In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
I am fairly sure it isn’t as simple as that. For one, you would still need to pay for migrants to be held somewhere while they were processed to, you know, check they aren’t British citizens or something. You would have to have some kind of due process before shipping people off to god knows where. Before you know it you’re still spending a lot of money before you even consider the cost of the flights and the host country fees.
It’s never simple.
Also, I never said you said anything about shooting boats being the chosen option. I was simple running through some of the available options. Sorry you don’t like being challenged.
Some eu countries already take that option, the greeks for example, shooting boats up I mean
Indeed
Actually they go more for drowning by towing. But the big effort goes into employing the Libyan Coastguard to enslave would be migrants. Literally enslave.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
I am fairly sure it isn’t as simple as that. For one, you would still need to pay for migrants to be held somewhere while they were processed to, you know, check they aren’t British citizens or something. You would have to have some kind of due process before shipping people off to god knows where. Before you know it you’re still spending a lot of money before you even consider the cost of the flights and the host country fees.
It’s never simple.
Also, I never said you said anything about shooting boats being the chosen option. I was simple running through some of the available options. Sorry you don’t like being challenged.
Some eu countries already take that option, the greeks for example, shooting boats up I mean
Indeed
Actually they go more for drowning by towing. But the big effort goes into employing the Libyan Coastguard to enslave would be migrants. Literally enslave.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
All fair points. I don't think the mood of tge country is quite at 'just sink the boats'. Yet. If only there was some third country we could send them to for processing. Somewhere nowhere near the UK - safe enough that we're not sending them to Syria, but not so wonderful that they'll all be clamouring to come.
I suspect the mood of the country IS perilously close to “sink the boats”. Remember the public is much flintier than the liberal elite. The public wants the death penalty
It would be interesting to see some new polling on this, as the crisis worsens. It would have to be done in a way that gets real opinions, not platitudes or embarrassed pieties
The only solution short of such hideous inhumane brutality is Rwanda. A version thereof. No one who arrives on a beach gets to stay in Britain. Whisk them off somewhere dismal, faraway but safe
That isn't necessary. Deportation to country of origin or country of "nearest fit" - we pick - will do, if they want to play the lost papers game.
Then, they will stop.
Wasteful.
We should legislate that anyone entering the country without papers is deemed to have enlisted in the Royal Navy.
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
Get the f*** out of my house! I will be back there soon enough.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
Onc had a dream that was certainly alarming. Was running hand in hand with a beautiful oriental lady, along a path with very green bamboo(?) ten feet tall on either side. Suddenly a soldier in Maoist uniform appeared from the greenery, raised a rifle and shot me in the chest five times.
And I felt every bullet hit me.
Some rare dreams really impact, don’t they? Such that you recall them years later. Yours clearly did. Did you ever interpret it?
The interpretation of my dream is obvious:
The house - my beautiful battered decaying house by the sea - is Britain
And a great storm looms
So you've interpreted that bit (incorrectly in my view) but what about the homo-erotic preamble?
I’m bloody good at dream interpretation, my friends and lovers seek me out for it
Comes from being obsessed with dream interpretation as a teen. I kept a dream diary. Every morning I’d try and work them out
But this dream didn’t require Carl Jung. It was and is obvious. The glorious crumbling old house by the sea. My over occupied home with boat people - sailors - in my room. It is Britain
The dream had some exquisite details: as I walked around the old house I noticed how badly it was decaying. Especially with this weird icy lacy stuff called “ghost rot” on the interior walls
GHOST ROT
It's not entirely dissimilar to a dream outlined by Jung in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, where Jung recounts a dream he had sometime around 1913, where the land from the Alps to - I think it's the North Sea - ends up flooded with blood. Good quality dream you had there.
Never mind all this Jungian nonsense, they were interpreting dreams in the bible.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
What about the white ones? I suppose you think they're all right?
I would suggest the number of white biat people is approximately zero. Also, I would contend that the number of voters objecting to immigrants from tge USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand - of any race - is negligible.
So it's only the brown ones that they object to...I see.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
If I were an asylum seeker in France, I'd get the ferry to Cork,find some buses to Belfast, take the ferry to Stranraer, rock up to West Ayrshire and demand Starmer billets me free of charge in the Marine Hotel, Troon.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
It’s also Brexit level laughable to pretend that leaving the ECHR is all that is required to allow us to immediately deport every single “boat person” cost free.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
It’s also Brexit level laughable to pretend that leaving the ECHR is all that is required to allow us to immediately deport every single “boat person” cost free.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
Isn't there a possibility of the law of unintended consequences. 'Desperate to work' could also mean desperate to pay off the debts to those less-than-pleasant people smugglers. If the smugglers IRR improves as the debt is being paid back faster, then it would only encourage more traffic as the limit to the smugglers enterprise (capital) is being accumulated at a faster rate.
But as has been pointed out, the boats are only a secondary issue to the overstayers and legal migrants. So let's see what Reform do in the areas they now have responsibility for and see if the do have solutions.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
No Big G, you haven’t.
