We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.
Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.
Won't stop PB wetting its knickers about the Albanian menace ofc.
Doesn't say anything about accompanying children because we still need to explain away @Leon's hordes of Albanian infants nicking kitkats from his local co op.
What in that lot makes you think we should be reassured by it? Why, you have to ask, is Albania full of trafficked women? Seems most likely to me that their escape to the welcoming arms of the UK is as @Anabobazina would put it, a feature not a bug of the traffickers' masterplan. Get them in here, put them to work.
A country should have control of its borders. This antiracism by numbers stuff is just irrelevant, it's like sitting there in 1809 saying ooh look at you with your stereotyped memes about French garlic munching surrender monkeys.
If the UK gives them legal right to remain, then what power do the traffickers have over them?
A country should have control of its borders. If a country is failing to do that, I suggest voting out the Government in charge and voting in a more competent lot.
Over penniless, monoglot females in a strange country? A lot. They presumably had the legal right to be wherever they were in the first place when they got trafficked, and that didn't help them much, did it?
We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.
Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.
Interesting. Is it reasonable to describe 4,700 Albanian asylum seekers of which 86% are women as an invasion?
Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.
Yes, but, how can I put this? That only applies if they get caught entering. If they are not, by definition, they are not known to be in the country and don't have to claim it.
I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's one possible explanation.
Yes, I think that’s a much more likely explanation. I have no doubt that a lot of Albanian criminals are getting into the country. I am just not sure why they’d use the asylum system to do it when it immediately puts them on the radar. Why not just sneak in?
They just want to get in illegally. Otherwise they would climb on a plane and fly from Tirana to Stansted. But they don’t do that because that means going through border control and being noticed
Once they are in - they either disperse immediately as @IshmaelZ says - or they wait until they are in our dysfunctional asylum-hotel system then they melt away
I have no confidence that Labour would handle this any better than the inept Tories. Probably worse as they will be philosophically even more disinclined to take the tough unpleasant measures needed
As a nation we have to decide if we want to be generous to all and accept we do not control our borders, or look after our own - which means firm and ruthless control of our borders
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.
Yes, but, how can I put this? That only applies if they get caught entering. If they are not, by definition, they are not known to be in the country and don't have to claim it.
I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's one possible explanation.
Yes, I think that’s a much more likely explanation. I have no doubt that a lot of Albanian criminals are getting into the country. I am just not sure why they’d use the asylum system to do it when it immediately puts them on the radar. Why not just sneak in?
Well they do. If you're on a boat you don't get to shore and wave your hands in the air for the authorities to pick you up.
You do if you’re claiming asylum.
you claim asylum if you get picked up, not the other way round.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.
They are not “subject to close supervision”
“Albanian migrants working on cannabis farms just days after arriving in the UK Young men describe being released from detention into hotels where they are recruited by gangs to cultivate cannabis in makeshift farms”
I sometimes get the feeling PB-ers don’t read anything but PB and their own Facebook feeds
Surely the answer here is to send in Liam Neeson?
I sometimes think all the bad Albanians must be here because when we went to Albania on holiday we found them to be probably the kindest and most hospitable bunch of people I've ever met. (It is a really great holiday destination, especially if you're travelling with kids). And actually the Albanians I know in this country are all really lovely too. Still, I'm sure they must all be terrible and we should be very afraid of them and vote for that nice Mr Farage who is the only one who can protect us.
The problem with the known unknown of how many illegal Albanian immigrants are in the UK anonymously (ie those not having claimed asylum or made themselves known to the authorities) is that it gives a free hand to the @Leons of this world telling us we are suffering an invasion and you can't move in Fortnum's for Albanian pickpockets.
We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.
Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.
It is: It seems that the high success rate of asylum applications is down to women being protected from traffickers. That sounds an appropriate use of an asylum system to me.
It is a good thread that puts the Albanian so called 'threat' into perspective.
That said, looking purely from a coherence point of view the thread doesn't seem to make sense in terms of the contradictory numbers it quotes.
"Over the past two years the share of Albanian asylum applicants who were men has increased, from 70% of adult applicants in Q2 2019 to 91% in Q2 2022."
"Of all the positive decisions on adult Albanians’ asylum applications in the year ending 30 June 2022, 86% were for women, and 14% for men."
These two stats make sense and can be reconciled. But they also say:
"In the first half of 2022, 55% of adult Albanian applicants were successful at the initial decision."
This cannot be reconciled with the two previous claims. If only 9% of applicants are women and 55% of all applications (male and female) are successful, then it simply cannot be that 86% of successful applications were by women.
It makes no difference to the overall narrative of the piece, but such discrepancies muddy the water and are annoying.
One positive from that thread is that successful applications in the system overall (not just Albanians) has increased from 33% in 2018 to 72% in 2021.
Isn't the discrepancy down to different time frames, comparing the current arrivals to resolved cases, which date some years back?
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.
Yes, but, how can I put this? That only applies if they get caught entering. If they are not, by definition, they are not known to be in the country and don't have to claim it.
I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's one possible explanation.
Yes, I think that’s a much more likely explanation. I have no doubt that a lot of Albanian criminals are getting into the country. I am just not sure why they’d use the asylum system to do it when it immediately puts them on the radar. Why not just sneak in?
Well they do. If you're on a boat you don't get to shore and wave your hands in the air for the authorities to pick you up.
You do if you’re claiming asylum. Pulling out of the ECHR, for example, is not going to stop anyone sneaking into the UK on a boat or via any other means. Neither is sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The case needs to be made to the public why anyone from Albania needs to claim asylum, apart from a few fringe cases, it's hard to see why..
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.
Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.
Interesting. Is it reasonable to describe 4,700 Albanian asylum seekers of which 86% are women as an invasion?
Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers
If that's an invasion it's a good job the Nazis never actually gave it a go.
We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.
Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.
Interesting. Is it reasonable to describe 4,700 Albanian asylum seekers of which 86% are women as an invasion?
Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers
As said, that is about asylum seekers directly, which is a subset of those coming to the country.
What happens to those illegally crossing the Channel who do not claim asylum?
7. Those crossing the Channel in a clandestine manner and who remain undetected may try to avoid the authorities and may go on to work illegally in the UK's shadow economy. Illegal working penalties for employers suggest the largest share are in London. When such individuals arrive they join what is estimated to have become the largest population of unauthorised migrants in Europe - between 800,000 and 1.2 million in 2017.[9]
8. The few crossing the Channel who are detected but who do not claim asylum may be detained but will usually be given temporary release, in accordance with Paragraph 21(1), Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended). They appear to have formed a significant portion of the 80,000 people who did not have permission to stay in the UK in September 2016 and who were living amongst the general public while being obliged to report regularly to the Home Office (failed asylum claimants forming the other portion). Half of the 80,000 lived in London; over 50,000 were deemed to have absconded in late 2016.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
The problem with the known unknown of how many illegal Albanian immigrants are in the UK anonymously (ie those not having claimed asylum or made themselves known to the authorities) is that it gives a free hand to the @Leons of this world telling us we are suffering an invasion and you can't move in Fortnum's for Albanian pickpockets.
I love the realism and knowledge of the ways of the world implied by "made themselves known to the authorities."
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.
Yes, but, how can I put this? That only applies if they get caught entering. If they are not, by definition, they are not known to be in the country and don't have to claim it.
I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's one possible explanation.
Yes, I think that’s a much more likely explanation. I have no doubt that a lot of Albanian criminals are getting into the country. I am just not sure why they’d use the asylum system to do it when it immediately puts them on the radar. Why not just sneak in?
Well they do. If you're on a boat you don't get to shore and wave your hands in the air for the authorities to pick you up.
You do if you’re claiming asylum. Pulling out of the ECHR, for example, is not going to stop anyone sneaking into the UK on a boat or via any other means. Neither is sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The case needs to be made to the public why anyone from Albania needs to claim asylum, apart from a few fringe cases, it's hard to see why..
New transport secretary Mark Harper tells @skynews a final decision hasn't been taken yet, but Rishi Sunak made clear when he came in he was here to fix the previous PM's mistakes.
Liz Truss during her leadership campaign promised that Northern Powerhouse Rail services would stop at a new station in Bradford - a key demand of Northern MPs and council leaders.
Boris Johnson's plan had been to do a series of upgrades on existing line.
