totally selfish and seem to care little when a 7 year old drowns in their environs. The bigger problem is getting net migration to UK down from 745,000 in 2022. This is what is driving up housing costs and pulverising public services. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since the beginning of the year. That's 21,000 a year. A small town. How can we accommodate these numbers when nurses and police rely on food banks It's all over the news We shouldn't have to. They're queue-jumping criminals - violent to French police on occasion - who throw their documents into the sea. They're totally selfish and seem to care little when a 7 year old drowns in their environs. The bigger problem is getting net migration to UK down from 745,000 in 2022. This is what is driving up housing costs and pulverising public services. " Can't see Labour doing much to get migration numbers down after they win (presumably) at the GE. They'll likely row back on the Rwanda scheme, but highly unlikely to relace it with anything effective. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's because the rules are too lax, and they are applied generously. Do you have any evidence of that or merely giving an opinion?" Evidence today on the news. The father of the 7 year old who died last week saying that the UK was "his last hope". Apparently he has been in Europe for 14 years and been rejected for asylum at least once. Belgium was going to deport him and his family back to Iraq so he absconded and tried to cross to the UK. So he believed we are a soft touch. Why can't these people take no for an answer, and accept that they have no valid claim and are not wanted? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's because the rules are too lax, and they are applied generously. Do you have any evidence of that or merely giving an opinion? Evidence today on the news. The father of the 7 year old who died last week saying that the UK was "his last hope". Apparently he has been in Europe for 14 years and been rejected for asylum at least once. Belgium was going to deport him and his family back to Iraq so he absconded and tried to cross to the UK. So he believed we are a soft touch. Why can't these people take no for an answer, and accept that they have no valid claim and are not wanted?" did he see us a soft touch ? Or was this one last act of despartion? I'm not a parent, but I can't imagine what I must be fearing if I'm to put my kid in such danger. Belgium disagrees he's in such danger, but he was feeling it anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's because the rules are too lax, and they are applied generously. Do you have any evidence of that or merely giving an opinion? Evidence today on the news. The father of the 7 year old who died last week saying that the UK was "his last hope". Apparently he has been in Europe for 14 years and been rejected for asylum at least once. Belgium was going to deport him and his family back to Iraq so he absconded and tried to cross to the UK. So he believed we are a soft touch. Why can't these people take no for an answer, and accept that they have no valid claim and are not wanted?did he see us a soft touch ? Or was this one last act of despartion? I'm not a parent, but I can't imagine what I must be fearing if I'm to put my kid in such danger. Belgium disagrees he's in such danger, but he was feeling it anyway. " There are surely some fundamental issues here. If someone is rejected for Asylum (in this case in Belgium) how can they still be in that country for 14 years? I know they can appeal but 14 years! In that time he started a family (or expanded it). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's because the rules are too lax, and they are applied generously. Do you have any evidence of that or merely giving an opinion? Evidence today on the news. The father of the 7 year old who died last week saying that the UK was "his last hope". Apparently he has been in Europe for 14 years and been rejected for asylum at least once. Belgium was going to deport him and his family back to Iraq so he absconded and tried to cross to the UK. So he believed we are a soft touch. Why can't these people take no for an answer, and accept that they have no valid claim and are not wanted?did he see us a soft touch ? Or was this one last act of despartion? I'm not a parent, but I can't imagine what I must be fearing if I'm to put my kid in such danger. Belgium disagrees he's in such danger, but he was feeling it anyway. There are surely some fundamental issues here. If someone is rejected for Asylum (in this case in Belgium) how can they still be in that country for 14 years? I know they can appeal but 14 years! In that time he started a family (or expanded it). " it was 7 years (the 7 in Sweden) but yes absolutely. Countries have issues deporting cases. That's going to be the case if there is an asylum system or not. A Rwanda scheme here could work. Indeed the first such case has been agreed. I also think that the EU (and us?) should have joint capacity. A no on Belgium should be a no in every EU country. I'd probably have an EU (and us?) wide referral programme to spread the load better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's because the rules are too lax, and they are applied generously. Do you have any evidence of that or merely giving an opinion? Evidence today on the news. The father of the 7 year old who died last week saying that the UK was "his last hope". Apparently he has been in Europe for 14 years and been rejected for asylum at least once. Belgium was going to deport him and his family back to Iraq so he absconded and tried to cross to the UK. So he believed we are a soft touch. Why can't these people take no for an answer, and accept that they have no valid claim and are not wanted?did he see us a soft touch ? Or was this one last act of despartion? I'm not a parent, but I can't imagine what I must be fearing if I'm to put my kid in such danger. Belgium disagrees he's in such danger, but he was feeling it anyway. There are surely some fundamental issues here. If someone is rejected for Asylum (in this case in Belgium) how can they still be in that country for 14 years? I know they can appeal but 14 years! In that time he started a family (or expanded it). it was 7 years (the 7 in Sweden) but yes absolutely. Countries have issues deporting cases. That's going to be the case if there is an asylum system or not. A Rwanda scheme here could work. Indeed the first such case has been agreed. I also think that the EU (and us?) should have joint capacity. A no on Belgium should be a no in every EU country. I'd probably have an EU (and us?) wide referral programme to spread the load better. " Brexit has made this harder but yes I agree a joint arrangement is needed. I was under the impression the EU did have a scheme to spread the load already? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's because the rules are too lax, and they are applied generously. Do you have any evidence of that or merely giving an opinion? Evidence today on the news. The father of the 7 year old who died last week saying that the UK was "his last hope". Apparently he has been in Europe for 14 years and been rejected for asylum at least once. Belgium was going to deport him and his family back to Iraq so he absconded and tried to cross to the UK. So he believed we are a soft touch. Why can't these people take no for an answer, and accept that they have no valid claim and are not wanted?did he see us a soft touch ? Or was this one last act of despartion? I'm not a parent, but I can't imagine what I must be fearing if I'm to put my kid in such danger. Belgium disagrees he's in such danger, but he was feeling it anyway. There are surely some fundamental issues here. If someone is rejected for Asylum (in this case in Belgium) how can they still be in that country for 14 years? I know they can appeal but 14 years! In that time he started a family (or expanded it). it was 7 years (the 7 in Sweden) but yes absolutely. Countries have issues deporting cases. That's going to be the case if there is an asylum system or not. A Rwanda scheme here could work. Indeed the first such case has been agreed. I also think that the EU (and us?) should have joint capacity. A no on Belgium should be a no in every EU country. I'd probably have an EU (and us?) wide referral programme to spread the load better. Brexit has made this harder but yes I agree a joint arrangement is needed. I was under the impression the EU did have a scheme to spread the load already?" possibly. Don't think they have the unilateral decision, which imo would be powerful. How many cases could we knock out if you have finger prints and access to other decisions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's because the rules are too lax, and they are applied generously. Do you have any evidence of that or merely giving an opinion? Evidence today on the news. The father of the 7 year old who died last week saying that the UK was "his last hope". Apparently he has been in Europe for 14 years and been rejected for asylum at least once. Belgium was going to deport him and his family back to Iraq so he absconded and tried to cross to the UK. So he believed we are a soft touch. Why can't these people take no for an answer, and accept that they have no valid claim and are not wanted?did he see us a soft touch ? Or was this one last act of despartion? I'm not a parent, but I can't imagine what I must be fearing if I'm to put my kid in such danger. Belgium disagrees he's in such danger, but he was feeling it anyway. There are surely some fundamental issues here. If someone is rejected for Asylum (in this case in Belgium) how can they still be in that country for 14 years? I know they can appeal but 14 years! In that time he started a family (or expanded it). it was 7 years (the 7 in Sweden) but yes absolutely. Countries have issues deporting cases. That's going to be the case if there is an asylum system or not. A Rwanda scheme here could work. Indeed the first such case has been agreed. I also think that the EU (and us?) should have joint capacity. A no on Belgium should be a no in every EU country. I'd probably have an EU (and us?) wide referral programme to spread the load better. " Possibly, if the rules are applied in the same way as the harshest in the EU. Claimants should be detained, processed quickly (say within 3 months), and rejected applicants deported straight from detention. Successful applicants should be distributed, and should all receive exactly the same support. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also think that the EU (and us?) should have joint capacity. A no on Belgium should be a no in every EU country. I'd probably have an EU (and us?) wide referral programme to spread the load better." "Brexit has made this harder but yes I agree a joint arrangement is needed. I was under the impression the EU did have a scheme to spread the load already?" "possibly. Don't think they have the unilateral decision, which imo would be powerful. How many cases could we knock out if you have finger prints and access to other decisions. " The EU has the 'Dublin III Regulation'. This means that the first EU country to encounter an asylum seeker has responsibility. If they go on to apply in a second EU country, that second country can just return them to the first country to deal with. But all of that relies on each country creating and sharing full biometric records of all migrants. Since no one actually wants these people, there's no incentive to do a good job of record keeping, and every incentive to 'lose' records, and thereby make it someone else's problem. Brexit means that we are no longer covered by Dublin III. There's no chance of the EU agreeing to include us, as they know that they'll have to accept large numbers of migrants back to France. