FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > 585,000 illegal migrants
585,000 illegal migrants
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report." Fullfact explains a lot of your questions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. Fullfact explains a lot of your questions. " Thanks for that the full fact article explains a lot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. Fullfact explains a lot of your questions. " Not really Johnny. It mentions the data is an estimate, which must be a given, it also mentions estimates in 2017 were above the estimate in this report, and it does mention that edge analytics wasn't sure why the Telegraph presented the data as 1 in 12 when it could be 1 in 13 or even 1 in 15, with the disclaimer they are not suggesting that is accurate either. So putting that to one side under the heading it is an estimate, the rest of my questions still stand. How are these people working, living having medical support, all with no documentation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. " Cash in hand work, no rights. No doctor. No dentist. Probably living with legal family members or friends, or in a property with a shady landlord. Or homeless, of course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s gotta be cash in hand in the service sector surely. Food establishments, deliveries, cleaning, construction industry etc Then there’s general crime" Crime is likely the main activity of illegals surviving below the radar. We don't know the number of illegals but equally we don't know the full extent of crime either (because it isn't recorded nor acted on by the Police). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s gotta be cash in hand in the service sector surely. Food establishments, deliveries, cleaning, construction industry etc Then there’s general crime Crime is likely the main activity of illegals surviving below the radar. We don't know the number of illegals but equally we don't know the full extent of crime either (because it isn't recorded nor acted on by the Police)." I have no idea how the beggars on the tube in London survive, I’ve never seen anyone look up at them, let alone give them any money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. Fullfact explains a lot of your questions. Not really Johnny. It mentions the data is an estimate, which must be a given, it also mentions estimates in 2017 were above the estimate in this report, and it does mention that edge analytics wasn't sure why the Telegraph presented the data as 1 in 12 when it could be 1 in 13 or even 1 in 15, with the disclaimer they are not suggesting that is accurate either. So putting that to one side under the heading it is an estimate, the rest of my questions still stand. How are these people working, living having medical support, all with no documentation. " Does it matter? Shouldn't they be removed? Or is it ok for illegality to go on unchecked? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. Fullfact explains a lot of your questions. Not really Johnny. It mentions the data is an estimate, which must be a given, it also mentions estimates in 2017 were above the estimate in this report, and it does mention that edge analytics wasn't sure why the Telegraph presented the data as 1 in 12 when it could be 1 in 13 or even 1 in 15, with the disclaimer they are not suggesting that is accurate either. So putting that to one side under the heading it is an estimate, the rest of my questions still stand. How are these people working, living having medical support, all with no documentation. Does it matter? Shouldn't they be removed? Or is it ok for illegality to go on unchecked? " Of course it matters on varying levels. Firstly we aren’t removing people here who have outstayed their visa’s, or have slipped the refugee application and worse still have entered undetected. All of these people are unrecorded and not being able to work legally creates another class of person who is vulnerable and easy to exploit. Exploiting these people could be through work, organised crime or even terrorism, non of which is a good outcome for anyone, us or them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. Fullfact explains a lot of your questions. Not really Johnny. It mentions the data is an estimate, which must be a given, it also mentions estimates in 2017 were above the estimate in this report, and it does mention that edge analytics wasn't sure why the Telegraph presented the data as 1 in 12 when it could be 1 in 13 or even 1 in 15, with the disclaimer they are not suggesting that is accurate either. So putting that to one side under the heading it is an estimate, the rest of my questions still stand. How are these people working, living having medical support, all with no documentation. Does it matter? Shouldn't they be removed? Or is it ok for illegality to go on unchecked? Of course it matters on varying levels. Firstly we aren’t removing people here who have outstayed their visa’s, or have slipped the refugee application and worse still have entered undetected. All of these people are unrecorded and not being able to work legally creates another class of person who is vulnerable and easy to exploit. Exploiting these people could be through work, organised crime or even terrorism, non of which is a good outcome for anyone, us or them. " And those who turn up illegally on a day by day basis? How do we deal with them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. Fullfact explains a lot of your questions. Not really Johnny. It mentions the data is an estimate, which must be a given, it also mentions estimates in 2017 were above the estimate in this report, and it does mention that edge analytics wasn't sure why the Telegraph presented the data as 1 in 12 when it could be 1 in 13 or even 1 in 15, with the disclaimer they are not suggesting that is accurate either. So putting that to one side under the heading it is an estimate, the rest of my questions still stand. How are these people working, living having medical support, all with no documentation. Does it matter? Shouldn't they be removed? Or is it ok for illegality to go on unchecked? Of course it matters on varying levels. Firstly we aren’t removing people here who have outstayed their visa’s, or have slipped the refugee application and worse still have entered undetected. All of these people are unrecorded and not being able to work legally creates another class of person who is vulnerable and easy to exploit. Exploiting these people could be through work, organised crime or even terrorism, non of which is a good outcome for anyone, us or them. And those who turn up illegally on a day by day basis? How do we deal with them?" You process them (assuming they claim asylum - which is why they turned up in the first place) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. Fullfact explains a lot of your questions. Not really Johnny. It mentions the data is an estimate, which must be a given, it also mentions estimates in 2017 were above the estimate in this report, and it does mention that edge analytics wasn't sure why the Telegraph presented the data as 1 in 12 when it could be 1 in 13 or even 1 in 15, with the disclaimer they are not suggesting that is accurate either. So putting that to one side under the heading it is an estimate, the rest of my questions still stand. How are these people working, living having medical support, all with no documentation. Does it matter? Shouldn't they be removed? Or is it ok for illegality to go on unchecked? Of course it matters on varying levels. Firstly we aren’t removing people here who have outstayed their visa’s, or have slipped the refugee application and worse still have entered undetected. All of these people are unrecorded and not being able to work legally creates another class of person who is vulnerable and easy to exploit. Exploiting these people could be through work, organised crime or even terrorism, non of which is a good outcome for anyone, us or them. And those who turn up illegally on a day by day basis? How do we deal with them? You process them (assuming they claim asylum - which is why they turned up in the first place)" For crying out loud, how many times? If they arrive illegally they forfeit the right to claim asylum. At least in my book, and in the book of Trump it would seem for the majority of law abiding citizens | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. Fullfact explains a lot of your questions. Not really Johnny. It mentions the data is an estimate, which must be a given, it also mentions estimates in 2017 were above the estimate in this report, and it does mention that edge analytics wasn't sure why the Telegraph presented the data as 1 in 12 when it could be 1 in 13 or even 1 in 15, with the disclaimer they are not suggesting that is accurate either. So putting that to one side under the heading it is an estimate, the rest of my questions still stand. How are these people working, living having medical support, all with no documentation. Does it matter? Shouldn't they be removed? Or is it ok for illegality to go on unchecked? Of course it matters on varying levels. Firstly we aren’t removing people here who have outstayed their visa’s, or have slipped the refugee application and worse still have entered undetected. All of these people are unrecorded and not being able to work legally creates another class of person who is vulnerable and easy to exploit. Exploiting these people could be through work, organised crime or even terrorism, non of which is a good outcome for anyone, us or them. And those who turn up illegally on a day by day basis? How do we deal with them? You process them (assuming they claim asylum - which is why they turned up in the first place) For crying out loud, how many times? If they arrive illegally they forfeit the right to claim asylum. At least in my book, and in the book of Trump it would seem for the majority of law abiding citizens " You book, Trump’s book, and no matter how many citizens opinions don’t matter compared to international law. If someone turns up claiming asylum, that’s their right, and they will be processed accordingly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You book, Trump’s book, and no matter how many citizens opinions don’t matter compared to international law. If someone turns up claiming asylum, that’s their right, and they will be processed accordingly. " The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 14), which states that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries. All 193 member states of the UN are signed up to the UDHR. As a matter of principle, the right to control the entry, residence and expulsion of non nationals rests with the Member States but they are under an obligation to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction, including migrants, the respect of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. . The 1951 UN Refugee Convention (and its 1967 Protocol), which protects refugees from being returned to countries where they risk being persecuted. The 1990 Migrant Workers Convention, which protects migrants and their families. . Regional Refugee law instruments (including 1969 OAU Convention, 1984 Cartagena Declaration, Common European Asylum System and Dublin Regulation). . As of December, there are 6 million Ukrainian refugees across Europe, with approx. 252,000 in the UK. . As of June 2024, there are an estimated 43.7 million refugees worldwide, and 126 million forced to flee their homes. . I consider myself very fortunate indeed that I am not one of them, but would hope that if I were, some country somewhere would be kind and help me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's one of those problems which is really hard to solve without ID cards and denying all services from banking to healthcare unless you have it." Agree, don’t see the problem with having to carry ID and for that to be necessary for an easy life. Most of us have driving licenses and debit or credit cards as well as smart phones so we are tracked anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report." I knew a few Brazilian girls in London here on a visa and just stayed after it expired. They all did cash cleaning jobs and es-corting and stayed in shared accommodation. I'm not sure their intention was to stay permanently. The es-corting pair earned thousands over a year or so then returned home. I imagine many are in a similar position as staying long term has is challenges. They get by bc they're not here long term. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report." They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment." Which is probably why most A&E departments are constantly overrun. And we are surprised why they all make such an effort to get to these shores. People waiting open armed ready to throw taxpayers money at them no questions asked. Here's housing benefit and somewhere to live, here's free dental and medical care, don't worry about paying taxes you go out and work cash in hand we won't care oh and here's more money to help your cousin's friends aunties kid's to get over here as well. Think this is made up? Think again!! Oh and free legal help to get your citizenship,can't speak English free translator service, what's that your being exploited by callous employer taking all your earnings, not our problem we don't want to know. Your friends are being exploited by callous landlords, meh whatever. The most important thing is we look good helping you out when it's easy to do so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's all well and good quoting UN conventions Etc. But the bottom line is that Britain cannot afford numbers like this. Taxes are at an all time high, government borrowing is off the scale, pensioners have had their fuel allowance taken away, the NHS is still in crisis and Rachel from complaints is juggling with which services to cut next. Meanwhile there are up to (maybe over) a million illegals who are using public services, paying nothing into the system, involved in all kinds of criminality and a good chunk of them living in taxpayer funded hotels. Virtue signalling is a very expensive pastime. " All true. Add 20 million over weight brits clogging up the nhs, a million youth unemployed, two million at university each with £45/50k student loans, 50 million people with now deferred state pensions, housing costs to buy at 8x income, and the most expensive rental accommodation ever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's all well and good quoting UN conventions Etc. But the bottom line is that Britain cannot afford numbers like this. Taxes are at an all time high, government borrowing is off the scale, pensioners have had their fuel allowance taken away, the NHS is still in crisis and Rachel from complaints is juggling with which services to cut next. Meanwhile there are up to (maybe over) a million illegals who are using public services, paying nothing into the system, involved in all kinds of criminality and a good chunk of them living in taxpayer funded hotels. Virtue signalling is a very expensive pastime. All true. Add 20 million over weight brits clogging up the nhs, a million youth unemployed, two million at university each with £45/50k student loans, 50 million people with now deferred state pensions, housing costs to buy at 8x income, and the most expensive rental accommodation ever. " The Tories did a great job didn't they  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment." I have never held strong views about ID cards, that has changed now. A simple thing to implement and would be a game changer saving us billions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. I have never held strong views about ID cards, that has changed now. A simple thing to implement and would be a game changer saving us billions. " Agreed but unfortunately it would then create a very lucrative black market for fake ID's | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Virtue signalling is a very expensive pastime. " Virtue signalling has nothing to do with it. . Abiding by various International Laws comes first, as signatories to multiple conventions listed earlier. Us and 192 other members of the UN. . Folks can do their own virtue signalling afterwards if they wish, that's their prerogative, but first the conventions and mandates need to be followed as per the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Virtue signalling is a very expensive pastime. Virtue signalling has nothing to do with it. . Abiding by various International Laws comes first, as signatories to multiple conventions listed earlier. Us and 192 other members of the UN. . Folks can do their own virtue signalling afterwards if they wish, that's their prerogative, but first the conventions and mandates need to be followed as per the law." The virtue signalling was done when they signed up to these conventions and mandates. Usually at some swanky resort with fine dining and 200 quid a bottle wine followed by a photo call. "Look at me I'm a really caring person". Pass the sick bag. Pity they didn't do the maths before they picked up the pen. Next time you see a group photo of politicians waving a piece of paper hold this thought. Whatever it says you are going to be paying for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Virtue signalling is a very expensive pastime. Virtue signalling has nothing to do with it. . Abiding by various International Laws comes first, as signatories to multiple conventions listed earlier. Us and 192 other members of the UN. . Folks can do their own virtue signalling afterwards if they wish, that's their prerogative, but first the conventions and mandates need to be followed as per the law." I disagree, what we are talking about here is estimates of 1 million people in the country we know nothing about, no records and here illegally. If anyone is championing their rights to be here it is misguided and terribly foolish. As for people entering the country illegally via small boat, the refugee convention you mention will be dropped and the sooner the better. We may as well get a Brexit benefit, leave the outdated convention that only serves criminal pockets and create our own policy. We are sinking under the weight of indecision and populist left wing ideals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's all well and good quoting UN conventions Etc. But the bottom line is that Britain cannot afford numbers like this. " It’s not virtue signalling to point out facts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's all well and good quoting UN conventions Etc. But the bottom line is that Britain cannot afford numbers like this. It’s not virtue signalling to point out facts. " And the glaring "fact" is the second sentence in the paragraph above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's all well and good quoting UN conventions Etc. But the bottom line is that Britain cannot