That would be extremely unfortunate given Liz Truss' promise to return to a sane rail plan rather than the blatant forgery that was the IRP was her one good idea.
Keeping the clocks forward was another excellent idea that seems to have vanished.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.
Yes, but, how can I put this? That only applies if they get caught entering. If they are not, by definition, they are not known to be in the country and don't have to claim it.
I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's one possible explanation.
Yes, I think that’s a much more likely explanation. I have no doubt that a lot of Albanian criminals are getting into the country. I am just not sure why they’d use the asylum system to do it when it immediately puts them on the radar. Why not just sneak in?
Well they do. If you're on a boat you don't get to shore and wave your hands in the air for the authorities to pick you up.
You do if you’re claiming asylum. Pulling out of the ECHR, for example, is not going to stop anyone sneaking into the UK on a boat or via any other means. Neither is sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The case needs to be made to the public why anyone from Albania needs to claim asylum, apart from a few fringe cases, it's hard to see why..
As 86% of them are women and the numbers are small anyway perhaps the UK are less forgiving of ill treatment towards women than would be the case in Albania?
What happens to those illegally crossing the Channel who do not claim asylum?
7. Those crossing the Channel in a clandestine manner and who remain undetected may try to avoid the authorities and may go on to work illegally in the UK's shadow economy. Illegal working penalties for employers suggest the largest share are in London. When such individuals arrive they join what is estimated to have become the largest population of unauthorised migrants in Europe - between 800,000 and 1.2 million in 2017.[9]
8. The few crossing the Channel who are detected but who do not claim asylum may be detained but will usually be given temporary release, in accordance with Paragraph 21(1), Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended). They appear to have formed a significant portion of the 80,000 people who did not have permission to stay in the UK in September 2016 and who were living amongst the general public while being obliged to report regularly to the Home Office (failed asylum claimants forming the other portion). Half of the 80,000 lived in London; over 50,000 were deemed to have absconded in late 2016.
Interesting so we have an estimate from Migration Watch of 800,000 - 1.2m.
I would be interested in knowing their sources not having an opinion either way on the veracity of the claim.
All this talk of course reminds me of that fantastic film Dirty Pretty Things. Now 20 years old (and, apropos of nothing, made in the middle of a Labour Government's term).
We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.
Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.
Interesting. Is it reasonable to describe 4,700 Albanian asylum seekers of which 86% are women as an invasion?
Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers
If that's an invasion it's a good job the Nazis never actually gave it a go.
It is thought that maybe 20,000 Normans settled in England in the years after the Conquest
70-80,000 dinghy people have crossed the Channel in the last four years. 40,000 will probably cross this year
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
If you think there are too many bodies in the country, direct your ire at the Government who has greatly increased the number coming over on work visas.
That said, looking purely from a coherence point of view the thread doesn't seem to make sense in terms of the contradictory numbers it quotes.
"Over the past two years the share of Albanian asylum applicants who were men has increased, from 70% of adult applicants in Q2 2019 to 91% in Q2 2022."
"Of all the positive decisions on adult Albanians’ asylum applications in the year ending 30 June 2022, 86% were for women, and 14% for men."
These two stats make sense and can be reconciled. But they also say:
"In the first half of 2022, 55% of adult Albanian applicants were successful at the initial decision."
This cannot be reconciled with the two previous claims. If only 9% of applicants are women and 55% of all applications (male and female) are successful, then it simply cannot be that 86% of successful applications were by women.
I think you're mixing figures for applications with figures for decisions -- the two can happen a long way apart if there's a backlog, and the authorities aren't necessarily working on a first-in-first-out basis. For instance if they're doing "easy" cases first and most women applicants are legit then they may be disproportionately processing women first, leaving the unprocessed backlog almost entirely men.
We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.
Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.
Interesting. Is it reasonable to describe 4,700 Albanian asylum seekers of which 86% are women as an invasion?
Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers
If that's an invasion it's a good job the Nazis never actually gave it a go.
It is thought that maybe 20,000 Normans settled in England in the years after the Conquest
70-80,000 dinghy people have crossed the Channel in the last four years. 40,000 will probably cross this year
Yes and they constituted exactly the same proportion of the population, then and now.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
If you think there are too many bodies in the country, direct your ire at the Government who has greatly increased the number coming over on work visas.
I'm not saying theres too many bodies in the country. What I'm saying is that we need systems which work and which the public, broadly has faith in, and we don't/
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
That said, looking purely from a coherence point of view the thread doesn't seem to make sense in terms of the contradictory numbers it quotes.
"Over the past two years the share of Albanian asylum applicants who were men has increased, from 70% of adult applicants in Q2 2019 to 91% in Q2 2022."
"Of all the positive decisions on adult Albanians’ asylum applications in the year ending 30 June 2022, 86% were for women, and 14% for men."
These two stats make sense and can be reconciled. But they also say:
"In the first half of 2022, 55% of adult Albanian applicants were successful at the initial decision."
This cannot be reconciled with the two previous claims. If only 9% of applicants are women and 55% of all applications (male and female) are successful, then it simply cannot be that 86% of successful applications were by women.
I think you're mixing figures for applications with figures for decisions -- the two can happen a long way apart if there's a backlog, and the authorities aren't necessarily working on a first-in-first-out basis. For instance if they're doing "easy" cases first and most women applicants are legit then they may be disproportionately processing women first, leaving the unprocessed backlog almost entirely men.
All the figures quoted relate to the first half of 2022. I can't believe there has been that large a change in the demographics over a few months to account for the discrepancies.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
That said, looking purely from a coherence point of view the thread doesn't seem to make sense in terms of the contradictory numbers it quotes.
"Over the past two years the share of Albanian asylum applicants who were men has increased, from 70% of adult applicants in Q2 2019 to 91% in Q2 2022."
"Of all the positive decisions on adult Albanians’ asylum applications in the year ending 30 June 2022, 86% were for women, and 14% for men."
These two stats make sense and can be reconciled. But they also say:
"In the first half of 2022, 55% of adult Albanian applicants were successful at the initial decision."
This cannot be reconciled with the two previous claims. If only 9% of applicants are women and 55% of all applications (male and female) are successful, then it simply cannot be that 86% of successful applications were by women.
I think you're mixing figures for applications with figures for decisions -- the two can happen a long way apart if there's a backlog, and the authorities aren't necessarily working on a first-in-first-out basis. For instance if they're doing "easy" cases first and most women applicants are legit then they may be disproportionately processing women first, leaving the unprocessed backlog almost entirely men.
The tread is so muddled and confusing it is near useless
Moreover the latest data they use (amongst a bunch of other irrelevant data) is up to June this year. The Albanian surge only really began around that time
We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.
Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.
Interesting. Is it reasonable to describe 4,700 Albanian asylum seekers of which 86% are women as an invasion?
Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers
If that's an invasion it's a good job the Nazis never actually gave it a go.
It is thought that maybe 20,000 Normans settled in England in the years after the Conquest
70-80,000 dinghy people have crossed the Channel in the last four years. 40,000 will probably cross this year
Yes and they constituted exactly the same proportion of the population, then and now.
T**t.
Well yes, but Harold Godwinson did not send lifeboats to meet them halfway. Securing the borders is a large part of the job description and he gave it his best shot.
So, basically, this is total government failure. If newspapers can find these people, the government can too.
False comparison -- the newspapers only need to find a comparatively small number to make a worthehile story, and they don't need anywhere near the same standard of evidence to publish it. The government needs to be able to do it for a a sizeable proportion of the people it's trying to find, or it's just a publicity stunt, not a worthwhile dent in the numbers.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
If you think there are too many bodies in the country, direct your ire at the Government who has greatly increased the number coming over on work visas.
I'm not saying theres too many bodies in the country. What I'm saying is that we need systems which work and which the public, broadly has faith in, and we don't/
And we sort of never have. It is part of modern life.
The question is intent, demand from the public, efficacy, money, pragmatism.
I have no idea what the right level of immigration legal or otherwise is in the UK.
Yesterday we had half a dozen examples of interactions with perhaps illegal immigrants, perhaps just legal immigrants doing people things and none was exactly at the level of threat to western democracy.
I see (or used to - a lot have vanished over Covid) car washes which I must suspect is an issue, although is in broad daylight so see the points above, and those eastern European women (I guess) begging or selling the Big Issue outside Boots but I haven't pinned down the societal threat yet.