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also think that the EU (and us?) should have joint capacity. A no on Belgium should be a no in every EU country. I'd probably have an EU (and us?) wide referral programme to spread the load better. Brexit has made this harder but yes I agree a joint arrangement is needed. I was under the impression the EU did have a scheme to spread the load already? possibly. Don't think they have the unilateral decision, which imo would be powerful. How many cases could we knock out if you have finger prints and access to other decisions. The EU has the 'Dublin III Regulation'. This means that the first EU country to encounter an asylum seeker has responsibility. If they go on to apply in a second EU country, that second country can just return them to the first country to deal with. But all of that relies on each country creating and sharing full biometric records of all migrants. Since no one actually wants these people, there's no incentive to do a good job of record keeping, and every incentive to 'lose' records, and thereby make it someone else's problem. Brexit means that we are no longer covered by Dublin III. There's no chance of the EU agreeing to include us, as they know that they'll have to accept large numbers of migrants back to France. " And yet Ireland intend to return asylum seekers to the UK. Looks like a bit of do as I say, not as I do to me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question because I do not know… Presumably if someone wants to claim asylum then they need to declare the country they are fleeing from? If their asylum is then not granted I assume they have a right of appeal? How many times? If that appeal fails then the UK knows which country they fled and can send them back (fly them back at our cost?) right? So the Rwanda thing is to house them while being processed? If asylum granted they come back to UK? If asylum not granted who sends them home? Rwanda or UK? What if you cannot establish if the asylum seeker is genuinely from the country they claim they are fleeing?" Rwanda isn't about housing off-site. Rwanda will be doing the processing. And if successful they stay in Rwanda. The first bit is the issue. There's evidence Rwanda doesn't follow the standards expected. Hence unsafe. If it was us processing, there wouldn't have been the SC finding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question because I do not know… Presumably if someone wants to claim asylum then they need to declare the country they are fleeing from?" Yes. "If their asylum is then not granted I assume they have a right of appeal? How many times?" Yes. As many times as they can find reasons for. "If that appeal fails then the UK knows which country they fled and can send them back (fly them back at our cost?) right?" They can be sent back, and they can be charged the cost of doing that. Of course, most of these people have no funds, so there's little point in sending them an invoice. "So the Rwanda thing is to house them while being processed? If asylum granted they come back to UK? If asylum not granted who sends them home? Rwanda or UK?" No. Rwanda will be doing the processing. Those sent over will not be eligible to return to the UK without a visa. "What if you cannot establish if the asylum seeker is genuinely from the country they claim they are fleeing?" That would be Rwanda's problem once the person has been sent there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Tories have developed a great business model! They get their cash up front. The asylum seekers/economic migrants are basically treated as one and the same. They take advantage of a system that can't be modernised to deal with the world as it is today but harks back to a post war era. In general no one is against migration; people don't like the fact that the current system is abused on a daily basis. I do wonder what the view would be if lets say hypothetically the number crossing the channel reached 5,000 per day or 50,000 per day would that be acceptable?" Fixed that for you.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I do wonder what the view would be if lets say hypothetically the number crossing the channel reached 5,000 per day or 50,000 per day would that be acceptable?" Nah.. you aren't allowed to ask practical questions like this. You should instead blindly follow the decades old broken agreement like it's some religious text. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's because the rules are too lax, and they are applied generously. Do you have any evidence of that or merely giving an opinion? Evidence today on the news. The father of the 7 year old who died last week saying that the UK was "his last hope". Apparently he has been in Europe for 14 years and been rejected for asylum at least once. Belgium was going to deport him and his family back to Iraq so he absconded and tried to cross to the UK. So he believed we are a soft touch. Why can't these people take no for an answer, and accept that they have no valid claim and are not wanted?" Because they're criminals who think they're above the law. People are drowning unnecessarily because of a choice they made. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I do wonder what the view would be if lets say hypothetically the number crossing the channel reached 5,000 per day or 50,000 per day would that be acceptable? Nah.. you aren't allowed to ask practical questions like this. You should instead blindly follow the decades old broken agreement like it's some religious text." is it practical? What if crossings increased 40 fold? Or 400 fold? Doesn't feel helpful to me. Is this on the cards really? 18m people crossing. Assuming the post was made in good faith, it reads like an emotional reaction rather than a sensible question. We should have discussions about capacity and processing ability. But that needs to come from a place of groundedness. Justifiable fears get drowned out by extreme reactions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since the beginning of the year. That's 21,000 a year. A small town. How can we accommodate these numbers when nurses and police rely on food banks It's all over the news " Stop allowing giant companies to avoid paying taxes? Stop the production of nuclear weapons? Stop fat cat bonuses for corrupt bankers? Stop people earning a very healthy pension for life when they were only in the role for six weeks? And fucked it up in that time? Stop cronyism such as paying millions to people who provide sub standard PPE? Stop paying retainers to people who’ve never run a ferry company in their life? Stop believing in your countries own propaganda and prevent the massive loss of resources through things like Brexit? I’m just pausing for breath here, there’s a fuck ton of other things people could add to the list. Gbat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I do wonder what the view would be if lets say hypothetically the number crossing the channel reached 5,000 per day or 50,000 per day would that be acceptable? Nah.. you aren't allowed to ask practical questions like this. You should instead blindly follow the decades old broken agreement like it's some religious text.is it practical? What if crossings increased 40 fold? Or 400 fold? Doesn't feel helpful to me. Is this on the cards really? 18m people crossing. Assuming the post was made in good faith, it reads like an emotional reaction rather than a sensible question. We should have discussions about capacity and processing ability. But that needs to come from a place of groundedness. Justifiable fears get drowned out by extreme reactions. " No the question is not about eliciting fear or an emotional response. It's about the sustainability of the current system. Yes, it's quite possible that it won't happen but not to say that it couldn't happen. Given that it's a legitimate question what would your response be? Burying your head isn't helpful either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I do wonder what the view would be if lets say hypothetically the number crossing the channel reached 5,000 per day or 50,000 per day would that be acceptable? Nah.. you aren't allowed to ask practical questions like this. You should instead blindly follow the decades old broken agreement like it's some religious text.is it practical? What if crossings increased 40 fold? Or 400 fold? Doesn't feel helpful to me. Is this on the cards really? 18m people crossing. Assuming the post was made in good faith, it reads like an emotional reaction rather than a sensible question. We should have discussions about capacity and processing ability. But that needs to come from a place of groundedness. Justifiable fears get drowned out by extreme reactions. " We have been told repeatedly by the left wingers themselves that the numbers will go up soon because of geopolitical and climate change issues. Should we believe that or not? If we believe them, we definitely need to discuss this scenario? Agreements like these should always have limits. Not having such limits is just another proof that it was written as a reactionary response to the holocaust with very little thought about practicalities and impact. Tomorrow, if India has a civil war and the millions decide to come to Europe, should we discuss about these limits then? Pretty sure the European bureaucracy will take years before taking a meaningful decision. Instead of waiting for these scenarios to happen really, we need to ensure that the agreement is strong enough to handle all adverse cases. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I do wonder what the view would be if lets say hypothetically the number crossing the channel reached 5,000 per day or 50,000 per day would that be acceptable? Nah.. you aren't allowed to ask practical questions like this. You should instead blindly follow the decades old broken agreement like it's some religious text.is it practical? What if crossings increased 40 fold? Or 400 fold? Doesn't feel helpful to me. Is this on the cards really? 18m people crossing. Assuming the post was made in good faith, it reads like an emotional reaction rather than a sensible question. We should have discussions about capacity and processing ability. But that needs to come from a place of groundedness. Justifiable fears get drowned out by extreme reactions. " Funny how we see things differently. I saw it as a sensible question. 'Groundedness' sounds wonderful but probably code for lily-livered, weak as water strategies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I do wonder what the view would be if lets say hypothetically the number crossing the channel reached 5,000 per day or 50,000 per day would that be acceptable? Nah.. you aren't allowed to ask practical questions like this. You should instead blindly follow the decades old broken agreement like it's some religious text.is it practical? What if crossings increased 40 fold? Or 400 fold? Doesn't feel helpful to me. Is this on the cards really? 18m people crossing. Assuming the post was made in good faith, it reads like an emotional reaction rather than a sensible question. We should have discussions about capacity and processing ability. But that needs to come from a place of groundedness. Justifiable fears get drowned out by extreme reactions. We have been told repeatedly by the left wingers themselves that the numbers will go up soon because of geopolitical and climate change issues. Should we believe that or not? If we believe them, we definitely need to discuss this scenario? Agreements like these should always have limits. Not having such limits is just another proof that it was written as a reactionary response to the holocaust with very little thought about practicalities and impact. Tomorrow, if India has a civil war and the millions decide to come to Europe, should we discuss about these limits then? Pretty sure the European bureaucracy will take years before taking a meaningful decision. Instead of waiting for these scenarios to happen really, we need to ensure that the agreement is strong enough to handle all adverse cases." have they said 18m refugees a year? I'm all for disaster scenario planning. But one should combine that with the wider impacts. If I indoa has civil war there is a lot more to think about. But disaster planning and dealing with more likely scenarios need to be separate. Plan for likely. Be prepared for the worst. And I'm supportive of those conversations. And it works both ways. Unless you have no immigration and no humanitarian support then one needs a number of we say there is a maximum we can take on. Likewise wider immigration. But ATM we are no where near 5k p day let alone 50k. Isn't it worth addressing the here and now sensibly as much as planning for the rare (not quite) black swan event. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We have been told repeatedly by the left wingers themselves that the numbers will go up soon because of geopolitical and climate change issues. Should we believe that or not? If we believe them, we definitely need to discuss this scenario? Agreements like these should always have limits. Not having such limits is just another proof that it was written as a reactionary response to the holocaust with very little thought about practicalities and impact. Tomorrow, if India has a civil war and the millions decide to come to Europe, should we discuss about these limits then? Pretty sure the European bureaucracy will take years before taking a meaningful decision. Instead of waiting for these scenarios to happen really, we need to ensure that the agreement is strong enough to handle all adverse cases.have they said 18m refugees a year? I'm all for disaster scenario planning. But one should combine that with the wider impacts. If I indoa has civil war there is a lot more to think about. But disaster planning and dealing with more likely scenarios need to be separate. Plan for likely. Be prepared for the worst. And I'm supportive of those conversations. And it works both ways. Unless you have no immigration and no humanitarian support then one needs a number of we say there is a maximum we can take on. Likewise wider immigration. But ATM we are no where near 5k p day let alone 50k. Isn't it worth addressing the here and now sensibly as much as planning for the rare (not quite) black swan event. " The institute of economics and peace predicts 1.2B refugees by 2050. We know that the numbers are going to increase. We know that our bureaucracy is too slow and would take years to make any changes. So why shouldn't we talk about it now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We have been told repeatedly by the left wingers themselves that the numbers will go up soon because of geopolitical and climate change issues. Should we believe that or not? If we believe them, we definitely need to discuss this scenario? Agreements like these should always have limits. Not having such limits is just another proof that it was written as a reactionary response to the holocaust with very little thought about practicalities and impact. Tomorrow, if India has a civil war and the millions decide to come to Europe, should we discuss about these limits then? Pretty sure the European bureaucracy will take years before taking a meaningful decision. Instead of waiting for these scenarios to happen really, we need to ensure that the agreement is strong enough to handle all adverse cases.have they said 18m refugees a year? I'm all for disaster scenario planning. But one should combine that with the wider impacts. If I indoa has civil war there is a lot more to think about. But disaster planning and dealing with more likely scenarios need to be separate. Plan for likely. Be prepared for the worst. And I'm supportive of those conversations. And it works both ways. Unless you have no immigration and no humanitarian support then one needs a number of we say there is a maximum we can take on. Likewise wider immigration. But ATM we are no where near 5k p day let alone 50k. Isn't it worth addressing the here and now sensibly as much as planning for the rare (not quite) black swan event. The institute of economics and peace predicts 1.2B refugees by 2050. We know that the numbers are going to increase. We know that our bureaucracy is too slow and would take years to make any changes. So why shouldn't we talk about it now? " we can. But I'd say a) address the immediate and b) look at the bigger picture when it comes to these longer term issues. The 1.2bn above could be addressed via climate change initiatives. And needs international collaboration to resolve. But if there are really going to be 18m refugees coming to UK pa, then there is some bigger issues to address. I'm proposing we focus on more immediate concerns that's all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We have been told repeatedly by the left wingers themselves that the numbers will go up soon because of geopolitical and climate change issues. Should we believe that or not? If we believe them, we definitely need to discuss this scenario? Agreements like these should always have limits. Not having such limits is just another proof that it was written as a reactionary response to the holocaust with very little thought about practicalities and impact. Tomorrow, if India has a civil war and the millions decide to come to Europe, should we discuss about these limits then? Pretty sure the European bureaucracy will take years before taking a meaningful decision. Instead of waiting for these scenarios to happen really, we need to ensure that the agreement is strong enough to handle all adverse cases.have they said 18m refugees a year? I'm all for disaster scenario planning. But one should combine that with the wider impacts. If I indoa has civil war there is a lot more to think about. But disaster planning and dealing with more likely scenarios need to be separate. Plan for likely. Be prepared for the worst. And I'm supportive of those conversations. And it works both ways. Unless you have no immigration and no humanitarian support then one needs a number of we say there is a maximum we can take on. Likewise wider immigration. But ATM we are no where near 5k p day let alone 50k. Isn't it worth addressing the here and now sensibly as much as planning for the rare (not quite) black swan event. The institute of economics and peace predicts 1.2B refugees by 2050. We know that the numbers are going to increase. We know that our bureaucracy is too slow and would take years to make any changes. So why shouldn't we talk about it now? we can. But I'd say a) address the immediate and b) look at the bigger picture when it comes to these longer term issues. The 1.2bn above could be addressed via climate change initiatives. And needs international collaboration to resolve. But if there are really going to be 18m refugees coming to UK pa, then there is some bigger issues to address. I'm proposing we focus on more immediate concerns that's all. " Laws are supposed to take care of adversities. It's especially true when it comes to international agreements where any change takes years. The agreement in its current form is open to misuse to the point where people from the rest of the world have started seeing European countries as a laughing stock for the way they handle the borders. Now I agree that we need to look at bigger pictures. But we should also protect out own borders. Both aren't mutually exclusive. Why can't we discuss about these numbers AND ALSO find ways to prevent these issues? Why do you want is to not discuss the numbers issue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We have been told repeatedly by the left wingers themselves that the numbers will go up soon because of geopolitical and climate change issues. Should we believe that or not? If we believe them, we definitely need to discuss this scenario? Agreements like these should always have limits. Not having such limits is just another proof that it was written as a reactionary response to the holocaust with very little thought about practicalities and impact. Tomorrow, if India has a civil war and the millions decide to come to Europe, should we discuss about these limits then? Pretty sure the European bureaucracy will take years before taking a meaningful decision. Instead of waiting for these scenarios to happen really, we need to ensure that the agreement is strong enough to handle all adverse cases.have they said 18m refugees a year? I'm all for disaster scenario planning. But one should combine that with the wider impacts. If I indoa has civil war there is a lot more to think about. But disaster planning and dealing with more likely scenarios need to be separate. Plan for likely. Be prepared for the worst. And I'm supportive of those conversations. And it works both ways. Unless you have no immigration and no humanitarian support then one needs a number of we say there is a maximum we can take on. Likewise wider immigration. But ATM we are no where near 5k p day let alone 50k. Isn't it worth addressing the here and now sensibly as much as planning for the rare (not quite) black swan event. The institute of economics and peace predicts 1.2B refugees by 2050. We know that the numbers are going to increase. We know that our bureaucracy is too slow and would take years to make any changes. So why shouldn't we talk about it now? we can. But I'd say a) address the immediate and b) look at the bigger picture when it comes to these longer term issues. The 1.2bn above could be addressed via climate change initiatives. And needs international collaboration to resolve. But if there are really going to be 18m refugees coming to UK pa, then there is some bigger issues to address. I'm proposing we focus on more immediate concerns that's all. Laws are supposed to take care of adversities. It's especially true when it comes to international agreements where any change takes years. The agreement in its current form is open to misuse to the point where people from the rest of the world have started seeing European countries as a laughing stock for the way they handle the borders. Now I agree that we need to look at bigger pictures. But we should also protect out own borders. Both aren't mutually exclusive. Why can't we discuss about these numbers AND ALSO find ways to prevent these issues? Why do you want is to not discuss the numbers issue?" I've never said we shouldn't discuss the numbers issue Hence "We should have discussions about capacity and processing ability." I just don't think discussing 18m pa is the best place to start. Maybe work out what 100k pa looks like and how we mange these. And possibly look at whether 100k processing also means 80k accepted or if the acceptance rate changes (depends on why we think numbers have doubled). And maybe think about how we can support those who have had valid claims to integrate better. We aren't going to get to high and productive employment if they end up on the street on day 1. Bonus: some of that thinking will help with our wider homegrown issues. And to head off the other fellas concerns, I'd be looking to manage down the 750k of overall migration to mitigate infrastructure concerns of 80k refugees. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never said we shouldn't discuss the numbers issue Hence "We should have discussions about capacity and processing ability." I just don't think discussing 18m pa is the best place to start. Maybe work out what 100k pa looks like and how we mange these. And possibly look at whether 100k processing also means 80k accepted or if the acceptance rate changes (depends on why we think numbers have doubled). And maybe think about how we can support those who have had valid claims to integrate better. We aren't going to get to high and productive employment if they end up on the street on day 1. Bonus: some of that thinking will help with our wider homegrown issues. And to head off the other fellas concerns, I'd be looking to manage down the 750k of overall migration to mitigate infrastructure concerns of 80k refugees. " Why should we start with 100k number? What if we start there and there is a new war that sends even more people? The world is not as predictable as you think. During COVID, if anyone had told you that Europe would have to house over 3M refugees from Ukraine in the next couple of years, you would have brushed it aside as a wild prediction. If we are talking about how many people we can realistically take, we need to discuss worst case scenarios too. You can't draw a line without discussing worst case scenarios. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never said we shouldn't discuss the numbers issue Hence "We should have discussions about capacity and processing ability." I just don't think discussing 18m pa is the best place to start. Maybe work out what 100k pa looks like and how we mange these. And possibly look at whether 100k processing also means 80k accepted or if the acceptance rate changes (depends on why we think numbers have doubled). And maybe think about how we can support those who have had valid claims to integrate better. We aren't going to get to high and productive employment if they end up on the street on day 1. Bonus: some of that thinking will help with our wider homegrown issues. And to head off the other fellas concerns, I'd be looking to manage down the 750k of overall migration to mitigate infrastructure concerns of 80k refugees. Why should we start with 100k number? What if we start there and there is a new war that sends even more people? The world is not as predictable as you think. During COVID, if anyone had told you that Europe would have to house over 3M refugees from Ukraine in the next couple of years, you would have brushed it aside as a wild prediction. If we are talking about how many people we can realistically take, we need to discuss worst case scenarios too. You can't draw a line without discussing worst case scenarios. " I'd not have brushed off a grey rhino event. I'd be wanting to discuss how many can we take on a regular basis assuming a relatively steady state, and what would that do if we had to stress it. The war in Europe is a useful case study for the latter. Yet still "only" created 3m displaced people. How many came to the UK under our scheme in the last couple of years ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why should we start with 100k number? What if we start there and there is a new war that sends even more people? The world is not as predictable as you think. During COVID, if anyone had told you that Europe would have to house over 3M refugees from Ukraine in the next couple of years, you would have brushed it aside as a wild prediction. If we are talking about how many people we can realistically take, we need to discuss worst case scenarios too. You can't draw a line without discussing worst case scenarios. I'd not have brushed off a grey rhino event. I'd be wanting to discuss how many can we take on a regular basis assuming a relatively steady state, and what would that do if we had to stress it. The war in Europe is a useful case study for the latter. Yet still "only" created 3m displaced people. How many came to the UK under our scheme in the last couple of years ? " If we want to figure out how many refugees we can realistically take with or without stress, the number of people actually coming in as refugees doesn't matter. We should calculate it purely on how much resources we have, irrespective of what is happening outside the country. The original poster mentioned the numbers to ask us a question because we do not have any limits like this and it's worth discussing. There is a realistic chance that those numbers could be a real thing. We can't ignore the chance of that happening. Though it doesn't matter in the calculations we need to do to figure out our capacity, we absolutely need start discussing these limits because there are multiple worst case scenarios which may happen. That's what OP tried to point out. As for Ukraine, we took 174K refugees in the first year after the war. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Predicting numbers is very difficult so personally I was taught plan for the worst but hope for the best. For some reason this discussion reminds me of another about the time when the UK was opened up to east European Labour, I assume under freedom of movement, and being told not many are likely to come. Those that said many would come were laughed at and accused of being unrealistic amongst other insults." Is 18 million a year realistic? That's 49,315 a day. 2055 an hour. That's more boats than probably exist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Predicting numbers is very difficult so personally I was taught plan for the worst but hope for the best. For some reason this discussion reminds me of another about the time when the UK was opened up to east European Labour, I assume under freedom of movement, and being told not many are likely to come. Those that said many would come were laughed at and accused of being unrealistic amongst other insults. Is 18 million a year realistic? That's 49,315 a day. 2055 an hour. That's more boats than probably exist. " It's not my figure, that is from another poster. My post was about how tricky predicting numbers can be and showed an example of what was once considered to be unthinkable becoming reality. Of course it can unpredictable the other way too and some may predict a big drop in the overall numbers. | |||
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) | |||
"Organised boat crossings. Did you see the bbc video. A child got squashed and died. Why are they fleeing, conflict, war... You be the same if your home was crumbled by Russia or Ukraine. " There are differences between genuine refugees and these people who are crossing by boat. The demographics are completely different, genuine refugees from war are generally women and children (look at the Ukrainian refugees we took). These people are generally young fit men who are economic migrants. The girl who died was there with her family but they were the exception on that boat. Her father had applied for asylum multiple times in Europe and been rejected because his case was weak. Apparently he had "upset some militia" in Iraq a long time ago. The people who squashed her were young men from Sudan. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Organised boat crossings. Did you see the bbc video. A child got squashed and died. Why are they fleeing, conflict, war... You be the same if your home was crumbled by Russia or Ukraine. There are differences between genuine refugees and these people who are crossing by boat. The demographics are completely different, genuine refugees from war are generally women and children (look at the Ukrainian refugees we took). These people are generally young fit men who are economic migrants. The girl who died was there with her family but they were the exception on that boat. Her father had applied for asylum multiple times in Europe and been rejected because his case was weak. Apparently he had "upset some militia" in Iraq a long time ago. The people who squashed her were young men from Sudan." In a sane world these tragic deaths would force the French authorities to act on safety grounds alone. The fact they turn a blind eye tells you all you need to know about their resolve to stop illegal channel crossings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Organised boat crossings. Did you see the bbc video. A child got squashed and died. Why are they fleeing, conflict, war... You be the same if your home was crumbled by Russia or Ukraine. " i wouldn’t be the same yes I’d flee war for my kids but I wouldn’t risk there lives crossing the channel If I was already in a safe country it doesn’t make sence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are differences between genuine refugees and these people who are crossing by boat. The demographics are completely different, genuine refugees from war are generally women and children ..." Running away from war is not an acceptable reason for claiming asylum. The 1951 Convention states that a refugee is someone that has a "well-founded fear of persecution", e.g. Jews running from Nazi Germany, or the wrong side in an ethnic cleansing campaign. Given that young men are much more likely to rebel against authority and say things without thinking it through, they are exactly the sort of people that you would expect as genuine refugees. Of course, they are also exactly the sort that you would expect as economic migrants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are differences between genuine refugees and these people who are crossing by boat. The demographics are completely different, genuine refugees from war are generally women and children ... Running away from war is not an acceptable reason for claiming asylum. The 1951 Convention states that a refugee is someone that has a "well-founded fear of persecution", e.g. Jews running from Nazi Germany, or the wrong side in an ethnic cleansing campaign. Given that young men are much more likely to rebel against authority and say things without thinking it through, they are exactly the sort of people that you would expect as genuine refugees. Of course, they are also exactly the sort that you would expect as economic migrants." Does that mean someone who commits a horrible r*pe/murder in India where there is still death penalty for certain extreme violent cases can go to Europe and ask for asylum on grounds that he is persecuted? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are differences between genuine refugees and these people who are crossing by boat. The demographics are completely different, genuine refugees from war are generally women and children ... Running away from war is not an acceptable reason for claiming asylum. The 1951 Convention states that a refugee is someone that has a "well-founded fear of persecution", e.g. Jews running from Nazi Germany, or the wrong side in an ethnic cleansing campaign. Given that young men are much more likely to rebel against authority and say things without thinking it through, they are exactly the sort of people that you would expect as genuine refugees. Of course, they are also exactly the sort that you would expect as economic migrants. Does that mean someone who commits a horrible r*pe/murder in India where there is still death penalty for certain extreme violent cases can go to Europe and ask for asylum on grounds that he is persecuted?" in that case I’d send them back to face the punishment in India | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Running away from war is not an acceptable reason for claiming asylum. The 1951 Convention states that a refugee is someone that has a "well-founded fear of persecution", e.g. Jews running from Nazi Germany, or the wrong side in an ethnic cleansing campaign." "Does that mean someone who commits a horrible r*pe/murder in India where there is still death penalty for certain extreme violent cases can go to Europe and ask for asylum on grounds that he is persecuted?" No. That wouldn't be persecution based on the grounds of who he is, that would be a valid punishment for a convicted criminal. He wouldn't be granted asylum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are differences between genuine refugees and these people who are crossing by boat. The demographics are completely different, genuine refugees from war are generally women and children ... Running away from war is not an acceptable reason for claiming asylum. The 1951 Convention states that a refugee is someone that has a "well-founded fear of persecution", e.g. Jews running from Nazi Germany, or the wrong side in an ethnic cleansing campaign. Given that young men are much more likely to rebel against authority and say things without thinking it through, they are exactly the sort of people that you would expect as genuine refugees. Of course, they are also exactly the sort that you would expect as economic migrants." I agree I didn't make the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker clear. Asylum was designed a a protection of last resort for a few people. Not as a means to window shop for a new country because it might be slightly better than your country of origin. One of the "asylum seekers" in Dublin was apparently there because he had an extra marital affair in Jordan and someone threatened to kill him. So, think with your dick not your head then expect others to get you out of the mess you created. Totally crazy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are differences between genuine refugees and these people who are crossing by boat. The demographics are completely different, genuine refugees from war are generally women and children ... Running away from war is not an acceptable reason for claiming asylum. The 1951 Convention states that a refugee is someone that has a "well-founded fear of persecution", e.g. Jews running from Nazi Germany, or the wrong side in an ethnic cleansing campaign. Given that young men are much more likely to rebel against authority and say things without thinking it through, they are exactly the sort of people that you would expect as genuine refugees. Of course, they are also exactly the sort that you would expect as economic migrants. I agree I didn't make the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker clear. Asylum was designed a a protection of last resort for a few people. Not as a means to window shop for a new country because it might be slightly better than your country of origin. One of the "asylum seekers" in Dublin was apparently there because he had an extra marital affair in Jordan and someone threatened to kill him. So, think with your dick not your head then expect others to get you out of the mess you created. Totally crazy." Talking of Ireland, muslim refugee taken in beheaded two gay men there. I mean according to our politically correct head-in-sand citizens what could possibly go wrong letting millions of muslims stream into liberal western societies? Am I the only one here with balls to say it? I grew up in East London and trust me it is frightening the islamic extremists we have rooting themselves in here. Wakey wakey… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are differences between genuine refugees and these people who are crossing by boat. The demographics are completely different, genuine refugees from war are generally women and children ... Running away from war is not an acceptable reason for claiming asylum. The 1951 Convention states that a refugee is someone that has a "well-founded fear of persecution", e.g. Jews running from Nazi Germany, or the wrong side in an ethnic cleansing campaign. Given that young men are much more likely to rebel against authority and say things without thinking it through, they are exactly the sort of people that you would expect as genuine refugees. Of course, they are also exactly the sort that you would expect as economic migrants. I agree I didn't make the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker clear. Asylum was designed a a protection of last resort for a few people. Not as a means to window shop for a new country because it might be slightly better than your country of origin. One of the "asylum seekers" in Dublin was apparently there because he had an extra marital affair in Jordan and someone threatened to kill him. So, think with your dick not your head then expect others to get you out of the mess you created. Totally crazy. Talking of Ireland, muslim refugee taken in beheaded two gay men there. I mean according to our politically correct head-in-sand citizens what could possibly go wrong letting millions of muslims stream into liberal western societies? Am I the only one here with balls to say it? I grew up in East London and trust me it is frightening the islamic extremists we have rooting themselves in here. Wakey wakey…" horrific crime. And I suspect rooted in religion not matching ones sexuality. But added context. He was six when he came over. Guardia say no signs of radicalisation. Homophobic attacks are not the preserve of Muslims. (Which while may sound a bit what if, as part of the community I don't have greater concerns about Muslims as I do others. My personal view is that these cases are used to discuss homophobia at large rather than as only part of the migration issues) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are differences between genuine refugees and these people who are crossing by boat. The demographics are completely different, genuine refugees from war are generally women and children ... Running away from war is not an acceptable reason for claiming asylum. The 1951 Convention states that a refugee is someone that has a "well-founded fear of persecution", e.g. Jews running from Nazi Germany, or the wrong side in an ethnic cleansing campaign. Given that young men are much more likely to rebel against authority and say things without thinking it through, they are exactly the sort of people that you would expect as genuine refugees. Of course, they are also exactly the sort that you would expect as economic migrants. I agree I didn't make the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker clear. Asylum was designed a a protection of last resort for a few people. Not as a means to window shop for a new country because it might be slightly better than your country of origin. One of the "asylum seekers" in Dublin was apparently there because he had an extra marital affair in Jordan and someone threatened to kill him. So, think with your dick not your head then expect others to get you out of the mess you created. Totally crazy. Talking of Ireland, muslim refugee taken in beheaded two gay men there. I mean according to our politically correct head-in-sand citizens what could possibly go wrong letting millions of muslims stream into liberal western societies? Am I the only one here with balls to say it? I grew up in East London and trust me it is frightening the islamic extremists we have rooting themselves in here. Wakey wakey…" No, I think you're wrong. There are a lot of people who are prejudice against Muslims. You see it all the time on these forums. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are differences between genuine refugees and these people who are crossing by boat. The demographics are completely different, genuine refugees from war are generally women and children ... Running away from war is not an acceptable reason for claiming asylum. The 1951 Convention states that a refugee is someone that has a "well-founded fear of persecution", e.g. Jews running from Nazi Germany, or the wrong side in an ethnic cleansing campaign. Given that young men are much more likely to rebel against authority and say things without thinking it through, they are exactly the sort of people that you would expect as genuine refugees. Of course, they are also exactly the sort that you would expect as economic migrants. I agree I didn't make the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker clear. Asylum was designed a a protection of last resort for a few people. Not as a means to window shop for a new country because it might be slightly better than your country of origin. One of the "asylum seekers" in Dublin was apparently there because he had an extra marital affair in Jordan and someone threatened to kill him. So, think with your dick not your head then expect others to get you out of the mess you created. Totally crazy. Talking of Ireland, muslim refugee taken in beheaded two gay men there. I mean according to our politically correct head-in-sand citizens what could possibly go wrong letting millions of muslims stream into liberal western societies? Am I the only one here with balls to say it? I grew up in East London and trust me it is frightening the islamic extremists we have rooting themselves in here. Wakey wakey… No, I think you're wrong. There are a lot of people who are prejudice against Muslims. You see it all the time on these forums. " I think most the prejudice is against Islamic extremism not Muslims | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The whole point about this is is it possible for this to continue unabated forever? There also comes a point about fairness; is it right that someone who applies legally and is rejected only to see others flouting the system and being allowed to stay. Someone I know married their partner who was from South America. They've been married over 18 months; she's had to come over to the UK see the Home Office etc. Still so many hoops to jump through even though she's a qualified teacher! Notwithstanding the danger; it would have been quicker, easier, cheaper just to cross over from Calais. Ok a bit tongue in cheek; but you get the point. Hopefully the case will be resolved (taking the politics out of it, government, home office etc). The point is we need a fair, credible and sustainable system in place. " That's exactly the point! Channel hoppers are skewing the debate on all immigration, and also making it tough for genuine asylum seekers. Finally what happened to democracy? The overwhelming majority of UK citizens are opposed to people smuggling activities - so why do we still tolerate it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The whole point about this is is it possible for this to continue unabated forever? There also comes a point about fairness; is it right that someone who applies legally and is rejected only to see others flouting the system and being allowed to stay. Someone I know married their partner who was from South America. They've been married over 18 months; she's had to come over to the UK see the Home Office etc. Still so many hoops to jump through even though she's a qualified teacher! Notwithstanding the danger; it would have been quicker, easier, cheaper just to cross over from Calais. Ok a bit tongue in cheek; but you get the point. Hopefully the case will be resolved (taking the politics out of it, government, home office etc). The point is we need a fair, credible and sustainable system in place. That's exactly the point! Channel hoppers are skewing the debate on all immigration, and also making it tough for genuine asylum seekers. Finally what happened to democracy? The overwhelming majority of UK citizens are opposed to people smuggling activities - so why do we still tolerate it?" because anyone who dares to speak about this ends up been labelled far right or worse the R word | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The whole point about this is is it possible for this to continue unabated forever? There also comes a point about fairness; is it right that someone who applies legally and is rejected only to see others flouting the system and being allowed to stay. Someone I know married their partner who was from South America. They've been married over 18 months; she's had to come over to the UK see the Home Office etc. Still so many hoops to jump through even though she's a qualified teacher! Notwithstanding the danger; it would have been quicker, easier, cheaper just to cross over from Calais. Ok a bit tongue in cheek; but you get the point. Hopefully the case will be resolved (taking the politics out of it, government, home office etc). The point is we need a fair, credible and sustainable system in place. That's exactly the point! Channel hoppers are skewing the debate on all immigration, and also making it tough for genuine asylum seekers. Finally what happened to democracy? The overwhelming majority of UK citizens are opposed to people smuggling activities - so why do we still tolerate it?" there will be genuine asylum seekers in the crossing. I'd estimate 50pc although it's hard to guage given how many are still unresolved. It's probably closer to 60/70pc if I seek to remove Alabians (which we have sought to address and iirc has been fairly successful. Kudos to HMG here). That's about the same rate as all applications. (All based on crunching home office data in my lunch break. And data is limited by the fact we have barely processed any cases arriving in the last few years.) Other fun fact. It looks like maybe 1pc of applications cite sexuality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The whole point about this is is it possible for this to continue unabated forever? There also comes a point about fairness; is it right that someone who applies legally and is rejected only to see others flouting the system and being allowed to stay. Someone I know married their partner who was from South America. They've been married over 18 months; she's had to come over to the UK see the Home Office etc. Still so many hoops to jump through even though she's a qualified teacher! Notwithstanding the danger; it would have been quicker, easier, cheaper just to cross over from Calais. Ok a bit tongue in cheek; but you get the point. Hopefully the case will be resolved (taking the politics out of it, government, home office etc). The point is we need a fair, credible and sustainable system in place. That's exactly the point! Channel hoppers are skewing the debate on all immigration, and also making it tough for genuine asylum seekers. Finally what happened to democracy? The overwhelming majority of UK citizens are opposed to people smuggling activities - so why do we still tolerate it?there will be genuine asylum seekers in the crossing. I'd estimate 50pc although it's hard to guage given how many are still unresolved. It's probably closer to 60/70pc if I seek to remove Alabians (which we have sought to address and iirc has been fairly successful. Kudos to HMG here). That's about the same rate as all applications. (All based on crunching home office data in my lunch break. And data is limited by the fact we have barely processed any cases arriving in the last few years.) Other fun fact. It looks like maybe 1pc of applications cite sexuality. " What we really need is some very strict rules on what would be considered 'valid asylum reasons'. Then to agree that anyone who cannot verify their country of origin, reason for claim, and 'why they chose the UK' Should be automatically rejected. That should allow us to actually process people in genuine need. Not only that, we should have strict rules on length of 'approval' and these should be revisited every year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The whole point about this is is it possible for this to continue unabated forever? There also comes a point about fairness; is it right that someone who applies legally and is rejected only to see others flouting the system and being allowed to stay. Someone I know married their partner who was from South America. They've been married over 18 months; she's had to come over to the UK see the Home Office etc. Still so many hoops to jump through even though she's a qualified teacher! Notwithstanding the danger; it would have been quicker, easier, cheaper just to cross over from Calais. Ok a bit tongue in cheek; but you get the point. Hopefully the case will be resolved (taking the politics out of it, government, home office etc). The point is we need a fair, credible and sustainable system in place. That's exactly the point! Channel hoppers are skewing the debate on all immigration, and also making it tough for genuine asylum seekers. Finally what happened to democracy? The overwhelming majority of UK citizens are opposed to people smuggling activities - so why do we still tolerate it?there will be genuine asylum seekers in the crossing. I'd estimate 50pc although it's hard to guage given how many are still unresolved. It's probably closer to 60/70pc if I seek to remove Alabians (which we have sought to address and iirc has been fairly successful. Kudos to HMG here). That's about the same rate as all applications. (All based on crunching home office data in my lunch break. And data is limited by the fact we have barely processed any cases arriving in the last few years.) Other fun fact. It looks like maybe 1pc of applications cite sexuality. What we really need is some very strict rules on what would be considered 'valid asylum reasons'. Then to agree that anyone who cannot verify their country of origin, reason for claim, and 'why they chose the UK' Should be automatically rejected. That should allow us to actually process people in genuine need. Not only that, we should have strict rules on length of 'approval' and these should be revisited every year. " I stand behind previous claims it should be easy to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt if someone says they come from a certain place. Not just language and accents. But local knowledge. I bet most people.fould describe how to get to their nearest school from their home address. (As an example of something). Proving a reason is harder. But irrc a old labour policy was to almost have degrees of proof needed based on your country or area of origin. But I would agree with and welcome we idea we probably can do the reviewing smarter. After all, we have just waived thousands through off the back of a questionnaire! When there's political will, there's a way ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The whole point about this is is it possible for this to continue unabated forever? There also comes a point about fairness; is it right that someone who applies legally and is rejected only to see others flouting the system and being allowed to stay. Someone I know married their partner who was from South America. They've been married over 18 months; she's had to come over to the UK see the Home Office etc. Still so many hoops to jump through even though she's a qualified teacher! Notwithstanding