There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
And they pay tax whilst working? Paying their way whilst waiting rather than just a hand out. 7 out of 10 get accepted by this government in the end. And having a bit more money those years having better quality of life. And is there anything more wrong than idleness or forced and kept in idleness?
If that is your platform Anabobzina I will vote for it. What colour rosette will you be wearing?
A completely open door immigration system is all well and good till you try and work out where everyone is going to live, see a doctor...
I don’t suppose anyone is suggesting a completely open door policy. Surely it’s within the gift of man to identify some asylum seekers who are willing and able to work and - erm - let them?
We are absolutely desperate for labour down here. I spoke to one publican yesterday who said it was the ‘worst it has ever been’, he’s just lost his head chef and has almost no chance of recruiting before Christmas, so is probably going to have to close his kitchen.
Do summat about your housing costs then. And pay staff much much more.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Exactly.
If processing were handled in Rwanda then they'd be eager to actually get the case resolved, instead of the current situation.
The problem is the people who are refused asylum but then don’t say where they are from so can’t be returned. I doubt the Falklands would want them. May be Rwanda?
Australia they just (AIUI) keep them locked up until they return home
If we are going down this rate, and I'm not saying I approve, but could we ask/pay where ever has the Australian centres, if the UK could build an identical place next to it? probably cost a bit in flights, mind you.
PNG I think. But that would be logical.
In practice, most refugees by either plane or boat to Australia are in the community, indeed on terms not dissimilar to our own policy.
• Pubs won’t open outside on 12 April, as it’s not viable (Wrong)
• Covid cases will hit 100,000 a week by August. (Wrong then, and still wrong now)
• Everywhere in Europe will be in lockdown by December (Pending, almost certainly wrong)
12 April - can't remember, might have been wrong
100,000 a WEEK yes has happened every week, think you mean 100,000 a day, yes wrong so far
Europe - looks like mainland in Dec correct, hope not UK
I would like to be a COVID denier like you but I do like to take a more realistic view of what is happening.
Bit worried about UK lockdown risk in Q1 2022, I am sure you are not, hope you are right because of course you are the source of all reasonable thinking on here ❤️
Yes your prediction was 100,000 a day by August and it was wrong then and is still wrong now.
Who is a covid denier? I’m certainly not. What an absolutely stupid thing to say.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
This particular debate is a very unedifying one, since even more than many others it is assumed extreme options such as 'Let everybody in' or 'Let nobody in' are the only real options, and positions in between are just figleafs. Since people often use very broad arguments that would seem to imply either than setting any limits on immigration at all are immoral, or letting anybody in is dangerous or for suckers, that's not entirely surprising in fairness.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
That requires both sides to engage, and I mean both sides, At the moment, the default argument of people like Rochdale is "if you don't let them in, you are evil / Nazis / despicable". Name me one occasion when a refugee group has actually come up with a half way house solution where they recognise the concerns of the other side and suggest something that all sides can agree on? They never do. It is all nice, meaningless language but their aim is clear - they want everyone who wants to come in to be let in, regardless of their eligibility.
I can't say I read rochdale's arguments that way. I do think it true that many emotive arguments of the kind "Wouldn't you want to come if you were in their shoes?" implicitly suggest it is wrong for a nation to set limitations on who can come (hence why it may be true for anabobazina to suggest no one is proposing a complete open door, but it is the logical endpoint for some of the broader arguments), and there can be a presumption that rejection of a claim is automatically bad, and I don't think either of those are true, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with limits, and many would be stricter on that limit than I would be, but as you note this is a 'both sides' issue. There's a hilarious clip of an american lady trying to pretend she would be happy for people to come to american legally, then when informed it is legal to seek asylum she pauses and says she hoped Trump would change that.
However, whilst I think you are right about sides engaging, if that is not happening I don't think an answer is to be found in the side with the governing power simply trying to be tougher and meaner. It doesn't seem to work, and better to be taken advantage of a bit than overdo the harshness in a misplaced attempt to show seriousness, in my opinion.
Out of the total number of people coming in the boats don't seem to be that many, as a proportion, and given how long immigration has been a concern for many people yet the numbers have been so high for so long, the numbers coming that way doesn't seem to be the main issue so much as how it is happening. So lessening the flow doesn't seem to be the main priority need, in which case a focus on dealing with them here, there or elsewhere, seems more vital.
I get your point about the answer is not to be meaner and tougher but, as has been pointed out here before, there are so many interest groups here who will drag out any asylum case to the nth degree, at great cost to the taxpayer, and use any means, by hook or by crook, to ensure as few refugees / migrants are sent home, regardless of whether they are eligible.
Therefore, the only solution you have is to be mean and deter people coming here in the first place. Otherwise, you can get people who arrive and, in effect, can never be ejected if they have no valid claim. It undermines trust in the whole system.
As for Rochdale, my impression was that he was saying it was fine for refugees to come here because they might be seeking family members. But, just as there is no compulsion to claim asylum in the first safe country you land in, there is no human right that says you have to be close to relatives. That argument goes back to the old issue of you would have one person (usually a child) claim asylum and then, suddenly, it was "oh, you have to let his parents in, and his siblings, and then his cousins...". You end up with 10 for the price of 1, as it were.
As I said before, I would be more than happy to accept genuine refugees and work on a scheme to help bring people safely over but there is one side that takes the p1ss on this and it is not the Government side.
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
And they pay tax whilst working? Paying their way whilst waiting rather than just a hand out. 7 out of 10 get accepted by this government in the end. And having a bit more money those years having better quality of life. And is there anything more wrong than idleness or forced and kept in idleness?
If that is your platform Anabobzina I will vote for it. What colour rosette will you be wearing?
A completely open door immigration system is all well and good till you try and work out where everyone is going to live, see a doctor...
I don’t suppose anyone is suggesting a completely open door policy. Surely it’s within the gift of man to identify some asylum seekers who are willing and able to work and - erm - let them?
We are absolutely desperate for labour down here. I spoke to one publican yesterday who said it was the ‘worst it has ever been’, he’s just lost his head chef and has almost no chance of recruiting before Christmas, so is probably going to have to close his kitchen.
Do summat about your housing costs then. And pay staff much much more.
Well that is the anti-immigration argument. But there simply aren’t enough people to fill acute shortages. There comes a point where businesses aren’t viable if you have to pay chefs £200,000 a year to work in a pub.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
This particular debate is a very unedifying one, since even more than many others it is assumed extreme options such as 'Let everybody in' or 'Let nobody in' are the only real options, and positions in between are just figleafs. Since people often use very broad arguments that would seem to imply either than setting any limits on immigration at all are immoral, or letting anybody in is dangerous or for suckers, that's not entirely surprising in fairness.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
That requires both sides to engage, and I mean both sides, At the moment, the default argument of people like Rochdale is "if you don't let them in, you are evil / Nazis / despicable". Name me one occasion when a refugee group has actually come up with a half way house solution where they recognise the concerns of the other side and suggest something that all sides can agree on? They never do. It is all nice, meaningless language but their aim is clear - they want everyone who wants to come in to be let in, regardless of their eligibility.
I can't say I read rochdale's arguments that way. I do think it true that many emotive arguments of the kind "Wouldn't you want to come if you were in their shoes?" implicitly suggest it is wrong for a nation to set limitations on who can come (hence why it may be true for anabobazina to suggest no one is proposing a complete open door, but it is the logical endpoint for some of the broader arguments), and there can be a presumption that rejection of a claim is automatically bad, and I don't think either of those are true, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with limits, and many would be stricter on that limit than I would be, but as you note this is a 'both sides' issue. There's a hilarious clip of an american lady trying to pretend she would be happy for people to come to america legally, then when informed it is legal to seek asylum she pauses and says she hoped Trump would change that.
However, whilst I think you are right about sides engaging, if that is not happening I don't think an answer is to be found in the side with the governing power simply trying to be tougher and meaner. It doesn't seem to work, and better to be taken advantage of a bit than overdo the harshness in a misplaced attempt to show seriousness, in my opinion.
Out of the total number of people coming in the boats don't seem to be that many, as a proportion, and given how long immigration has been a concern for many people yet the numbers have been so high for so long, the numbers coming that way doesn't seem to be the main issue so much as how it is happening. So lessening the flow doesn't seem to be the main priority need, in which case a focus on dealing with them here, there or elsewhere, seems more vital.
Indeed, overall asylum numbers are down. Its just that they come by boat not lorry now.
Worth noting that pretty much all developed democracies have the same issue, from Canada, USA, Australia, all of Europe etc. Even so, about 90% of the world's refugees are either internally displaced or in adjacent countries.
I remember remarking a few months ago here that the sympathy for Afghan refugees would flip back to hostility very quickly.
£39.63 a week is what asylum seekers get. There is a known network of employers who will pay them shedloads below the minimum wage. This is occasionally mitigated with a huge publicity fuelled raid, and a slap on the wrist for the employer, whose business is back up and running the next day having paid a fine in no way equivalent to the savings from not paying NMW. Lock up these bosses. Provide incentives for asylum seekers to turn them in, as I believe Switzerland does. Might be somewhere for Patel to start. Given what she is doing isn't working.
£39.63 a week is what asylum seekers get. There is a known network of employers who will pay them shedloads below the minimum wage. This is occasionally mitigated with a huge publicity fuelled rage, and a slap on the wrist for the employer, whose business is back up and running the next day having paid a fine in no way equivalent to the savings from not paying NMW. Lock up these bosses. Provide incentives for asylum seekers to turn them in, as I believe Switzerland does.