"An alleged failure by the Home Office to share with the Albanian government the routes taken by those arriving in Britain is being blamed for holding back efforts to stop the Channel crossings.
Government sources in Tirana said that repeated attempts to get information from the UK about those travelling on the small boats had come to nothing, leaving them operating in the dark."
It's "alleged" but it fits with what we know. I have to ask the question - is it more valuable to Braverman to have a big crisis where she gets to play tough, or to avert the crisis before it happens?
We could have worked with Albania and not broken our own laws at Manston. But that denies Cruella the opportunity to showboat doesn't it?
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.
Yes, but, how can I put this? That only applies if they get caught entering. If they are not, by definition, they are not known to be in the country and don't have to claim it.
I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's one possible explanation.
Yes, I think that’s a much more likely explanation. I have no doubt that a lot of Albanian criminals are getting into the country. I am just not sure why they’d use the asylum system to do it when it immediately puts them on the radar. Why not just sneak in?
Well they do. If you're on a boat you don't get to shore and wave your hands in the air for the authorities to pick you up.
You do if you’re claiming asylum. Pulling out of the ECHR, for example, is not going to stop anyone sneaking into the UK on a boat or via any other means. Neither is sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The case needs to be made to the public why anyone from Albania needs to claim asylum, apart from a few fringe cases, it's hard to see why..
The country is about half-way down the list of countries according to GDP per head.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.
Yes, but, how can I put this? That only applies if they get caught entering. If they are not, by definition, they are not known to be in the country and don't have to claim it.
I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's one possible explanation.
Yes, I think that’s a much more likely explanation. I have no doubt that a lot of Albanian criminals are getting into the country. I am just not sure why they’d use the asylum system to do it when it immediately puts them on the radar. Why not just sneak in?
Well they do. If you're on a boat you don't get to shore and wave your hands in the air for the authorities to pick you up.
You do if you’re claiming asylum. Pulling out of the ECHR, for example, is not going to stop anyone sneaking into the UK on a boat or via any other means. Neither is sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The case needs to be made to the public why anyone from Albania needs to claim asylum, apart from a few fringe cases, it's hard to see why..
I want to know how sending asylum seekers to Rwanda or pulling out of the ECHR is going to stop people intent on criminal activity getting into the UK. I just don’t see how either will.
We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.
Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.
Interesting. Is it reasonable to describe 4,700 Albanian asylum seekers of which 86% are women as an invasion?
Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers
If that's an invasion it's a good job the Nazis never actually gave it a go.
It is thought that maybe 20,000 Normans settled in England in the years after the Conquest
70-80,000 dinghy people have crossed the Channel in the last four years. 40,000 will probably cross this year
Yes and they constituted exactly the same proportion of the population, then and now.
T**t.
Well yes, but Harold Godwinson did not send lifeboats to meet them halfway. Securing the borders is a large part of the job description and he gave it his best shot.
He did although he ultimately set the standard for the following thousand-odd years in success rates.
I think you're mixing figures for applications with figures for decisions -- the two can happen a long way apart if there's a backlog, and the authorities aren't necessarily working on a first-in-first-out basis. For instance if they're doing "easy" cases first and most women applicants are legit then they may be disproportionately processing women first, leaving the unprocessed backlog almost entirely men.
All the figures quoted relate to the first half of 2022. I can't believe there has been that large a change in the demographics over a few months to account for the discrepancies.
That entirely misses my point, which is that the demographics of decisions don't need to match those of applications if the government is effectively deciding easy cases first and more quickly and has a long backlog for hard cases.
We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.
Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.
Interesting. Is it reasonable to describe 4,700 Albanian asylum seekers of which 86% are women as an invasion?
Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers
If that's an invasion it's a good job the Nazis never actually gave it a go.
It is thought that maybe 20,000 Normans settled in England in the years after the Conquest
70-80,000 dinghy people have crossed the Channel in the last four years. 40,000 will probably cross this year
Yes and they constituted exactly the same proportion of the population, then and now.
T**t.
The Normans also moved directly into positions of overlordship and power because they really did invade and conquer.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
Not at all. Your post implied that bodies being in the country was a problem. You since said no it's not a problem just that we need a system that works, etc.
But we the British public don't really want a system that works or we would be prepared to resource it. And we are not.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
If you think there are too many bodies in the country, direct your ire at the Government who has greatly increased the number coming over on work visas.
I'm not saying theres too many bodies in the country. What I'm saying is that we need systems which work and which the public, broadly has faith in, and we don't/
And we sort of never have. It is part of modern life.
The question is intent, demand from the public, efficacy, money, pragmatism.
I have no idea what the right level of immigration legal or otherwise is in the UK.
Yesterday we had half a dozen examples of interactions with perhaps illegal immigrants, perhaps just legal immigrants doing people things and none was exactly at the level of threat to western democracy.
In which case the government (and the opposition) need to be honest with the public and say.. 'fuck it, this is too hard to control and we don't want to anyway, and we're just going to have open borders'.
I'm not saying people shouldn't claim asylum or have a level of immigration. What I'm saying is that both the level of information and the systems don't work.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.
Yes, but, how can I put this? That only applies if they get caught entering. If they are not, by definition, they are not known to be in the country and don't have to claim it.
I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's one possible explanation.
Yes, I think that’s a much more likely explanation. I have no doubt that a lot of Albanian criminals are getting into the country. I am just not sure why they’d use the asylum system to do it when it immediately puts them on the radar. Why not just sneak in?
Well they do. If you're on a boat you don't get to shore and wave your hands in the air for the authorities to pick you up.
You do if you’re claiming asylum. Pulling out of the ECHR, for example, is not going to stop anyone sneaking into the UK on a boat or via any other means. Neither is sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The case needs to be made to the public why anyone from Albania needs to claim asylum, apart from a few fringe cases, it's hard to see why..
I want to know how sending asylum seekers to Rwanda or pulling out of the ECHR is going to stop people intent on criminal activity getting into the UK. I just don’t see how either will.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
God that piece is so embarrassingly unfunny and pointless.
If you want to reduce all of politics to the question Am I alright, Jack, personally with all this, the answer is they are spending my tax dollar on these fuckers instead of beefing up the triple lock for when I need it to help cope with my drinks bill in 2027.
I also have views on abortion, despite not being a woman.
We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.
Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.
Interesting. Is it reasonable to describe 4,700 Albanian asylum seekers of which 86% are women as an invasion?
Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers
If that's an invasion it's a good job the Nazis never actually gave it a go.
It is thought that maybe 20,000 Normans settled in England in the years after the Conquest
70-80,000 dinghy people have crossed the Channel in the last four years. 40,000 will probably cross this year
Yes and they constituted exactly the same proportion of the population, then and now.
T**t.
Yesterday, comparing one of the deadliest ever battles with today's war in Ukraine. Today, comparing the Norman Conquest with illegal Albanian migrants.
We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.
Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.
It is: It seems that the high success rate of asylum applications is down to women being protected from traffickers. That sounds an appropriate use of an asylum system to me.
It is a good thread that puts the Albanian so called 'threat' into perspective.
That said, looking purely from a coherence point of view the thread doesn't seem to make sense in terms of the contradictory numbers it quotes.
"Over the past two years the share of Albanian asylum applicants who were men has increased, from 70% of adult applicants in Q2 2019 to 91% in Q2 2022."
"Of all the positive decisions on adult Albanians’ asylum applications in the year ending 30 June 2022, 86% were for women, and 14% for men."
These two stats make sense and can be reconciled. But they also say:
"In the first half of 2022, 55% of adult Albanian applicants were successful at the initial decision."
This cannot be reconciled with the two previous claims. If only 9% of applicants are women and 55% of all applications (male and female) are successful, then it simply cannot be that 86% of successful applications were by women.
It makes no difference to the overall narrative of the piece, but such discrepancies muddy the water and are annoying.
One positive from that thread is that successful applications in the system overall (not just Albanians) has increased from 33% in 2018 to 72% in 2021.
The numbers are reconciliable, I believe, because they cover different time periods: “past two years”, “year ending 30 June 2022” (i.e. 1 July 2021-30 June 2022) and “first half of 2022” (i.e. 1 January 2022-30 June 2022).
No, the increase is in the past two years (70% to 91%). The actual number I used was from 2022. - 91%.