I have but it is not acceptable to the left and there lies the problem and serious electoral consequences for labour
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
Isn't there a possibility of the law of unintended consequences. 'Desperate to work' could also mean desperate to pay off the debts to those less-than-pleasant people smugglers. If the smugglers IRR improves as the debt is being paid back faster, then it would only encourage more traffic as the limit to the smugglers enterprise (capital) is being accumulated at a faster rate.
But as has been pointed out, the boats are only a secondary issue to the overstayers and legal migrants. So let's see what Reform do in the areas they now have responsibility for and see if the do have solutions.
I'd be amazed if they did, but let's see.
It is true that the boats are a secondary issue, but it is also true it is a toxic subject for labour and one Farage and Reform will milk for all it is worth
Feel free to dispute my calm, measured, and to be honest non-judgemental points. That is what this forum is for at the end of the day. Just because I might be liberal that doesn’t mean I am necessarily wrong about some of the potential problems in implementing new asylum policies.
No. Because you're dogmatic and not open to persuasion, so the debate goes nowhere. I'm under no obligation to engage when it's clear it's just a waste of time.
You say your points are calm and non-judgmental, but tone alone doesn't make a discussion productive - and that's if we judicially ignore that you thought Leon might seriously be proposing machine gunning boats. It's not about you being liberal or conservative—it's about whether you're actually willing to consider other perspectives. If you're not, then this isn't a conversation; it's preaching.
Oh get a grip man. I am just asking difficult questions. You have no obligation to engage but it doesn’t exactly persuade me, or anyone else, to your argument or position. You call me dogmatic but I am really not. I accept we need to do something, I just don’t think there are easy answers.
You’re not just asking “difficult questions” — you’re using law, treaties, and rights as a shield to claim immigration control is basically impossible. That’s not principle, it’s avoidance.
States have the right — and duty — to control their borders. If your argument is that doing so is illegal, then just say that. But don’t dress up total paralysis as thoughtful scepticism. That’s not nuance. It’s a dodge.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
Isn't there a possibility of the law of unintended consequences. 'Desperate to work' could also mean desperate to pay off the debts to those less-than-pleasant people smugglers. If the smugglers IRR improves as the debt is being paid back faster, then it would only encourage more traffic as the limit to the smugglers enterprise (capital) is being accumulated at a faster rate.
But as has been pointed out, the boats are only a secondary issue to the overstayers and legal migrants. So let's see what Reform do in the areas they now have responsibility for and see if the do have solutions.
I'd be amazed if they did, but let's see.
This was before the small boats, but I'd suggest that's a bit of a jump (although I appreciate why you may think it).
I knew a quite a few people well enough to know that they weren't being pressured for money by anyone. It's also not difficult to recognise someone who is bored, and just wants to work, compared with someone who is scared and is being pressured to pay someone back.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
Why do you think they're a guaranteed fiscal drag?
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
They are a fiscal drag because the moronic May government prevented them from working. As I've posted on here before, one of the worst policy decisions of my lifetime. Vicious, spineless, stupid and totally counter-productive.
And it has survived four PMs and counting, making them just as bad as her.
To be honest @Casino_Royale you’re in one of your “lord it over the Liberals” arrogant moods where you think everyone else who thinks differently is stupid and dense.
If you crafted arguments that were perceptive, original, or intellectually intriguing, I’d happily credit you for it. But what you’re offering is a reheated mix of establishment liberal clichés that’s been doing the rounds for decades. It’s not fresh thinking — it’s just rehashed tired old orthodoxy.
You’ll forgive me if I’m not scrambling to hand out awards. I’ve got limited patience for lazy arguments that waste time and add nothing new.
It was this lush dream about living in a battered Victorian medieval house and feeling like I was getting a raw deal from my housemates as my room was occupied by “sailors” but as I walked around I realised my house was beautiful & amazing - right by a wild sea…
The dream felt profound, urgent and prophetic. Like it was trying to wake me up. Which is unnerving because, at the end of this dream, as I stared at the dark raging sea, I realised that a brutal and enormous storm was coming
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
What about the white ones? I suppose you think they're all right?
I would suggest the number of white biat people is approximately zero. Also, I would contend that the number of voters objecting to immigrants from tge USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand - of any race - is negligible.
So it's only the brown ones that they object to...I see.
You're obsessed!
It's what they want the counter-argument to be about.
Easier to defeat, and means they don't have to do any hard thinking.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
Why do you think they're a guaranteed fiscal drag?
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
They are a fiscal drag because the moronic May government prevented them from working. As I've posted on here before, one of the worst policy decisions of my lifetime. Vicious, spineless, stupid and totally counter-productive.
And it has survived four PMs and counting, making them just as bad as her.
The ban on working for the first 12 months was introduced in 2005. Was it changed to a total ban?
With respect to the boats question, the solution is not simple common sense. If such a solution existed it would have been done already.
I can almost understand the attack on Labour where these illegal immigrants will be asylum scroungers and taking our jobs and voting Labour. Mad, but the people saying it are mad. But if its a plot to boost the number of Labour voters, why did the Tories push the door wide open to let so many in?
I have no doubt that a deal can be done with the EU to reign in the boats. It won't involve tow backs or just sinking them as the mob want. It won't care whether we leave the EHRC or not. It will involve international cooperation with the EU which is an anathema to the people most aggrieved by the boats.