afford numbers like this. It’s not virtue signalling to point out facts. And the glaring "fact" is the second sentence in the paragraph above." The affordability of the situation could be alleviated with proper asylum screening and deportation processes, which would negate the need for hotel accommodation etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If anyone is championing their rights to be here it is misguided and terribly foolish. " Once again, pointing out the legal reality is not ‘championing’ - simply pointing out that anyone has a right to claim asylum, here or anywhere else, and face processing. You could do it tomorrow, anywhere in the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The virtue signalling was done when they signed up to these conventions and mandates. Usually at some swanky resort with fine dining and 200 quid a bottle wine followed by a photo call. "Look at me I'm a really caring person". Pass the sick bag. Pity they didn't do the maths before they picked up the pen. Next time you see a group photo of politicians waving a piece of paper hold this thought. Whatever it says you are going to be paying for it." "Virtue Signalling" wasn't even a thing back in 1951 when the UN Refugee Convention was proposed and signed. . The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948. . Virtue signalling wasn't on their agenda either. . It's simply helping people displaced through war and other challenging situations have a chance of survival. . Leaders of nations felt and agreed this was a humanistic thing to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Virtue signalling is a very expensive pastime. Virtue signalling has nothing to do with it. . Abiding by various International Laws comes first, as signatories to multiple conventions listed earlier. Us and 192 other members of the UN. . Folks can do their own virtue signalling afterwards if they wish, that's their prerogative, but first the conventions and mandates need to be followed as per the law." Why must on follow these international laws blindly? The world changes and these laws must also change with times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The virtue signalling was done when they signed up to these conventions and mandates. Usually at some swanky resort with fine dining and 200 quid a bottle wine followed by a photo call. "Look at me I'm a really caring person". Pass the sick bag. Pity they didn't do the maths before they picked up the pen. Next time you see a group photo of politicians waving a piece of paper hold this thought. Whatever it says you are going to be paying for it." Exactly. It's like those "refugees welcome" groups who would never pay for a refugee housing or house a refugee in their own homes. Most of the elites who signed up to the conventions live in safe and secure neighbourhood. It's easy to virtue signal when they don't have to face the consequences of what they are asking for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's all well and good quoting UN conventions Etc. But the bottom line is that Britain cannot afford numbers like this. It’s not virtue signalling to point out facts. And the glaring "fact" is the second sentence in the paragraph above. The affordability of the situation could be alleviated with proper asylum screening and deportation processes, which would negate the need for hotel accommodation etc. " It doesn't. The employment rate of asylum seekers who have been given refugee status and hence the right to work is 52%. Even the employed ones earn less than the national average. They just start consuming other benefits which are given for the permanent residents. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why must on follow these international laws blindly? The world changes and these laws must also change with times. " You are joking right ? . It's one thing to question a parent when they make up some arbitrary law. . It's quite another when hundreds of countries sign up to the conventions. . Some might feel those laws are not fit for purpose. Laws can be changed of course. I'd counsel however we need those laws more than ever, and if anything they need tightening up to fine countries not meeting their human rights obligations. We need more human rights, not less, in an uncertain and unpredictable world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's all well and good quoting UN conventions Etc. But the bottom line is that Britain cannot afford numbers like this. It’s not virtue signalling to point out facts. And the glaring "fact" is the second sentence in the paragraph above. The affordability of the situation could be alleviated with proper asylum screening and deportation processes, which would negate the need for hotel accommodation etc. It doesn't. The employment rate of asylum seekers who have been given refugee status and hence the right to work is 52%. Even the employed ones earn less than the national average. They just start consuming other benefits which are given for the permanent residents." Asylum seekers who have been given refugee status have the right to work, as they should. This thread is about illegally immigration, which does *not* include refugees. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment." Apparently illegal immigrants are front of the queue for medical treatment, incase something terrible happens to them whilst waiting for their asylum status to be confirmed or denied | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. Apparently illegal immigrants are front of the queue for medical treatment, incase something terrible happens to them whilst waiting for their asylum status to be confirmed or denied "Apparently is doing a lot of lifting there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. Apparently illegal immigrants are front of the queue for medical treatment, incase something terrible happens to them whilst waiting for their asylum status to be confirmed or denied "‘Apparently’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. I have never held strong views about ID cards, that has changed now. A simple thing to implement and would be a game changer saving us billions. " I wonder. When I visit big cities in Europe the issue of obviously undocumented people seems as serious as London. Also USA has no compulsory ID cards but massive illegal immigration problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. I have never held strong views about ID cards, that has changed now. A simple thing to implement and would be a game changer saving us billions. I wonder. When I visit big cities in Europe the issue of obviously undocumented people seems as serious as London. Also USA has no compulsory ID cards but massive illegal immigration problem. " How do you recognise ‘obviously undocumented people’ at a glance? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. I have never held strong views about ID cards, that has changed now. A simple thing to implement and would be a game changer saving us billions. I wonder. When I visit big cities in Europe the issue of obviously undocumented people seems as serious as London. Also USA has no compulsory ID cards but massive illegal immigration problem. How do you recognise ‘obviously undocumented people’ at a glance? " I've told you before, it's obvious. That's literally what it means. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. I have never held strong views about ID cards, that has changed now. A simple thing to implement and would be a game changer saving us billions. I wonder. When I visit big cities in Europe the issue of obviously undocumented people seems as serious as London. Also USA has no compulsory ID cards but massive illegal immigration problem. How do you recognise ‘obviously undocumented people’ at a glance? I've told you before, it's obvious. That's literally what it means." Is it? I mean I see beggars in London, but I don’t know if they’re illegal immigrants or not. How do you tell? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If anyone is championing their rights to be here it is misguided and terribly foolish. Once again, pointing out the legal reality is not ‘championing’ - simply pointing out that anyone has a right to claim asylum, here or anywhere else, and face processing. You could do it tomorrow, anywhere in the world. " You’re mixing up what I’m referring to. Undocumented illegal migrants here are a non negotiable hard no, from my perspective. Please don’t try to confuse them with those crossing the channel illegally, who still need to be stopped by the way but at least we have eyes on them at some point…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. I have never held strong views about ID cards, that has changed now. A simple thing to implement and would be a game changer saving us billions. I wonder. When I visit big cities in Europe the issue of obviously undocumented people seems as serious as London. Also USA has no compulsory ID cards but massive illegal immigration problem. How do you recognise ‘obviously undocumented people’ at a glance? I've told you before, it's obvious. That's literally what it means. Is it? I mean I see beggars in London, but I don’t know if they’re illegal immigrants or not. How do you tell? " I'm sorry I can't help you if you deliberately refuse to understand basic words like 'obvious'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If anyone is championing their rights to be here it is misguided and terribly foolish. Once again, pointing out the legal reality is not ‘championing’ - simply pointing out that anyone has a right to claim asylum, here or anywhere else, and face processing. You could do it tomorrow, anywhere in the world. You’re mixing up what I’m referring to. Undocumented illegal migrants here are a non negotiable hard no, from my perspective. Please don’t try to confuse them with those crossing the channel illegally, who still need to be stopped by the way but at least we have eyes on them at some point…. " How did the undocumented illegal migrants get here, and how does it differ from how legal refugees get here? Remember that other than a very few examples, there is no legal way to get here. (Which is why the boat crossings thrive) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. I have never held strong views about ID cards, that has changed now. A simple thing to implement and would be a game changer saving us billions. I wonder. When I visit big cities in Europe the issue of obviously undocumented people seems as serious as London. Also USA has no compulsory ID cards but massive illegal immigration problem. How do you recognise ‘obviously undocumented people’ at a glance? I've told you before, it's obvious. That's literally what it means. Is it? I mean I see beggars in London, but I don’t know if they’re illegal immigrants or not. How do you tell? I'm sorry I can't help you if you deliberately refuse to understand basic words like 'obvious'." I understand the word obvious, I’m just not sure how it applies when glancing at someone that you can ascertain their legal status. It’s quite a gift you have, clearly. What’s based upon, exactly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. Apparently illegal immigrants are front of the queue for medical treatment, incase something terrible happens to them whilst waiting for their asylum status to be confirmed or denied
Apparently is doing a lot of lifting there."Only because I can't remember where I got the info... Refused asylum seekers can still get treatment either via a gp or hospital... How is that a thing?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's all well and good quoting UN conventions Etc. But the bottom line is that Britain cannot afford numbers like this. It’s not virtue signalling to point out facts. And the glaring "fact" is the second sentence in the paragraph above. The affordability of the situation could be alleviated with proper asylum screening and deportation processes, which would negate the need for hotel accommodation etc. It doesn't. The employment rate of asylum seekers who have been given refugee status and hence the right to work is 52%. Even the employed ones earn less than the national average. They just start consuming other benefits which are given for the permanent residents. Asylum seekers who have been given refugee status have the right to work, as they should. This thread is about illegally immigration, which does *not* include refugees." There are "asylum seekers" who come in by boat. You claimed that the affordability of the situation could be made better if we process asylum requests quickly. I am just saying that's not the case because they are all economic burden on this country even if you process the claims. The ones who get refugee status have to rely on social welfare benefits. The ones who failed keep filing appeals at the tax payers cost. And deporting then isn't straight forward because most of the countries they came from won't take them back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's all well and good quoting UN conventions Etc. But the bottom line is that Britain cannot afford numbers like this. It’s not virtue signalling to point out facts. And the glaring "fact" is the second sentence in the paragraph above. The affordability of the situation could be alleviated with proper asylum screening and deportation processes, which would negate the need for hotel accommodation etc. It doesn't. The employment rate of asylum seekers who have been given refugee status and hence the right to work is 52%. Even the employed ones earn less than the national average. They just start consuming other benefits which are given for the permanent residents. Asylum seekers who have been given refugee status have the right to work, as they should. This thread is about illegally immigration, which does *not* include refugees. There are "asylum seekers" who come in by boat. You claimed that the affordability of the situation could be made better if we process asylum requests quickly. I am just saying that's not the case because they are all economic burden on this country even if you process the claims. The ones who get refugee status have to rely on social welfare benefits. The ones who failed keep filing appeals at the tax payers cost. And deporting then isn't straight forward because most of the countries they came from won't take them back." 53% of households in the U.K are in some form of benefit, are they not? Why are you victimising those who earn below the minimum average? And your statement about countries not taking them back is nonsense, that’s not how citizenship works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Some might feel those laws are not fit for purpose. " This is exactly what I am saying. The laws aren't fit for purpose anymore. " Laws can be changed of course. " This is the problem. Laws within the countries are hard to change, as they are. Such international laws are a bureaucratic nightmare. It's close to impossible to change them. They should not exist unless it's for bilateral trade. Taking in refugees should be a country's sovereign decision. No international law should cover this. " I'd counsel however we need those laws more than ever, and if anything they need tightening up to fine countries not meeting their human rights obligations. We need more human rights, not less, in an uncertain and unpredictable world." Who is "We" here? Who is going to fine other country? Countries should have the right to decide who they allow into their borders. No one else has the right to tell them how to control the borders. Walking into another country's borders is not a human right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walking into another country's borders is not a human right." It’s everyone’s right. The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's all well and good quoting UN conventions Etc. But the bottom line is that Britain cannot afford numbers like this. It’s not virtue signalling to point out facts. And the glaring "fact" is the second sentence in the paragraph above. The affordability of the situation could be alleviated with proper asylum screening and deportation processes, which would negate the need for hotel accommodation etc. It doesn't. The employment rate of asylum seekers who have been given refugee status and hence the right to work is 52%. Even the employed ones earn less than the national average. They just start consuming other benefits which are given for the permanent residents. Asylum seekers who have been given refugee status have the right to work, as they should. This thread is about illegally immigration, which does *not* include refugees. There are "asylum seekers" who come in by boat. You claimed that the affordability of the situation could be made better if we process asylum requests quickly. I am just saying that's not the case because they are all economic burden on this country even if you process the claims. The ones who get refugee status have to rely on social welfare benefits. The ones who failed keep filing appeals at the tax payers cost. And deporting then isn't straight forward because most of the countries they came from won't take them back. 53% of households in the U.K are in some form of benefit, are they not? Why are you victimising those who earn below the minimum average? And your statement about countries not taking them back is nonsense, that’s not how citizenship works." Employment rate of citizens is much much higher. Even if they are using benefits, it's going to be much less than what asylum seekers need because their employment rate is just 52% Either way, the country's first responsibility is to look after its own people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walking into another country's borders is not a human right. It’s everyone’s right. The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away." Great! The sovereign nation does not have to house the asylum seekers or even process their claims, right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's all well and good quoting UN conventions Etc. But the bottom line is that Britain cannot afford numbers like this. It’s not virtue signalling to point out facts. And the glaring "fact" is the second sentence in the paragraph above. The affordability of the situation could be alleviated with proper asylum screening and deportation processes, which would negate the need for hotel accommodation etc. It doesn't. The employment rate of asylum seekers who have been given refugee status and hence the right to work is 52%. Even the employed ones earn less than the national average. They just start consuming other benefits which are given for the permanent residents. Asylum seekers who have been given refugee status have the right to work, as they should. This thread is about illegally immigration, which does *not* include refugees. There are "asylum seekers" who come in by boat. You claimed that the affordability of the situation could be made better if we process asylum requests quickly. I am just saying that's not the case because they are all economic burden on this country even if you process the claims. The ones who get refugee status have to rely on social welfare benefits. The ones who failed keep filing appeals at the tax payers cost. And deporting then isn't straight forward because most of the countries they came from won't take them back. 53% of households in the U.K are in some form of benefit, are they not? Why are you victimising those who earn below the minimum average? And your statement about countries not taking them back is nonsense, that’s not how citizenship works. Employment rate of citizens is much much higher. Even if they are using benefits, it's going to be much less than what asylum seekers need because their employment rate is just 52% Either way, the country's first responsibility is to look after its own people." And if a migrant is here legally, they are our own people whether you like it or not. And once again this thread is about illegal migrants, not refugees. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walking into another country's borders is not a human right. It’s everyone’s right. The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away. Great! The sovereign nation does not have to house the asylum seekers or even process their claims, right?" They have to process their claims, of course. I didn’t say otherwise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The virtue signalling was done when they signed up to these conventions and mandates. Usually at some swanky resort with fine dining and 200 quid a bottle wine followed by a photo call. "Look at me I'm a really caring person". Pass the sick bag. Pity they didn't do the maths before they picked up the pen. Next time you see a group photo of politicians waving a piece of paper hold this thought. Whatever it says you are going to be paying for it. "Virtue Signalling" wasn't even a thing back in 1951 when the UN Refugee Convention was proposed and signed. . The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948. . Virtue signalling wasn't on their agenda either. . It's simply helping people displaced through war and other challenging situations have a chance of survival. . Leaders of nations felt and agreed this was a humanistic thing to do." Which really says it all. Virtue signalling or not. What was fit for purpose in 1948 and 1951 doesn't transfer to the world of today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walking into another country's borders is not a human right. It’s everyone’s right. The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away. Great! The sovereign nation does not have to house the asylum seekers or even process their claims, right? They have to process their claims, of course. I didn’t say otherwise. " You seem a little confused by your own posts.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walking into another country's borders is not a human right. It’s everyone’s right. The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away. Great! The sovereign nation does not have to house the asylum seekers or even process their claims, right? They have to process their claims, of course. I didn’t say otherwise. " Why must they? Why can't a sovereign nation decide to not allow anyone in? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's all well and good quoting UN conventions Etc. But the bottom line is that Britain cannot afford numbers like this. It’s not virtue signalling to point out facts. And the glaring "fact" is the second sentence in the paragraph above. The affordability of the situation could be alleviated with proper asylum screening and deportation processes, which would negate the need for hotel accommodation etc. It doesn't. The employment rate of asylum seekers who have been given refugee status and hence the right to work is 52%. Even the employed ones earn less than the national average. They just start consuming other benefits which are given for the permanent residents. Asylum seekers who have been given refugee status have the right to work, as they should. This thread is about illegally immigration, which does *not* include refugees. There are "asylum seekers" who come in by boat. You claimed that the affordability of the situation could be made better if we process asylum requests quickly. I am just saying that's not the case because they are all economic burden on this country even if you process the claims. The ones who get refugee status have to rely on social welfare benefits. The ones who failed keep filing appeals at the tax payers cost. And deporting then isn't straight forward because most of the countries they came from won't take them back. 53% of households in the U.K are in some form of benefit, are they not? Why are you victimising those who earn below the minimum average? And your statement about countries not taking them back is nonsense, that’s not how citizenship works. Employment rate of citizens is much much higher. Even if they are using benefits, it's going to be much less than what asylum seekers need because their employment rate is just 52% Either way, the country's first responsibility is to look after its own people. And if a migrant is here legally, they are our own people whether you like it or not. And once again this thread is about illegal migrants, not refugees." If we get out of refugee convention, all the boat arrivals will be illegal immigrants. Can we send them all back immediately? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's all well and good quoting UN conventions Etc. But the bottom line is that Britain cannot afford numbers like this. It’s not virtue signalling to point out facts. And the glaring "fact" is the second sentence in the paragraph above. The affordability of the situation could be alleviated with proper asylum screening and deportation processes, which would negate the need for hotel accommodation etc. " But would it? REALLY? I don't think so. Nearly a million came in legally last year but still the boats came. Unless you let every one of them in, the ones who fail will still come by illegal channels. The only way forward that I can see is to screen the genuine ones but make it clear that anyone who enters the country illegally will be immediately deported without appeal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's all well and good quoting UN conventions Etc. But the bottom line is that Britain cannot afford numbers like this. It’s not virtue signalling to point out facts. And the glaring "fact" is the second sentence in the paragraph above. The affordability of the situation could be alleviated with proper asylum screening and deportation processes, which would negate the need for hotel accommodation etc. It doesn't. The employment rate of asylum seekers who have been given refugee status and hence the right to work is 52%. Even the employed ones earn less than the national average. They just start consuming other benefits which are given for the permanent residents. Asylum seekers who have been given refugee status have the right to work, as they should. This thread is about illegally immigration, which does *not* include refugees. There are "asylum seekers" who come in by boat. You claimed that the affordability of the situation could be made better if we process asylum requests quickly. I am just saying that's not the case because they are all economic burden on this country even if you process the claims. The ones who get refugee status have to rely on social welfare benefits. The ones who failed keep filing appeals at the tax payers cost. And deporting then isn't straight forward because most of the countries they came from won't take them back. 53% of households in the U.K are in some form of benefit, are they not? Why are you victimising those who earn below the minimum average? And your statement about countries not taking them back is nonsense, that’s not how citizenship works. Employment rate of citizens is much much higher. Even if they are using benefits, it's going to be much less than what asylum seekers need because their employment rate is just 52% Either way, the country's first responsibility is to look after its own people. And if a migrant is here legally, they are our own people whether you like it or not. And once again this thread is about illegal migrants, not refugees. If we get out of refugee convention, all the boat arrivals will be illegal immigrants. Can we send them all back immediately?" We’re not leaving the refugee convention so it’s moot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's all well and good quoting UN conventions Etc. But the bottom line is that Britain cannot afford numbers like this. It’s not virtue signalling to point out facts. And the glaring "fact" is the second sentence in the paragraph above. The affordability of the situation could be alleviated with proper asylum screening and deportation processes, which would negate the need for hotel accommodation etc. But would it? REALLY? I don't think so. Nearly a million came in legally last year but still the boats came. Unless you let every one of them in, the ones who fail will still come by illegal channels. The only way forward that I can see is to screen the genuine ones but make it clear that anyone who enters the country illegally will be immediately deported without appeal." There is essentially no legal way to enter the country now. (A few countries excepted). Why do people fail to understand this? Safe routes and visas applied before departure is the only logical solution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lol, get on a flight to New York and demand asylum when you get there. 🤣 " You have the right to do just that. And you’ll be processed, just the same as anyone else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walking into another country's borders is not a human right. It’s everyone’s right. The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away. Great! The sovereign nation does not have to house the asylum seekers or even process their claims, right? They have to process their claims, of course. I didn’t say otherwise. Why must they? Why can't a sovereign nation decide to not allow anyone in?" Because they’re signatories to an international refugee convention. As you well know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walking into another country's borders is not a human right. It’s everyone’s right. The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away. Great! The sovereign nation does not have to house the asylum seekers or even process their claims, right? They have to process their claims, of course. I didn’t say otherwise. You seem a little confused by your own posts. "Do I? Because what I’ve said has been consistent and correct. It’s obvious, in fact. Mayhap your comprehension isn’t up to scratch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If anyone is championing their rights to be here it is misguided and terribly foolish. Once again, pointing out the legal reality is not ‘championing’ - simply pointing out that anyone has a right to claim asylum, here or anywhere else, and face processing. You could do it tomorrow, anywhere in the world. You’re mixing up what I’m referring to. Undocumented illegal migrants here are a non negotiable hard no, from my perspective. Please don’t try to confuse them with those crossing the channel illegally, who still need to be stopped by the way but at least we have eyes on them at some point…. How did the undocumented illegal migrants get here, and how does it differ from how legal refugees get here? Remember that other than a very few examples, there is no legal way to get here. (Which is why the boat crossings thrive) " you are showing a lack of understanding if you don't know how the illegal undocumented are in the country in such large numbers, which begs the question of why you are challenging / questioning those that do know and have a valid opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If anyone is championing their rights to be here it is misguided and terribly foolish. Once again, pointing out the legal reality is not ‘championing’ - simply pointing out that anyone has a right to claim asylum, here or anywhere else, and face processing. You could do it tomorrow, anywhere in the world. You’re mixing up what I’m referring to. Undocumented illegal migrants here are a non negotiable hard no, from my perspective. Please don’t try to confuse them with those crossing the channel illegally, who still need to be stopped by the way but at least we have eyes on them at some point…. How did the undocumented illegal migrants get here, and how does it differ from how legal refugees get here? Remember that other than a very few examples, there is no legal way to get here. (Which is why the boat crossings thrive) you are showing a lack of understanding if you don't know how the illegal undocumented are in the country in such large numbers, which begs the question of why you are challenging / questioning those that do know and have a valid opinion. " Oh I understand completely, some avoid processing - but whose fault is this? I’d blame the government for not having a suitable system in place, would you not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. Apparently illegal immigrants are front of the queue for medical treatment, incase something terrible happens to them whilst waiting for their asylum status to be confirmed or denied
Apparently is doing a lot of lifting there.
Only because I can't remember where I got the info... Refused asylum seekers can still get treatment either via a gp or hospital... How is that a thing?? "You are correct in what you said. Undocumented and those waiting for asylum decisions are prioritised in A&E, allowing them to jump the queues regardless of symptoms. 987 Inclusion Health | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. Apparently illegal immigrants are front of the queue for medical treatment, incase something terrible happens to them whilst waiting for their asylum status to be confirmed or denied
Apparently is doing a lot of lifting there.
Only because I can't remember where I got the info... Refused asylum seekers can still get treatment either via a gp or hospital... How is that a thing??
You are correct in what you said. Undocumented and those waiting for asylum decisions are prioritised in A&E, allowing them to jump the queues regardless of symptoms.
987 Inclusion Health "“ it's not just available to undocumented migrants but to a wide range of people who might find accessing healthcare difficult. People with alcohol and drug dependencies, people with learning disabilities, homeless people, victims of trafficking and/or sl*very, sex workers etc. Its primary concern is tackling health inequality for vulnerable groups. You must also fill in a referral form. and the team will then book the patient into AEC and confirm the time and date with you for the patient to attend. Eligible patients must be referred to this service via another healthcare provider, such as a GP - patients cannot self-refer” This took no time at all to find online. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If anyone is championing their rights to be here it is misguided and terribly foolish. Once again, pointing out the legal reality is not ‘championing’ - simply pointing out that anyone has a right to claim asylum, here or anywhere else, and face processing. You could do it tomorrow, anywhere in the world. You’re mixing up what I’m referring to. Undocumented illegal migrants here are a non negotiable hard no, from my perspective. Please don’t try to confuse them with those crossing the channel illegally, who still need to be stopped by the way but at least we have eyes on them at some point…. How did the undocumented illegal migrants get here, and how does it differ from how legal refugees get here? Remember that other than a very few examples, there is no legal way to get here. (Which is why the boat crossings thrive) you are showing a lack of understanding if you don't know how the illegal undocumented are in the country in such large numbers, which begs the question of why you are challenging / questioning those that do know and have a valid opinion. Oh I understand completely, some avoid processing - but whose fault is this? I’d blame the government for not having a suitable system in place, would you not?" Why have you been pretending you don't know? Your support of criminals is rather strange, why do you support criminals who decide to break our laws? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. Apparently illegal immigrants are front of the queue for medical treatment, incase something terrible happens to them whilst waiting for their asylum status to be confirmed or denied
Apparently is doing a lot of lifting there.
Only because I can't remember where I got the info... Refused asylum seekers can still get treatment either via a gp or hospital... How is that a thing??
You are correct in what you said. Undocumented and those waiting for asylum decisions are prioritised in A&E, allowing them to jump the queues regardless of symptoms.
987 Inclusion Health "Inclusion health is an umbrella term used to describe people who are socially excluded, who typically experience multiple overlapping risk factors for poor health, such as poverty, violence and complex trauma. This includes people who experience homelessness, drug and alcohol dependence, vulnerable migrants, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, sex workers, people in contact with the justice system. People belonging to inclusion groups, tend to have very poor health outcomes, often much worse than the general population and a lower average age of death. This contributes considerably to increasing health inequalities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. Apparently illegal immigrants are front of the queue for medical treatment, incase something terrible happens to them whilst waiting for their asylum status to be confirmed or denied
Apparently is doing a lot of lifting there.
Only because I can't remember where I got the info... Refused asylum seekers can still get treatment either via a gp or hospital... How is that a thing??
You are correct in what you said. Undocumented and those waiting for asylum decisions are prioritised in A&E, allowing them to jump the queues regardless of symptoms.
987 Inclusion Health
“ it's not just available to undocumented migrants but to a wide range of people who might find accessing healthcare difficult. People with alcohol and drug dependencies, people with learning disabilities, homeless people, victims of trafficking and/or sl*very, sex workers etc. Its primary concern is tackling health inequality for vulnerable groups.
You must also fill in a referral form. and the team will then book the patient into AEC and confirm the time and date with you for the patient to attend.