So, we are still in the position where they say that in 2022 91% of applicants were men and 55% of applicants were successful. The only figure that doesn't fall into that timeframe is the 86% of successful applicants which covers an additional 6 months (the second half of 2021). It would require such a massive change in demographics in that 6 months that it seems unrealistic to me.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
If you think there are too many bodies in the country, direct your ire at the Government who has greatly increased the number coming over on work visas.
I'm not saying theres too many bodies in the country. What I'm saying is that we need systems which work and which the public, broadly has faith in, and we don't/
And we sort of never have. It is part of modern life.
The question is intent, demand from the public, efficacy, money, pragmatism.
I have no idea what the right level of immigration legal or otherwise is in the UK.
Yesterday we had half a dozen examples of interactions with perhaps illegal immigrants, perhaps just legal immigrants doing people things and none was exactly at the level of threat to western democracy.
In which case the government (and the opposition) need to be honest with the public and say.. 'fuck it, this is too hard to control and we don't want to anyway, and we're just going to have open borders'.
I'm not saying people shouldn't claim asylum or have a level of immigration. What I'm saying is that both the level of information and the systems don't work.
We are agreeing. But really - you are a veteran and respected PB contributor yet you write the following words, apparently not ironically:
"the government (and the opposition) need to be honest with the public"
I mean for heaven's sake. Of course they do but they won't. And because we are all satisfied by being outraged at the odd DM article we don't push them to do anything about it. So it's on us really.
I'm finding some of our mainstream news coverage increasingly bizarre, lurching from one crisis to the next, with a general sense of hysteria and a much more openly political stance."
1,500 dead soldiers, thousands more wounded, and a couple of hundred lost Russian vehicles, in the last two days alone. They definitely can’t keep this up for long at all.
What do we reckon Starmer will lead on at PMQs today?
I'm working so will miss it, but any thoughts? Will he keep up the pressure on Braverman or demand answers on the postponed Special Fiscal Event?
PMQs will open with Tory Whips placing a question about ring fencing the NHS in the coming budget.
Starmer will start up, 2 parts nasal to 3 parts quizzical look. Some one drives from High Wycombe to fire bomb an Asylum Reception Facility in Kent, next day the UK Home Secretary issues a call to arms about an invasion of our South Coast. Does the Primeminister believe she was right to use that inflammatory language?
{who knows how Sunak replies, but it will be a careful balancing line between he personally would not have phrased it like that, of course, but he recognises the HomeSec was only trying to convey the enormity of the problem we are facing.}
Starmer is now 3 parts nasal to 2 parts quizzical look. Mr Speaker, When my minister for Bus travel made up Labour Transport Policy on the hoof, I quickly sacked him, the Labour Party democracy then deselected him. In contrast the Primeminster stands shoulder to shoulder with a Home Secretary he is too weak to sack! {at this moment camera shows a stern Sunak, no longer nervously grinning by now, face down down in his notes shaking his head. The Leader of the House can be seen staring out into the lobby - her mind on a ship at sea she’s Captaining} The outcome is his HomSec speaks for him and the government with “invasion of south coast underway” - indeed, number ten press spokesperson subsequently supported the Home Secretary by adding “significant proportion of people arriving are economic migrants” But could not provide any evidence, or data, to support this - other than we already know, 80% the Tories have now processed from the two year backlog they’ve created, have been allowed to stay. Is the Primeminister telling us today he believes there is an invasion of our South Coast underway - yes or no.
Etc etc.
Todays PMQs will be all about trying to make Rishi look weak and error prone for standing by Braverman. Helpfully lowering expectations for Sunak here, this day will be very difficult for him, getting a score draw will be a great result. In Sunak’s favour he can see Starmer’s approach coming a mile off, and no, Starmer won’t have actual question on Hancock and the 350K pay out, Campbell or Fry may have slipped him a quip, he will stick entirely to the Crimes of Braverman so Sunak should be ready with more relevant answers than last week.
PS by the end of this Wednesday Sunak will have announced he’s off to COP, after all. On a Wednesday!
The truth is Britain must have the most buoyant black market economy in Europe. Legalising drugs and prostitution would probably cut a fair bit of it off at the knees, ID card system could do more; incentives for grassing up illegal employers another part and working with Tirana and Paris yet more.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
If you think there are too many bodies in the country, direct your ire at the Government who has greatly increased the number coming over on work visas.
I'm not saying theres too many bodies in the country. What I'm saying is that we need systems which work and which the public, broadly has faith in, and we don't/
And we sort of never have. It is part of modern life.
The question is intent, demand from the public, efficacy, money, pragmatism.
I have no idea what the right level of immigration legal or otherwise is in the UK.
Yesterday we had half a dozen examples of interactions with perhaps illegal immigrants, perhaps just legal immigrants doing people things and none was exactly at the level of threat to western democracy.
In which case the government (and the opposition) need to be honest with the public and say.. 'fuck it, this is too hard to control and we don't want to anyway, and we're just going to have open borders'.
I'm not saying people shouldn't claim asylum or have a level of immigration. What I'm saying is that both the level of information and the systems don't work.
We are agreeing. But really - you are a veteran and respected PB contributor yet you write the following words, apparently not ironically:
"the government (and the opposition) need to be honest with the public"
I mean for heaven's sake. Of course they do but they won't. And because we are all satisfied by being outraged at the odd DM article we don't push them to do anything about it. So it's on us really.
'veteran and respected PB'- there's a first time for everything....
And of course they're not. That's why there's so much discontent. The Tories are in government at the moment, and they've been in power for 12 years, and it's mostly on them.
But I don't think it's too naïve to both expect and demand better.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
God that piece is so embarrassingly unfunny and pointless.
If you want to reduce all of politics to the question Am I alright, Jack, personally with all this, the answer is they are spending my tax dollar on these fuckers instead of beefing up the triple lock for when I need it to help cope with my drinks bill in 2027.
I also have views on abortion, despite not being a woman.
But you know that abortion exists. If you had views on, say, aliens, then that would be the analogy.
People are complaining about immigration. On this very board. But no one really knows what "immigration" means. Some kids in Primrose Hill nicking smarties, some bloke rough sleeping.
You yourself said you had had no direct experience of the ills of immigration but also that you can object to it because it exists.
What exists? What are your views on immigration and illegal immigration?
So, basically, this is total government failure. If newspapers can find these people, the government can too.
False comparison -- the newspapers only need to find a comparatively small number to make a worthehile story, and they don't need anywhere near the same standard of evidence to publish it. The government needs to be able to do it for a a sizeable proportion of the people it's trying to find, or it's just a publicity stunt, not a worthwhile dent in the numbers.
How do we know it’s a sizeable proportion of asylum seekers if all we have are anecdotal reports from right wing newspapers based on small numbers?
As I say, I have no doubts that high numbers of Albanians (and others) are coming into the country illegally. I am just less convinced that asylum is renotely likely to be the primary route.
The last three days have all been exceptionally high: 900, 650, 800. Seems to coincide with the Russians launching a new offensive in Southern Donetsk Oblast, and generally throwing large numbers of the newly-mobilised troops onto the frontline.
Looks like the tactic of throwing poorly-trained and poorly-equipped soldiers into a modern war is having the predictable consequence.
Back to the vexed question of what does Starmer lead on in PMQs. Tricky one. There are a few angles.
I feel his strongest overall strategy is to ram home the tired old Tories theme. Same old same old. The veneer of change but the rot still there underneath.
To do this he might consider a bit of a greatest hits collection rather than one topic. There are several:
- New leader supposed to be about integrity but he rehired Braverman - Restoring confidence in fiscal policy but this morning Badenoch is mouthing off about the OBR - Huge sewage release in the sea off Cornwall - doubtless a few good NHS waiting list type stats to throw in too
I would avoid, because they are too easy to bat away or obfuscate, Sunak not attending COP27 (unless setting him up for a u-turn) and the details of the Manston story.
So, basically, this is total government failure. If newspapers can find these people, the government can too.
False comparison -- the newspapers only need to find a comparatively small number to make a worthehile story, and they don't need anywhere near the same standard of evidence to publish it. The government needs to be able to do it for a a sizeable proportion of the people it's trying to find, or it's just a publicity stunt, not a worthwhile dent in the numbers.
How do we know it’s a sizeable proportion of asylum seekers if all we have are anecdotal reports from right wing newspapers based on small numbers?