The true lunacy? When you point to the real world problems they accuse you of wanting the boats to come. Which nobody does.
lots of stuff on the news about VE Day celebrations.
Surprisingly no mention of Churchill’s Islamophobia on the BBC..
BBC have covered it well but, and I hate to say this, what really struck me is how thin the crowds were.
This particular one feels like fading into history now.
We had 450 people in Matching yesterday for the VE Day 80th commemoration but then again the age demographic in rural Essex is rather older and more patriotic than that in central London.
You have to be 80 to even have been born on VE day now, the final big event will likely be the 100th anniversary in 2045 as the 2018 100th anniversary of the 1918 Armistice was the final big event for WW1 commemorations then after that it won't be any bigger than Trafalgar Day and World War events won't be remembered much beyond Remembrance Sunday
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
How many of us on PB, are married to, or have relatives, or friends, who are immigrants?
And do they class those people as 'immigrants' when they say, or read, the word 'immigrants' on PB?
Immigration is good for our country but 'Boriswave' has done considerable damage and it is now very much in the news highlighted by Farage and Reform
However, it is not acceptable for criminal gangs to put desperate people in boats to cross the dangerous channel risking their lives and those who go to rescue them
The boats have to be stopped, but immigration from across the world should be encouraged where we have the need
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
Why do you think they're a guaranteed fiscal drag?
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
They are a fiscal drag because the moronic May government prevented them from working. As I've posted on here before, one of the worst policy decisions of my lifetime. Vicious, spineless, stupid and totally counter-productive.
And it has survived four PMs and counting, making them just as bad as her.
I agree about that, particularly given that the numbers waiting 6+ months has increased so much.
The comment on fiscal drag, however, was the "long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more", so was referring to their lives in the UK post-decisions.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
Let’s be honest about how this system actually works. Not how we wish it worked in theory.
In many poor but stable countries — rarely war zones — villagers or families in remote communities identify someone fit with the best odds of "making it." It’s almost always a young man. The community pools money together to fund the journey, often through a people smuggler. This isn’t chaos — it’s strategy. A calculated investment.
Once he arrives (it is almost always a he) often after a dangerous but well-planned trip aided by a smartphone, the next step is simple: craft a claim. In many of these countries, even a vague reference to discrimination or fear of mistreatment will do. With corrupt police, weak courts, and a general absence of robust institutions, it’s not difficult to build a narrative that passes the bar — especially in a system where over 80% of claims end up being accepted.
By the time he’s settled into the UK he finds work, legal or otherwise, and starts sending money back. His home community wins. The individual wins. The people smuggler profits. The only people not consulted in this transaction? The host population, whose social systems are expected to absorb this pipeline under the moral banner of “asylum.”
But this isn’t fair asylum. This is a parallel migration system, dressed up in the language of refuge and protection, but operating on incentives and outcomes that look far more like economic strategy. It's effective. It's rational. But let’s not pretend it’s about fleeing imminent danger. It’s about opportunity — for the migrant, the smuggler, and the village back home.
Understand the business model. Then maybe we can start talking about reform with eyes wide open.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
If I were an asylum seeker in France, I'd get the ferry to Cork,find some buses to Belfast, take the ferry to Stranraer, rock up to West Ayrshire and demand Starmer billets me free of charge in the Marine Hotel, Troon.
Also with respect to the boats, Reform voters don't just want the boats to stop. Lets assume for a moment that France decides to brutally police its own border. Nobody is leaving. The boats stop.
Will Reform voters be happy?
No! Because they want their towns to stop being crap and schools and the NHS and council services to stop being broken and jobs to pay the bills. Yes there is a cultural element, especially where there have been a lot of new arrivals. Mostly though, they blame immigrants for everything that's wrong. Unless those things start to get fixed, stop the boats won't matter.
lots of stuff on the news about VE Day celebrations.
Surprisingly no mention of Churchill’s Islamophobia on the BBC..
A few days after Reform swept to a landslide win in the local elections the BBC don't want to be seen as too woke given they are the national broadcaster and calling Churchill Islamaphobic would be yet another boost to Farage
lots of stuff on the news about VE Day celebrations.
Surprisingly no mention of Churchill’s Islamophobia on the BBC..
BBC have covered it well but, and I hate to say this, what really struck me is how thin the crowds were.
This particular one feels like fading into history now.
This VE anniversary seemed to come out of nowhere. There was almost no detailed publicity. I've not seen anything round here. The day itself is Thursday but the flypast was today, still officially the Early May bank holiday because no-one in government had the wit to rebrand it. Timothy Spall read out (can't actors learn lines?) Churchill's "iconic" speech, or a bit of it, but that speech is not iconic, it is barely known.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
If I were an asylum seeker in France, I'd get the ferry to Cork,find some buses to Belfast, take the ferry to Stranraer, rock up to West Ayrshire and demand Starmer billets me free of charge in the Marine Hotel, Troon.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
If I were an asylum seeker in France, I'd get the ferry to Cork,find some buses to Belfast, take the ferry to Stranraer, rock up to West Ayrshire and demand Starmer billets me free of charge in the Marine Hotel, Troon.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
I'd want them to not come at all, they haven't been specifically invited. Put into a detention camp to await deportation to a designated safe third country or voluntary return to their home country if they don't want to end up in Rwanda.