Eligible patients must be referred to this service via another healthcare provider, such as a GP - patients cannot self-refer”
This took no time at all to find online. "Who it covers was not in question other than undocumented individuals and asylum seekers, it does cover them and it allows them to jump the queues and be treated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If anyone is championing their rights to be here it is misguided and terribly foolish. Once again, pointing out the legal reality is not ‘championing’ - simply pointing out that anyone has a right to claim asylum, here or anywhere else, and face processing. You could do it tomorrow, anywhere in the world. You’re mixing up what I’m referring to. Undocumented illegal migrants here are a non negotiable hard no, from my perspective. Please don’t try to confuse them with those crossing the channel illegally, who still need to be stopped by the way but at least we have eyes on them at some point…. How did the undocumented illegal migrants get here, and how does it differ from how legal refugees get here? Remember that other than a very few examples, there is no legal way to get here. (Which is why the boat crossings thrive) you are showing a lack of understanding if you don't know how the illegal undocumented are in the country in such large numbers, which begs the question of why you are challenging / questioning those that do know and have a valid opinion. Oh I understand completely, some avoid processing - but whose fault is this? I’d blame the government for not having a suitable system in place, would you not? Why have you been pretending you don't know? Your support of criminals is rather strange, why do you support criminals who decide to break our laws? " I haven’t been pretending anything. You appear to have comprehension issues on this stuff (like not understanding the difference between seeker seeker/refugee and illegal migrant, for example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. Apparently illegal immigrants are front of the queue for medical treatment, incase something terrible happens to them whilst waiting for their asylum status to be confirmed or denied
Apparently is doing a lot of lifting there.
Only because I can't remember where I got the info... Refused asylum seekers can still get treatment either via a gp or hospital... How is that a thing??
You are correct in what you said. Undocumented and those waiting for asylum decisions are prioritised in A&E, allowing them to jump the queues regardless of symptoms.
987 Inclusion Health
Inclusion health is an umbrella term used to describe people who are socially excluded, who typically experience multiple overlapping risk factors for poor health, such as poverty, violence and complex trauma. This includes people who experience homelessness, drug and alcohol dependence, vulnerable migrants, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, sex workers, people in contact with the justice system.
People belonging to inclusion groups, tend to have very poor health outcomes, often much worse than the general population and a lower average age of death. This contributes considerably to increasing health inequalities."You challenged someone for mentioning that undocumented / asylum seekers get prioritised NHS treatment, that person is correct, they do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And if a migrant is here legally, they are our own people whether you like it or not. And once again this thread is about illegal migrants, not refugees. If we get out of refugee convention, all the boat arrivals will be illegal immigrants. Can we send them all back immediately? We’re not leaving the refugee convention so it’s moot." It's not impossible. We have politicians asking to leave ECHR. Leaving refugee convention isn't far off. You keep talking about the problem in legal terms. If you are that much obsessed with the law, surely you must do the same even if the law changes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If anyone is championing their rights to be here it is misguided and terribly foolish. Once again, pointing out the legal reality is not ‘championing’ - simply pointing out that anyone has a right to claim asylum, here or anywhere else, and face processing. You could do it tomorrow, anywhere in the world. You’re mixing up what I’m referring to. Undocumented illegal migrants here are a non negotiable hard no, from my perspective. Please don’t try to confuse them with those crossing the channel illegally, who still need to be stopped by the way but at least we have eyes on them at some point…. How did the undocumented illegal migrants get here, and how does it differ from how legal refugees get here? Remember that other than a very few examples, there is no legal way to get here. (Which is why the boat crossings thrive) you are showing a lack of understanding if you don't know how the illegal undocumented are in the country in such large numbers, which begs the question of why you are challenging / questioning those that do know and have a valid opinion. Oh I understand completely, some avoid processing - but whose fault is this? I’d blame the government for not having a suitable system in place, would you not? Why have you been pretending you don't know? Your support of criminals is rather strange, why do you support criminals who decide to break our laws? I haven’t been pretending anything. You appear to have comprehension issues on this stuff (like not understanding the difference between seeker seeker/refugee and illegal migrant, for example. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. Apparently illegal immigrants are front of the queue for medical treatment, incase something terrible happens to them whilst waiting for their asylum status to be confirmed or denied
Apparently is doing a lot of lifting there.
Only because I can't remember where I got the info... Refused asylum seekers can still get treatment either via a gp or hospital... How is that a thing??
You are correct in what you said. Undocumented and those waiting for asylum decisions are prioritised in A&E, allowing them to jump the queues regardless of symptoms.
987 Inclusion Health
“ it's not just available to undocumented migrants but to a wide range of people who might find accessing healthcare difficult. People with alcohol and drug dependencies, people with learning disabilities, homeless people, victims of trafficking and/or sl*very, sex workers etc. Its primary concern is tackling health inequality for vulnerable groups.
You must also fill in a referral form. and the team will then book the patient into AEC and confirm the time and date with you for the patient to attend.
Eligible patients must be referred to this service via another healthcare provider, such as a GP - patients cannot self-refer”
This took no time at all to find online.
Who it covers was not in question other than undocumented individuals and asylum seekers, it does cover them and it allows them to jump the queues and be treated.
"The poster said they were prioritised in A&E and Jump the queue regardless of symptoms, and you agreed. Now do you accept that an individual using this system has to be referred by a professional and given an appointment to attend? - that’s not the same as rocking up at A&E and going straight to the front, is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And if a migrant is here legally, they are our own people whether you like it or not. And once again this thread is about illegal migrants, not refugees. If we get out of refugee convention, all the boat arrivals will be illegal immigrants. Can we send them all back immediately? We’re not leaving the refugee convention so it’s moot. It's not impossible. We have politicians asking to leave ECHR. Leaving refugee convention isn't far off. You keep talking about the problem in legal terms. If you are that much obsessed with the law, surely you must do the same even if the law changes? " If the law changes, then we’d have to respect that. If we leave the refugee convention (and feel free to mark this down), I’ll send you my salary for a year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walking into another country's borders is not a human right. It’s everyone’s right. The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away. Great! The sovereign nation does not have to house the asylum seekers or even process their claims, right? They have to process their claims, of course. I didn’t say otherwise. You seem a little confused by your own posts.
Do I? Because what I’ve said has been consistent and correct. It’s obvious, in fact.
Mayhap your comprehension isn’t up to scratch."Nah. You are inconsistent. You said "The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away." And then you followed up with "They have to process their claims, of course" Why can't a sovereign country send people back without processing the claims | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And if a migrant is here legally, they are our own people whether you like it or not. And once again this thread is about illegal migrants, not refugees. If we get out of refugee convention, all the boat arrivals will be illegal immigrants. Can we send them all back immediately? We’re not leaving the refugee convention so it’s moot. It's not impossible. We have politicians asking to leave ECHR. Leaving refugee convention isn't far off. You keep talking about the problem in legal terms. If you are that much obsessed with the law, surely you must do the same even if the law changes? If the law changes, then we’d have to respect that. If we leave the refugee convention (and feel free to mark this down), I’ll send you my salary for a year. " Now the question becomes this - If a politician is going to change the law, will you support it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And if a migrant is here legally, they are our own people whether you like it or not. And once again this thread is about illegal migrants, not refugees. If we get out of refugee convention, all the boat arrivals will be illegal immigrants. Can we send them all back immediately? We’re not leaving the refugee convention so it’s moot. It's not impossible. We have politicians asking to leave ECHR. Leaving refugee convention isn't far off. You keep talking about the problem in legal terms. If you are that much obsessed with the law, surely you must do the same even if the law changes? If the law changes, then we’d have to respect that. If we leave the refugee convention (and feel free to mark this down), I’ll send you my salary for a year. Now the question becomes this - If a politician is going to change the law, will you support it? " Would I support it? No. If it was passed legally, it’d accept it. I’d protest it, and tell everyone it was an inhumane decision, but I’d accept that it had happened. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walking into another country's borders is not a human right. It’s everyone’s right. The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away. Great! The sovereign nation does not have to house the asylum seekers or even process their claims, right? They have to process their claims, of course. I didn’t say otherwise. You seem a little confused by your own posts.
Do I? Because what I’ve said has been consistent and correct. It’s obvious, in fact.
Mayhap your comprehension isn’t up to scratch.
Nah. You are inconsistent. You said "The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away."
And then you followed up with "They have to process their claims, of course"
Why can't a sovereign country send people back without processing the claims"Because there are international treaties in play. Sorry, I thought that was obvious - it’s the processing that makes the decisions amour leaving/deporting - and nations can determine their own factors in this decision, or leave it to the UNHCR | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And if a migrant is here legally, they are our own people whether you like it or not. And once again this thread is about illegal migrants, not refugees. If we get out of refugee convention, all the boat arrivals will be illegal immigrants. Can we send them all back immediately? We’re not leaving the refugee convention so it’s moot. It's not impossible. We have politicians asking to leave ECHR. Leaving refugee convention isn't far off. You keep talking about the problem in legal terms. If you are that much obsessed with the law, surely you must do the same even if the law changes? If the law changes, then we’d have to respect that. If we leave the refugee convention (and feel free to mark this down), I’ll send you my salary for a year. Now the question becomes this - If a politician is going to change the law, will you support it? Would I support it? No. If it was passed legally, it’d accept it. I’d protest it, and tell everyone it was an inhumane decision, but I’d accept that it had happened." I would support it and you will not support it. That's the argument we should be having. We all know what's written in the law. "Because the law says so" isn't a valid argument. Political debates are mostly around changing the law. There is no point argue based on existing laws in these cases. The question is why would you oppose getting out of refugee convention. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walking into another country's borders is not a human right. It’s everyone’s right. The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away. Great! The sovereign nation does not have to house the asylum seekers or even process their claims, right? They have to process their claims, of course. I didn’t say otherwise. You seem a little confused by your own posts.
Do I? Because what I’ve said has been consistent and correct. It’s obvious, in fact.
Mayhap your comprehension isn’t up to scratch.
Nah. You are inconsistent. You said "The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away."
And then you followed up with "They have to process their claims, of course"
Why can't a sovereign country send people back without processing the claims
Because there are international treaties in play. Sorry, I thought that was obvious - it’s the processing that makes the decisions amour leaving/deporting - and nations can determine their own factors in this decision, or leave it to the UNHCR"And the original point I made was to get out of those treaties. We are a sovereign nation. We have the right to get out of these treaties. Repeating again, we are not arguing what the law says. We are arguing about changing the legal framework. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. Apparently illegal immigrants are front of the queue for medical treatment, incase something terrible happens to them whilst waiting for their asylum status to be confirmed or denied
Apparently is doing a lot of lifting there.
Only because I can't remember where I got the info... Refused asylum seekers can still get treatment either via a gp or hospital... How is that a thing??
You are correct in what you said. Undocumented and those waiting for asylum decisions are prioritised in A&E, allowing them to jump the queues regardless of symptoms.
987 Inclusion Health
“ it's not just available to undocumented migrants but to a wide range of people who might find accessing healthcare difficult. People with alcohol and drug dependencies, people with learning disabilities, homeless people, victims of trafficking and/or sl*very, sex workers etc. Its primary concern is tackling health inequality for vulnerable groups.
You must also fill in a referral form. and the team will then book the patient into AEC and confirm the time and date with you for the patient to attend.
Eligible patients must be referred to this service via another healthcare provider, such as a GP - patients cannot self-refer”
This took no time at all to find online.
Who it covers was not in question other than undocumented individuals and asylum seekers, it does cover them and it allows them to jump the queues and be treated.
The poster said they were prioritised in A&E and Jump the queue regardless of symptoms, and you agreed.
Now do you accept that an individual using this system has to be referred by a professional and given an appointment to attend? - that’s not the same as rocking up at A&E and going straight to the front, is it? "A&E prioritisation is always based on medical urgency. However undocumented patients receive additional attention in certain trusts to ensure engagement, this will be treating them ahead of others. The inclusion health is then in play for follow up treatment. The bottom line here is we have approx 1 million illegal undocumented people in the country not contributing to our law abiding society and taking our paid for services for free. Do you think that is okay? Simple question.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are thought to be living in London, that is 1 in 12. It is also thought there are 1 million illegal migrants in the country. How are they earning money, where are they living, doctors, dentist etc. Mind blown, in terms of numbers of people here illegally, and somehow managing to get by with no documents. Numbers from a Thames water commissioned report. They're certainly using the NHS as it requires no ID, almost uniquely among public health services. If they can't find a GP to take them they just go to A&E when they need treatment. Apparently illegal immigrants are front of the queue for medical treatment, incase something terrible happens to them whilst waiting for their asylum status to be confirmed or denied
Apparently is doing a lot of lifting there.
Only because I can't remember where I got the info... Refused asylum seekers can still get treatment either via a gp or hospital... How is that a thing??
You are correct in what you said. Undocumented and those waiting for asylum decisions are prioritised in A&E, allowing them to jump the queues regardless of symptoms.
987 Inclusion Health
“ it's not just available to undocumented migrants but to a wide range of people who might find accessing healthcare difficult. People with alcohol and drug dependencies, people with learning disabilities, homeless people, victims of trafficking and/or sl*very, sex workers etc. Its primary concern is tackling health inequality for vulnerable groups.
You must also fill in a referral form. and the team will then book the patient into AEC and confirm the time and date with you for the patient to attend.
Eligible patients must be referred to this service via another healthcare provider, such as a GP - patients cannot self-refer”
This took no time at all to find online.
Who it covers was not in question other than undocumented individuals and asylum seekers, it does cover them and it allows them to jump the queues and be treated.
The poster said they were prioritised in A&E and Jump the queue regardless of symptoms, and you agreed.
Now do you accept that an individual using this system has to be referred by a professional and given an appointment to attend? - that’s not the same as rocking up at A&E and going straight to the front, is it?
A&E prioritisation is always based on medical urgency. However undocumented patients receive additional attention in certain trusts to ensure engagement, this will be treating them ahead of others.
The inclusion health is then in play for follow up treatment.