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
And they pay tax whilst working? Paying their way whilst waiting rather than just a hand out. 7 out of 10 get accepted by this government in the end. And having a bit more money those years having better quality of life. And is there anything more wrong than idleness or forced and kept in idleness?
If that is your platform Anabobzina I will vote for it. What colour rosette will you be wearing?
A completely open door immigration system is all well and good till you try and work out where everyone is going to live, see a doctor...
I don’t suppose anyone is suggesting a completely open door policy. Surely it’s within the gift of man to identify some asylum seekers who are willing and able to work and - erm - let them?
We are absolutely desperate for labour down here. I spoke to one publican yesterday who said it was the ‘worst it has ever been’, he’s just lost his head chef and has almost no chance of recruiting before Christmas, so is probably going to have to close his kitchen.
Absolutely. It’s hardly an open door immigration policy being discussed here - and the Conservative government largely agrees with the difference between immigration v asylum as 7 out of 10 asylum migrants they process are allowed to stay, and in recent years they have deported the grand total somewhere between 4 and 6. No zeros required on the end. So why can’t a Conservative government see that during a 5 year process paying a pittance in hand out from public purse ostensibly to keep people in idleness and poverty, more likely forced into black economy, is not sensible values, Conservative or otherwise. Is it?
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
This particular debate is a very unedifying one, since even more than many others it is assumed extreme options such as 'Let everybody in' or 'Let nobody in' are the only real options, and positions in between are just figleafs. Since people often use very broad arguments that would seem to imply either than setting any limits on immigration at all are immoral, or letting anybody in is dangerous or for suckers, that's not entirely surprising in fairness.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
That requires both sides to engage, and I mean both sides, At the moment, the default argument of people like Rochdale is "if you don't let them in, you are evil / Nazis / despicable". Name me one occasion when a refugee group has actually come up with a half way house solution where they recognise the concerns of the other side and suggest something that all sides can agree on? They never do. It is all nice, meaningless language but their aim is clear - they want everyone who wants to come in to be let in, regardless of their eligibility.
I can't say I read rochdale's arguments that way. I do think it true that many emotive arguments of the kind "Wouldn't you want to come if you were in their shoes?" implicitly suggest it is wrong for a nation to set limitations on who can come (hence why it may be true for anabobazina to suggest no one is proposing a complete open door, but it is the logical endpoint for some of the broader arguments), and there can be a presumption that rejection of a claim is automatically bad, and I don't think either of those are true, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with limits, and many would be stricter on that limit than I would be, but as you note this is a 'both sides' issue. There's a hilarious clip of an american lady trying to pretend she would be happy for people to come to america legally, then when informed it is legal to seek asylum she pauses and says she hoped Trump would change that.
However, whilst I think you are right about sides engaging, if that is not happening I don't think an answer is to be found in the side with the governing power simply trying to be tougher and meaner. It doesn't seem to work, and better to be taken advantage of a bit than overdo the harshness in a misplaced attempt to show seriousness, in my opinion.
Out of the total number of people coming in the boats don't seem to be that many, as a proportion, and given how long immigration has been a concern for many people yet the numbers have been so high for so long, the numbers coming that way doesn't seem to be the main issue so much as how it is happening. So lessening the flow doesn't seem to be the main priority need, in which case a focus on dealing with them here, there or elsewhere, seems more vital.
Indeed, overall asylum numbers are down. Its just that they come by boat not lorry now.
Worth noting that pretty much all developed democracies have the same issue, from Canada, USA, Australia, all of Europe etc. Even so, about 90% of the world's refugees are either internally displaced or in adjacent countries.
I remember remarking a few months ago here that the sympathy for Afghan refugees would flip back to hostility very quickly.
Are they Afghans? My understanding was that very few in Calais were but please tell us more if I am wrong.
• Pubs won’t open outside on 12 April, as it’s not viable (Wrong)
• Covid cases will hit 100,000 a week by August. (Wrong then, and still wrong now)
• Everywhere in Europe will be in lockdown by December (Pending, almost certainly wrong)
12 April - can't remember, might have been wrong
100,000 a WEEK yes has happened every week, think you mean 100,000 a day, yes wrong so far
Europe - looks like mainland in Dec correct, hope not UK
I would like to be a COVID denier like you but I do like to take a more realistic view of what is happening.
Bit worried about UK lockdown risk in Q1 2022, I am sure you are not, hope you are right because of course you are the source of all reasonable thinking on here ❤️
Yes your prediction was 100,000 a day by August and it was wrong then and is still wrong now.
Who is a covid denier? I’m certainly not. What an absolutely stupid thing to say.
Londonpubman - everywhere in continental Europe locked down “by December”, so a week today. (Pending, very likely to be wrong)
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
This particular debate is a very unedifying one, since even more than many others it is assumed extreme options such as 'Let everybody in' or 'Let nobody in' are the only real options, and positions in between are just figleafs. Since people often use very broad arguments that would seem to imply either than setting any limits on immigration at all are immoral, or letting anybody in is dangerous or for suckers, that's not entirely surprising in fairness.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
That requires both sides to engage, and I mean both sides, At the moment, the default argument of people like Rochdale is "if you don't let them in, you are evil / Nazis / despicable". Name me one occasion when a refugee group has actually come up with a half way house solution where they recognise the concerns of the other side and suggest something that all sides can agree on? They never do. It is all nice, meaningless language but their aim is clear - they want everyone who wants to come in to be let in, regardless of their eligibility.
I can't say I read rochdale's arguments that way. I do think it true that many emotive arguments of the kind "Wouldn't you want to come if you were in their shoes?" implicitly suggest it is wrong for a nation to set limitations on who can come (hence why it may be true for anabobazina to suggest no one is proposing a complete open door, but it is the logical endpoint for some of the broader arguments), and there can be a presumption that rejection of a claim is automatically bad, and I don't think either of those are true, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with limits, and many would be stricter on that limit than I would be, but as you note this is a 'both sides' issue. There's a hilarious clip of an american lady trying to pretend she would be happy for people to come to america legally, then when informed it is legal to seek asylum she pauses and says she hoped Trump would change that.
However, whilst I think you are right about sides engaging, if that is not happening I don't think an answer is to be found in the side with the governing power simply trying to be tougher and meaner. It doesn't seem to work, and better to be taken advantage of a bit than overdo the harshness in a misplaced attempt to show seriousness, in my opinion.
Out of the total number of people coming in the boats don't seem to be that many, as a proportion, and given how long immigration has been a concern for many people yet the numbers have been so high for so long, the numbers coming that way doesn't seem to be the main issue so much as how it is happening. So lessening the flow doesn't seem to be the main priority need, in which case a focus on dealing with them here, there or elsewhere, seems more vital.
Indeed, overall asylum numbers are down. Its just that they come by boat not lorry now.
Worth noting that pretty much all developed democracies have the same issue, from Canada, USA, Australia, all of Europe etc. Even so, about 90% of the world's refugees are either internally displaced or in adjacent countries.
I remember remarking a few months ago here that the sympathy for Afghan refugees would flip back to hostility very quickly.
Are they Afghans? My understanding was that very few in Calais were but please tell us more if I am wrong.
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
And they pay tax whilst working? Paying their way whilst waiting rather than just a hand out. 7 out of 10 get accepted by this government in the end. And having a bit more money those years having better quality of life. And is there anything more wrong than idleness or forced and kept in idleness?
If that is your platform Anabobzina I will vote for it. What colour rosette will you be wearing?
A completely open door immigration system is all well and good till you try and work out where everyone is going to live, see a doctor...
I don’t suppose anyone is suggesting a completely open door policy. Surely it’s within the gift of man to identify some asylum seekers who are willing and able to work and - erm - let them?
We are absolutely desperate for labour down here. I spoke to one publican yesterday who said it was the ‘worst it has ever been’, he’s just lost his head chef and has almost no chance of recruiting before Christmas, so is probably going to have to close his kitchen.
Do summat about your housing costs then. And pay staff much much more.
Well that is the anti-immigration argument. But there simply aren’t enough people to fill acute shortages. There comes a point where businesses aren’t viable if you have to pay chefs £200,000 a year to work in a pub.
Then the business isn't viable. You can't have London's housing costs and a plethora of reasonably priced restaurants without something having to give at some point.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
This particular debate is a very unedifying one, since even more than many others it is assumed extreme options such as 'Let everybody in' or 'Let nobody in' are the only real options, and positions in between are just figleafs. Since people often use very broad arguments that would seem to imply either than setting any limits on immigration at all are immoral, or letting anybody in is dangerous or for suckers, that's not entirely surprising in fairness.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
That requires both sides to engage, and I mean both sides, At the moment, the default argument of people like Rochdale is "if you don't let them in, you are evil / Nazis / despicable". Name me one occasion when a refugee group has actually come up with a half way house solution where they recognise the concerns of the other side and suggest something that all sides can agree on? They never do. It is all nice, meaningless language but their aim is clear - they want everyone who wants to come in to be let in, regardless of their eligibility.
I can't say I read rochdale's arguments that way. I do think it true that many emotive arguments of the kind "Wouldn't you want to come if you were in their shoes?" implicitly suggest it is wrong for a nation to set limitations on who can come (hence why it may be true for anabobazina to suggest no one is proposing a complete open door, but it is the logical endpoint for some of the broader arguments), and there can be a presumption that rejection of a claim is automatically bad, and I don't think either of those are true, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with limits, and many would be stricter on that limit than I would be, but as you note this is a 'both sides' issue. There's a hilarious clip of an american lady trying to pretend she would be happy for people to come to america legally, then when informed it is legal to seek asylum she pauses and says she hoped Trump would change that.