No one who hasn't been specifically invited by the government to seek asylum, currently Hong Kongers, Ukrainians and about 3,000 Afghani translators is owed anything and certainly not entitled to remain in the country. It is our soft touch system that allows them to stay and this soft touch system is going to result in a Reform majority government and PM Nige. People are simply fed up, how many of the arrested terrorists do you think we're migrants? What have they added to the nation, enriched us by trying to bomb the Israeli embassy and costing us millions in surveillance, court cases and supermax prison time. Simply refuse them in the first place and deport them to a safe third country or they return home voluntarily. No right of appeal, no prolonged court cases, just refusal and deportation within a week of arrival.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Also with respect to the boats, Reform voters don't just want the boats to stop. Lets assume for a moment that France decides to brutally police its own border. Nobody is leaving. The boats stop.
Will Reform voters be happy?
No! Because they want their towns to stop being crap and schools and the NHS and council services to stop being broken and jobs to pay the bills. Yes there is a cultural element, especially where there have been a lot of new arrivals. Mostly though, they blame immigrants for everything that's wrong. Unless those things start to get fixed, stop the boats won't matter.
I think they blame the last few governments for everything that's wrong, rather than the immigrants. Most people realise that the immigrants are humans who have snapped up a fantastic deal. The rage is with the Tories & Labour for offering it to them at not very well off Britons expense
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
If I were an asylum seeker in France, I'd get the ferry to Cork,find some buses to Belfast, take the ferry to Stranraer, rock up to West Ayrshire and demand Starmer billets me free of charge in the Marine Hotel, Troon.
How many of us on PB, are married to, or have relatives, or friends, who are immigrants?
And do they class those people as 'immigrants' when they say, or read, the word 'immigrants' on PB?
My mother is from France. Does that count? (Serious question)
Absolutely, if she lives in the UK. She is an immigrant, and whenever anyone spews hatred about immigrants, she is included in that. Sadly. As is my wife.
There seems to be a mental incongruity: immigrants you see as 'good' are not immigrants; yet someone in exactly the same situation you see as 'bad' is an immigrant. In other words: someone loses their immigrant status if you know and/or like them. But to others spewing the hatred, they are probably included.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
If I were an asylum seeker in France, I'd get the ferry to Cork,find some buses to Belfast, take the ferry to Stranraer, rock up to West Ayrshire and demand Starmer billets me free of charge in the Marine Hotel, Troon.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
I'd want them to not come at all, they haven't been specifically invited. Put into a detention camp to await deportation to a designated safe third country or voluntary return to their home country if they don't want to end up in Rwanda.
No one who hasn't been specifically invited by the government to seek asylum, currently Hong Kongers, Ukrainians and about 3,000 Afghani translators is owed anything and certainly not entitled to remain in the country. It is our soft touch system that allows them to stay and this soft touch system is going to result in a Reform majority government and PM Nige. People are simply fed up, how many of the arrested terrorists do you think we're migrants? What have they added to the nation, enriched us by trying to bomb the Israeli embassy and costing us millions in surveillance, court cases and supermax prison time. Simply refuse them in the first place and deport them to a safe third country or they return home voluntarily. No right of appeal, no prolonged court cases, just refusal and deportation within a week of arrival.
Why not flip that question on its head and ask how many migrants are arrested terrorists? A fraction of a percentage is the answer and for that you think it's fine to withdraw any moral obligation to provide asylum?
We have a moral obligation to provide genuine asylum.
That said I would change the rules so that anyone who doesn’t provide identification as to their country of origin is automatically denied. Part of the issue is that people have been taught by bad actors to destroy their documentation so they can claim to come from eg. Syria (as was) rather than a safe country of origin. This then guns up the process as the courts attempt to prove where they come from.
A lot of this is about making the process fast and efficient.
Anyone in France isn't in need of genuine asylum because they're already in a safe country. They were already in a safe country when they arrived in Italy or Turkey or wherever it might have been.
We have the evidence of various charities that conditions for migrants in France are intolerable.
Which makes France, in my view a failed state.
A failed state with oil. We all know this one, don’t we, children?
Yeah: but the (untapped / unexploited) oil is all in the Aquitaine Basin, and is basically centred on the Bordeaux area of France. We couldn't get to it without decimating mproduction of claret, and that just wouldn't mdo.
Surely you can just use nodding donkeys to get it?
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
I'd want them to not come at all, they haven't been specifically invited. Put into a detention camp to await deportation to a designated safe third country or voluntary return to their home country if they don't want to end up in Rwanda.
No one who hasn't been specifically invited by the government to seek asylum, currently Hong Kongers, Ukrainians and about 3,000 Afghani translators is owed anything and certainly not entitled to remain in the country. It is our soft touch system that allows them to stay and this soft touch system is going to result in a Reform majority government and PM Nige. People are simply fed up, how many of the arrested terrorists do you think we're migrants? What have they added to the nation, enriched us by trying to bomb the Israeli embassy and costing us millions in surveillance, court cases and supermax prison time. Simply refuse them in the first place and deport them to a safe third country or they return home voluntarily. No right of appeal, no prolonged court cases, just refusal and deportation within a week of arrival.