The bottom line here is we have approx 1 million illegal undocumented people in the country not contributing to our law abiding society and taking our paid for services for free.
Do you think that is okay? Simple question.."It’s not a simple question - we should have systems in place to better deal with undocumented migrants, but people should also receive urgent medical care if they need it (i.e e genuine emergency) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walking into another country's borders is not a human right. It’s everyone’s right. The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away. Great! The sovereign nation does not have to house the asylum seekers or even process their claims, right? They have to process their claims, of course. I didn’t say otherwise. You seem a little confused by your own posts.
Do I? Because what I’ve said has been consistent and correct. It’s obvious, in fact.
Mayhap your comprehension isn’t up to scratch.
Nah. You are inconsistent. You said "The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away."
And then you followed up with "They have to process their claims, of course"
Why can't a sovereign country send people back without processing the claims
Because there are international treaties in play. Sorry, I thought that was obvious - it’s the processing that makes the decisions amour leaving/deporting - and nations can determine their own factors in this decision, or leave it to the UNHCR
And the original point I made was to get out of those treaties. We are a sovereign nation. We have the right to get out of these treaties. Repeating again, we are not arguing what the law says. We are arguing about changing the legal framework."And like I said, if we leave the refugee convention I’ll give you my salary for a year. It’s not happening, so it’s a moot point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The question is why would you oppose getting out of refugee convention." Because it’s the right thing to do. It’s a very privileged position that you have probably never considered ‘what if’ to fleeing your home and going elsewhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walking into another country's borders is not a human right. It’s everyone’s right. The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away. Great! The sovereign nation does not have to house the asylum seekers or even process their claims, right? They have to process their claims, of course. I didn’t say otherwise. You seem a little confused by your own posts.
Do I? Because what I’ve said has been consistent and correct. It’s obvious, in fact.
Mayhap your comprehension isn’t up to scratch.
Nah. You are inconsistent. You said "The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away."
And then you followed up with "They have to process their claims, of course"
Why can't a sovereign country send people back without processing the claims
Because there are international treaties in play. Sorry, I thought that was obvious - it’s the processing that makes the decisions amour leaving/deporting - and nations can determine their own factors in this decision, or leave it to the UNHCR
And the original point I made was to get out of those treaties. We are a sovereign nation. We have the right to get out of these treaties. Repeating again, we are not arguing what the law says. We are arguing about changing the legal framework.
And like I said, if we leave the refugee convention I’ll give you my salary for a year. It’s not happening, so it’s a moot point."Again, I am not arguing that. I am arguing whether we should. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The question is why would you oppose getting out of refugee convention. Because it’s the right thing to do. It’s a very privileged position that you have probably never considered ‘what if’ to fleeing your home and going elsewhere. " Right thing to do according to whom? They are a net economic burden. You can perform charity for others only when you have resources for it. European economy is not as strong as it was before. Countries are struggling to sustain their own people. So who should pay to cover the burden of asylum seekers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The question is why would you oppose getting out of refugee convention. Because it’s the right thing to do. It’s a very privileged position that you have probably never considered ‘what if’ to fleeing your home and going elsewhere. Right thing to do according to whom? They are a net economic burden. You can perform charity for others only when you have resources for it. European economy is not as strong as it was before. Countries are struggling to sustain their own people. So who should pay to cover the burden of asylum seekers?" If it’s purely about being an economic burden, we should offload anyone who takes more than they put into the system, no? But it’s not just about economic burden, is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walking into another country's borders is not a human right. It’s everyone’s right. The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away. Great! The sovereign nation does not have to house the asylum seekers or even process their claims, right? They have to process their claims, of course. I didn’t say otherwise. You seem a little confused by your own posts.
Do I? Because what I’ve said has been consistent and correct. It’s obvious, in fact.
Mayhap your comprehension isn’t up to scratch.
Nah. You are inconsistent. You said "The sovereign nation then has the right to take them in or turn them away."
And then you followed up with "They have to process their claims, of course"
Why can't a sovereign country send people back without processing the claims
Because there are international treaties in play. Sorry, I thought that was obvious - it’s the processing that makes the decisions amour leaving/deporting - and nations can determine their own factors in this decision, or leave it to the UNHCR
And the original point I made was to get out of those treaties. We are a sovereign nation. We have the right to get out of these treaties. Repeating again, we are not arguing what the law says. We are arguing about changing the legal framework.
And like I said, if we leave the refugee convention I’ll give you my salary for a year. It’s not happening, so it’s a moot point.
Again, I am not arguing that. I am arguing whether we should."And you’ve made your stance clear. It’s abhorrent, but you’ve made it. We done now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The question is why would you oppose getting out of refugee convention. Because it’s the right thing to do. It’s a very privileged position that you have probably never considered ‘what if’ to fleeing your home and going elsewhere. Right thing to do according to whom? They are a net economic burden. You can perform charity for others only when you have resources for it. European economy is not as strong as it was before. Countries are struggling to sustain their own people. So who should pay to cover the burden of asylum seekers? If it’s purely about being an economic burden, we should offload anyone who takes more than they put into the system, no? But it’s not just about economic burden, is it? " Economic burden plays a big part. Then there are social issues because of difference in cultural values. But for now, we can focus just on the economic side. Opening the borders to them all results in an economic burden. The worst part is that you never know how many asylum seekers are going to show up and hence causing serious economic unpredictability. So we need to know who should pay for this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And like I said, if we leave the refugee convention I’ll give you my salary for a year. It’s not happening, so it’s a moot point. Again, I am not arguing that. I am arguing whether we should. And you’ve made your stance clear. It’s abhorrent, but you’ve made it. We done now? " I think what's abhorrent is people who pretend like they are morally superior but would avoid dealing with practical consequences of what they are asking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The question is why would you oppose getting out of refugee convention. Because it’s the right thing to do. It’s a very privileged position that you have probably never considered ‘what if’ to fleeing your home and going elsewhere. Right thing to do according to whom? They are a net economic burden. You can perform charity for others only when you have resources for it. European economy is not as strong as it was before. Countries are struggling to sustain their own people. So who should pay to cover the burden of asylum seekers? If it’s purely about being an economic burden, we should offload anyone who takes more than they put into the system, no? But it’s not just about economic burden, is it? Economic burden plays a big part. Then there are social issues because of difference in cultural values. But for now, we can focus just on the economic side. Opening the borders to them all results in an economic burden. The worst part is that you never know how many asylum seekers are going to show up and hence causing serious economic unpredictability. So we need to know who should pay for this. " If we’re concentrating on economic burden, I’d hate to see your thoughts on pensioners, for example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And like I said, if we leave the refugee convention I’ll give you my salary for a year. It’s not happening, so it’s a moot point. Again, I am not arguing that. I am arguing whether we should. And you’ve made your stance clear. It’s abhorrent, but you’ve made it. We done now? I think what's abhorrent is people who pretend like they are morally superior but would avoid dealing with practical consequences of what they are asking." Practical consequences like saying ‘this isn’t working, we need to provide a system that does’ you mean? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And like I said, if we leave the refugee convention I’ll give you my salary for a year. It’s not happening, so it’s a moot point. Again, I am not arguing that. I am arguing whether we should. And you’ve made your stance clear. It’s abhorrent, but you’ve made it. We done now? I think what's abhorrent is people who pretend like they are morally superior but would avoid dealing with practical consequences of what they are asking. Practical consequences like saying ‘this isn’t working, we need to provide a system that does’ you mean? " Practical consequences like "this results in economic and social issues and who has solutions for these?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And like I said, if we leave the refugee convention I’ll give you my salary for a year. It’s not happening, so it’s a moot point. Again, I am not arguing that. I am arguing whether we should. And you’ve made your stance clear. It’s abhorrent, but you’ve made it. We done now? I think what's abhorrent is people who pretend like they are morally superior but would avoid dealing with practical consequences of what they are asking. Practical consequences like saying ‘this isn’t working, we need to provide a system that does’ you mean? Practical consequences like "this results in economic and social issues and who has solutions for these?"" I’ve already told you who can provide a solution. It’s a U.K govt problem that they’ve proven unable to resolve as yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If it’s purely about being an economic burden, we should offload anyone who takes more than they put into the system, no? But it’s not just about economic burden, is it? Economic burden plays a big part. Then there are social issues because of difference in cultural values. But for now, we can focus just on the economic side. Opening the borders to them all results in an economic burden. The worst part is that you never know how many asylum seekers are going to show up and hence causing serious economic unpredictability. So we need to know who should pay for this. If we’re concentrating on economic burden, I’d hate to see your thoughts on pensioners, for example. " The government has to look after its own citizens. And these pensioners grew up in this country, contributed to its economy and its culture. And promises were made to them about the pension. Why should the country take unnecessary economic burden for people outside the country? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The question is why would you oppose getting out of refugee convention. Because it’s the right thing to do. It’s a very privileged position that you have probably never considered ‘what if’ to fleeing your home and going elsewhere. Right thing to do according to whom? They are a net economic burden. You can perform charity for others only when you have resources for it. European economy is not as strong as it was before. Countries are struggling to sustain their own people. So who should pay to cover the burden of asylum seekers? If it’s purely about being an economic burden, we should offload anyone who takes more than they put into the system, no? But it’s not just about economic burden, is it? Economic burden plays a big part. Then there are social issues because of difference in cultural values. But for now, we can focus just on the economic side. Opening the borders to them all results in an economic burden. The worst part is that you never know how many asylum seekers are going to show up and hence causing serious economic unpredictability. So we need to know who should pay for this. " It’s reported the migrants are costing us £8bn a year Brexit has cost us £100bn a year Cost isn’t just the issue; pressure on public services, housing etc. these people are reported to be less likely in work. Also sending weapons and contributing to wars in countries and causing displacement. Gaza alone will cost $300/400/500bn and the bombs that destroyed it came from the USA, the UK helped with ordnance. Ukraine will cost $1trn. The war damage from both has displaced 15 million people. USA UK destroyed Iraq and left 2 million homeless. Climate damage immeasurable too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If it’s purely about being an economic burden, we should offload anyone who takes more than they put into the system, no? But it’s not just about economic burden, is it? Economic burden plays a big part. Then there are social issues because of difference in cultural values. But for now, we can focus just on the economic side. Opening the borders to them all results in an economic burden. The worst part is that you never know how many asylum seekers are going to show up and hence causing serious economic unpredictability. So we need to know who should pay for this. If we’re concentrating on economic burden, I’d hate to see your thoughts on pensioners, for example. The government has to look after its own citizens. And these pensioners grew up in this country, contributed to its economy and its culture. And promises were made to them about the pension. Why should the country take unnecessary economic burden for people outside the country?" We’re all those pensioners born here, or were some once refugees/migrants? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And like I said, if we leave the refugee convention I’ll give you my salary for a year. It’s not happening, so it’s a moot point. Again, I am not arguing that. I am arguing whether we should. And you’ve made your stance clear. It’s abhorrent, but you’ve made it. We done now? I think what's abhorrent is people who pretend like they are morally superior but would avoid dealing with practical consequences of what they are asking. Practical consequences like saying ‘this isn’t working, we need to provide a system that does’ you mean? Practical consequences like "this results in economic and social issues and who has solutions for these?" I’ve already told you who can provide a solution. It’s a U.K govt problem that they’ve proven unable to resolve as yet." It cannot be solved because the government isn't a magic well that can create resources out of nothing. End of the day, the burden is on the tax payers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And like I said, if we leave the refugee convention I’ll give you my salary for a year. It’s not happening, so it’s a moot point. Again, I am not arguing that. I am arguing whether we should. And you’ve made your stance clear. It’s abhorrent, but you’ve made it. We done now? I think what's abhorrent is people who pretend like they are morally superior but would avoid dealing with practical consequences of what they are asking. Practical consequences like saying ‘this isn’t working, we need to provide a system that does’ you mean? Practical consequences like "this results in economic and social issues and who has solutions for these?" I’ve already told you who can provide a solution. It’s a U.K govt problem that they’ve proven unable to resolve as yet. It cannot be solved because the government isn't a magic well that can create resources out of nothing. End of the day, the burden is on the tax payers." So it’s in the tax payers interest to have a system that works - such as safe routes, visas applied for overseas, and adequate processing, right? Perhaps better relations with France and a processing centre there. Then the boat landings dwindle and become far easier to deal with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If it’s purely about being an economic burden, we should offload anyone who takes more than they put into the system, no? But it’s not just about economic burden, is it? Economic burden plays a big part. Then there are social issues because of difference in cultural values. But for now, we can focus just on the economic side. Opening the borders to them all results in an economic burden. The worst part is that you never know how many asylum seekers are going to show up and hence causing serious economic unpredictability. So we need to know who should pay for this. If we’re concentrating on economic burden, I’d hate to see your thoughts on pensioners, for example. The government has to look after its own citizens. And these pensioners grew up in this country, contributed to its economy and its culture. And promises were made to them about the pension. Why should the country take unnecessary economic burden for people outside the country? We’re all those pensioners born here, or were some once refugees/migrants? " That doesn't matter. We took many refugees in the past and we gave them citizenship. It happened during a time the country had the economic resources to do so. Not anymore, so we need to talk about the future. Who pays for this economic burden? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If it’s purely about being an economic burden, we should offload anyone who takes more than they put into the system, no? But it’s not just about economic burden, is it? Economic burden plays a big part. Then there are social issues because of difference in cultural values. But for now, we can focus just on the economic side. Opening the borders to them all results in an economic burden. The worst part is that you never know how many asylum seekers are going to show up and hence causing serious economic unpredictability. So we need to know who should pay for this. If we’re concentrating on economic burden, I’d hate to see your thoughts on pensioners, for example. The government has to look after its own citizens. And these pensioners grew up in this country, contributed to its economy and its culture. And promises were made to them about the pension. Why should the country take unnecessary economic burden for people outside the country? We’re all those pensioners born here, or were some once refugees/migrants? That doesn't matter. We took many refugees in the past and we gave them citizenship. It happened during a time the country had the economic resources to do so. Not anymore, so we need to talk about the future. Who pays for this economic burden?" ‘That doesn’t matter’ is a common theme when faced with the logical fallacy of your own argument, eh? We’re done here, chap. Thanks for trying though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And like I said, if we leave the refugee convention I’ll give you my salary for a year. It’s not happening, so it’s a moot point. Again, I am not arguing that. I am arguing whether we should. And you’ve made your stance clear. It’s abhorrent, but you’ve made it. We done now? I think what's abhorrent is people who pretend like they are morally superior but would avoid dealing with practical consequences of what they are asking. Practical consequences like saying ‘this isn’t working, we need to provide a system that does’ you mean? Practical consequences like "this results in economic and social issues and who has solutions for these?" I’ve already told you who can provide a solution. It’s a U.K govt problem that they’ve proven unable to resolve as yet. It cannot be solved because the government isn't a magic well that can create resources out of nothing. End of the day, the burden is on the tax payers. So it’s in the tax payers interest to have a system that works - such as safe routes, visas applied for overseas, and adequate processing, right? Perhaps better relations with France and a processing centre there. Then the boat landings dwindle and become far easier to deal with." Not really. If you open legal routes from France, they are still an economic burden. They don't get employed easily and they earn much less. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We have politicians asking to leave ECHR. Leaving refugee convention isn't far off. " Leaving the ECHR would be an ever bigger act of self-sabotage than Brexit. I'm protected by the ECHR as are all in the UK. I can't see that being a vote winner, removing one's own rights and protections, just because a small amount of cases which get disproportionate media "fury" focus on a few edge cases. Even those deserve representation. It's not for me or anyone else to judge, apart from the Judges who are legally empowered to do so. . Leaving the assorted Refugee Conventions would be virtually impossible. We'd get booted out of the UN. No one has ever been booted out yet (suspended, yes). But I suppose there is always a first time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If it’s purely about being an economic burden, we should offload anyone who takes more than they put into the system, no? But it’s not just about economic burden, is it? Economic burden plays a big part. Then there are social issues because of difference in cultural values. But for now, we can focus just on the economic side. Opening the borders to them all results in an economic burden. The worst part is that you never know how many asylum seekers are going to show up and hence causing serious economic unpredictability. So we need to know who should pay for this. If we’re concentrating on economic burden, I’d hate to see your thoughts on pensioners, for example. The government has to look after its own citizens. And these pensioners grew up in this country, contributed to its economy and its culture. And promises were made to them about the pension. Why should the country take unnecessary economic burden for people outside the country? We’re all those pensioners born here, or were some once refugees/migrants? That doesn't matter. We took many refugees in the past and we gave them citizenship. It happened during a time the country had the economic resources to do so. Not anymore, so we need to talk about the future. Who pays for this economic burden? ‘That doesn’t matter’ is a common theme when faced with the logical fallacy of your own argument, eh? We’re done here, chap. Thanks for trying though. " I gave an explanation. I will explain again if you don't understand. The country today doesn't have enough economic resources to look after the refugees anymore. In the past, we did and we took them. It is unsustainable now to take more economic burden. So we are better off not taking that many refugees. If we should, who pays for it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And like I said, if we leave the refugee convention I’ll give you my salary for a year. It’s not happening, so it’s a moot point. Again, I am not arguing that. I am arguing whether we should. And you’ve made your stance clear. It’s abhorrent, but you’ve made it. We done now? I think what's abhorrent is people who pretend like they are morally superior but would avoid dealing with practical consequences of what they are asking. Practical consequences like saying ‘this isn’t working, we need to provide a system that does’ you mean? Practical consequences like "this results in economic and social issues and who has solutions for these?" I’ve already told you who can provide a solution. It’s a U.K govt problem that they’ve proven unable to resolve as yet. It cannot be solved because the government isn't a magic well that can create resources out of nothing. End of the day, the burden is on the tax payers. So it’s in the tax payers interest to have a system that works - such as safe routes, visas applied for overseas, and adequate processing, right? Perhaps better relations with France and a processing centre there. Then the boat landings dwindle and become far easier to deal with. Not really. If you open legal routes from France, they are still an economic burden. They don't get employed easily and they earn much less." You’re arguing for a two tier system whereby if I was born here, I can earn minimum wage without penalty, but if I wasn’t born here I can have all the same citizenship rights, except if I don’t earn enough I’m not welcome. You’re also probably likely to argue against strikers fighting to improve salaries, I’ll bet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We have politicians asking to leave ECHR. Leaving refugee convention isn't far off. Leaving the ECHR would be an ever bigger act of self-sabotage than Brexit. I'm protected by the ECHR as are all in the UK. I can't see that being a vote winner, removing one's own rights and protections, just because a small amount of cases which get disproportionate media "fury" focus on a few edge cases. Even those deserve representation. It's not for me or anyone else to judge, apart from the Judges who are legally empowered to do so. . Leaving the assorted Refugee Conventions would be virtually impossible. We'd get booted out of the UN. No one has ever been booted out yet (suspended, yes). But I suppose there is always a first time. " The ECHR does fuck all to protect human rights. It doesn't even protect right to speech. Different European governments have passed numerous laws against free speech and it can't stop them. The only thing the ECHR does well is to stop criminals from getting deported. The UN is a joke. They have no way to enforce these things. The refugee convention has numerous loopholes that people smugglers are exploiting. Europe is in self-destruction mode by blindly following it like it's the Bible. It has to be changed or countries should just leave. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You’re arguing for a two tier system whereby if I was born here, I can earn minimum wage without penalty, but if I wasn’t born here I can have all the same citizenship rights, except if I don’t earn enough I’m not welcome. " I didn't. People who have citizenships will be treated equally. I am just saying we can't take new people coming on boats anymore. " You’re also probably likely to argue against strikers fighting to improve salaries, I’ll bet? " I have no clue how this is even related  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The ECHR does fuck all to protect human rights. " May I suggest some time spent on the BIHR (British Institute of Human Rights) website acquainting yourself with the ECHR might help reframe your understanding of the work the ECHR actually do ? It's a very informative and educative site. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If it’s purely about being an economic burden, we should offload anyone who takes more than they put into the system, no? But it’s not just about economic burden, is it? Economic burden plays a big part. Then there are social issues because of difference in cultural values. But for now, we can focus just on the economic side. Opening the borders to them all results in an economic burden. The worst part is that you never know how many asylum seekers are going to show up and hence causing serious economic unpredictability. So we need to know who should pay for this. If we’re concentrating on economic burden, I’d hate to see your thoughts on pensioners, for example. The government has to look after its own citizens. And these pensioners grew up in this country, contributed to its economy and its culture. And promises were made to them about the pension. Why should the country take unnecessary economic burden for people outside the country? We’re all those pensioners born here, or were some once refugees/migrants? That doesn't matter. We took many refugees in the past and we gave them citizenship. It happened during a time the country had the economic resources to do so. Not anymore, so we need to talk about the future. Who pays for this economic burden? ‘That doesn’t matter’ is a common theme when faced with the logical fallacy of your own argument, eh? We’re done here, chap. Thanks for trying though. I gave an explanation. I will explain again if you don't understand. The country today doesn't have enough economic resources to look after the refugees anymore. In the past, we did and we took them. It is unsustainable now to take more economic burden. So we are better off not taking that many refugees. If we should, who pays for it?" No easy answer as to how to pay for it. Perhaps if we are to continue allowing in people who are an economic burden then some services need to be cut to pay for it. Which services should go or be reduced to pay for it could be even more contentious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If it’s purely about being an economic burden, we should offload anyone who takes more than they put into the system, no? But it’s not just about economic burden, is it? Economic burden plays a big part. Then there are social issues because of difference in cultural values. But for now, we can focus just on the economic side. Opening the borders to them all results in an economic burden. The worst part is that you never know how many asylum seekers are going to show up and hence causing serious economic unpredictability. So we need to know who should pay for this. If we’re concentrating on economic burden, I’d hate to see your thoughts on pensioners, for example. The government has to look after its own citizens. And these pensioners grew up in this country, contributed to its economy and its culture. And promises were made to them about the pension. Why should the country take unnecessary economic burden for people outside the country? We’re all those pensioners born here, or were some once refugees/migrants? That doesn't matter. We took many refugees in the past and we gave them citizenship. It happened during a time the country had the economic resources to do so. Not anymore, so we need to talk about the future. Who pays for this economic burden? ‘That doesn’t matter’ is a common theme when faced with the logical fallacy of your own argument, eh? We’re done here, chap. Thanks for trying though. I gave an explanation. I will explain again if you don't understand. The country today doesn't have enough economic resources to look after the refugees anymore. In the past, we did and we took them. It is unsustainable now to take more economic burden. So we are better off not taking that many refugees. If we should, who pays for it? No easy answer as to how to pay for it. Perhaps if we are to continue allowing in people who are an economic burden then some services need to be cut to pay for it. Which services should go or be reduced to pay for it could be even more contentious. " This is the crux of the matter. People who condone illegal migration are the first to complain when public services are diminished to pay the bill for accommodation, legal costs, healthcare, benefits etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the crux of the matter. People who condone illegal migration… " Who condones illegal migration? Asylum seeking is legal. Refugees are legal. Those who fail asylum (and thus become illegal migrants) should be returned. Those who avoid asylum processing are illegal and should be returned. Those who overstay their visa should be returned (or re-processed). Does anyone ‘condone’ illegal migration? The fact that we don’t have adequate systems in place to resolve the problem is our problem, and where any anger should be directed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Who condones illegal migration? Asylum seeking is legal. Refugees are legal. Those who fail asylum (and thus become illegal migrants) should be returned. Those who avoid asylum processing are illegal and should be returned. Those who overstay their visa should be returned (or re-processed). Does anyone ‘condone’ illegal migration? The fact that we don’t have adequate systems in place to resolve the problem is our problem, and where any anger should be directed." Everyone who protests or prevents the deportation of failed asylum seekers, for a start. Anyone supporting failed asylum seekers to frustrate legal systems in place to deport them. People who advocate for open borders (for free movement of all people, from anywhere) due to some misguided sense of fairness. There are others, but this covers many of those who "'condone' illegal migration". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Who condones illegal migration? Asylum seeking is legal. Refugees are legal. Those who fail asylum (and thus become illegal migrants) should be returned. Those who avoid asylum processing are illegal and should be returned. Those who overstay their visa should be returned (or re-processed). Does anyone ‘condone’ illegal migration? The fact that we don’t have adequate systems in place to resolve the problem is our problem, and where any anger should be directed. Everyone who protests or prevents the deportation of failed asylum seekers, for a start. Anyone supporting failed asylum seekers to frustrate legal systems in place to deport them. People who advocate for open borders (for free movement of all people, from anywhere) due to some misguided sense of fairness. There are others, but this covers many of those who "'condone' illegal migration"." Advocating open borders as the eventual goal of humanity is demonstrably not the same as condoning illegal immigration in the present day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If it’s purely about being an economic burden, we should offload anyone who takes more than they put into the system, no? But it’s not just about economic burden, is it? Economic burden plays a big part. Then there are social issues because of difference in cultural values. But for now, we can focus just on the economic side. Opening the borders to them all results in an economic burden. The worst part is that you never know how many asylum seekers are going to show up and hence causing serious economic unpredictability. So we need to know who should pay for this. If we’re concentrating on economic burden, I’d hate to see your thoughts on pensioners, for example. The government has to look after its own citizens. And these pensioners grew up in this country, contributed to its economy and its culture. And promises were made to them about the pension. Why should the country take unnecessary economic burden for people outside the country? We’re all those pensioners born here, or were some once refugees/migrants? That doesn't matter. We took many refugees in the past and we gave them citizenship. It happened during a time the country had the economic resources to do so. Not anymore, so we need to talk about the future. Who pays for this economic burden? ‘That doesn’t matter’ is a common theme when faced with the logical fallacy of your own argument, eh? We’re done here, chap. Thanks for trying though. I gave an explanation. I will explain again if you don't understand. The country today doesn't have enough economic resources to look after the refugees anymore. In the past, we did and we took them. It is unsustainable now to take more economic burden. So we are better off not taking that many refugees. If we should, who pays for it? No easy answer as to how to pay for it. Perhaps if we are to continue allowing in people who are an economic burden then some services need to be cut to pay for it. Which services should go or be reduced to pay for it could be even more contentious. This is the crux of the matter. People who condone illegal migration are the first to complain when public services are diminished to pay the bill for accommodation, legal costs, healthcare, benefits etc. " Unfortunately the money needs to come from somewhere and the amount is rising as more and more come. More taxes or more borrowing ( both so far ruled out by the government) or cuts to services | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As an island the UK should have very low levels of illegal migration and asylum applications. Look at Japan's figures and compare! The fact we don't is the result of both political choice (with no democratic mandate) and bureaucratic incompetence over the last two decades." Japan is facing passive problems with an ageing population, thanks to their lack of immigration and low birth rate. They need change, and they need it fast. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As an island the UK should have very low levels of illegal migration and asylum applications. Look at Japan's figures and compare! The fact we don't is the result of both political choice (with no democratic mandate) and bureaucratic incompetence over the last two decades. Japan is facing passive problems with an ageing population, thanks to their lack of immigration and low birth rate. They need change, and they need it fast. " Lol, one of the safest, most prosperous and advanced countries in the world. I'm sure the people there are quite happy not living in Croydon or Luton. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As an island the UK should have very low levels of illegal migration and asylum applications. Look at Japan's figures and compare! The fact we don't is the result of both political choice (with no democratic mandate) and bureaucratic incompetence over the last two decades. Japan is facing passive problems with an ageing population, thanks to their lack of immigration and low birth rate. They need change, and they need it fast. Lol, one of the safest, most prosperous and advanced countries in the world. I'm sure the people there are quite happy not living in Croydon or Luton. "How long will they remain prosperous in the crisis they now face though? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many drive through car washes are there in the country? Wasn't there a thread saying 6000 Turkish barber's in the UK. Farm workers, fish processing plants,deep sea fishing vessels, factories, building trade..... Crikey the list goes on of jobs that Brit's are unwilling to do that's ripe for illegal workers to be exploited " Can an illegal worker be exploited? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many drive through car washes are there in the country? Wasn't there a thread saying 6000 Turkish barber's in the UK. Farm workers, fish processing plants,deep sea fishing vessels, factories, building trade..... Crikey the list goes on of jobs that Brit's are unwilling to do that's ripe for illegal workers to be exploited Can an illegal worker be exploited? " Very much so ,even more so in fact who do they complain about worker's rights to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As an island the UK should have very low levels of illegal migration and asylum applications. Look at Japan's figures and compare! The fact we don't is the result of both political choice (with no democratic mandate) and bureaucratic incompetence over the last two decades. Japan is facing passive problems with an ageing population, thanks to their lack of immigration and low birth rate. They need change, and they need it fast. Lol, one of the safest, most prosperous and advanced countries in the world. I'm sure the people there are quite happy not living in Croydon or Luton.