However, whilst I think you are right about sides engaging, if that is not happening I don't think an answer is to be found in the side with the governing power simply trying to be tougher and meaner. It doesn't seem to work, and better to be taken advantage of a bit than overdo the harshness in a misplaced attempt to show seriousness, in my opinion.
Out of the total number of people coming in the boats don't seem to be that many, as a proportion, and given how long immigration has been a concern for many people yet the numbers have been so high for so long, the numbers coming that way doesn't seem to be the main issue so much as how it is happening. So lessening the flow doesn't seem to be the main priority need, in which case a focus on dealing with them here, there or elsewhere, seems more vital.
Indeed, overall asylum numbers are down. Its just that they come by boat not lorry now.
Worth noting that pretty much all developed democracies have the same issue, from Canada, USA, Australia, all of Europe etc. Even so, about 90% of the world's refugees are either internally displaced or in adjacent countries.
I remember remarking a few months ago here that the sympathy for Afghan refugees would flip back to hostility very quickly.
Oh. well done you. Yet again, you found the signalling spotlight of Moral Virtue
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
And they pay tax whilst working? Paying their way whilst waiting rather than just a hand out. 7 out of 10 get accepted by this government in the end. And having a bit more money those years having better quality of life. And is there anything more wrong than idleness or forced and kept in idleness?
If that is your platform Anabobzina I will vote for it. What colour rosette will you be wearing?
A completely open door immigration system is all well and good till you try and work out where everyone is going to live, see a doctor...
I don’t suppose anyone is suggesting a completely open door policy. Surely it’s within the gift of man to identify some asylum seekers who are willing and able to work and - erm - let them?
We are absolutely desperate for labour down here. I spoke to one publican yesterday who said it was the ‘worst it has ever been’, he’s just lost his head chef and has almost no chance of recruiting before Christmas, so is probably going to have to close his kitchen.
Do summat about your housing costs then. And pay staff much much more.
Well that is the anti-immigration argument. But there simply aren’t enough people to fill acute shortages. There comes a point where businesses aren’t viable if you have to pay chefs £200,000 a year to work in a pub.
Then if the businesses aren't viable at a real wage they close down and the labour "hole" is filled.
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
And they pay tax whilst working? Paying their way whilst waiting rather than just a hand out. 7 out of 10 get accepted by this government in the end. And having a bit more money those years having better quality of life. And is there anything more wrong than idleness or forced and kept in idleness?
If that is your platform Anabobzina I will vote for it. What colour rosette will you be wearing?
A completely open door immigration system is all well and good till you try and work out where everyone is going to live, see a doctor...
I don’t suppose anyone is suggesting a completely open door policy. Surely it’s within the gift of man to identify some asylum seekers who are willing and able to work and - erm - let them?
We are absolutely desperate for labour down here. I spoke to one publican yesterday who said it was the ‘worst it has ever been’, he’s just lost his head chef and has almost no chance of recruiting before Christmas, so is probably going to have to close his kitchen.
Absolutely. It’s hardly an open door immigration policy being discussed here - and the Conservative government largely agrees with the difference between immigration v asylum as 7 out of 10 asylum migrants they process are allowed to stay, and in recent years they have deported the grand total somewhere between 4 and 6. No zeros required on the end. So why can’t a Conservative government see that during a 5 year process paying a pittance in hand out from public purse ostensibly to keep people in idleness and poverty, more likely forced into black economy, is not sensible values, Conservative or otherwise. Is it?
On board now Pulpstar?
Why do immigrants going through the regular non boat routes need to pay a fortune then if they can just show up on a boat ? We need a system that's fair to all.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
This particular debate is a very unedifying one, since even more than many others it is assumed extreme options such as 'Let everybody in' or 'Let nobody in' are the only real options, and positions in between are just figleafs. Since people often use very broad arguments that would seem to imply either than setting any limits on immigration at all are immoral, or letting anybody in is dangerous or for suckers, that's not entirely surprising in fairness.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
That requires both sides to engage, and I mean both sides, At the moment, the default argument of people like Rochdale is "if you don't let them in, you are evil / Nazis / despicable". Name me one occasion when a refugee group has actually come up with a half way house solution where they recognise the concerns of the other side and suggest something that all sides can agree on? They never do. It is all nice, meaningless language but their aim is clear - they want everyone who wants to come in to be let in, regardless of their eligibility.
I can't say I read rochdale's arguments that way. I do think it true that many emotive arguments of the kind "Wouldn't you want to come if you were in their shoes?" implicitly suggest it is wrong for a nation to set limitations on who can come (hence why it may be true for anabobazina to suggest no one is proposing a complete open door, but it is the logical endpoint for some of the broader arguments), and there can be a presumption that rejection of a claim is automatically bad, and I don't think either of those are true, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with limits, and many would be stricter on that limit than I would be, but as you note this is a 'both sides' issue. There's a hilarious clip of an american lady trying to pretend she would be happy for people to come to american legally, then when informed it is legal to seek asylum she pauses and says she hoped Trump would change that.
However, whilst I think you are right about sides engaging, if that is not happening I don't think an answer is to be found in the side with the governing power simply trying to be tougher and meaner. It doesn't seem to work, and better to be taken advantage of a bit than overdo the harshness in a misplaced attempt to show seriousness, in my opinion.
Out of the total number of people coming in the boats don't seem to be that many, as a proportion, and given how long immigration has been a concern for many people yet the numbers have been so high for so long, the numbers coming that way doesn't seem to be the main issue so much as how it is happening. So lessening the flow doesn't seem to be the main priority need, in which case a focus on dealing with them here, there or elsewhere, seems more vital.
I get your point about the answer is not to be meaner and tougher but, as has been pointed out here before, there are so many interest groups here who will drag out any asylum case to the nth degree, at great cost to the taxpayer, and use any means, by hook or by crook, to ensure as few refugees / migrants are sent home, regardless of whether they are eligible.
Therefore, the only solution you have is to be mean and deter people coming here in the first place. Otherwise, you can get people who arrive and, in effect, can never be ejected if they have no valid claim. It undermines trust in the whole system.
My concern is I just don't think deterence is a real thing in these situations (or in many others, frankly). It seems to me that someone, not an asylum seeker, who has made the effort to come all the way to the French coast has sunk a lot of cost into doing so, whether in pursuit of some dream or from cold eyed assessment of economic benefit should they succeed. Hearing about tough rules for when you get there, or even seeing first hand how hard it would be to get there, doesn't seem to be that offputting. And they're hardly likely to either hear much about it or believe it over the promises they will also hear, before they set off in the first place.
I don't think people are that rational. The distance and cost to getting here, as we are about as far as you can get from some of the main places, is more of a deterence than anything else I'd think, hence why so many don't come here, even if there are still draws for many eg the language, ease of working.
Yes, that all puts our authorities in a real bind when it comes to interest groups causing problems even for what might be clear cut cases. I'm honestly unable to think of an adequate solution which wouldn't have potentially major additional consequences. But three strike laws don't stop people committing further crimes, and without turning ourselves into an unattractive destination - which in global terms would take a heck of a lot - I just cannot see that a Home Secretary putting in place no nonsense measures will do a thing.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
This particular debate is a very unedifying one, since even more than many others it is assumed extreme options such as 'Let everybody in' or 'Let nobody in' are the only real options, and positions in between are just figleafs. Since people often use very broad arguments that would seem to imply either than setting any limits on immigration at all are immoral, or letting anybody in is dangerous or for suckers, that's not entirely surprising in fairness.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
That requires both sides to engage, and I mean both sides, At the moment, the default argument of people like Rochdale is "if you don't let them in, you are evil / Nazis / despicable". Name me one occasion when a refugee group has actually come up with a half way house solution where they recognise the concerns of the other side and suggest something that all sides can agree on? They never do. It is all nice, meaningless language but their aim is clear - they want everyone who wants to come in to be let in, regardless of their eligibility.
I can't say I read rochdale's arguments that way. I do think it true that many emotive arguments of the kind "Wouldn't you want to come if you were in their shoes?" implicitly suggest it is wrong for a nation to set limitations on who can come (hence why it may be true for anabobazina to suggest no one is proposing a complete open door, but it is the logical endpoint for some of the broader arguments), and there can be a presumption that rejection of a claim is automatically bad, and I don't think either of those are true, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with limits, and many would be stricter on that limit than I would be, but as you note this is a 'both sides' issue. There's a hilarious clip of an american lady trying to pretend she would be happy for people to come to america legally, then when informed it is legal to seek asylum she pauses and says she hoped Trump would change that.
However, whilst I think you are right about sides engaging, if that is not happening I don't think an answer is to be found in the side with the governing power simply trying to be tougher and meaner. It doesn't seem to work, and better to be taken advantage of a bit than overdo the harshness in a misplaced attempt to show seriousness, in my opinion.
Out of the total number of people coming in the boats don't seem to be that many, as a proportion, and given how long immigration has been a concern for many people yet the numbers have been so high for so long, the numbers coming that way doesn't seem to be the main issue so much as how it is happening. So lessening the flow doesn't seem to be the main priority need, in which case a focus on dealing with them here, there or elsewhere, seems more vital.
Indeed, overall asylum numbers are down. Its just that they come by boat not lorry now.
Worth noting that pretty much all developed democracies have the same issue, from Canada, USA, Australia, all of Europe etc. Even so, about 90% of the world's refugees are either internally displaced or in adjacent countries.
I remember remarking a few months ago here that the sympathy for Afghan refugees would flip back to hostility very quickly.
Are they Afghans? My understanding was that very few in Calais were but please tell us more if I am wrong.