Why not flip that question on its head and ask how many migrants are arrested terrorists? A fraction of a percentage is the answer and for that you think it's fine to withdraw any moral obligation to provide asylum?
"One is too many" is often invoked when using miscarriages of justice as an argument against the death penalty. How many people are you comfortable being killed by asylum seekers?
With respect to the boats question, the solution is not simple common sense. If such a solution existed it would have been done already.
I can almost understand the attack on Labour where these illegal immigrants will be asylum scroungers and taking our jobs and voting Labour. Mad, but the people saying it are mad. But if its a plot to boost the number of Labour voters, why did the Tories push the door wide open to let so many in?
I have no doubt that a deal can be done with the EU to reign in the boats. It won't involve tow backs or just sinking them as the mob want. It won't care whether we leave the EHRC or not. It will involve international cooperation with the EU which is an anathema to the people most aggrieved by the boats.
The true lunacy? When you point to the real world problems they accuse you of wanting the boats to come. Which nobody does.
We could bring ourselves and align with various eu governments and hand the boat people to the libyans for slave labour camps....aren't you a lib dem and asking us to align with the eu?
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
Let’s be honest about how this system actually works. Not how we wish it worked in theory.
In many poor but stable countries — rarely war zones — villagers or families in remote communities identify someone fit with the best odds of "making it." It’s almost always a young man. The community pools money together to fund the journey, often through a people smuggler. This isn’t chaos — it’s strategy. A calculated investment.
Once he arrives (it is almost always a he) often after a dangerous but well-planned trip aided by a smartphone, the next step is simple: craft a claim. In many of these countries, even a vague reference to discrimination or fear of mistreatment will do. With corrupt police, weak courts, and a general absence of robust institutions, it’s not difficult to build a narrative that passes the bar — especially in a system where over 80% of claims end up being accepted.
By the time he’s settled into the UK he finds work, legal or otherwise, and starts sending money back. His home community wins. The individual wins. The people smuggler profits. The only people not consulted in this transaction? The host population, whose social systems are expected to absorb this pipeline under the moral banner of “asylum.”
But this isn’t fair asylum. This is a parallel migration system, dressed up in the language of refuge and protection, but operating on incentives and outcomes that look far more like economic strategy. It's effective. It's rational. But let’s not pretend it’s about fleeing imminent danger. It’s about opportunity — for the migrant, the smuggler, and the village back home.
Understand the business model. Then maybe we can start talking about reform with eyes wide open.
I've told this story before, but my third cousin applied for asylum, under false pretences. Cell in with a group who claimed they were all persecuted. Got rejected in UK but now lives in France with his wife.
More generally - the countries who send us asylum seekers are not rarely war zones... look at the data and you will see Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria are the top places. Other countries which are 'stable' still have authoritarian leaders who definitely will execute/torture you for criticising the govt (Banglsdesh, Eritrea)
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
I'd want them to not come at all, they haven't been specifically invited. Put into a detention camp to await deportation to a designated safe third country or voluntary return to their home country if they don't want to end up in Rwanda.
No one who hasn't been specifically invited by the government to seek asylum, currently Hong Kongers, Ukrainians and about 3,000 Afghani translators is owed anything and certainly not entitled to remain in the country. It is our soft touch system that allows them to stay and this soft touch system is going to result in a Reform majority government and PM Nige. People are simply fed up, how many of the arrested terrorists do you think we're migrants? What have they added to the nation, enriched us by trying to bomb the Israeli embassy and costing us millions in surveillance, court cases and supermax prison time. Simply refuse them in the first place and deport them to a safe third country or they return home voluntarily. No right of appeal, no prolonged court cases, just refusal and deportation within a week of arrival.
Why not flip that question on its head and ask how many migrants are arrested terrorists? A fraction of a percentage is the answer and for that you think it's fine to withdraw any moral obligation to provide asylum?
Perhaps because many people don't recognise your so called moral obligation, we have a uk government...if it has a moral obligation it is to look after its citizens not the rest of the world
Feel free to dispute my calm, measured, and to be honest non-judgemental points. That is what this forum is for at the end of the day. Just because I might be liberal that doesn’t mean I am necessarily wrong about some of the potential problems in implementing new asylum policies.
No. Because you're dogmatic and not open to persuasion, so the debate goes nowhere. I'm under no obligation to engage when it's clear it's just a waste of time.
You say your points are calm and non-judgmental, but tone alone doesn't make a discussion productive - and that's if we judicially ignore that you thought Leon might seriously be proposing machine gunning boats. It's not about you being liberal or conservative—it's about whether you're actually willing to consider other perspectives. If you're not, then this isn't a conversation; it's preaching.
Oh get a grip man. I am just asking difficult questions. You have no obligation to engage but it doesn’t exactly persuade me, or anyone else, to your argument or position. You call me dogmatic but I am really not. I accept we need to do something, I just don’t think there are easy answers.
You’re not just asking “difficult questions” — you’re using law, treaties, and rights as a shield to claim immigration control is basically impossible. That’s not principle, it’s avoidance.
States have the right — and duty — to control their borders. If your argument is that doing so is illegal, then just say that. But don’t dress up total paralysis as thoughtful scepticism. That’s not nuance. It’s a dodge.