How long will they remain prosperous in the crisis they now face though? "Is that why Britain's gdp and productivity have fallen sharply over a period of huge legal and illegal immigration ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As an island the UK should have very low levels of illegal migration and asylum applications. Look at Japan's figures and compare! The fact we don't is the result of both political choice (with no democratic mandate) and bureaucratic incompetence over the last two decades. Japan is facing passive problems with an ageing population, thanks to their lack of immigration and low birth rate. They need change, and they need it fast. Lol, one of the safest, most prosperous and advanced countries in the world. I'm sure the people there are quite happy not living in Croydon or Luton.
How long will they remain prosperous in the crisis they now face though?
Is that why Britain's gdp and productivity have fallen sharply over a period of huge legal and illegal immigration ? "https://www.statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom/ https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/productivity#:~:text=Productivity%20in%20the%20United%20Kingdom%20averaged%2074.86%20points%20from%201971,the%20first%20quarter%20of%201971. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As an island the UK should have very low levels of illegal migration and asylum applications. Look at Japan's figures and compare! The fact we don't is the result of both political choice (with no democratic mandate) and bureaucratic incompetence over the last two decades. Japan is facing passive problems with an ageing population, thanks to their lack of immigration and low birth rate. They need change, and they need it fast. Lol, one of the safest, most prosperous and advanced countries in the world. I'm sure the people there are quite happy not living in Croydon or Luton.
How long will they remain prosperous in the crisis they now face though?
Is that why Britain's gdp and productivity have fallen sharply over a period of huge legal and illegal immigration ?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom/
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/productivity#:~:text=Productivity%20in%20the%20United%20Kingdom%20averaged%2074.86%20points%20from%201971,the%20first%20quarter%20of%201971.
"Tldr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As an island the UK should have very low levels of illegal migration and asylum applications. Look at Japan's figures and compare! The fact we don't is the result of both political choice (with no democratic mandate) and bureaucratic incompetence over the last two decades. Japan is facing passive problems with an ageing population, thanks to their lack of immigration and low birth rate. They need change, and they need it fast. Lol, one of the safest, most prosperous and advanced countries in the world. I'm sure the people there are quite happy not living in Croydon or Luton.
How long will they remain prosperous in the crisis they now face though?
Is that why Britain's gdp and productivity have fallen sharply over a period of huge legal and illegal immigration ?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom/
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/productivity#:~:text=Productivity%20in%20the%20United%20Kingdom%20averaged%2074.86%20points%20from%201971,the%20first%20quarter%20of%201971.
Tldr"I’ll summarise. You’re wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched hard talk on bbc one at 430am a few months ago about Japan, yes there population is decreasing and getting older, but they are replacing so many jobs with robots and a.i ... so they won't have to rely on immigration. Seems to be working afaik " Yes, UK lack of investment in such technology is one reason for our woeful productivity. Also this Tech allows social cohesion and unity to survive while unrestricted immigration erodes it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As an island the UK should have very low levels of illegal migration and asylum applications. Look at Japan's figures and compare! The fact we don't is the result of both political choice (with no democratic mandate) and bureaucratic incompetence over the last two decades. Japan is facing passive problems with an ageing population, thanks to their lack of immigration and low birth rate. They need change, and they need it fast. Lol, one of the safest, most prosperous and advanced countries in the world. I'm sure the people there are quite happy not living in Croydon or Luton.
How long will they remain prosperous in the crisis they now face though?
Is that why Britain's gdp and productivity have fallen sharply over a period of huge legal and illegal immigration ?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom/
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/productivity#:~:text=Productivity%20in%20the%20United%20Kingdom%20averaged%2074.86%20points%20from%201971,the%20first%20quarter%20of%201971.
Tldr
I’ll summarise.
You’re wrong. "Oh my. You genuinely don't understand the difference between gdp and gdp per capita.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched hard talk on bbc one at 430am a few months ago about Japan, yes there population is decreasing and getting older, but they are replacing so many jobs with robots and a.i ... so they won't have to rely on immigration. Seems to be working afaik " Also they are alot healthier and fitter nation with people living longer average age of death in Japan is 83.6yrs (HK 84 yrs, UK 79yrs, global average 71 yrs). Japan has low obesity at 3.6%, compared to 26% adults in UK. This a major contributor to their ageing population | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As an island the UK should have very low levels of illegal migration and asylum applications. Look at Japan's figures and compare! The fact we don't is the result of both political choice (with no democratic mandate) and bureaucratic incompetence over the last two decades. Japan is facing passive problems with an ageing population, thanks to their lack of immigration and low birth rate. They need change, and they need it fast. Lol, one of the safest, most prosperous and advanced countries in the world. I'm sure the people there are quite happy not living in Croydon or Luton.
How long will they remain prosperous in the crisis they now face though?
Is that why Britain's gdp and productivity have fallen sharply over a period of huge legal and illegal immigration ?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom/
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/productivity#:~:text=Productivity%20in%20the%20United%20Kingdom%20averaged%2074.86%20points%20from%201971,the%20first%20quarter%20of%201971.
Tldr
I’ll summarise.
You’re wrong.
Oh my. You genuinely don't understand the difference between gdp and gdp per capita. "Shall we quote what you said? Yes. Let’s do that: “Is that why Britain's gdp and productivity have fallen sharply over a period of huge legal and illegal immigration ?” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched hard talk on bbc one at 430am a few months ago about Japan, yes there population is decreasing and getting older, but they are replacing so many jobs with robots and a.i ... so they won't have to rely on immigration. Seems to be working afaik " I do wonder if they’ll introduce a UBI or similar, as we’ll all have to consider sooner or later | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Who condones illegal migration? Asylum seeking is legal. Refugees are legal. Those who fail asylum (and thus become illegal migrants) should be returned. Those who avoid asylum processing are illegal and should be returned. Those who overstay their visa should be returned (or re-processed). Does anyone ‘condone’ illegal migration? The fact that we don’t have adequate systems in place to resolve the problem is our problem, and where any anger should be directed. Everyone who protests or prevents the deportation of failed asylum seekers, for a start. Anyone supporting failed asylum seekers to frustrate legal systems in place to deport them. People who advocate for open borders (for free movement of all people, from anywhere) due to some misguided sense of fairness. There are others, but this covers many of those who "'condone' illegal migration"."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As an island the UK should have very low levels of illegal migration and asylum applications. Look at Japan's figures and compare! The fact we don't is the result of both political choice (with no democratic mandate) and bureaucratic incompetence over the last two decades. Japan is facing passive problems with an ageing population, thanks to their lack of immigration and low birth rate. They need change, and they need it fast. Lol, one of the safest, most prosperous and advanced countries in the world. I'm sure the people there are quite happy not living in Croydon or Luton.
How long will they remain prosperous in the crisis they now face though?
Is that why Britain's gdp and productivity have fallen sharply over a period of huge legal and illegal immigration ?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom/
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/productivity#:~:text=Productivity%20in%20the%20United%20Kingdom%20averaged%2074.86%20points%20from%201971,the%20first%20quarter%20of%201971.
Tldr
I’ll summarise.
You’re wrong.
Oh my. You genuinely don't understand the difference between gdp and gdp per capita. "Now of course we can look at GDP per capita, which you claimed has ‘fallen sharply’ over a period of legal and illegal immigration. Guess what? You’re still wrong: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GBR/%20united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched hard talk on bbc one at 430am a few months ago about Japan, yes there population is decreasing and getting older, but they are replacing so many jobs with robots and a.i ... so they won't have to rely on immigration. Seems to be working afaik I do wonder if they’ll introduce a UBI or similar, as we’ll all have to consider sooner or later " Free guaranteed income for illegal immigrants, that will get the economy moving ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I watched hard talk on bbc one at 430am a few months ago about Japan, yes there population is decreasing and getting older, but they are replacing so many jobs with robots and a.i ... so they won't have to rely on immigration. Seems to be working afaik I do wonder if they’ll introduce a UBI or similar, as we’ll all have to consider sooner or later Free guaranteed income for illegal immigrants, that will get the economy moving !" What’s your solution to increased AI and automation reducing workforces then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The ECHR does fuck all to protect human rights. May I suggest some time spent on the BIHR (British Institute of Human Rights) website acquainting yourself with the ECHR might help reframe your understanding of the work the ECHR actually do ? It's a very informative and educative site. " I have read them. Just because something has "human rights" in the name, it doesn't mean it actually protects human rights. The ECHR is a massively deceptive lie that the European elite pulled on its people to create an illusion that they have human rights. For example, there is an article that says freedom of speech should not be messed with. But they follow it up with a bunch of exemptions. One of the exemption is "Moral reasons". If a state wants to pass blasphemy laws, it can easily pass it for "moral reasons". Anything can be justified for "moral reasons". People in the continent blindly trust the ECHR to protect their human rights. It doesn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If it’s purely about being an economic burden, we should offload anyone who takes more than they put into the system, no? But it’s not just about economic burden, is it? Economic burden plays a big part. Then there are social issues because of difference in cultural values. But for now, we can focus just on the economic side. Opening the borders to them all results in an economic burden. The worst part is that you never know how many asylum seekers are going to show up and hence causing serious economic unpredictability. So we need to know who should pay for this. If we’re concentrating on economic burden, I’d hate to see your thoughts on pensioners, for example. The government has to look after its own citizens. And these pensioners grew up in this country, contributed to its economy and its culture. And promises were made to them about the pension. Why should the country take unnecessary economic burden for people outside the country? We’re all those pensioners born here, or were some once refugees/migrants? That doesn't matter. We took many refugees in the past and we gave them citizenship. It happened during a time the country had the economic resources to do so. Not anymore, so we need to talk about the future. Who pays for this economic burden? ‘That doesn’t matter’ is a common theme when faced with the logical fallacy of your own argument, eh? We’re done here, chap. Thanks for trying though. I gave an explanation. I will explain again if you don't understand. The country today doesn't have enough economic resources to look after the refugees anymore. In the past, we did and we took them. It is unsustainable now to take more economic burden. So we are better off not taking that many refugees. If we should, who pays for it? No easy answer as to how to pay for it. Perhaps if we are to continue allowing in people who are an economic burden then some services need to be cut to pay for it. Which services should go or be reduced to pay for it could be even more contentious. " Exactly! Anyone can write on the internet that they want to help the refugees, they want to solve the world hunger. But to actually do it needs real world sacrifices which none of these people are willing to make. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the crux of the matter. People who condone illegal migration… Who condones illegal migration? Asylum seeking is legal. Refugees are legal. Those who fail asylum (and thus become illegal migrants) should be returned. Those who avoid asylum processing are illegal and should be returned. Those who overstay their visa should be returned (or re-processed). Does anyone ‘condone’ illegal migration? The fact that we don’t have adequate systems in place to resolve the problem is our problem, and where any anger should be directed." We are back to saying "because the laws says so", aren't we? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Japan is totally fine. It's not like UK solved the ageing population problem through immigration. Japan prioritised preserving the culture over making short sighted fix for their economic issues. They chose not to drink the "multiculturalism is good" kool-aid. They try to get immigrants from other southeast Asian countries with similar cultural backgrounds. And they are actually working on long term solutions - Robotics, automation and AI. Rail companies recently started using robots to clean the tracks. In the long term, they are much better positioned to face the demographic challenge compared to countries depending on immigration." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the crux of the matter. People who condone illegal migration… Who condones illegal migration? Asylum seeking is legal. Refugees are legal. Those who fail asylum (and thus become illegal migrants) should be returned. Those who avoid asylum processing are illegal and should be returned. Those who overstay their visa should be returned (or re-processed). Does anyone ‘condone’ illegal migration? The fact that we don’t have adequate systems in place to resolve the problem is our problem, and where any anger should be directed. We are back to saying "because the laws says so", aren't we? "Well given that the average person has far more knowledge common with any migrant than they ever will with an MP or minister, I question why people turn on themselves over this stuff. Given different circumstances, you’d be doing the same as those migrants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the crux of the matter. People who condone illegal migration… Who condones illegal migration? Asylum seeking is legal. Refugees are legal. Those who fail asylum (and thus become illegal migrants) should be returned. Those who avoid asylum processing are illegal and should be returned. Those who overstay their visa should be returned (or re-processed). Does anyone ‘condone’ illegal migration? The fact that we don’t have adequate systems in place to resolve the problem is our problem, and where any anger should be directed. We are back to saying "because the laws says so", aren't we?