Afghanistan was 7th in terms of numbers last year.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
This particular debate is a very unedifying one, since even more than many others it is assumed extreme options such as 'Let everybody in' or 'Let nobody in' are the only real options, and positions in between are just figleafs. Since people often use very broad arguments that would seem to imply either than setting any limits on immigration at all are immoral, or letting anybody in is dangerous or for suckers, that's not entirely surprising in fairness.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
That requires both sides to engage, and I mean both sides, At the moment, the default argument of people like Rochdale is "if you don't let them in, you are evil / Nazis / despicable". Name me one occasion when a refugee group has actually come up with a half way house solution where they recognise the concerns of the other side and suggest something that all sides can agree on? They never do. It is all nice, meaningless language but their aim is clear - they want everyone who wants to come in to be let in, regardless of their eligibility.
I can't say I read rochdale's arguments that way. I do think it true that many emotive arguments of the kind "Wouldn't you want to come if you were in their shoes?" implicitly suggest it is wrong for a nation to set limitations on who can come (hence why it may be true for anabobazina to suggest no one is proposing a complete open door, but it is the logical endpoint for some of the broader arguments), and there can be a presumption that rejection of a claim is automatically bad, and I don't think either of those are true, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with limits, and many would be stricter on that limit than I would be, but as you note this is a 'both sides' issue. There's a hilarious clip of an american lady trying to pretend she would be happy for people to come to america legally, then when informed it is legal to seek asylum she pauses and says she hoped Trump would change that.
However, whilst I think you are right about sides engaging, if that is not happening I don't think an answer is to be found in the side with the governing power simply trying to be tougher and meaner. It doesn't seem to work, and better to be taken advantage of a bit than overdo the harshness in a misplaced attempt to show seriousness, in my opinion.
Out of the total number of people coming in the boats don't seem to be that many, as a proportion, and given how long immigration has been a concern for many people yet the numbers have been so high for so long, the numbers coming that way doesn't seem to be the main issue so much as how it is happening. So lessening the flow doesn't seem to be the main priority need, in which case a focus on dealing with them here, there or elsewhere, seems more vital.
Indeed, overall asylum numbers are down. Its just that they come by boat not lorry now.
Worth noting that pretty much all developed democracies have the same issue, from Canada, USA, Australia, all of Europe etc. Even so, about 90% of the world's refugees are either internally displaced or in adjacent countries.
I remember remarking a few months ago here that the sympathy for Afghan refugees would flip back to hostility very quickly.
Are they Afghans? My understanding was that very few in Calais were but please tell us more if I am wrong.
Appears to have been at least one.
Well, shame if that was true, he should have been helped.
But Foxy's implicit meaning was clear - all those people drowning, they are trying to escape Afghanistan etc etc. They are not.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
This particular debate is a very unedifying one, since even more than many others it is assumed extreme options such as 'Let everybody in' or 'Let nobody in' are the only real options, and positions in between are just figleafs. Since people often use very broad arguments that would seem to imply either than setting any limits on immigration at all are immoral, or letting anybody in is dangerous or for suckers, that's not entirely surprising in fairness.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
That requires both sides to engage, and I mean both sides, At the moment, the default argument of people like Rochdale is "if you don't let them in, you are evil / Nazis / despicable". Name me one occasion when a refugee group has actually come up with a half way house solution where they recognise the concerns of the other side and suggest something that all sides can agree on? They never do. It is all nice, meaningless language but their aim is clear - they want everyone who wants to come in to be let in, regardless of their eligibility.
I can't say I read rochdale's arguments that way. I do think it true that many emotive arguments of the kind "Wouldn't you want to come if you were in their shoes?" implicitly suggest it is wrong for a nation to set limitations on who can come (hence why it may be true for anabobazina to suggest no one is proposing a complete open door, but it is the logical endpoint for some of the broader arguments), and there can be a presumption that rejection of a claim is automatically bad, and I don't think either of those are true, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with limits, and many would be stricter on that limit than I would be, but as you note this is a 'both sides' issue. There's a hilarious clip of an american lady trying to pretend she would be happy for people to come to america legally, then when informed it is legal to seek asylum she pauses and says she hoped Trump would change that.
However, whilst I think you are right about sides engaging, if that is not happening I don't think an answer is to be found in the side with the governing power simply trying to be tougher and meaner. It doesn't seem to work, and better to be taken advantage of a bit than overdo the harshness in a misplaced attempt to show seriousness, in my opinion.
Out of the total number of people coming in the boats don't seem to be that many, as a proportion, and given how long immigration has been a concern for many people yet the numbers have been so high for so long, the numbers coming that way doesn't seem to be the main issue so much as how it is happening. So lessening the flow doesn't seem to be the main priority need, in which case a focus on dealing with them here, there or elsewhere, seems more vital.
Indeed, overall asylum numbers are down. Its just that they come by boat not lorry now.
Worth noting that pretty much all developed democracies have the same issue, from Canada, USA, Australia, all of Europe etc. Even so, about 90% of the world's refugees are either internally displaced or in adjacent countries.
I remember remarking a few months ago here that the sympathy for Afghan refugees would flip back to hostility very quickly.
Are they Afghans? My understanding was that very few in Calais were but please tell us more if I am wrong.
Afghanistan was 7th in terms of numbers last year.
Jeez. I'm coming over as anti-immigration here tonight. I'm really not. I just know from experience it is more complicated than all that. Having folk accuse each other of zero or open door doesn't help. We simply haven't sat down as a country and worked out who we need and how many. And we treat applicants appallingly. The idea it takes years because of appeals is laughable. It takes years because we don't spend the resources to adequately fund the systems we designed.
• Pubs won’t open outside on 12 April, as it’s not viable (Wrong)
• Covid cases will hit 100,000 a week by August. (Wrong then, and still wrong now)
• Everywhere in Europe will be in lockdown by December (Pending, almost certainly wrong)
12 April - can't remember, might have been wrong
100,000 a WEEK yes has happened every week, think you mean 100,000 a day, yes wrong so far
Europe - looks like mainland in Dec correct, hope not UK
I would like to be a COVID denier like you but I do like to take a more realistic view of what is happening.
Bit worried about UK lockdown risk in Q1 2022, I am sure you are not, hope you are right because of course you are the source of all reasonable thinking on here ❤️
Yes your prediction was 100,000 a day by August and it was wrong then and is still wrong now.
Who is a covid denier? I’m certainly not. What an absolutely stupid thing to say.
Londonpubman - everywhere in continental Europe locked down “by December”, so a week today. (Pending, very likely to be wrong)
No need to argue semantics with you but 'by December' can mean by 31 Dec. But you are clearly the site expert on COVID.
I am of course flattered that you feel the need to comment on every post I say on this matter.
I now off to bed so wish you goodnight. I hope to be back tomorrow, I am sure you will be 👍
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
And they pay tax whilst working? Paying their way whilst waiting rather than just a hand out. 7 out of 10 get accepted by this government in the end. And having a bit more money those years having better quality of life. And is there anything more wrong than idleness or forced and kept in idleness?
If that is your platform Anabobzina I will vote for it. What colour rosette will you be wearing?
A completely open door immigration system is all well and good till you try and work out where everyone is going to live, see a doctor...
I don’t suppose anyone is suggesting a completely open door policy. Surely it’s within the gift of man to identify some asylum seekers who are willing and able to work and - erm - let them?
We are absolutely desperate for labour down here. I spoke to one publican yesterday who said it was the ‘worst it has ever been’, he’s just lost his head chef and has almost no chance of recruiting before Christmas, so is probably going to have to close his kitchen.
Absolutely. It’s hardly an open door immigration policy being discussed here - and the Conservative government largely agrees with the difference between immigration v asylum as 7 out of 10 asylum migrants they process are allowed to stay, and in recent years they have deported the grand total somewhere between 4 and 6. No zeros required on the end. So why can’t a Conservative government see that during a 5 year process paying a pittance in hand out from public purse ostensibly to keep people in idleness and poverty, more likely forced into black economy, is not sensible values, Conservative or otherwise. Is it?
On board now Pulpstar?
Why do immigrants going through the regular non boat routes need to pay a fortune then if they can just show up on a boat ? We need a system that's fair to all.
Two ideas for more fairness in migration crisis her majesty’s government can adopt right now, though it requires two u turns from them
Properly fund the fight against the trafficking gangs. We would like to see them in court and off to prison.
stop playing into hands of ISIS and Al Shabab by fighting proxy cold wars in fragile countries, instead bring the places business and jobs, investment and security.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
This particular debate is a very unedifying one, since even more than many others it is assumed extreme options such as 'Let everybody in' or 'Let nobody in' are the only real options, and positions in between are just figleafs. Since people often use very broad arguments that would seem to imply either than setting any limits on immigration at all are immoral, or letting anybody in is dangerous or for suckers, that's not entirely surprising in fairness.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
That requires both sides to engage, and I mean both sides, At the moment, the default argument of people like Rochdale is "if you don't let them in, you are evil / Nazis / despicable". Name me one occasion when a refugee group has actually come up with a half way house solution where they recognise the concerns of the other side and suggest something that all sides can agree on? They never do. It is all nice, meaningless language but their aim is clear - they want everyone who wants to come in to be let in, regardless of their eligibility.
I can't say I read rochdale's arguments that way. I do think it true that many emotive arguments of the kind "Wouldn't you want to come if you were in their shoes?" implicitly suggest it is wrong for a nation to set limitations on who can come (hence why it may be true for anabobazina to suggest no one is proposing a complete open door, but it is the logical endpoint for some of the broader arguments), and there can be a presumption that rejection of a claim is automatically bad, and I don't think either of those are true, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with limits, and many would be stricter on that limit than I would be, but as you note this is a 'both sides' issue. There's a hilarious clip of an american lady trying to pretend she would be happy for people to come to america legally, then when informed it is legal to seek asylum she pauses and says she hoped Trump would change that.