I didn’t say it was impossible. It just isn’t cost free - either politically economically or socially. That is a fact.
Well, this match may be a forgone conclusion but you can't say Williams and Zhao are making it dull with pots like that, or the one with the cue in the air.
With respect to the boats question, the solution is not simple common sense. If such a solution existed it would have been done already.
I can almost understand the attack on Labour where these illegal immigrants will be asylum scroungers and taking our jobs and voting Labour. Mad, but the people saying it are mad. But if its a plot to boost the number of Labour voters, why did the Tories push the door wide open to let so many in?
I have no doubt that a deal can be done with the EU to reign in the boats. It won't involve tow backs or just sinking them as the mob want. It won't care whether we leave the EHRC or not. It will involve international cooperation with the EU which is an anathema to the people most aggrieved by the boats.
The true lunacy? When you point to the real world problems they accuse you of wanting the boats to come. Which nobody does.
The Greek coastguard has caused the deaths of dozens of migrants in the Mediterranean over a three-year period, witnesses say, including nine who were deliberately thrown into the water.
The nine are among more than 40 people alleged to have died as a result of being forced out of Greek territorial waters, or taken back out to sea after reaching Greek islands, BBC analysis has found.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
Let’s be honest about how this system actually works. Not how we wish it worked in theory.
In many poor but stable countries — rarely war zones — villagers or families in remote communities identify someone fit with the best odds of "making it." It’s almost always a young man. The community pools money together to fund the journey, often through a people smuggler. This isn’t chaos — it’s strategy. A calculated investment.
Once he arrives (it is almost always a he) often after a dangerous but well-planned trip aided by a smartphone, the next step is simple: craft a claim. In many of these countries, even a vague reference to discrimination or fear of mistreatment will do. With corrupt police, weak courts, and a general absence of robust institutions, it’s not difficult to build a narrative that passes the bar — especially in a system where over 80% of claims end up being accepted.
By the time he’s settled into the UK he finds work, legal or otherwise, and starts sending money back. His home community wins. The individual wins. The people smuggler profits. The only people not consulted in this transaction? The host population, whose social systems are expected to absorb this pipeline under the moral banner of “asylum.”
But this isn’t fair asylum. This is a parallel migration system, dressed up in the language of refuge and protection, but operating on incentives and outcomes that look far more like economic strategy. It's effective. It's rational. But let’s not pretend it’s about fleeing imminent danger. It’s about opportunity — for the migrant, the smuggler, and the village back home.
Understand the business model. Then maybe we can start talking about reform with eyes wide open.
Why do you think that's the standard?
I met many hundreds of refugees, and there's almost nothing I can think of that happened, that would fit that narrative at all. If they were villagers, or farmers, from remote communities, then they were some of the best actors I'd seen.
More common threads were people who were very politically engaged, often well educated, and coming from the better off parts of the countries they're fleeing. The kind of personalities who are involved in this page are more common - educated people with opinions, and the desire to voice them.
I'm not naïve enough to suggest that nothing of the sort goes on, but having met a lot of asylum seekers, I'd imagine that the 'farmer from a remote village' would find it very difficult to persuade even the doziest of Home Office official that they're in danger back home.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
No Big G, you haven’t.
I have but it is not acceptable to the left and there lies the problem and serious electoral consequences for labour
No, you haven’t. Taking us out of the ECHR doesn’t suddenly stop lawyers from fight deportations. Nor does leaving the ECHR suddenly make it any less or more legal to deport immigrants.
There’s also the issue that taking away rights from asylum seekers also means taking away rights from Britons. Again, that’s also a fact. You may think that’s worth it and maybe you’re right, but it’s worth considering.
There’s also a discussion to be had as to how much process you remove. One extreme is no due process at all in which case you might accidentally deport British citizens - see the USA.
If you have some process, say one hearing to establish immigration status, you will still need somewhere to house immigrants as well as a well funded system to hear the cases, as well as lawyers. If you decide they don’t deserve or don’t need lawyers, suddenly you’ve removed a fundamental part of our legal system which has nothing to do with the ECHR.
Well, this match may be a forgone conclusion but you can't say Williams and Zhao are making it dull with pots like that, or the one with the cue in the air.
Naughty barb from Hazel about Xintong and "second chances" before the session.
Well, this match may be a forgone conclusion but you can't say Williams and Zhao are making it dull with pots like that, or the one with the cue in the air.
Naughty barb from Hazel about Xintong and "second chances" before the session.
Look, if John Higgins can come back after a ban. I think it's a bit unfair to hold a rather lesser crime against Zhao.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
No Big G, you haven’t.
I have but it is not acceptable to the left and there lies the problem and serious electoral consequences for labour
No, you haven’t. Taking us out of the ECHR doesn’t suddenly stop lawyers from fight deportations. Nor does leaving the ECHR suddenly make it any less or more legal to deport immigrants.
There’s also the issue that taking away rights from asylum seekers also means taking away rights from Britons. Again, that’s also a fact. You may think that’s worth it and maybe you’re right, but it’s worth considering.
There’s also a discussion to be had as to how much process you remove. One extreme is no due process at all in which case you might accidentally deport British citizens - see the USA.