As I say, I have no doubts that high numbers of Albanians (and others) are coming into the country illegally. I am just less convinced that asylum is renotely likely to be the primary route.
Agreed what we need are facts and numbers, which are thin on the ground.
I'm finding some of our mainstream news coverage increasingly bizarre, lurching from one crisis to the next, with a general sense of hysteria and a much more openly political stance."
No sh!t, Sherlock Goodwin. There’s been several years of it, culminating in the taking down of a Prime Minister almost as soon as she was appointed, after only a brief period of mourning.
I'm finding some of our mainstream news coverage increasingly bizarre, lurching from one crisis to the next, with a general sense of hysteria and a much more openly political stance."
"Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."
Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
First class whataboutery. Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
The only way to move on is to accept the damage that Brexit has caused and seek to mitigate that damage. You need to realise that, accept responsibility for the division and harm you’ve caused, and work with the people to remedy it.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
If you think there are too many bodies in the country, direct your ire at the Government who has greatly increased the number coming over on work visas.
I'm not saying theres too many bodies in the country. What I'm saying is that we need systems which work and which the public, broadly has faith in, and we don't/
And we sort of never have. It is part of modern life.
The question is intent, demand from the public, efficacy, money, pragmatism.
I have no idea what the right level of immigration legal or otherwise is in the UK.
Yesterday we had half a dozen examples of interactions with perhaps illegal immigrants, perhaps just legal immigrants doing people things and none was exactly at the level of threat to western democracy.
In which case the government (and the opposition) need to be honest with the public and say.. 'fuck it, this is too hard to control and we don't want to anyway, and we're just going to have open borders'.
I'm not saying people shouldn't claim asylum or have a level of immigration. What I'm saying is that both the level of information and the systems don't work.
The last senior politician to try being honest with the public was May, and it cost her her majority.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
God that piece is so embarrassingly unfunny and pointless.
If you want to reduce all of politics to the question Am I alright, Jack, personally with all this, the answer is they are spending my tax dollar on these fuckers instead of beefing up the triple lock for when I need it to help cope with my drinks bill in 2027.
I also have views on abortion, despite not being a woman.
But you know that abortion exists. If you had views on, say, aliens, then that would be the analogy.
People are complaining about immigration. On this very board. But no one really knows what "immigration" means. Some kids in Primrose Hill nicking smarties, some bloke rough sleeping.
You yourself said you had had no direct experience of the ills of immigration but also that you can object to it because it exists.
What exists? What are your views on immigration and illegal immigration?
FFS. Immigration means people coming to live here permanently. People need places to live, schools and hospitals to go to, trains and roads to get around the place on. So crowded roads, hospital waits, loss of countryside to housing, all affecting me. If you think linking to some talentless loser proving that satire is harder than it looks alters the case, it does not. It's like writing an article saying hur hur hur, man believes earth orbits around sun.
I'm finding some of our mainstream news coverage increasingly bizarre, lurching from one crisis to the next, with a general sense of hysteria and a much more openly political stance."
We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.
Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.
Interesting. Is it reasonable to describe 4,700 Albanian asylum seekers of which 86% are women as an invasion?
Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers
If that's an invasion it's a good job the Nazis never actually gave it a go.
It is thought that maybe 20,000 Normans settled in England in the years after the Conquest
70-80,000 dinghy people have crossed the Channel in the last four years. 40,000 will probably cross this year
Yes and they constituted exactly the same proportion of the population, then and now.
T**t.
The Normans also moved directly into positions of overlordship and power because they really did invade and conquer.
Coincidentally, I'm in the middle of reading The Norman Conquest by Marc Morris and just got to 1086. 20 years after the Conquest, there were bugger all English Lords left and none with any wealth or power. Everything, from architecture to the politics had been dismantled and changed. The fella was ruthless!
Starmer is going to start out with a joke about I'm a Celebrity and relate it to Rishi/the Cons.
I'd like to know what Starmer's solution is to the migration crisis. It's a pity it isn't Leader of the Opposition questions
The answer should be fairly simple to give. Take the bloody thing seriously and resource it properly. Clear the backlog, invest in infrastructure, work more closely with France etc. Stop playing political games and grow up. But that’s for Yvette Cooper to say, as she has - pretty much - been saying.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
God that piece is so embarrassingly unfunny and pointless.
If you want to reduce all of politics to the question Am I alright, Jack, personally with all this, the answer is they are spending my tax dollar on these fuckers instead of beefing up the triple lock for when I need it to help cope with my drinks bill in 2027.
I also have views on abortion, despite not being a woman.
But you know that abortion exists. If you had views on, say, aliens, then that would be the analogy.
People are complaining about immigration. On this very board. But no one really knows what "immigration" means. Some kids in Primrose Hill nicking smarties, some bloke rough sleeping.
You yourself said you had had no direct experience of the ills of immigration but also that you can object to it because it exists.
What exists? What are your views on immigration and illegal immigration?
FFS. Immigration means people coming to live here permanently. People need places to live, schools and hospitals to go to, trains and roads to get around the place on. So crowded roads, hospital waits, loss of countryside to housing, all affecting me. If you think linking to some talentless loser proving that satire is harder than it looks alters the case, it does not. It's like writing an article saying hur hur hur, man believes earth orbits around sun.
And is it your view that the UK can't accommodate immigrants. Or is there a level at which you will put the "House Full" sign up?
Starmer is going to start out with a joke about I'm a Celebrity and relate it to Rishi/the Cons.
I'd like to know what Starmer's solution is to the migration crisis. It's a pity it isn't Leader of the Opposition questions
The answer should be fairly simple to give. Take the bloody thing seriously and resource it properly. Clear the backlog, invest in infrastructure, work more closely with France etc. Stop playing political games and grow up. But that’s for Yvette Cooper to say, as she has - pretty much - been saying.
I'm finding some of our mainstream news coverage increasingly bizarre, lurching from one crisis to the next, with a general sense of hysteria and a much more openly political stance."
I didn't hear him cringe and whine when it was two decades of banning bendy bananas, mental health rumours about Labour PMs, or gaybashing. And his little pal Alastair Stewart chiming in to boot.
I'm finding some of our mainstream news coverage increasingly bizarre, lurching from one crisis to the next, with a general sense of hysteria and a much more openly political stance."
Well, if they are just reporting the news, there wold be a lot of crises for them to report on. We do, after all, have a seriously incompetent Conservative government.
Starmer is going to start out with a joke about I'm a Celebrity and relate it to Rishi/the Cons.
I'd like to know what Starmer's solution is to the migration crisis. It's a pity it isn't Leader of the Opposition questions
The answer should be fairly simple to give. Take the bloody thing seriously and resource it properly. Clear the backlog, invest in infrastructure, work more closely with France etc. Stop playing political games and grow up. But that’s for Yvette Cooper to say, as she has - pretty much - been saying.
"Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."
Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
First class whataboutery. Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
The only way to move on is to accept the damage that Brexit has caused and seek to mitigate that damage. You need to realise that, accept responsibility for the division and harm you’ve caused, and work with the people to remedy it.
Felix voted Remain.
It's stunningly hypocritical for people who still haven't accepted the result of a democratic vote to demand atonement for the creation of division from the people who have.
Starmer is going to start out with a joke about I'm a Celebrity and relate it to Rishi/the Cons.
I'd like to know what Starmer's solution is to the migration crisis. It's a pity it isn't Leader of the Opposition questions
Big secret:
There isn't one. Not short of rolling back 300 years of liberalism and using deadly force. Trump couldn't enforce a land border, sea borders are much much harder. The best we can manage is some sort of sharing-the-pain deal with France.
We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.
Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.
Interesting. Is it reasonable to describe 4,700 Albanian asylum seekers of which 86% are women as an invasion?
Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers
If that's an invasion it's a good job the Nazis never actually gave it a go.
It is thought that maybe 20,000 Normans settled in England in the years after the Conquest
70-80,000 dinghy people have crossed the Channel in the last four years. 40,000 will probably cross this year
Yes and they constituted exactly the same proportion of the population, then and now.
T**t.
The Normans also moved directly into positions of overlordship and power because they really did invade and conquer.
We have just had a change of monarch. Has anyone checked to make sure that this Charles fella isn't actually an Albanian? He does have a bit of a funny accent.