However, whilst I think you are right about sides engaging, if that is not happening I don't think an answer is to be found in the side with the governing power simply trying to be tougher and meaner. It doesn't seem to work, and better to be taken advantage of a bit than overdo the harshness in a misplaced attempt to show seriousness, in my opinion.
Out of the total number of people coming in the boats don't seem to be that many, as a proportion, and given how long immigration has been a concern for many people yet the numbers have been so high for so long, the numbers coming that way doesn't seem to be the main issue so much as how it is happening. So lessening the flow doesn't seem to be the main priority need, in which case a focus on dealing with them here, there or elsewhere, seems more vital.
Indeed, overall asylum numbers are down. Its just that they come by boat not lorry now.
Worth noting that pretty much all developed democracies have the same issue, from Canada, USA, Australia, all of Europe etc. Even so, about 90% of the world's refugees are either internally displaced or in adjacent countries.
I remember remarking a few months ago here that the sympathy for Afghan refugees would flip back to hostility very quickly.
Are they Afghans? My understanding was that very few in Calais were but please tell us more if I am wrong.
Afghanistan was 7th in terms of numbers last year.
Some of the others seem to be try-ons, there is a very low success rate from India for example, and I was surprised to see so many from El Salvador. I see the failure rate from China was quite high.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
This particular debate is a very unedifying one, since even more than many others it is assumed extreme options such as 'Let everybody in' or 'Let nobody in' are the only real options, and positions in between are just figleafs. Since people often use very broad arguments that would seem to imply either than setting any limits on immigration at all are immoral, or letting anybody in is dangerous or for suckers, that's not entirely surprising in fairness.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
That requires both sides to engage, and I mean both sides, At the moment, the default argument of people like Rochdale is "if you don't let them in, you are evil / Nazis / despicable". Name me one occasion when a refugee group has actually come up with a half way house solution where they recognise the concerns of the other side and suggest something that all sides can agree on? They never do. It is all nice, meaningless language but their aim is clear - they want everyone who wants to come in to be let in, regardless of their eligibility.
I can't say I read rochdale's arguments that way. I do think it true that many emotive arguments of the kind "Wouldn't you want to come if you were in their shoes?" implicitly suggest it is wrong for a nation to set limitations on who can come (hence why it may be true for anabobazina to suggest no one is proposing a complete open door, but it is the logical endpoint for some of the broader arguments), and there can be a presumption that rejection of a claim is automatically bad, and I don't think either of those are true, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with limits, and many would be stricter on that limit than I would be, but as you note this is a 'both sides' issue. There's a hilarious clip of an american lady trying to pretend she would be happy for people to come to american legally, then when informed it is legal to seek asylum she pauses and says she hoped Trump would change that.
However, whilst I think you are right about sides engaging, if that is not happening I don't think an answer is to be found in the side with the governing power simply trying to be tougher and meaner. It doesn't seem to work, and better to be taken advantage of a bit than overdo the harshness in a misplaced attempt to show seriousness, in my opinion.
Out of the total number of people coming in the boats don't seem to be that many, as a proportion, and given how long immigration has been a concern for many people yet the numbers have been so high for so long, the numbers coming that way doesn't seem to be the main issue so much as how it is happening. So lessening the flow doesn't seem to be the main priority need, in which case a focus on dealing with them here, there or elsewhere, seems more vital.
I get your point about the answer is not to be meaner and tougher but, as has been pointed out here before, there are so many interest groups here who will drag out any asylum case to the nth degree, at great cost to the taxpayer, and use any means, by hook or by crook, to ensure as few refugees / migrants are sent home, regardless of whether they are eligible.
Therefore, the only solution you have is to be mean and deter people coming here in the first place. Otherwise, you can get people who arrive and, in effect, can never be ejected if they have no valid claim. It undermines trust in the whole system.
My concern is I just don't think deterence is a real thing in these situations (or in many others, frankly). It seems to me that someone, not an asylum seeker, who has made the effort to come all the way to the French coast has sunk a lot of cost into doing so, whether in pursuit of some dream or from cold eyed assessment of economic benefit should they succeed. Hearing about tough rules for when you get there, or even seeing first hand how hard it would be to get there, doesn't seem to be that offputting. And they're hardly likely to either hear much about it or believe it over the promises they will also hear, before they set off in the first place.
I don't think people are that rational. The distance and cost to getting here, as we are about as far as you can get from some of the main places, is more of a deterence than anything else I'd think, hence why so many don't come here, even if there are still draws for many eg the language, ease of working.
Yes, that all puts our authorities in a real bind when it comes to interest groups causing problems even for what might be clear cut cases. I'm honestly unable to think of an adequate solution which wouldn't have potentially major additional consequences. But three strike laws don't stop people committing further crimes, and without turning ourselves into an unattractive destination - which in global terms would take a heck of a lot - I just cannot see that a Home Secretary putting in place no nonsense measures will do a thing.
Which is why I think the refugee groups (to bang on again) share some of the blame. You do not spend that much money and take that much risk unless you think that there is a fairly decent chance of success - if your main concern is life and limb, you get to the nearest safe country but, if you want something more, then you head to where you want. The smuggling groups are probably making it clear that, once they get to the UK, they are in the clear and there is no doubt they are being backed up in that assessment by the refugee groups telling them of all the help they can get etc.
I don't see the bind here. Say your claims will be processed in a third country and, if you are accepted, you can come and, if not, you can stay in the 3rd country with that country's approval. As someone said earlier, that is what happens in Rwanda and, funnily enough, many people decide to exit.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
This particular debate is a very unedifying one, since even more than many others it is assumed extreme options such as 'Let everybody in' or 'Let nobody in' are the only real options, and positions in between are just figleafs. Since people often use very broad arguments that would seem to imply either than setting any limits on immigration at all are immoral, or letting anybody in is dangerous or for suckers, that's not entirely surprising in fairness.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
That requires both sides to engage, and I mean both sides, At the moment, the default argument of people like Rochdale is "if you don't let them in, you are evil / Nazis / despicable". Name me one occasion when a refugee group has actually come up with a half way house solution where they recognise the concerns of the other side and suggest something that all sides can agree on? They never do. It is all nice, meaningless language but their aim is clear - they want everyone who wants to come in to be let in, regardless of their eligibility.
I can't say I read rochdale's arguments that way. I do think it true that many emotive arguments of the kind "Wouldn't you want to come if you were in their shoes?" implicitly suggest it is wrong for a nation to set limitations on who can come (hence why it may be true for anabobazina to suggest no one is proposing a complete open door, but it is the logical endpoint for some of the broader arguments), and there can be a presumption that rejection of a claim is automatically bad, and I don't think either of those are true, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with limits, and many would be stricter on that limit than I would be, but as you note this is a 'both sides' issue. There's a hilarious clip of an american lady trying to pretend she would be happy for people to come to america legally, then when informed it is legal to seek asylum she pauses and says she hoped Trump would change that.
However, whilst I think you are right about sides engaging, if that is not happening I don't think an answer is to be found in the side with the governing power simply trying to be tougher and meaner. It doesn't seem to work, and better to be taken advantage of a bit than overdo the harshness in a misplaced attempt to show seriousness, in my opinion.
Out of the total number of people coming in the boats don't seem to be that many, as a proportion, and given how long immigration has been a concern for many people yet the numbers have been so high for so long, the numbers coming that way doesn't seem to be the main issue so much as how it is happening. So lessening the flow doesn't seem to be the main priority need, in which case a focus on dealing with them here, there or elsewhere, seems more vital.
Indeed, overall asylum numbers are down. Its just that they come by boat not lorry now.
Worth noting that pretty much all developed democracies have the same issue, from Canada, USA, Australia, all of Europe etc. Even so, about 90% of the world's refugees are either internally displaced or in adjacent countries.
I remember remarking a few months ago here that the sympathy for Afghan refugees would flip back to hostility very quickly.
Are they Afghans? My understanding was that very few in Calais were but please tell us more if I am wrong.
Afghanistan was 7th in terms of numbers last year.
Some of the others seem to be try-ons, there is a very low success rate from India for example, and I was surprised to see so many from El Salvador. I see the failure rate from China was quite high.
Which suggests the system works.
I think re the EL Salvador example etc, you might have people coming from Spain
As a matter of interest, who here knows any asylum seekers by name and story?
Spent several years working with them and refugees and victims of torture. Some years ago mind.
I used to mentor Medical Refugees referred by the GMC to help them through the process of getting qualified to work here. Not had a referral for a while though.
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
And they pay tax whilst working? Paying their way whilst waiting rather than just a hand out. 7 out of 10 get accepted by this government in the end. And having a bit more money those years having better quality of life. And is there anything more wrong than idleness or forced and kept in idleness?
If that is your platform Anabobzina I will vote for it. What colour rosette will you be wearing?
A completely open door immigration system is all well and good till you try and work out where everyone is going to live, see a doctor...
I don’t suppose anyone is suggesting a completely open door policy. Surely it’s within the gift of man to identify some asylum seekers who are willing and able to work and - erm - let them?
We are absolutely desperate for labour down here. I spoke to one publican yesterday who said it was the ‘worst it has ever been’, he’s just lost his head chef and has almost no chance of recruiting before Christmas, so is probably going to have to close his kitchen.
Do summat about your housing costs then. And pay staff much much more.
Well that is the anti-immigration argument. But there simply aren’t enough people to fill acute shortages. There comes a point where businesses aren’t viable if you have to pay chefs £200,000 a year to work in a pub.