If you have some process, say one hearing to establish immigration status, you will still need somewhere to house immigrants as well as a well funded system to hear the cases, as well as lawyers. If you decide they don’t deserve or don’t need lawyers, suddenly you’ve removed a fundamental part of our legal system which has nothing to do with the ECHR.
Simple lawyer fights immigration case and its judged to be an activist lawyer trying to take the piss...then we deport the lawyer with his client
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
No Big G, you haven’t.
I have but it is not acceptable to the left and there lies the problem and serious electoral consequences for labour
No, you haven’t. Taking us out of the ECHR doesn’t suddenly stop lawyers from fight deportations. Nor does leaving the ECHR suddenly make it any less or more legal to deport immigrants.
There’s also the issue that taking away rights from asylum seekers also means taking away rights from Britons. Again, that’s also a fact. You may think that’s worth it and maybe you’re right, but it’s worth considering.
There’s also a discussion to be had as to how much process you remove. One extreme is no due process at all in which case you might accidentally deport British citizens - see the USA.
If you have some process, say one hearing to establish immigration status, you will still need somewhere to house immigrants as well as a well funded system to hear the cases, as well as lawyers. If you decide they don’t deserve or don’t need lawyers, suddenly you’ve removed a fundamental part of our legal system which has nothing to do with the ECHR.
Simple lawyer fights immigration case and its judged to be an activist lawyer trying to take the piss...then we deport the lawyer with his client
I mean I think you’re joking but see my last paragraph for my response.
A big & lamentable shift. “The plan provides for the “conquering of Gaza” and retaining the territory, an Israeli official said Monday morning. The security cabinet unanimously approved the plan to expand the Gaza operation, the official said.” www.timesofisrael.com/israel-okays...
Sounds like a plan that might defeat Hamas and end the cycle of violence.
I don't hear any others that might.
That’s what Putin said about Ukraine.
We benefit from a presumption that conquest is always wrong
I must have missed Ukrainians invading Russia, killing thousands, kidnapping hundreds and raping many. Perhaps you can tell me when that happened, or STFU with the false comparison.
Israel is perfectly entitled to wipe out Hamas and they have every right to do so - and Gaza is stateless currently, there is no Palestinian state, it was Egyptian and Egypt abandoned it, so if Israel ends up annexing it and the Palestinians end up back in Egypt or in other Middle Eastern states then I have no qualms with that whatsoever.
Serves Hamas right for what they did. Karma's a bitch.
Conquest is a bad thing. Regardless of any claimed justification. As a medium sized nation we benefit from global institutions.
What Hamas and its allies did in Israel was unfathomable. Israel had every right to react robustly and I was (and am) a strong supporter of their right to do so.
But that doesn’t give them a carte blanche to withhold food from the general population. That is a war crime. It doesn’t give them the right to invade and conquer a neighbouring territory.
Well, this match may be a forgone conclusion but you can't say Williams and Zhao are making it dull with pots like that, or the one with the cue in the air.
Naughty barb from Hazel about Xintong and "second chances" before the session.
Look, if John Higgins can come back after a ban. I think it's a bit unfair to hold a rather lesser crime against Zhao.
I don't think Higgins should have had his reprieve either.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
No Big G, you haven’t.
I have but it is not acceptable to the left and there lies the problem and serious electoral consequences for labour
No, you haven’t. Taking us out of the ECHR doesn’t suddenly stop lawyers from fight deportations. Nor does leaving the ECHR suddenly make it any less or more legal to deport immigrants.
There’s also the issue that taking away rights from asylum seekers also means taking away rights from Britons. Again, that’s also a fact. You may think that’s worth it and maybe you’re right, but it’s worth considering.
There’s also a discussion to be had as to how much process you remove. One extreme is no due process at all in which case you might accidentally deport British citizens - see the USA.
If you have some process, say one hearing to establish immigration status, you will still need somewhere to house immigrants as well as a well funded system to hear the cases, as well as lawyers. If you decide they don’t deserve or don’t need lawyers, suddenly you’ve removed a fundamental part of our legal system which has nothing to do with the ECHR.
Simple lawyer fights immigration case and its judged to be an activist lawyer trying to take the piss...then we deport the lawyer with his client
I mean I think you’re joking but see my last paragraph for my response.
Not really I am all for deporting lawyers making spurious claims, I am all for lawyers that make proper claims. Too many immigration lawyers take the piss and should face consequences for it
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
No Big G, you haven’t.
I have but it is not acceptable to the left and there lies the problem and serious electoral consequences for labour
No, you haven’t. Taking us out of the ECHR doesn’t suddenly stop lawyers from fight deportations. Nor does leaving the ECHR suddenly make it any less or more legal to deport immigrants.
There’s also the issue that taking away rights from asylum seekers also means taking away rights from Britons. Again, that’s also a fact. You may think that’s worth it and maybe you’re right, but it’s worth considering.
There’s also a discussion to be had as to how much process you remove. One extreme is no due process at all in which case you might accidentally deport British citizens - see the USA.
If you have some process, say one hearing to establish immigration status, you will still need somewhere to house immigrants as well as a well funded system to hear the cases, as well as lawyers. If you decide they don’t deserve or don’t need lawyers, suddenly you’ve removed a fundamental part of our legal system which has nothing to do with the ECHR.