FWIW it seems to me the whole asylum/migration stuff, while of course there are real things to say (like our population going up 8 million since 2002 while many countries have stayed quite static), is really a proxy for something else.
That something else is the sense that almost no important government/state/state-funded institutions are run with ordinary basic competence. So that every crisis is adding to an already improperly managed country.
"Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."
Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
First class whataboutery. Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
The only way to move on is to accept the damage that Brexit has caused and seek to mitigate that damage. You need to realise that, accept responsibility for the division and harm you’ve caused, and work with the people to remedy it.
Felix voted Remain.
It's stunningly hypocritical for people who still haven't accepted the result of a democratic vote to demand atonement for the creation of division from the people who have.
Six years ago, longer than the lifetime of a Parliament, and you got what you wanted. But I've never seen a group of winners more bitter at the shitness of the prize they won, while also insisting it be treated as an irreversible state religion.
FWIW it seems to me the whole asylum/migration stuff, while of course there are real things to say (like our population going up 8 million since 2002 while many countries have stayed quite static), is really a proxy for something else.
That something else is the sense that almost no important government/state/state-funded institutions are run with ordinary basic competence. So that every crisis is adding to an already improperly managed country.
I think there is a lot of truth in this. But I'd say it goes beyond government, even. So much stuff in this country just doesn't seem to work very well.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
God that piece is so embarrassingly unfunny and pointless.
If you want to reduce all of politics to the question Am I alright, Jack, personally with all this, the answer is they are spending my tax dollar on these fuckers instead of beefing up the triple lock for when I need it to help cope with my drinks bill in 2027.
I also have views on abortion, despite not being a woman.
But you know that abortion exists. If you had views on, say, aliens, then that would be the analogy.
People are complaining about immigration. On this very board. But no one really knows what "immigration" means. Some kids in Primrose Hill nicking smarties, some bloke rough sleeping.
You yourself said you had had no direct experience of the ills of immigration but also that you can object to it because it exists.
What exists? What are your views on immigration and illegal immigration?
FFS. Immigration means people coming to live here permanently. People need places to live, schools and hospitals to go to, trains and roads to get around the place on. So crowded roads, hospital waits, loss of countryside to housing, all affecting me. If you think linking to some talentless loser proving that satire is harder than it looks alters the case, it does not. It's like writing an article saying hur hur hur, man believes earth orbits around sun.
And is it your view that the UK can't accommodate immigrants. Or is there a level at which you will put the "House Full" sign up?
you think there aren't enough people here yet?
That is an entirely separate issue anyway. This is about controlling the number, identity and route of entry of immigrants. Basic housekeeping.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
God that piece is so embarrassingly unfunny and pointless.
If you want to reduce all of politics to the question Am I alright, Jack, personally with all this, the answer is they are spending my tax dollar on these fuckers instead of beefing up the triple lock for when I need it to help cope with my drinks bill in 2027.
I also have views on abortion, despite not being a woman.
But you know that abortion exists. If you had views on, say, aliens, then that would be the analogy.
People are complaining about immigration. On this very board. But no one really knows what "immigration" means. Some kids in Primrose Hill nicking smarties, some bloke rough sleeping.
You yourself said you had had no direct experience of the ills of immigration but also that you can object to it because it exists.
What exists? What are your views on immigration and illegal immigration?
FFS. Immigration means people coming to live here permanently. People need places to live, schools and hospitals to go to, trains and roads to get around the place on. So crowded roads, hospital waits, loss of countryside to housing, all affecting me. If you think linking to some talentless loser proving that satire is harder than it looks alters the case, it does not. It's like writing an article saying hur hur hur, man believes earth orbits around sun.
And is it your view that the UK can't accommodate immigrants. Or is there a level at which you will put the "House Full" sign up?
This is another area where we could do with more balanced debate. Britain has two counteracting challenges:
- A declining ratio between the economically active and inactive / retired population, which is why our health and social care systems are in such a mess - A shortage of affordable housing, educational and transport infrastructure
Migration helps with the first and exacerbates the second. It differs from increased fertility rates in that it solves the first issue more rapidly but probably exacerbated the second more immediately too (because babies live in existing homes while migrants need their own), but otherwise is pretty similar.
"Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."
Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
First class whataboutery. Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
The only way to move on is to accept the damage that Brexit has caused and seek to mitigate that damage. You need to realise that, accept responsibility for the division and harm you’ve caused, and work with the people to remedy it.
Felix voted Remain.
It's stunningly hypocritical for people who still haven't accepted the result of a democratic vote to demand atonement for the creation of division from the people who have.
Who hasn't accepted it? Of course we accept it. But does that mean we can't point out how it's failing? Does that mean we can't argue that it was sold on a false prospectus? Does that mean we can't lobby for a closer relationship with the EU? Does that mean we can't argue for a vote to rejoin at some point in the future? It would be good to know precisely what limits on our free speech you are advocating so that we can comply.
"Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."
Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
First class whataboutery. Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
The only way to move on is to accept the damage that Brexit has caused and seek to mitigate that damage. You need to realise that, accept responsibility for the division and harm you’ve caused, and work with the people to remedy it.
Felix voted Remain.
It's stunningly hypocritical for people who still haven't accepted the result of a democratic vote to demand atonement for the creation of division from the people who have.
Six years ago, longer than the lifetime of a Parliament, and you got what you wanted. But I've never seen a group of winners more bitter at the shitness of the prize they won, while also insisting it be treated as an irreversible state religion.
I also voted Remain.
It may be hard to remember now, but many people genuinely did think that by voting for Brexit, they would put an end to the interminable debate about the European question in British politics. The primary reason this has not happened is because of Remainers not accepting the outcome.
It will only be true to say that people who voted for Brexit got what they wanted when the issue is regarded as settled.
"Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."
Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
First class whataboutery. Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
The only way to move on is to accept the damage that Brexit has caused and seek to mitigate that damage. You need to realise that, accept responsibility for the division and harm you’ve caused, and work with the people to remedy it.
Felix voted Remain.
It's stunningly hypocritical for people who still haven't accepted the result of a democratic vote to demand atonement for the creation of division from the people who have.
Who hasn't accepted it? Of course we accept it. But does that mean we can't point out how it's failing? Does that mean we can't argue that it was sold on a false prospectus? Does that mean we can't lobby for a closer relationship with the EU? Does that mean we can't argue for a vote to rejoin at some point in the future? It would be good to know precisely what limits on our free speech you are advocating so that we can comply.
You're free to do all of that, but you don't get to claim the moral high ground or complain about division when you are essentially acting as a mirror image of Nigel Farage circa 2005.
"Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."
Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
First class whataboutery. Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
The only way to move on is to accept the damage that Brexit has caused and seek to mitigate that damage. You need to realise that, accept responsibility for the division and harm you’ve caused, and work with the people to remedy it.
Felix voted Remain.
It's stunningly hypocritical for people who still haven't accepted the result of a democratic vote to demand atonement for the creation of division from the people who have.
Six years ago, longer than the lifetime of a Parliament, and you got what you wanted. But I've never seen a group of winners more bitter at the shitness of the prize they won, while also insisting it be treated as an irreversible state religion.
I also voted Remain.
It may be hard to remember now, but many people genuinely did think that by voting for Brexit, they would put an end to the interminable debate about the European question in British politics. The primary reason this has not happened is because of Remainers not accepting the outcome.
It will only be true to say that people who voted for Brexit got what they wanted when the issue is regarded as settled.
You can only put debate to an end by restricting freedom of speech. Democratic mandates in the UK don't last forever, otherwise the Lloyd George Liberals would be the government.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
If you think there are too many bodies in the country, direct your ire at the Government who has greatly increased the number coming over on work visas.
I'm not saying theres too many bodies in the country. What I'm saying is that we need systems which work and which the public, broadly has faith in, and we don't/
Processing times for asylum seekers have massively increased under the Conservatives. Deportations have massively decreased. The Conservatives like to talk about Rwanda and the EHCR, but the problems don't actually appear to be what the rules are. The problems appear to be that the Home Office is unable to run the current system due to cuts in funding and mismanagement. The solution is not inflammatory rhetoric. The solution is putting someone vaguely competent in as Home Secretary.
I'm finding some of our mainstream news coverage increasingly bizarre, lurching from one crisis to the next, with a general sense of hysteria and a much more openly political stance."