Then the business isn't viable. You can't have London's housing costs and a plethora of reasonably priced restaurants without something having to give at some point.
There simply isn’t enough skilled labour available here since Brexit. Much of the European workforce has left and thus there’s a massive shortage of skills.
• Pubs won’t open outside on 12 April, as it’s not viable (Wrong)
• Covid cases will hit 100,000 a week by August. (Wrong then, and still wrong now)
• Everywhere in Europe will be in lockdown by December (Pending, almost certainly wrong)
12 April - can't remember, might have been wrong
100,000 a WEEK yes has happened every week, think you mean 100,000 a day, yes wrong so far
Europe - looks like mainland in Dec correct, hope not UK
I would like to be a COVID denier like you but I do like to take a more realistic view of what is happening.
Bit worried about UK lockdown risk in Q1 2022, I am sure you are not, hope you are right because of course you are the source of all reasonable thinking on here ❤️
Yes your prediction was 100,000 a day by August and it was wrong then and is still wrong now.
Who is a covid denier? I’m certainly not. What an absolutely stupid thing to say.
Londonpubman - everywhere in continental Europe locked down “by December”, so a week today. (Pending, very likely to be wrong)
No need to argue semantics with you but 'by December' can mean by 31 Dec. But you are clearly the site expert on COVID.
I am of course flattered that you feel the need to comment on every post I say on this matter.
I now off to bed so wish you goodnight. I hope to be back tomorrow, I am sure you will be 👍
I’m just reminding people of your prediction record, lest anyone is tempted to pay heed to you. I’m no expert - and nor do I claim to be.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
This particular debate is a very unedifying one, since even more than many others it is assumed extreme options such as 'Let everybody in' or 'Let nobody in' are the only real options, and positions in between are just figleafs. Since people often use very broad arguments that would seem to imply either than setting any limits on immigration at all are immoral, or letting anybody in is dangerous or for suckers, that's not entirely surprising in fairness.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
That requires both sides to engage, and I mean both sides, At the moment, the default argument of people like Rochdale is "if you don't let them in, you are evil / Nazis / despicable". Name me one occasion when a refugee group has actually come up with a half way house solution where they recognise the concerns of the other side and suggest something that all sides can agree on? They never do. It is all nice, meaningless language but their aim is clear - they want everyone who wants to come in to be let in, regardless of their eligibility.
I can't say I read rochdale's arguments that way. I do think it true that many emotive arguments of the kind "Wouldn't you want to come if you were in their shoes?" implicitly suggest it is wrong for a nation to set limitations on who can come (hence why it may be true for anabobazina to suggest no one is proposing a complete open door, but it is the logical endpoint for some of the broader arguments), and there can be a presumption that rejection of a claim is automatically bad, and I don't think either of those are true, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with limits, and many would be stricter on that limit than I would be, but as you note this is a 'both sides' issue. There's a hilarious clip of an american lady trying to pretend she would be happy for people to come to america legally, then when informed it is legal to seek asylum she pauses and says she hoped Trump would change that.
However, whilst I think you are right about sides engaging, if that is not happening I don't think an answer is to be found in the side with the governing power simply trying to be tougher and meaner. It doesn't seem to work, and better to be taken advantage of a bit than overdo the harshness in a misplaced attempt to show seriousness, in my opinion.
Out of the total number of people coming in the boats don't seem to be that many, as a proportion, and given how long immigration has been a concern for many people yet the numbers have been so high for so long, the numbers coming that way doesn't seem to be the main issue so much as how it is happening. So lessening the flow doesn't seem to be the main priority need, in which case a focus on dealing with them here, there or elsewhere, seems more vital.
Indeed, overall asylum numbers are down. Its just that they come by boat not lorry now.
Worth noting that pretty much all developed democracies have the same issue, from Canada, USA, Australia, all of Europe etc. Even so, about 90% of the world's refugees are either internally displaced or in adjacent countries.
I remember remarking a few months ago here that the sympathy for Afghan refugees would flip back to hostility very quickly.
Are they Afghans? My understanding was that very few in Calais were but please tell us more if I am wrong.
Appears to have been at least one.
Well, shame if that was true, he should have been helped.
But Foxy's implicit meaning was clear - all those people drowning, they are trying to escape Afghanistan etc etc. They are not.
But maybe you can find more than one example.
Foxy did not say or imply 'all those people drowning, they are trying to escape Afghanistan', you bolted that on afterwards. However you also asked 'are they Afghans?' and The Times has reported an Afghan soldier and his family were among the people who drowned today which answers in part your question.
Trafficking gangs is a bit of a myth too. They are simply entrepreneurs providing a service for a price. It is a way of deflecting blame away from our role in warmongering, arms sales and destabilisation onto somebody else. To make us feel better. People want to come here. And will pay for it. That's capitalism.
Enlightening article on Germano-phone vax-hesitancy, which is now crippling central Europe. It blames it simultaneously on Nazis, Commies, hippies, Waldorf Schools and rugged hilly individualism, which suggests they haven't really got a clue what is happening. But it is definitely a thing. Well worth reading
The idea that all skills shortages can be filled by increasing wages is bonkers. Some can be filled that way, sure. But borders get in the way. Otherwise the richest cities on Earth would never have any skills shortages. The truth is there are a finite amount of chefs who have permits to work in London and that cohort has been massively reduced by restrictions on immigration (eg Brexit). That’s a simple fact. We need people.
As a matter of interest, who here knows any asylum seekers by name and story?
I volunteer for a refugee charity who give out modest short-term grants to fill in the gaps in government support. For example, when someone is granted refugee status they only then receive Home Office support for 4 weeks, by which time they are supposed to be receiving mainstream benefits from DWP. Often it can take longer than 4 weeks for a refugee to receive a national insurance number, though, so there can be a gap where they are not receiving any government support at all.
My volunteering is simple data entry, I put the names, nationalities, grant category, and other details into a spreadsheet from the grant application forms received. So I read a lot of stories about the hardships experienced by refugees, the ways in which the system is designed to fail, to be cruel, so as to create the maximum disincentive for anyone to come here.
As a matter of interest, who here knows any asylum seekers by name and story?
Spent several years working with them and refugees and victims of torture. Some years ago mind.
Should clarify. This was my full time paid job. Not a charity, but a private company funded by the then Jobcentre Plus. It was supposedly employment training, not legal. But was effectively social work, language training, housing advocate, interpreter, counsellor, and a whole other bunch of stuff with some remarkably damaged people. With amazing and often disturbing stories to tell.
It did remind me of a lecture I once attended where the the speaker waxed lyrical about how the standardised shipping container was one of the greatest innovations of human history that make the modern world possible.
As a matter of interest, who here knows any asylum seekers by name and story?
I am very friendly with an Iraqi who buys, sells, cracks and decrypts various ECUs. He came over as a bogus student in the mid noughties and immediately claimed asylum. He is now a UK citizen and has bought a farm near Basra which his brother runs. He regularly goes back to check on it as he, probably correctly, thinks his brother is cheating him.
He appears to hold no particular animus toward me for possibly shooting his uncles or cousins and I likewise for the sniping and IEDs so sound bloke in my opinion.
It did remind me of a lecture I once attended where the the speaker waxed lyrical about how the standardised shipping container was one of the greatest innovations that make the modern world possible.
Trafficking gangs is a bit of a myth too. They are simply entrepreneurs providing a service for a price. It is a way of deflecting blame away from our role in warmongering, arms sales and destabilisation onto somebody else. To make us feel better. People want to come here. And will pay for it. That's capitalism.
The more harshly we treat refugees who are currently trying to get here the more we celebrate the virtues of those who helped refugees reach here before WWII, one of whom was my Austrian grandmother. Pretty sure many of those who helped people like my mother then would be vilified as people smugglers today.
Enlightening article on Germano-phone vax-hesitancy, which is now crippling central Europe. It blames it simultaneously on Nazis, Commies, hippies, Waldorf Schools and rugged hilly individualism, which suggests they haven't really got a clue what is happening. But it is definitely a thing. Well worth reading
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
This particular debate is a very unedifying one, since even more than many others it is assumed extreme options such as 'Let everybody in' or 'Let nobody in' are the only real options, and positions in between are just figleafs. Since people often use very broad arguments that would seem to imply either than setting any limits on immigration at all are immoral, or letting anybody in is dangerous or for suckers, that's not entirely surprising in fairness.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
That requires both sides to engage, and I mean both sides, At the moment, the default argument of people like Rochdale is "if you don't let them in, you are evil / Nazis / despicable". Name me one occasion when a refugee group has actually come up with a half way house solution where they recognise the concerns of the other side and suggest something that all sides can agree on? They never do. It is all nice, meaningless language but their aim is clear - they want everyone who wants to come in to be let in, regardless of their eligibility.
I can't say I read rochdale's arguments that way. I do think it true that many emotive arguments of the kind "Wouldn't you want to come if you were in their shoes?" implicitly suggest it is wrong for a nation to set limitations on who can come (hence why it may be true for anabobazina to suggest no one is proposing a complete open door, but it is the logical endpoint for some of the broader arguments), and there can be a presumption that rejection of a claim is automatically bad, and I don't think either of those are true, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with limits, and many would be stricter on that limit than I would be, but as you note this is a 'both sides' issue. There's a hilarious clip of an american lady trying to pretend she would be happy for people to come to america legally, then when informed it is legal to seek asylum she pauses and says she hoped Trump would change that.
However, whilst I think you are right about sides engaging, if that is not happening I don't think an answer is to be found in the side with the governing power simply trying to be tougher and meaner. It doesn't seem to work, and better to be taken advantage of a bit than overdo the harshness in a misplaced attempt to show seriousness, in my opinion.