Well given that the average person has far more knowledge common with any migrant than they ever will with an MP or minister, I question why people turn on themselves over this stuff.
Given different circumstances, you’d be doing the same as those migrants. "Nah, British people have always stayed around to defend their communities, not ran off like cowards leaving women and children to their fate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the crux of the matter. People who condone illegal migration… Who condones illegal migration? Asylum seeking is legal. Refugees are legal. Those who fail asylum (and thus become illegal migrants) should be returned. Those who avoid asylum processing are illegal and should be returned. Those who overstay their visa should be returned (or re-processed). Does anyone ‘condone’ illegal migration? The fact that we don’t have adequate systems in place to resolve the problem is our problem, and where any anger should be directed. We are back to saying "because the laws says so", aren't we?
Well given that the average person has far more knowledge common with any migrant than they ever will with an MP or minister, I question why people turn on themselves over this stuff.
Given different circumstances, you’d be doing the same as those migrants.
Nah, British people have always stayed around to defend their communities, not ran off like cowards leaving women and children to their fate."Character traits are not defined by the plot of land upon which you were spawned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nah, British people have always stayed around to defend their communities, not ran off like cowards leaving women and children to their fate." In a patriarchally-dominated world, you'll find that the men are the ones sent to either fight in a war, or find better prospects for their families at home in another country. Then either send money home or try to bring their family to a new nation at a later point. . Culturally, some countries would not tolerate the women carting their brood off to another country to try and secure work. . It has nothing to do with "cowardice" and everything to do with the reality of what social laws and allowances said country mandates on their people. Laws of which the patriarchy has enforced on their society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the crux of the matter. People who condone illegal migration… Who condones illegal migration? Asylum seeking is legal. Refugees are legal. Those who fail asylum (and thus become illegal migrants) should be returned. Those who avoid asylum processing are illegal and should be returned. Those who overstay their visa should be returned (or re-processed). Does anyone ‘condone’ illegal migration? The fact that we don’t have adequate systems in place to resolve the problem is our problem, and where any anger should be directed. We are back to saying "because the laws says so", aren't we?
Well given that the average person has far more knowledge common with any migrant than they ever will with an MP or minister, I question why people turn on themselves over this stuff.
Given different circumstances, you’d be doing the same as those migrants.
Nah, British people have always stayed around to defend their communities, not ran off like cowards leaving women and children to their fate.
Character traits are not defined by the plot of land upon which you were spawned. "That perspective largely depends on how much you value integrating into the society you are part of. Every part of this country has a rich history that continues to shape future generations through its traditions and values. You’ve made it abundantly clear, both here and in your previous comments, that you don’t share an interest in the land you were born on or feel a duty to defend it. With that in mind, I don’t believe you’re in a position to tell others what should or shouldn’t be important to them regarding their heritage and traditions, or how it shapes them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nah, British people have always stayed around to defend their communities, not ran off like cowards leaving women and children to their fate. In a patriarchally-dominated world, you'll find that the men are the ones sent to either fight in a war, or find better prospects for their families at home in another country. Then either send money home or try to bring their family to a new nation at a later point. . Culturally, some countries would not tolerate the women carting their brood off to another country to try and secure work. . It has nothing to do with "cowardice" and everything to do with the reality of what social laws and allowances said country mandates on their people. Laws of which the patriarchy has enforced on their society. " As I understood the statement, young fit men are leaving a war zone and families behind. Who then become illegal entrants via small boat due to fleeing from war? That is the excuse I hear a lot as to why these young men are arriving here with no documentation, because they left it behind when they were fleeing, with no time to pack. I don't think anyone is so blinkered that they can't see these men are doing what you said, finding better prospects here to send money back to support their families. Which isn't asylum seeking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the crux of the matter. People who condone illegal migration… Who condones illegal migration? Asylum seeking is legal. Refugees are legal. Those who fail asylum (and thus become illegal migrants) should be returned. Those who avoid asylum processing are illegal and should be returned. Those who overstay their visa should be returned (or re-processed). Does anyone ‘condone’ illegal migration? The fact that we don’t have adequate systems in place to resolve the problem is our problem, and where any anger should be directed. We are back to saying "because the laws says so", aren't we?
Well given that the average person has far more knowledge common with any migrant than they ever will with an MP or minister, I question why people turn on themselves over this stuff.
Given different circumstances, you’d be doing the same as those migrants.
Nah, British people have always stayed around to defend their communities, not ran off like cowards leaving women and children to their fate.
Character traits are not defined by the plot of land upon which you were spawned.
That perspective largely depends on how much you value integrating into the society you are part of. Every part of this country has a rich history that continues to shape future generations through its traditions and values.
You’ve made it abundantly clear, both here and in your previous comments, that you don’t share an interest in the land you were born on or feel a duty to defend it. With that in mind, I don’t believe you’re in a position to tell others what should or shouldn’t be important to them regarding their heritage and traditions, or how it shapes them." Very well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Money aside. I'm more concerned re that's an awful lot of unknowns here with no clue regarding their political, religious ideology. I've said this in a few of these threads. When ISIS was really at it's peak televised beheadings, almost weekly terror attacks around the world one of the things they promised as part of their holy war was to flood Europe with half a million unknown soldiers. Now we have an awful lot of men of fighting age who have accessed this country via illegal routes,who are they, where are they and what is their agenda? So personally I'm more concerned about national security and the safety of the people than bickering about virtue signalling." This 100 percent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the crux of the matter. People who condone illegal migration… Who condones illegal migration? Asylum seeking is legal. Refugees are legal. Those who fail asylum (and thus become illegal migrants) should be returned. Those who avoid asylum processing are illegal and should be returned. Those who overstay their visa should be returned (or re-processed). Does anyone ‘condone’ illegal migration? The fact that we don’t have adequate systems in place to resolve the problem is our problem, and where any anger should be directed. We are back to saying "because the laws says so", aren't we?
Well given that the average person has far more knowledge common with any migrant than they ever will with an MP or minister, I question why people turn on themselves over this stuff.
Given different circumstances, you’d be doing the same as those migrants.
Nah, British people have always stayed around to defend their communities, not ran off like cowards leaving women and children to their fate.
Character traits are not defined by the plot of land upon which you were spawned.
That perspective largely depends on how much you value integrating into the society you are part of. Every part of this country has a rich history that continues to shape future generations through its traditions and values.
You’ve made it abundantly clear, both here and in your previous comments, that you don’t share an interest in the land you were born on or feel a duty to defend it. With that in mind, I don’t believe you’re in a position to tell others what should or shouldn’t be important to them regarding their heritage and traditions, or how it shapes them."I haven’t told anyone what should or shouldn’t be impatient to them, though. You’re projecting yet again. Given that you’ve repeatedly fail to understand the difference between asylum seekers, refugees and illegal migrants, mayhap you should withdraw from conversation on the topic until you’ve done some research | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Which isn't asylum seeking. " All are asylum seekers, until they are processed. You’ve been explained this repeatedly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the crux of the matter. People who condone illegal migration… Who condones illegal migration? Asylum seeking is legal. Refugees are legal. Those who fail asylum (and thus become illegal migrants) should be returned. Those who avoid asylum processing are illegal and should be returned. Those who overstay their visa should be returned (or re-processed). Does anyone ‘condone’ illegal migration? The fact that we don’t have adequate systems in place to resolve the problem is our problem, and where any anger should be directed. We are back to saying "because the laws says so", aren't we?
Well given that the average person has far more knowledge common with any migrant than they ever will with an MP or minister, I question why people turn on themselves over this stuff.
Given different circumstances, you’d be doing the same as those migrants.
Nah, British people have always stayed around to defend their communities, not ran off like cowards leaving women and children to their fate.
Character traits are not defined by the plot of land upon which you were spawned.
That perspective largely depends on how much you value integrating into the society you are part of. Every part of this country has a rich history that continues to shape future generations through its traditions and values.
You’ve made it abundantly clear, both here and in your previous comments, that you don’t share an interest in the land you were born on or feel a duty to defend it. With that in mind, I don’t believe you’re in a position to tell others what should or shouldn’t be important to them regarding their heritage and traditions, or how it shapes them.
I haven’t told anyone what should or shouldn’t be impatient to them, though. You’re projecting yet again.
Given that you’ve repeatedly fail to understand the difference between asylum seekers, refugees and illegal migrants, mayhap you should withdraw from conversation on the topic until you’ve done some research
"Really
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Which isn't asylum seeking. All are asylum seekers, until they are processed. You’ve been explained this repeatedly. " Not all are "genuine asylum seekers". While anyone can claim asylum, the process exists to determine whether those claims are valid, the majority of the country recognises the people making the crossings are not genuine asylum seekers and are playing the system. This blind eye approach, allowing people to stress test our awfully out of date refugee convention is exactly why we will leave it and write a new one to prevent those abusing the system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Not all are "genuine asylum seekers". While anyone can claim asylum, the process exists to determine whether those claims are valid, the majority of the country recognises the people making the crossings are not genuine asylum seekers and are playing the system. This blind eye approach, allowing people to stress test our awfully out of date refugee convention is exactly why we will leave it and write a new one to prevent those abusing the system. " You cannot tell just by looking at a boat of people who has a genuine claim for asylum and who doesn't. Once the boat lands and the people are processed in to the system, then you progress their applications. . Stopping the boat entirely, harms genuine asylum seekers and is counter to our obligations too. . Personally it would be a lot easier if more legal routes were made available and every UK Embassy overseas had a dedicated Asylum Team. At the moment it is not possible to claim asylum to the UK from outside the UK. If it was possible, then we could process applications much more smoothly and humanely. Provide legal routes, and the criminal gangs will greatly wither. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Not all are "genuine asylum seekers". While anyone can claim asylum, the process exists to determine whether those claims are valid, the majority of the country recognises the people making the crossings are not genuine asylum seekers and are playing the system. This blind eye approach, allowing people to stress test our awfully out of date refugee convention is exactly why we will leave it and write a new one to prevent those abusing the system. You cannot tell just by looking at a boat of people who has a genuine claim for asylum and who doesn't. Once the boat lands and the people are processed in to the system, then you progress their applications. . Stopping the boat entirely, harms genuine asylum seekers and is counter to our obligations too. . Personally it would be a lot easier if more legal routes were made available and every UK Embassy overseas had a dedicated Asylum Team. At the moment it is not possible to claim asylum to the UK from outside the UK. If it was possible, then we could process applications much more smoothly and humanely. Provide legal routes, and the criminal gangs will greatly wither." I'm not saying you can look at someone and make your mind up one way or another, I'm saying we clearly have the majority of people entering the country by small boat are not genuine asylum seekers. I don't accept legal routes as an option and wont until we leave the refugee convention and write our own more up to date version, that allows us to support the genuine asylum and seekers and turn away without delay those who are not. The reason I feel like this is those who would not qualify on the safe route, would still travel across illegally as the convention is still in place to support that, we achieve nothing. Remove us from the refugee convention and we can then offer most of the things you suggest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some of them will be Doctors and dentists escaping oppressive regimes. They will be serving their community for a living." But nearly all of them wont be, is equally true | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Stopping the boat entirely, harms genuine asylum seekers and is counter to our obligations too." There's nothing in the convention, or the case law, that says we have to let people in. If we were to magically somehow stop all the boats from setting off, we would have no obligations to those people in France who want to seek asylum in the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the crux of the matter. People who condone illegal migration… Who condones illegal migration? Asylum seeking is legal. Refugees are legal. Those who fail asylum (and thus become illegal migrants) should be returned. Those who avoid asylum processing are illegal and should be returned. Those who overstay their visa should be returned (or re-processed). Does anyone ‘condone’ illegal migration? The fact that we don’t have adequate systems in place to resolve the problem is our problem, and where any anger should be directed. We are back to saying "because the laws says so", aren't we?
Well given that the average person has far more knowledge common with any migrant than they ever will with an MP or minister, I question why people turn on themselves over this stuff.
Given different circumstances, you’d be doing the same as those migrants.
Nah, British people have always stayed around to defend their communities, not ran off like cowards leaving women and children to their fate.
Character traits are not defined by the plot of land upon which you were spawned. "No such think as culture, history or custom. What a bizarre and utterly false world view. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some of them will be Doctors and dentists escaping oppressive regimes. They will be serving their community for a living." Cool, let's let them in and keep the other 99% out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some of them will be Doctors and dentists escaping oppressive regimes. They will be serving their community for a living." That old chestnut. Doctors etc will be a tiny tiny percentage. Totally ignoring the fact many are not genuine asylum seekers and have a negative impact on the economy and social cohesion. A doctor from any country would know they would need to prove their credentials in a new country and hopefully intelligent enough to not hamper that process by throwing their documents into the sea as they get near the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