No sh!t, Sherlock Goodwin. There’s been several years of it, culminating in the taking down of a Prime Minister almost as soon as she was appointed, after only a brief period of mourning.
"Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."
Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
First class whataboutery. Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
The only way to move on is to accept the damage that Brexit has caused and seek to mitigate that damage. You need to realise that, accept responsibility for the division and harm you’ve caused, and work with the people to remedy it.
Felix voted Remain.
It's stunningly hypocritical for people who still haven't accepted the result of a democratic vote to demand atonement for the creation of division from the people who have.
Six years ago, longer than the lifetime of a Parliament, and you got what you wanted. But I've never seen a group of winners more bitter at the shitness of the prize they won, while also insisting it be treated as an irreversible state religion.
I also voted Remain.
It may be hard to remember now, but many people genuinely did think that by voting for Brexit, they would put an end to the interminable debate about the European question in British politics. The primary reason this has not happened is because of Remainers not accepting the outcome.
It will only be true to say that people who voted for Brexit got what they wanted when the issue is regarded as settled.
You can only put debate to an end by restricting freedom of speech. Democratic mandates in the UK don't last forever, otherwise the Lloyd George Liberals would be the government.
Constitutional questions need to be resolved one way or the other to allow normal politics to function, otherwise we'd still be fighting the civil war.
"Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."
Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
First class whataboutery. Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
The only way to move on is to accept the damage that Brexit has caused and seek to mitigate that damage. You need to realise that, accept responsibility for the division and harm you’ve caused, and work with the people to remedy it.
Felix voted Remain.
It's stunningly hypocritical for people who still haven't accepted the result of a democratic vote to demand atonement for the creation of division from the people who have.
Six years ago, longer than the lifetime of a Parliament, and you got what you wanted. But I've never seen a group of winners more bitter at the shitness of the prize they won, while also insisting it be treated as an irreversible state religion.
I also voted Remain.
It may be hard to remember now, but many people genuinely did think that by voting for Brexit, they would put an end to the interminable debate about the European question in British politics. The primary reason this has not happened is because of Remainers not accepting the outcome.
It will only be true to say that people who voted for Brexit got what they wanted when the issue is regarded as settled.
Well tough shit. We have open political debates in this country. If people want to live in a country where everyone agrees with the government they can go and live in China.
"Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."
Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
First class whataboutery. Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
The only way to move on is to accept the damage that Brexit has caused and seek to mitigate that damage. You need to realise that, accept responsibility for the division and harm you’ve caused, and work with the people to remedy it.
Felix voted Remain.
It's stunningly hypocritical for people who still haven't accepted the result of a democratic vote to demand atonement for the creation of division from the people who have.
Who hasn't accepted it? Of course we accept it. But does that mean we can't point out how it's failing? Does that mean we can't argue that it was sold on a false prospectus? Does that mean we can't lobby for a closer relationship with the EU? Does that mean we can't argue for a vote to rejoin at some point in the future? It would be good to know precisely what limits on our free speech you are advocating so that we can comply.
You're free to do all of that, but you don't get to claim the moral high ground or complain about division when you are essentially acting as a mirror image of Nigel Farage circa 2005.
Farage was not prominent in 2005, but he certainly wasn't being censored from expressing support for, and pursuing, EU exit based on an old referendum result.
"Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."
Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
First class whataboutery. Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
The only way to move on is to accept the damage that Brexit has caused and seek to mitigate that damage. You need to realise that, accept responsibility for the division and harm you’ve caused, and work with the people to remedy it.
Felix voted Remain.
It's stunningly hypocritical for people who still haven't accepted the result of a democratic vote to demand atonement for the creation of division from the people who have.
Six years ago, longer than the lifetime of a Parliament, and you got what you wanted. But I've never seen a group of winners more bitter at the shitness of the prize they won, while also insisting it be treated as an irreversible state religion.
I also voted Remain.
It may be hard to remember now, but many people genuinely did think that by voting for Brexit, they would put an end to the interminable debate about the European question in British politics. The primary reason this has not happened is because of Remainers not accepting the outcome.
It will only be true to say that people who voted for Brexit got what they wanted when the issue is regarded as settled.
Brexit will never be settled.
The Eurosceptic shits made life hell from Macmillan to Cameron. Now the boot is on the other foot and we’re going to kick and kick and kick the shits in the goolies til the cows come home.
One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?
Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.
The question is three fold
1) Can we even control immigration 2) Should we control immigration. 3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,
Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
Oxford University: “People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population“
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
Agreed. It still leads to the same issue of bodies being in the country.
God that piece is so embarrassingly unfunny and pointless.
If you want to reduce all of politics to the question Am I alright, Jack, personally with all this, the answer is they are spending my tax dollar on these fuckers instead of beefing up the triple lock for when I need it to help cope with my drinks bill in 2027.
I also have views on abortion, despite not being a woman.
But you know that abortion exists. If you had views on, say, aliens, then that would be the analogy.
People are complaining about immigration. On this very board. But no one really knows what "immigration" means. Some kids in Primrose Hill nicking smarties, some bloke rough sleeping.
You yourself said you had had no direct experience of the ills of immigration but also that you can object to it because it exists.
What exists? What are your views on immigration and illegal immigration?
FFS. Immigration means people coming to live here permanently. People need places to live, schools and hospitals to go to, trains and roads to get around the place on. So crowded roads, hospital waits, loss of countryside to housing, all affecting me. If you think linking to some talentless loser proving that satire is harder than it looks alters the case, it does not. It's like writing an article saying hur hur hur, man believes earth orbits around sun.
And is it your view that the UK can't accommodate immigrants. Or is there a level at which you will put the "House Full" sign up?
you think there aren't enough people here yet?
That is an entirely separate issue anyway. This is about controlling the number, identity and route of entry of immigrants. Basic housekeeping.
But the British public have decided that they don't want to do this. Same with spending more on the NHS, etc.
It is a bogeyman and you should learn to live with it.
FWIW it seems to me the whole asylum/migration stuff, while of course there are real things to say (like our population going up 8 million since 2002 while many countries have stayed quite static), is really a proxy for something else.
That something else is the sense that almost no important government/state/state-funded institutions are run with ordinary basic competence. So that every crisis is adding to an already improperly managed country.
Well, quite. See the Times headline story about the police unable or unwilling to do basic due diligence checks on who they hire. The level of incompetence is both staggering but not surprising.
"Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."
Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
First class whataboutery. Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
The only way to move on is to accept the damage that Brexit has caused and seek to mitigate that damage. You need to realise that, accept responsibility for the division and harm you’ve caused, and work with the people to remedy it.
Felix voted Remain.
It's stunningly hypocritical for people who still haven't accepted the result of a democratic vote to demand atonement for the creation of division from the people who have.
Six years ago, longer than the lifetime of a Parliament, and you got what you wanted. But I've never seen a group of winners more bitter at the shitness of the prize they won, while also insisting it be treated as an irreversible state religion.
I also voted Remain.
It may be hard to remember now, but many people genuinely did think that by voting for Brexit, they would put an end to the interminable debate about the European question in British politics. The primary reason this has not happened is because of Remainers not accepting the outcome.
It will only be true to say that people who voted for Brexit got what they wanted when the issue is regarded as settled.
That’s ridiculous. The debate would have been settled years ago if Brexit were even remotely a success.
The Eurosceptics fought a long, bitter and for the most part lonely battle against our membership for decades. They finally got what they wanted, and it’s shit. Now they want everyone to shut up about it - just like they did (not).
Comments
Good for the Independent for giving us some facts and perhaps helping to put a stop to the disgraceful prejudice and hatred being fanned by the Home Secretary and her followers
Once they are in - they either disperse immediately as @IshmaelZ says - or they wait until they are in our dysfunctional asylum-hotel system then they melt away
I have no confidence that Labour would handle this any better than the inept Tories. Probably worse as they will be philosophically even more disinclined to take the tough unpleasant measures needed
As a nation we have to decide if we want to be generous to all and accept we do not control our borders, or look after our own - which means firm and ruthless control of our borders
These are the indicative estimates of Russia’s combat losses as of Nov. 2, according to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1587713150970896388
Most immigration isn’t about asylum seekers. Most illegal immigration isn’t via boats over the channel (it’s from people overstaying visas).