Out of the total number of people coming in the boats don't seem to be that many, as a proportion, and given how long immigration has been a concern for many people yet the numbers have been so high for so long, the numbers coming that way doesn't seem to be the main issue so much as how it is happening. So lessening the flow doesn't seem to be the main priority need, in which case a focus on dealing with them here, there or elsewhere, seems more vital.
Indeed, overall asylum numbers are down. Its just that they come by boat not lorry now.
Worth noting that pretty much all developed democracies have the same issue, from Canada, USA, Australia, all of Europe etc. Even so, about 90% of the world's refugees are either internally displaced or in adjacent countries.
I remember remarking a few months ago here that the sympathy for Afghan refugees would flip back to hostility very quickly.
Are they Afghans? My understanding was that very few in Calais were but please tell us more if I am wrong.
Appears to have been at least one.
Well, shame if that was true, he should have been helped.
But Foxy's implicit meaning was clear - all those people drowning, they are trying to escape Afghanistan etc etc. They are not.
But maybe you can find more than one example.
Foxy did not say or imply 'all those people drowning, they are trying to escape Afghanistan', you bolted that on afterwards. However you also asked 'are they Afghans?' and The Times has reported an Afghan soldier and his family were among the people who drowned today which answers in part your question.
"Worth noting that pretty much all developed democracies have the same issue, from Canada, USA, Australia, all of Europe etc. Even so, about 90% of the world's refugees are either internally displaced or in adjacent countries.
I remember remarking a few months ago here that the sympathy for Afghan refugees would flip back to hostility very quickly"
Seemed pretty clear that he was linking refugees with Afghanistan, why otherwise mention it.
As a matter of interest, who here knows any asylum seekers by name and story?
I am very friendly with an Iraqi who buys, sells, cracks and decrypts various ECUs. He came over as a bogus student in the mid noughties and immediately claimed asylum. He is now a UK citizen and has bought a farm near Basra which his brother runs. He regularly goes back to check on it as he, probably correctly, thinks his brother is cheating him.
He appears to hold no particular animus toward me for possibly shooting his uncles or cousins and I likewise for the sniping and IEDs so sound bloke in my opinion.
I know a few like him who are long-settled and have UK passports - nothing especially unusual about them, as far as I can tell. I helped the Gatwick asylum support group for a while and met a number of people in various stages of waiting - generally pleasant but nervous, with some grim backstories.
Which is why I think the refugee groups (to bang on again) share some of the blame. You do not spend that much money and take that much risk unless you think that there is a fairly decent chance of success - if your main concern is life and limb, you get to the nearest safe country but, if you want something more, then you head to where you want. The smuggling groups are probably making it clear that, once they get to the UK, they are in the clear and there is no doubt they are being backed up in that assessment by the refugee groups telling them of all the help they can get etc.
I don't see the bind here. Say your claims will be processed in a third country and, if you are accepted, you can come and, if not, you can stay in the 3rd country with that country's approval. As someone said earlier, that is what happens in Rwanda and, funnily enough, many people decide to exit.
I'm sure the smugglers talk it up enthusiastically. But you're quite wrong about the refugee groups - they are unanimous that the crossing is very risky and the situation on arrival is grim. However, a refugee is far more likely to talk to a smuggler than to a representative of a British refugee group.
Also, bear in mind that other countries across Europe - France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Spain - are getting FAR more applications. When we blithely talk about 2why don't they stop in the first safe country?", we are partly overlooking the fact that most do exactly that, and partly trying to evade our share of the problem by our geographical position,
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
Blasphemy. Not only is there full employment, but all the unfillable jobs in London should be filled by single mothers from Barnsley
I arranged to meet a client in a pub the other night, only to discover when I arrived that it had been shuttered - due to lack of bar staff!
Our local Starbucks (Pacific Palisades) shuts at 2pm every day due to lack of staff.
There is a sign outside offering $18/hour + healthcare + tips for trainee baristas.
Which is why I think the refugee groups (to bang on again) share some of the blame. You do not spend that much money and take that much risk unless you think that there is a fairly decent chance of success - if your main concern is life and limb, you get to the nearest safe country but, if you want something more, then you head to where you want. The smuggling groups are probably making it clear that, once they get to the UK, they are in the clear and there is no doubt they are being backed up in that assessment by the refugee groups telling them of all the help they can get etc.
I don't see the bind here. Say your claims will be processed in a third country and, if you are accepted, you can come and, if not, you can stay in the 3rd country with that country's approval. As someone said earlier, that is what happens in Rwanda and, funnily enough, many people decide to exit.
I'm sure the smugglers talk it up enthusiastically. But you're quite wrong about the refugee groups - they are unanimous that the crossing is very risky and the situation on arrival is grim. However, a refugee is far more likely to talk to a smuggler than to a representative of a British refugee group.
Also, bear in mind that other countries across Europe - France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Spain - are getting FAR more applications. When we blithely talk about 2why don't they stop in the first safe country?", we are partly overlooking the fact that most do exactly that, and partly trying to evade our share of the problem by our geographical position,
Yes the genuine refugees do that. That's kind of the point.
It did remind me of a lecture I once attended where the the speaker waxed lyrical about how the standardised shipping container was one of the greatest innovations of human history that make the modern world possible.
I think I might know that lecturer. The ISO container did make a massive impact to shipping costs (and put a large number of dockers out of work). It's probably the single biggest act of standardisation in terms of its economic impact although just one of a series of acts of standardisation that have created our modern world.
Yes the genuine refugees do that. That's kind of the point.
It would be interesting, though difficult, to see an unbiased analysis of why a minority do press on to the UK. For the benefits? Hardly - benefits are much more generous elsewhere. Because they speak some English and reckon they've got a better chance here? Possibly, but pay a fortune and risk death for that? Because they know others here and feel that would make life better?
The implication that taking risks to get here suggests they aren't genuine is a non-sequitur. Yes, step 1 is to get out of a hell-hole, and arrive in, say, Greece. But if you don't speak Greek or know any Greeks, and you do speak English and know someone in London, then step 2 may be to try to get here. That doesn't invalidate step 1.
£39.63 a week is what asylum seekers get. There is a known network of employers who will pay them shedloads below the minimum wage. This is occasionally mitigated with a huge publicity fuelled rage, and a slap on the wrist for the employer, whose business is back up and running the next day having paid a fine in no way equivalent to the savings from not paying NMW. Lock up these bosses. Provide incentives for asylum seekers to turn them in, as I believe Switzerland does.
I'd agree with that.
If only someone had done a really excellent video on that:
Yes the genuine refugees do that. That's kind of the point.
It would be interesting, though difficult, to see an unbiased analysis of why a minority do press on to the UK. For the benefits? Hardly - benefits are much more generous elsewhere. Because they speak some English and reckon they've got a better chance here? Possibly, but pay a fortune and risk death for that? Because they know others here and feel that would make life better?
The implication that taking risks to get here suggests they aren't genuine is a non-sequitur. Yes, step 1 is to get out of a hell-hole, and arrive in, say, Greece. But if you don't speak Greek or know any Greeks, and you do speak English and know someone in London, then step 2 may be to try to get here. That doesn't invalidate step 1.
There is a big undocumented economy in the UK compared to most European countries.
As a matter of interest, who here knows any asylum seekers by name and story?
In the past I've assisted with some syrian seekers settling, but not to the extent of knowing their personal stories.
Before Covid two of my local chess team-mates were refugees from Bosnia. They play very much in the cafe hustler style which is what you see in Sarajevo.
I've never plucked up the courage to ask them how they got here as obviously it was pretty traumatic for some, and they've never volunteered the precise details. They seem to be settled here now although they do go back from time to time to see elderly relatives who were left behind.
Yes the genuine refugees do that. That's kind of the point.
It would be interesting, though difficult, to see an unbiased analysis of why a minority do press on to the UK. For the benefits? Hardly - benefits are much more generous elsewhere. Because they speak some English and reckon they've got a better chance here? Possibly, but pay a fortune and risk death for that? Because they know others here and feel that would make life better?
The implication that taking risks to get here suggests they aren't genuine is a non-sequitur. Yes, step 1 is to get out of a hell-hole, and arrive in, say, Greece. But if you don't speak Greek or know any Greeks, and you do speak English and know someone in London, then step 2 may be to try to get here. That doesn't invalidate step 1.
There is a big undocumented economy in the UK compared to most European countries.
There are a lot of things that the government in this country just don't seem to be bothered about. This is one of them.
The idea that all skills shortages can be filled by increasing wages is bonkers. Some can be filled that way, sure. But borders get in the way. Otherwise the richest cities on Earth would never have any skills shortages. The truth is there are a finite amount of chefs who have permits to work in London and that cohort has been massively reduced by restrictions on immigration (eg Brexit). That’s a simple fact. We need people.
As countries become more advanced and more productive, lower productivity jobs get priced out of the market. That's a good thing.
If the restaurant business in question brings a sufficiently high value to its customers, then it can put up prices and pay its chefs more. If it can't do that then it's because other businesses are producing more value. When it goes out of business then average productivity will be higher.
People have been bemoaning low productivity UK for decades. Now we are actually leaving the low productivity stuff behind, people want immigration policy to bail them out.
Yes the genuine refugees do that. That's kind of the point.
It would be interesting, though difficult, to see an unbiased analysis of why a minority do press on to the UK. For the benefits? Hardly - benefits are much more generous elsewhere. Because they speak some English and reckon they've got a better chance here? Possibly, but pay a fortune and risk death for that? Because they know others here and feel that would make life better?