the danger; it would have been quicker, easier, cheaper just to cross over from Calais. Ok a bit tongue in cheek; but you get the point. Hopefully the case will be resolved (taking the politics out of it, government, home office etc). The point is we need a fair, credible and sustainable system in place. That's exactly the point! Channel hoppers are skewing the debate on all immigration, and also making it tough for genuine asylum seekers. Finally what happened to democracy? The overwhelming majority of UK citizens are opposed to people smuggling activities - so why do we still tolerate it?there will be genuine asylum seekers in the crossing. I'd estimate 50pc although it's hard to guage given how many are still unresolved. It's probably closer to 60/70pc if I seek to remove Alabians (which we have sought to address and iirc has been fairly successful. Kudos to HMG here). That's about the same rate as all applications. (All based on crunching home office data in my lunch break. And data is limited by the fact we have barely processed any cases arriving in the last few years.) Other fun fact. It looks like maybe 1pc of applications cite sexuality. What we really need is some very strict rules on what would be considered 'valid asylum reasons'. Then to agree that anyone who cannot verify their country of origin, reason for claim, and 'why they chose the UK' Should be automatically rejected. That should allow us to actually process people in genuine need. Not only that, we should have strict rules on length of 'approval' and these should be revisited every year. I stand behind previous claims it should be easy to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt if someone says they come from a certain place. Not just language and accents. But local knowledge. I bet most people.fould describe how to get to their nearest school from their home address. (As an example of something). Proving a reason is harder. But irrc a old labour policy was to almost have degrees of proof needed based on your country or area of origin. But I would agree with and welcome we idea we probably can do the reviewing smarter. After all, we have just waived thousands through off the back of a questionnaire! When there's political will, there's a way !" The burden of proof should lie with the claimant, not the recipient. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The illegal arrivals just show the the overall scale of immigration is speeding up. Stopped caring at this point as hopfull a nice global war will balance things out." Wars contribute to the displacement of people, leading to more people looking for a country to live in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The whole point about this is is it possible for this to continue unabated forever? There also comes a point about fairness; is it right that someone who applies legally and is rejected only to see others flouting the system and being allowed to stay. Someone I know married their partner who was from South America. They've been married over 18 months; she's had to come over to the UK see the Home Office etc. Still so many hoops to jump through even though she's a qualified teacher! Notwithstanding the danger; it would have been quicker, easier, cheaper just to cross over from Calais. Ok a bit tongue in cheek; but you get the point. Hopefully the case will be resolved (taking the politics out of it, government, home office etc). The point is we need a fair, credible and sustainable system in place. That's exactly the point! Channel hoppers are skewing the debate on all immigration, and also making it tough for genuine asylum seekers. Finally what happened to democracy? The overwhelming majority of UK citizens are opposed to people smuggling activities - so why do we still tolerate it?there will be genuine asylum seekers in the crossing. I'd estimate 50pc although it's hard to guage given how many are still unresolved. It's probably closer to 60/70pc if I seek to remove Alabians (which we have sought to address and iirc has been fairly successful. Kudos to HMG here). That's about the same rate as all applications. (All based on crunching home office data in my lunch break. And data is limited by the fact we have barely processed any cases arriving in the last few years.) Other fun fact. It looks like maybe 1pc of applications cite sexuality. What we really need is some very strict rules on what would be considered 'valid asylum reasons'. Then to agree that anyone who cannot verify their country of origin, reason for claim, and 'why they chose the UK' Should be automatically rejected. That should allow us to actually process people in genuine need. Not only that, we should have strict rules on length of 'approval' and these should be revisited every year. I stand behind previous claims it should be easy to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt if someone says they come from a certain place. Not just language and accents. But local knowledge. I bet most people.fould describe how to get to their nearest school from their home address. (As an example of something). Proving a reason is harder. But irrc a old labour policy was to almost have degrees of proof needed based on your country or area of origin. But I would agree with and welcome we idea we probably can do the reviewing smarter. After all, we have just waived thousands through off the back of a questionnaire! When there's political will, there's a way ! The burden of proof should lie with the claimant, not the recipient." imo, difficult. As an analogy, how do you show you are being emotionally abused by a partner? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The whole point about this is is it possible for this to continue unabated forever? There also comes a point about fairness; is it right that someone who applies legally and is rejected only to see others flouting the system and being allowed to stay. Someone I know married their partner who was from South America. They've been married over 18 months; she's had to come over to the UK see the Home Office etc. Still so many hoops to jump through even though she's a qualified teacher! Notwithstanding the danger; it would have been quicker, easier, cheaper just to cross over from Calais. Ok a bit tongue in cheek; but you get the point. Hopefully the case will be resolved (taking the politics out of it, government, home office etc). The point is we need a fair, credible and sustainable system in place. That's exactly the point! Channel hoppers are skewing the debate on all immigration, and also making it tough for genuine asylum seekers. Finally what happened to democracy? The overwhelming majority of UK citizens are opposed to people smuggling activities - so why do we still tolerate it?there will be genuine asylum seekers in the crossing. I'd estimate 50pc although it's hard to guage given how many are still unresolved. It's probably closer to 60/70pc if I seek to remove Alabians (which we have sought to address and iirc has been fairly successful. Kudos to HMG here). That's about the same rate as all applications. (All based on crunching home office data in my lunch break. And data is limited by the fact we have barely processed any cases arriving in the last few years.) Other fun fact. It looks like maybe 1pc of applications cite sexuality. What we really need is some very strict rules on what would be considered 'valid asylum reasons'. Then to agree that anyone who cannot verify their country of origin, reason for claim, and 'why they chose the UK' Should be automatically rejected. That should allow us to actually process people in genuine need. Not only that, we should have strict rules on length of 'approval' and these should be revisited every year. I stand behind previous claims it should be easy to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt if someone says they come from a certain place. Not just language and accents. But local knowledge. I bet most people.fould describe how to get to their nearest school from their home address. (As an example of something). Proving a reason is harder. But irrc a old labour policy was to almost have degrees of proof needed based on your country or area of origin. But I would agree with and welcome we idea we probably can do the reviewing smarter. After all, we have just waived thousands through off the back of a questionnaire! When there's political will, there's a way ! The burden of proof should lie with the claimant, not the recipient.imo, difficult. As an analogy, how do you show you are being emotionally abused by a partner? " Emotional abuse from a partner? Why would you need to flee to another country to escape that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The whole point about this is is it possible for this to continue unabated forever? There also comes a point about fairness; is it right that someone who applies legally and is rejected only to see others flouting the system and being allowed to stay. Someone I know married their partner who was from South America. They've been married over 18 months; she's had to come over to the UK see the Home Office etc. Still so many hoops to jump through even though she's a qualified teacher! Notwithstanding the danger; it would have been quicker, easier, cheaper just to cross over from Calais. Ok a bit tongue in cheek; but you get the point. Hopefully the case will be resolved (taking the politics out of it, government, home office etc). The point is we need a fair, credible and sustainable system in place. That's exactly the point! Channel hoppers are skewing the debate on all immigration, and also making it tough for genuine asylum seekers. Finally what happened to democracy? The overwhelming majority of UK citizens are opposed to people smuggling activities - so why do we still tolerate it?there will be genuine asylum seekers in the crossing. I'd estimate 50pc although it's hard to guage given how many are still unresolved. It's probably closer to 60/70pc if I seek to remove Alabians (which we have sought to address and iirc has been fairly successful. Kudos to HMG here). That's about the same rate as all applications. (All based on crunching home office data in my lunch break. And data is limited by the fact we have barely processed any cases arriving in the last few years.) Other fun fact. It looks like maybe 1pc of applications cite sexuality. What we really need is some very strict rules on what would be considered 'valid asylum reasons'. Then to agree that anyone who cannot verify their country of origin, reason for claim, and 'why they chose the UK' Should be automatically rejected. That should allow us to actually process people in genuine need. Not only that, we should have strict rules on length of 'approval' and these should be revisited every year. I stand behind previous claims it should be easy to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt if someone says they come from a certain place. Not just language and accents. But local knowledge. I bet most people.fould describe how to get to their nearest school from their home address. (As an example of something). Proving a reason is harder. But irrc a old labour policy was to almost have degrees of proof needed based on your country or area of origin. But I would agree with and welcome we idea we probably can do the reviewing smarter. After all, we have just waived thousands through off the back of a questionnaire! When there's political will, there's a way ! The burden of proof should lie with the claimant, not the recipient.imo, difficult. As an analogy, how do you show you are being emotionally abused by a partner? Emotional abuse from a partner? Why would you need to flee to another country to escape that?" it's an analogy to show how demonstrating something can be difficult. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The whole point about this is is it possible for this to continue unabated forever? There also comes a point about fairness; is it right that someone who applies legally and is rejected only to see others flouting the system and being allowed to stay. Someone I know married their partner who was from South America. They've been married over 18 months; she's had to come over to the UK see the Home Office etc. Still so many hoops to jump through even though she's a qualified teacher! Notwithstanding the danger; it would have been quicker, easier, cheaper just to cross over from Calais. Ok a bit tongue in cheek; but you get the point. Hopefully the case will be resolved (taking the politics out of it, government, home office etc). The point is we need a fair, credible and sustainable system in place. That's exactly the point! Channel hoppers are skewing the debate on all immigration, and also making it tough for genuine asylum seekers. Finally what happened to democracy? The overwhelming majority of UK citizens are opposed to people smuggling activities - so why do we still tolerate it?there will be genuine asylum seekers in the crossing. I'd estimate 50pc although it's hard to guage given how many are still unresolved. It's probably closer to 60/70pc if I seek to remove Alabians (which we have sought to address and iirc has been fairly successful. Kudos to HMG here). That's about the same rate as all applications. (All based on crunching home office data in my lunch break. And data is limited by the fact we have barely processed any cases arriving in the last few years.) Other fun fact. It looks like maybe 1pc of applications cite sexuality. What we really need is some very strict rules on what would be considered 'valid asylum reasons'. Then to agree that anyone who cannot verify their country of origin, reason for claim, and 'why they chose the UK' Should be automatically rejected. That should allow us to actually process people in genuine need. Not only that, we should have strict rules on length of 'approval' and these should be revisited every year. I stand behind previous claims it should be easy to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt if someone says they come from a certain place. Not just language and accents. But local knowledge. I bet most people.fould describe how to get to their nearest school from their home address. (As an example of something). Proving a reason is harder. But irrc a old labour policy was to almost have degrees of proof needed based on your country or area of origin. But I would agree with and welcome we idea we probably can do the reviewing smarter. After all, we have just waived thousands through off the back of a questionnaire! When there's political will, there's a way ! The burden of proof should lie with the claimant, not the recipient.imo, difficult. As an analogy, how do you show you are being emotionally abused by a partner? Emotional abuse from a partner? Why would you need to flee to another country to escape that?it's an analogy to show how demonstrating something can be difficult. " I'm afraid it's not a very good one mate. If you're genuinely fleeing persecution, it should be easy enough to prove that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The whole point about this is is it possible for this to continue unabated forever? There also comes a point about fairness; is it right that someone who applies legally and is rejected only to see others flouting the system and being allowed to stay. Someone I know married their partner who was from South America. They've been married over 18 months; she's had to come over to the UK see the Home Office etc. Still so many hoops to jump through even though she's a qualified teacher! Notwithstanding the danger; it would have been quicker, easier, cheaper just to cross over from Calais. Ok a bit tongue in cheek; but you get the point. Hopefully the case will be resolved (taking the politics out of it, government, home office etc). The point is we need a fair, credible and sustainable system in place. That's exactly the point! Channel hoppers are skewing the debate on all immigration, and also making it tough for genuine asylum seekers. Finally what happened to democracy? The overwhelming majority of UK citizens are opposed to people smuggling activities - so why do we still tolerate it?there will be genuine asylum seekers in the crossing. I'd estimate 50pc although it's hard to guage given how many are still unresolved. It's probably closer to 60/70pc if I seek to remove Alabians (which we have sought to address and iirc has been fairly successful. Kudos to HMG here). That's about the same rate as all applications. (All based on crunching home office data in my lunch break. And data is limited by the fact we have barely processed any cases arriving in the last few years.) Other fun fact. It looks like maybe 1pc of applications cite sexuality. What we really need is some very strict rules on what would be considered 'valid asylum reasons'. Then to agree that anyone who cannot verify their country of origin, reason for claim, and 'why they chose the UK' Should be automatically rejected. That should allow us to actually process people in genuine need. Not only that, we should have strict rules on length of 'approval' and these should be revisited every year. I stand behind previous claims it should be easy to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt if someone says they come from a certain place. Not just language and accents. But local knowledge. I bet most people.fould describe how to get to their nearest school from their home address. (As an example of something). Proving a reason is harder. But irrc a old labour policy was to almost have degrees of proof needed based on your country or area of origin. But I would agree with and welcome we idea we probably can do the reviewing smarter. After all, we have just waived thousands through off the back of a questionnaire! When there's political will, there's a way ! The burden of proof should lie with the claimant, not the recipient.imo, difficult. As an analogy, how do you show you are being emotionally abused by a partner? Emotional abuse from a partner? Why would you need to flee to another country to escape that?it's an analogy to show how demonstrating something can be difficult. I'm afraid it's not a very good one mate. If you're genuinely fleeing persecution, it should be easy enough to prove that. " I disagree. Not sure what proof I'd be bringing unless I had physical injuries and the like. But if I feared persecution (say I'm gay and living in certain countries ) what evidence can I bring? Or do I have to come out, get beaten, and then come over? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Running away from war is not an acceptable reason for claiming asylum. The 1951 Convention states that a refugee is someone that has a "well-founded fear of persecution", e.g. Jews running from Nazi Germany, or the wrong side in an ethnic cleansing campaign. Does that mean someone who commits a horrible r*pe/murder in India where there is still death penalty for certain extreme violent cases can go to Europe and ask for asylum on grounds that he is persecuted? No. That wouldn't be persecution based on the grounds of who he is, that would be a valid punishment for a convicted criminal. He wouldn't be granted asylum." But then you mentioned this about young people " Given that young men are much more likely to rebel against authority and say things without thinking it through, they are exactly the sort of people that you would expect as genuine refugees. " Isn't this more of an action they did than what they are? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The whole point about this is is it possible for this to continue unabated forever? There also comes a point about fairness; is it right that someone who applies legally and is rejected only to see others flouting the system and being allowed to stay. Someone I know married their partner who was from South America. They've been married over 18 months; she's had to come over to the UK see the Home Office etc. Still so many hoops to jump through even though she's a qualified teacher! Notwithstanding the danger; it would have been quicker, easier, cheaper just to cross over from Calais. Ok a bit tongue in cheek; but you get the point. Hopefully the case will be resolved (taking the politics out of it, government, home office etc). The point is we need a fair, credible and sustainable system in place. That's exactly the point! Channel hoppers are skewing the debate on all immigration, and also making it tough for genuine asylum seekers. Finally what happened to democracy? The overwhelming majority of UK citizens are opposed to people smuggling activities - so why do we still tolerate it?there will be genuine asylum seekers in the crossing. I'd estimate 50pc although it's hard to guage given how many are still unresolved. It's probably closer to 60/70pc if I seek to remove Alabians (which we have sought to address and iirc has been fairly successful. Kudos to HMG here). That's about the same rate as all applications. (All based on crunching home office data in my lunch break. And data is limited by the fact we have barely processed any cases arriving in the last few years.) Other fun fact. It looks like maybe 1pc of applications cite sexuality. What we really need is some very strict rules on what would be considered 'valid asylum reasons'. Then to agree that anyone who cannot verify their country of origin, reason for claim, and 'why they chose the UK' Should be automatically rejected. That should allow us to actually process people in genuine need. Not only that, we should have strict rules on length of 'approval' and these should be revisited every year. I stand behind previous claims it should be easy to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt if someone says they come from a certain place. Not just language and accents. But local knowledge. I bet most people.fould describe how to get to their nearest school from their home address. (As an example of something). Proving a reason is harder. But irrc a old labour policy was to almost have degrees of proof needed based on your country or area of origin. But I would agree with and welcome we idea we probably can do the reviewing smarter. After all, we have just waived thousands through off the back of a questionnaire! When there's political will, there's a way ! The burden of proof should lie with the claimant, not the recipient.imo, difficult. As an analogy, how do you show you are being emotionally abused by a partner? Emotional abuse from a partner? Why would you need to flee to another country to escape that?it's an analogy to show how demonstrating something can be difficult. I'm afraid it's not a very good one mate. If you're genuinely fleeing persecution, it should be easy enough to prove that. " Agree with you, poor analogy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. Thing is, we just don't know. It’s almost as if the government finds it useful to have a backlog of asylum seekers." Some people to demonise when they get caught either figuratively or literally with their trousers down. It’s common practice isn’t it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. Thing is, we just don't know. It’s almost as if the government finds it useful to have a backlog of asylum seekers. Some people to demonise when they get caught either figuratively or literally with their trousers down. It’s common practice isn’t it!" All this topic has ever done is show up government incompetence in one failed scheme after another. It's been like it for many years and is a thorn in the side of the government of the day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. Thing is, we just don't know. It’s almost as if the government finds it useful to have a backlog of asylum seekers. Some people to demonise when they get caught either figuratively or literally with their trousers down. It’s common practice isn’t it! All this topic has ever done is show up government incompetence in one failed scheme after another. It's been like it for many years and is a thorn in the side of the government of the day. " Totally agree and to add the government(s) have access to the best lawyers so if they can’t sort it, nobody can Labour a surety by Christmas and they already show a weaker stance on this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will continue whatever the government. 