7. Those crossing the Channel in a clandestine manner and who remain undetected may try to avoid the authorities and may go on to work illegally in the UK's shadow economy. Illegal working penalties for employers suggest the largest share are in London. When such individuals arrive they join what is estimated to have become the largest population of unauthorised migrants in Europe - between 800,000 and 1.2 million in 2017.[9]
8. The few crossing the Channel who are detected but who do not claim asylum may be detained but will usually be given temporary release, in accordance with Paragraph 21(1), Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended). They appear to have formed a significant portion of the 80,000 people who did not have permission to stay in the UK in September 2016 and who were living amongst the general public while being obliged to report regularly to the Home Office (failed asylum claimants forming the other portion). Half of the 80,000 lived in London; over 50,000 were deemed to have absconded in late 2016.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/480/what-happens-to-those-crossing-the-channel-illegally
I would be interested in knowing their sources not having an opinion either way on the veracity of the claim.
All this talk of course reminds me of that fantastic film Dirty Pretty Things. Now 20 years old (and, apropos of nothing, made in the middle of a Labour Government's term).
70-80,000 dinghy people have crossed the Channel in the last four years. 40,000 will probably cross this year
"Gas prices ‘to tumble 30pc’ as winter supply fears ease"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/11/02/ftse-100-markets-live-news-tax-rises-bank-england-bp/
T**t.
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
Moreover the latest data they use (amongst a bunch of other irrelevant data) is up to June this year. The Albanian surge only really began around that time
The question is intent, demand from the public, efficacy, money, pragmatism.
I have no idea what the right level of immigration legal or otherwise is in the UK.
Yesterday we had half a dozen examples of interactions with perhaps illegal immigrants, perhaps just legal immigrants doing people things and none was exactly at the level of threat to western democracy.
I see (or used to - a lot have vanished over Covid) car washes which I must suspect is an issue, although is in broad daylight so see the points above, and those eastern European women (I guess) begging or selling the Big Issue outside Boots but I haven't pinned down the societal threat yet.
We could have worked with Albania and not broken our own laws at Manston. But that denies Cruella the opportunity to showboat doesn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
But we the British public don't really want a system that works or we would be prepared to resource it. And we are not.
I'm not saying people shouldn't claim asylum or have a level of immigration. What I'm saying is that both the level of information and the systems don't work.
If you want to reduce all of politics to the question Am I alright, Jack, personally with all this, the answer is they are spending my tax dollar on these fuckers instead of beefing up the triple lock for when I need it to help cope with my drinks bill in 2027.
I also have views on abortion, despite not being a woman.
T**t indeed.
So, we are still in the position where they say that in 2022 91% of applicants were men and 55% of applicants were successful. The only figure that doesn't fall into that timeframe is the 86% of successful applicants which covers an additional 6 months (the second half of 2021). It would require such a massive change in demographics in that 6 months that it seems unrealistic to me.
"the government (and the opposition) need to be honest with the public"
I mean for heaven's sake. Of course they do but they won't. And because we are all satisfied by being outraged at the odd DM article we don't push them to do anything about it. So it's on us really.
@GoodwinMJ
I'm finding some of our mainstream news coverage increasingly bizarre, lurching from one crisis to the next, with a general sense of hysteria and a much more openly political stance."
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1587575234697347072
Starmer will start up, 2 parts nasal to 3 parts quizzical look.
Some one drives from High Wycombe to fire bomb an Asylum Reception Facility in Kent, next day the UK Home Secretary issues a call to arms about an invasion of our South Coast. Does the Primeminister believe she was right to use that inflammatory language?
{who knows how Sunak replies, but it will be a careful balancing line between he personally would not have phrased it like that, of course, but he recognises the HomeSec was only trying to convey the enormity of the problem we are facing.}
Starmer is now 3 parts nasal to 2 parts quizzical look.
Mr Speaker, When my minister for Bus travel made up Labour Transport Policy on the hoof, I quickly sacked him, the Labour Party democracy then deselected him. In contrast the Primeminster stands shoulder to shoulder with a Home Secretary he is too weak to sack!
{at this moment camera shows a stern Sunak, no longer nervously grinning by now, face down down in his notes shaking his head. The Leader of the House can be seen staring out into the lobby - her mind on a ship at sea she’s Captaining} The outcome is his HomSec speaks for him and the government with “invasion of south coast underway” - indeed, number ten press spokesperson subsequently supported the Home Secretary by adding “significant proportion of people arriving are economic migrants” But could not provide any evidence, or data, to support this - other than we already know, 80% the Tories have now processed from the two year backlog they’ve created, have been allowed to stay.
Is the Primeminister telling us today he believes there is an invasion of our South Coast underway - yes or
no.
Etc etc.
Todays PMQs will be all about trying to make Rishi look weak and error prone for standing by Braverman. Helpfully lowering expectations for Sunak here, this day will be very difficult for him, getting a score draw will be a great result. In Sunak’s favour he can see Starmer’s approach coming a mile off, and no, Starmer won’t have actual question on Hancock and the 350K pay out, Campbell or Fry may have slipped him a quip, he will stick entirely to the Crimes of Braverman so Sunak should be ready with more relevant answers than last week.
PS by the end of this Wednesday Sunak will have announced he’s off to COP, after all. On a Wednesday!
Legalising drugs and prostitution would probably cut a fair bit of it off at the knees, ID card system could do more; incentives for grassing up illegal employers another part and working with Tirana and Paris yet more.
And of course they're not. That's why there's so much discontent. The Tories are in government at the moment, and they've been in power for 12 years, and it's mostly on them.
But I don't think it's too naïve to both expect and demand better.
People are complaining about immigration. On this very board. But no one really knows what "immigration" means. Some kids in Primrose Hill nicking smarties, some bloke rough sleeping.
You yourself said you had had no direct experience of the ills of immigration but also that you can object to it because it exists.
What exists? What are your views on immigration and illegal immigration?
As I say, I have no doubts that high numbers of Albanians (and others) are coming into the country illegally. I am just less convinced that asylum is renotely likely to be the primary route.
Looks like the tactic of throwing poorly-trained and poorly-equipped soldiers into a modern war is having the predictable consequence.
I feel his strongest overall strategy is to ram home the tired old Tories theme. Same old same old. The veneer of change but the rot still there underneath.
To do this he might consider a bit of a greatest hits collection rather than one topic. There are several:
- New leader supposed to be about integrity but he rehired Braverman
- Restoring confidence in fiscal policy but this morning Badenoch is mouthing off about the OBR
- Huge sewage release in the sea off Cornwall
- doubtless a few good NHS waiting list type stats to throw in too
I would avoid, because they are too easy to bat away or obfuscate, Sunak not attending COP27 (unless setting him up for a u-turn) and the details of the Manston story.
Let's see how badly they want the job....
It's stunningly hypocritical for people who still haven't accepted the result of a democratic vote to demand atonement for the creation of division from the people who have.
There isn't one. Not short of rolling back 300 years of liberalism and using deadly force. Trump couldn't enforce a land border, sea borders are much much harder. The best we can manage is some sort of sharing-the-pain deal with France.
That something else is the sense that almost no important government/state/state-funded institutions are run with ordinary basic competence. So that every crisis is adding to an already improperly managed country.
That is an entirely separate issue anyway. This is about controlling the number, identity and route of entry of immigrants. Basic housekeeping.
- A declining ratio between the economically active and inactive / retired population, which is why our health and social care systems are in such a mess
- A shortage of affordable housing, educational and transport infrastructure
Migration helps with the first and exacerbates the second. It differs from increased fertility rates in that it solves the first issue more rapidly but probably exacerbated the second more immediately too (because babies live in existing homes while migrants need their own), but otherwise is pretty similar.
It may be hard to remember now, but many people genuinely did think that by voting for Brexit, they would put an end to the interminable debate about the European question in British politics. The primary reason this has not happened is because of Remainers not accepting the outcome.
It will only be true to say that people who voted for Brexit got what they wanted when the issue is regarded as settled.
The Eurosceptic shits made life hell from Macmillan to Cameron. Now the boot is on the other foot and we’re going to kick and kick and kick the shits in the goolies til the cows come home.
(I can mix some more metaphors if you like.)
It is a bogeyman and you should learn to live with it.
The Eurosceptics fought a long, bitter and for the most part lonely battle against our membership for decades. They finally got what they wanted, and it’s shit. Now they want everyone to shut up about it - just like they did (not).