The implication that taking risks to get here suggests they aren't genuine is a non-sequitur. Yes, step 1 is to get out of a hell-hole, and arrive in, say, Greece. But if you don't speak Greek or know any Greeks, and you do speak English and know someone in London, then step 2 may be to try to get here. That doesn't invalidate step 1.
There is a big undocumented economy in the UK compared to most European countries.
There are a lot of things that the government in this country just don't seem to be bothered about. This is one of them.
There's no real evidence to suggest the UK's undocumented economy is big by European standards, I would suggest its probably in the middle, the money laundering in the City however is probably more of a concern but our politicians (esp the Tories) seem to be in thrall to "big money".
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
And they pay tax whilst working? Paying their way whilst waiting rather than just a hand out. 7 out of 10 get accepted by this government in the end. And having a bit more money those years having better quality of life. And is there anything more wrong than idleness or forced and kept in idleness?
If that is your platform Anabobzina I will vote for it. What colour rosette will you be wearing?
A completely open door immigration system is all well and good till you try and work out where everyone is going to live, see a doctor...
I don’t suppose anyone is suggesting a completely open door policy. Surely it’s within the gift of man to identify some asylum seekers who are willing and able to work and - erm - let them?
We are absolutely desperate for labour down here. I spoke to one publican yesterday who said it was the ‘worst it has ever been’, he’s just lost his head chef and has almost no chance of recruiting before Christmas, so is probably going to have to close his kitchen.
First, the average asylum seeker is no more capable of being a head chef than is the average Briton. Pot-rattling is a skilled trade, especially at head chef level, even in a gastropub. And watch the current series of Masterchef: The Professionals to see that many chefs (and waiters and so on) had to leave their jobs during lockdown and the wider pandemic. Not all came back (to often badly-paid jobs, with high stress and long, anti-social hours). There has also, I gather, been an increase in employment as private chefs to rich families.
But second, how would such a law work? Even if there were an influx of asylum seekers (or other immigrants) ready to work in catering, how would these people be stopped from switching to better jobs delivering parcels or whatever?
Bulb is among 22 energy suppliers to have failed in just two months. Labour has called for an inquiry into a failure of market regulation. The government has bunged it £1.7 billion. LibDems have suggested a Northern Rock solution. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59409595
Both by elections could be very close results, worth a double on Lab and Lib Dems to win both. In North Shropshire the Conservative candidate is making so many mistakes i'ts amazing, it's as if he does not want to win. There is a very high powered Lib Dem campaign. The weather and the postal vote will be crucial. Cons will be hoping they have the latter sown up and that gales, rain and snow come the week of polling. However the other thread showing over a third of general election Con voters are detaching themselves from the party seems to being borne out in North Shropshire. That is ominous especially as the Lib Dems are perceived, even in the local media to be in second place. Three weeks, to go anything could happen.
Comments
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum-community/6/
Who is a covid denier? I’m certainly not. What an absolutely stupid thing to say.
Therefore, the only solution you have is to be mean and deter people coming here in the first place. Otherwise, you can get people who arrive and, in effect, can never be ejected if they have no valid claim. It undermines trust in the whole system.
As for Rochdale, my impression was that he was saying it was fine for refugees to come here because they might be seeking family members. But, just as there is no compulsion to claim asylum in the first safe country you land in, there is no human right that says you have to be close to relatives. That argument goes back to the old issue of you would have one person (usually a child) claim asylum and then, suddenly, it was "oh, you have to let his parents in, and his siblings, and then his cousins...". You end up with 10 for the price of 1, as it were.
As I said before, I would be more than happy to accept genuine refugees and work on a scheme to help bring people safely over but there is one side that takes the p1ss on this and it is not the Government side.
Worth noting that pretty much all developed democracies have the same issue, from Canada, USA, Australia, all of Europe etc. Even so, about 90% of the world's refugees are either internally displaced or in adjacent countries.
I remember remarking a few months ago here that the sympathy for Afghan refugees would flip back to hostility very quickly.
Lock up these bosses. Provide incentives for asylum seekers to turn them in, as I believe Switzerland does.
Might be somewhere for Patel to start. Given what she is doing isn't working.
On board now Pulpstar?
That's supply and demand in action.
We need a system that's fair to all.
I don't think people are that rational. The distance and cost to getting here, as we are about as far as you can get from some of the main places, is more of a deterence than anything else I'd think, hence why so many don't come here, even if there are still draws for many eg the language, ease of working.
Yes, that all puts our authorities in a real bind when it comes to interest groups causing problems even for what might be clear cut cases. I'm honestly unable to think of an adequate solution which wouldn't have potentially major additional consequences. But three strike laws don't stop people committing further crimes, and without turning ourselves into an unattractive destination - which in global terms would take a heck of a lot - I just cannot see that a Home Secretary putting in place no nonsense measures will do a thing.
https://public.tableau.com/views/Asylum2021/Tab1?:language=en-GB&:embed=y&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=8&:display_count=y&:origin=viz_sh
But Foxy's implicit meaning was clear - all those people drowning, they are trying to escape Afghanistan etc etc. They are not.
But maybe you can find more than one example.
And was that self-identified or proven?
Having folk accuse each other of zero or open door doesn't help. We simply haven't sat down as a country and worked out who we need and how many.
And we treat applicants appallingly. The idea it takes years because of appeals is laughable. It takes years because we don't spend the resources to adequately fund the systems we designed.
I am of course flattered that you feel the need to comment on every post I say on this matter.
I now off to bed so wish you goodnight. I hope to be back tomorrow, I am sure you will be 👍
Properly fund the fight against the trafficking gangs. We would like to see them in court and off to prison.
stop playing into hands of ISIS and Al Shabab by fighting proxy cold wars in fragile countries, instead bring the places business and jobs, investment and security.
Some of the others seem to be try-ons, there is a very low success rate from India for example, and I was surprised to see so many from El Salvador. I see the failure rate from China was quite high.
I don't see the bind here. Say your claims will be processed in a third country and, if you are accepted, you can come and, if not, you can stay in the 3rd country with that country's approval. As someone said earlier, that is what happens in Rwanda and, funnily enough, many people decide to exit.
I think re the EL Salvador example etc, you might have people coming from Spain
But to take the line from rom com Fever Pitch, we have read this one before, they are shagging on the carpet by the end of chapter four.
They are simply entrepreneurs providing a service for a price. It is a way of deflecting blame away from our role in warmongering, arms sales and destabilisation onto somebody else.
To make us feel better.
People want to come here. And will pay for it.
That's capitalism.
https://www.thelocal.com/20211124/why-is-german-speaking-europe-lagging-on-covid-vaccines/
My volunteering is simple data entry, I put the names, nationalities, grant category, and other details into a spreadsheet from the grant application forms received. So I read a lot of stories about the hardships experienced by refugees, the ways in which the system is designed to fail, to be cruel, so as to create the maximum disincentive for anyone to come here.
But was effectively social work, language training, housing advocate, interpreter, counsellor, and a whole other bunch of stuff with some remarkably damaged people. With amazing and often disturbing stories to tell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d5d_HXGeMA
It did remind me of a lecture I once attended where the the speaker waxed lyrical about how the standardised shipping container was one of the greatest innovations of human history that make the modern world possible.
He appears to hold no particular animus toward me for possibly shooting his uncles or cousins and I likewise for the sniping and IEDs so sound bloke in my opinion.
I remember remarking a few months ago here that the sympathy for Afghan refugees would flip back to hostility very quickly"
Seemed pretty clear that he was linking refugees with Afghanistan, why otherwise mention it.
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1463645763699761152?s=20
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/national-leadership-judith-collins-faces-no-confidence-vote-over-simon-bridges-demotion/BXZTT6W3TWI7FBWUNT3ZX23PBA/
Also, bear in mind that other countries across Europe - France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Spain - are getting FAR more applications. When we blithely talk about 2why don't they stop in the first safe country?", we are partly overlooking the fact that most do exactly that, and partly trying to evade our share of the problem by our geographical position,
There is a sign outside offering $18/hour + healthcare + tips for trainee baristas.
The implication that taking risks to get here suggests they aren't genuine is a non-sequitur. Yes, step 1 is to get out of a hell-hole, and arrive in, say, Greece. But if you don't speak Greek or know any Greeks, and you do speak English and know someone in London, then step 2 may be to try to get here. That doesn't invalidate step 1.
https://youtu.be/NG4NCHuvCC4
https://news.sky.com/story/two-injured-as-pigs-storm-golf-course-in-west-yorkshire-12477545
Of the two injured people, I understand there is a hole in one.
I've never plucked up the courage to ask them how they got here as obviously it was pretty traumatic for some, and they've never volunteered the precise details. They seem to be settled here now although they do go back from time to time to see elderly relatives who were left behind.
If the restaurant business in question brings a sufficiently high value to its customers, then it can put up prices and pay its chefs more. If it can't do that then it's because other businesses are producing more value. When it goes out of business then average productivity will be higher.
People have been bemoaning low productivity UK for decades. Now we are actually leaving the low productivity stuff behind, people want immigration policy to bail them out.
But second, how would such a law work? Even if there were an influx of asylum seekers (or other immigrants) ready to work in catering, how would these people be stopped from switching to better jobs delivering parcels or whatever?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59409595
The weather and the postal vote will be crucial. Cons will be hoping they have the latter sown up and that gales, rain and snow come the week of polling. However the other thread showing over a third of general election Con voters are detaching themselves from the party seems to being borne out in North Shropshire. That is ominous especially as the Lib Dems are perceived, even in the local media to be in second place.
Three weeks, to go anything could happen.