7,000 already this year What do you think they're getting here Tom? They receive £49.18pwk, people are told they can't work if they want to until their claim is processed, and they're placed in temp accommodation not long-term. The land of milk and honey it is not So £50 a week is £2600 a year And the 7000 who arrived this year is £18.2 million. And free accomodation and food. That would fix a lot of potholes Do you think filling in potholes is more important than saving lives, Tom? Albanian criminals need their lives saving? Who's after them, the Police (doubtful). If we condone illegal people smuggling, what else do we turn a blind eye to? So every asylum seeker is an Albanian criminal? If you saw a man drowning would you throw him a life buoy or not bother and let him drown, because he might be an Albanian criminal? If criminals were burgling your house every night of the week for 8 years, you might be minded to take some action, no? Does that mean you would let the man drown or not? I wouldn't let any man (nor woman) drown, but then I wouldn't sit on my hands whilst they burgled my house either. So the most important thing is to first save a life and then deal with anything else that might happen later? In the immediacy of drowning yes, but that's not the situation is it? We are faced with gangs of criminals engaged in the smuggling of economic migrants. As other posters have pointed out, it's no good moaning about underfunded roads, healthcare, schools etc etc when we have to house, feed and legally represent illegal migrants. Remember many of your fellow citizens can ill afford the taxes they must pay for all this. The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. Thing is, we just don't know. It’s almost as if the government finds it useful to have a backlog of asylum seekers. Some people to demonise when they get caught either figuratively or literally with their trousers down. It’s common practice isn’t it! All this topic has ever done is show up government incompetence in one failed scheme after another. It's been like it for many years and is a thorn in the side of the government of the day. Totally agree and to add the government(s) have access to the best lawyers so if they can’t sort it, nobody can Labour a surety by Christmas and they already show a weaker stance on this. " That's the depressing bit. We need to be much firmer. Criminals with machetes fighting the Police is totally unacceptable, particularly when the end outcome is the death of a poor innocent 7 year old girl. What sort of people knowingly crush a young girl under foot to take an illegal opportunity to leave France which is safe? As for those who want a processing centre in France - it will not work. The girl's father was in Europe for 14 years, had 4 children, was denied asylum in two countries in the EU and still decided to cross the channel to attempt a third asylum claim in the UK. Sweden is in the EU, so how is it they can deport people even with a child born in EU, yet we struggle to return anyone? It wouldn't be the lefty blob /legal aid largesse that thinks it's in charge, would it? They've been at it again today, trying to stop a coach taking criminals to the Bibby barge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sweden is in the EU, so how is it they can deport people even with a child born in EU, yet we struggle to return anyone?" Because we have the strange idea that if you are born in the UK, you automatically become British. Most other countries don't think that way, and they insist that at least one of your parents must be a citizen for you to claim citizenship. If you are born in Sweden to (say) Syrian parents, then the Swedish state consideres you to be Syrian, not Swedish, and therefore liable to deportation, no matter how long you might have lived there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sweden is in the EU, so how is it they can deport people even with a child born in EU, yet we struggle to return anyone? Because we have the strange idea that if you are born in the UK, you automatically become British. Most other countries don't think that way, and they insist that at least one of your parents must be a citizen for you to claim citizenship. If you are born in Sweden to (say) Syrian parents, then the Swedish state consideres you to be Syrian, not Swedish, and therefore liable to deportation, no matter how long you might have lived there." I don't think that's quite right? One of the parents must be a UK citizen, or the parent must have settled status? In the US a baby born on their soil automatically is granted US citizenship I believe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes." The system means they keep applying until the answer the right questions. Saying they've converted to Christianity etc etc. They are told what to say to get round the system. You might be fooled by it but I'm not. They are abusing an outdated system. They are leaving safe countries because they want to come here. The case of the poor girl. He was in Swedish but they turned his claim down so wanted to come here as we would have said yes. Tragic but just an example of the broken system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sweden is in the EU, so how is it they can deport people even with a child born in EU, yet we struggle to return anyone? Because we have the strange idea that if you are born in the UK, you automatically become British. Most other countries don't think that way, and they insist that at least one of your parents must be a citizen for you to claim citizenship. If you are born in Sweden to (say) Syrian parents, then the Swedish state consideres you to be Syrian, not Swedish, and therefore liable to deportation, no matter how long you might have lived there." I didn't know that - thank you for the information! Another area where we must get firmer. Why are respective Governments so lily-livered? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. The system means they keep applying until the answer the right questions. Saying they've converted to Christianity etc etc. They are told what to say to get round the system. You might be fooled by it but I'm not. They are abusing an outdated system. They are leaving safe countries because they want to come here. The case of the poor girl. He was in Swedish but they turned his claim down so wanted to come here as we would have said yes. Tragic but just an example of the broken system." It's incredible how gullible and naive we are. They'll say they're gay, practicing Christians, 15 when they're in their 20s and 30s, have family here and so on. How come most of us know we're being taken for mugs by these criminals? No wonder many say they are running towards something, not running away. The rest of the world is laughing at our respective Governments for being so weak and inept. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. The system means they keep applying until the answer the right questions. Saying they've converted to Christianity etc etc. They are told what to say to get round the system. You might be fooled by it but I'm not. They are abusing an outdated system. They are leaving safe countries because they want to come here. The case of the poor girl. He was in Swedish but they turned his claim down so wanted to come here as we would have said yes. Tragic but just an example of the broken system. It's incredible how gullible and naive we are. They'll say they're gay, practicing Christians, 15 when they're in their 20s and 30s, have family here and so on. How come most of us know we're being taken for mugs by these criminals? No wonder many say they are running towards something, not running away. The rest of the world is laughing at our respective Governments for being so weak and inept. " The vast majority are opportunists coming for the benefits, free housing, free healthcare and free legal representation. Yes, we are mugs, paying taxes we can ill afford and with a second rate healthcare system, dilapidated schools and third world roads. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. The system means they keep applying until the answer the right questions. Saying they've converted to Christianity etc etc. They are told what to say to get round the system. You might be fooled by it but I'm not. They are abusing an outdated system. They are leaving safe countries because they want to come here. The case of the poor girl. He was in Swedish but they turned his claim down so wanted to come here as we would have said yes. Tragic but just an example of the broken system. It's incredible how gullible and naive we are. They'll say they're gay, practicing Christians, 15 when they're in their 20s and 30s, have family here and so on. How come most of us know we're being taken for mugs by these criminals? No wonder many say they are running towards something, not running away. The rest of the world is laughing at our respective Governments for being so weak and inept. The vast majority are opportunists coming for the benefits, free housing, free healthcare and free legal representation. Yes, we are mugs, paying taxes we can ill afford and with a second rate healthcare system, dilapidated schools and third world roads." this is a bit I struggle to square. people come from poor countries where 8k is a lot of spare cash to have (so presumably they are doing ok) just to live on benefits here and barely scrape by? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. The system means they keep applying until the answer the right questions. Saying they've converted to Christianity etc etc. They are told what to say to get round the system. You might be fooled by it but I'm not. They are abusing an outdated system. They are leaving safe countries because they want to come here. The case of the poor girl. He was in Swedish but they turned his claim down so wanted to come here as we would have said yes. Tragic but just an example of the broken system. It's incredible how gullible and naive we are. They'll say they're gay, practicing Christians, 15 when they're in their 20s and 30s, have family here and so on. How come most of us know we're being taken for mugs by these criminals? No wonder many say they are running towards something, not running away. The rest of the world is laughing at our respective Governments for being so weak and inept. " about 1pc have secuak orientation as part of their claim. I agree that we should do better at determining ages if people really struggle getting thru because of that. Tho I'm unclear if this is a uccessfuk ploy. And agree that we should be more cynical if someone becomes Christian after arriving. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. The system means they keep applying until the answer the right questions. Saying they've converted to Christianity etc etc. They are told what to say to get round the system. You might be fooled by it but I'm not. They are abusing an outdated system. They are leaving safe countries because they want to come here. The case of the poor girl. He was in Swedish but they turned his claim down so wanted to come here as we would have said yes. Tragic but just an example of the broken system. It's incredible how gullible and naive we are. They'll say they're gay, practicing Christians, 15 when they're in their 20s and 30s, have family here and so on. How come most of us know we're being taken for mugs by these criminals? No wonder many say they are running towards something, not running away. The rest of the world is laughing at our respective Governments for being so weak and inept. The vast majority are opportunists coming for the benefits, free housing, free healthcare and free legal representation. Yes, we are mugs, paying taxes we can ill afford and with a second rate healthcare system, dilapidated schools and third world roads.this is a bit I struggle to square. people come from poor countries where 8k is a lot of spare cash to have (so presumably they are doing ok) just to live on benefits here and barely scrape by? " The cost per asylum seeker to the UK taxpayer over 5 years is £150k. Even Warren Buffett couldn't get a £150k return on an 8k investment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The cost per asylum seeker to the UK taxpayer over 5 years is £150k. Even Warren Buffett couldn't get a £150k return on an 8k investment." This will be ignored, reality rarely gets a look in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thing is, we have all these people who are convinced that asylum seekers are economic migrants but the evidence shows 63% of applicants in the year to December 2023 were granted asylum, and of those whose applications are rejected 51% have them granted on appeal. If we were to apply that to Tom’s 7000 people, then 4,410 would be granted protection on their first attempt, a further 1.295 on appeal. That means 1,295 ish economic migrants over 4 months, into an economy that currently has over 900,000 job vacancies.this is where the issue with processing times causes issue. Those success rates can't be used with confidence on the current crossers as they largely apply to the types of crossers from 2 years ago. If the mix has changed (eg the nationality of crossers) the success rate probably changes. The system means they keep applying until the answer the right questions. Saying they've converted to Christianity etc etc. They are told what to say to get round the system. You might be fooled by it but I'm not. They are abusing an outdated system. They are leaving safe countries because they want to come here. The case of the poor girl. He was in Swedish but they turned his claim down so wanted to come here as we would have said yes. Tragic but just an example of the broken system. It's incredible how gullible and naive we are. They'll say they're gay, practicing Christians, 15 when they're in their 20s and 30s, have family here and so on. How come most of us know we're being taken for mugs by these criminals? No wonder many say they are running towards something, not running away. The rest of the world is laughing at our respective Governments for being so weak and inept. The vast majority are opportunists coming for the benefits, free housing, free healthcare and free legal representation. Yes, we are mugs, paying taxes we can ill afford and with a second rate healthcare system, dilapidated schools and third world roads.this is a bit I struggle to square. people come from poor countries where 8k is a lot of spare cash to have (so presumably they are doing ok) just to live on benefits here and barely scrape by? The cost per asylum seeker to the UK taxpayer over 5 years is £150k. Even Warren Buffett couldn't get a £150k return on an 8k investment." where did this come from ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A quick Google search it's the first thing that comes up. Imagine if that money was spent on schools instead rebuilding crumbling buildings "I'm hitting the Rwanda costs when I search. Not this one ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