Simple lawyer fights immigration case and its judged to be an activist lawyer trying to take the piss...then we deport the lawyer with his client
I mean I think you’re joking but see my last paragraph for my response.
Not really I am all for deporting lawyers making spurious claims, I am all for lawyers that make proper claims. Too many immigration lawyers take the piss and should face consequences for it
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
No Big G, you haven’t.
I have but it is not acceptable to the left and there lies the problem and serious electoral consequences for labour
No, you haven’t. Taking us out of the ECHR doesn’t suddenly stop lawyers from fight deportations. Nor does leaving the ECHR suddenly make it any less or more legal to deport immigrants.
There’s also the issue that taking away rights from asylum seekers also means taking away rights from Britons. Again, that’s also a fact. You may think that’s worth it and maybe you’re right, but it’s worth considering.
There’s also a discussion to be had as to how much process you remove. One extreme is no due process at all in which case you might accidentally deport British citizens - see the USA.
If you have some process, say one hearing to establish immigration status, you will still need somewhere to house immigrants as well as a well funded system to hear the cases, as well as lawyers. If you decide they don’t deserve or don’t need lawyers, suddenly you’ve removed a fundamental part of our legal system which has nothing to do with the ECHR.
You write primary legislation that's clearly declares that any migrant that can't show legitimate documents that indicates they are from an invited party (Ukraine, Hong Kong or have a specific invite as an Afghani translator) has no right to remain, no right of appeal and will be deported to a safe third country of the state's choosing should they refuse to return home voluntarily. Close all of the loopholes, close all of the challenges and deport them within days of their processing.
Declare that foreign criminals will be deported to their home nation of safe third country with no right of appeal, amend the HRA to specifically rule out any use of article 8 by non-citizen convicted criminals.
The government has a huge, huge majority. It needs to start using it or we'll get a Reform majority in 2029 and PM Nige.
Well, this match may be a forgone conclusion but you can't say Williams and Zhao are making it dull with pots like that, or the one with the cue in the air.
Naughty barb from Hazel about Xintong and "second chances" before the session.
Look, if John Higgins can come back after a ban. I think it's a bit unfair to hold a rather lesser crime against Zhao.
I don't think Higgins should have had his reprieve either.
I do. Because leaving aside the fact he never actually threw a match, it was that scumbag Mahmood trying to entrap him. Nobody should ever have anything done to them on the word of a lowlife like that.
He was a twit to get trapped, and deserved a punishment for it, but he also deserved a chance to come back.
A big & lamentable shift. “The plan provides for the “conquering of Gaza” and retaining the territory, an Israeli official said Monday morning. The security cabinet unanimously approved the plan to expand the Gaza operation, the official said.” www.timesofisrael.com/israel-okays...
Sounds like a plan that might defeat Hamas and end the cycle of violence.
I don't hear any others that might.
That’s what Putin said about Ukraine.
We benefit from a presumption that conquest is always wrong
I must have missed Ukrainians invading Russia, killing thousands, kidnapping hundreds and raping many. Perhaps you can tell me when that happened, or STFU with the false comparison.
Israel is perfectly entitled to wipe out Hamas and they have every right to do so - and Gaza is stateless currently, there is no Palestinian state, it was Egyptian and Egypt abandoned it, so if Israel ends up annexing it and the Palestinians end up back in Egypt or in other Middle Eastern states then I have no qualms with that whatsoever.
Serves Hamas right for what they did. Karma's a bitch.
Conquest is a bad thing. Regardless of any claimed justification. As a medium sized nation we benefit from global institutions.
What Hamas and its allies did in Israel was unfathomable. Israel had every right to react robustly and I was (and am) a strong supporter of their right to do so.
But that doesn’t give them a carte blanche to withhold food from the general population. That is a war crime. It doesn’t give them the right to invade and conquer a neighbouring territory.
I believe Gaza was the one that invaded israel on the 7th of october
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
No Big G, you haven’t.
I have but it is not acceptable to the left and there lies the problem and serious electoral consequences for labour
No, you haven’t. Taking us out of the ECHR doesn’t suddenly stop lawyers from fight deportations. Nor does leaving the ECHR suddenly make it any less or more legal to deport immigrants.
There’s also the issue that taking away rights from asylum seekers also means taking away rights from Britons. Again, that’s also a fact. You may think that’s worth it and maybe you’re right, but it’s worth considering.
There’s also a discussion to be had as to how much process you remove. One extreme is no due process at all in which case you might accidentally deport British citizens - see the USA.
If you have some process, say one hearing to establish immigration status, you will still need somewhere to house immigrants as well as a well funded system to hear the cases, as well as lawyers. If you decide they don’t deserve or don’t need lawyers, suddenly you’ve removed a fundamental part of our legal system which has nothing to do with the ECHR.
Simple lawyer fights immigration case and its judged to be an activist lawyer trying to take the piss...then we deport the lawyer with his client
I mean I think you’re joking but see my last paragraph for my response.
Not really I am all for deporting lawyers making spurious claims, I am all for lawyers that make proper claims. Too many immigration lawyers take the piss and should face consequences for it
Does this principle of deporting people you don't approve of extend beyond deportation lawyers?
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
No Big G, you haven’t.
I have but it is not acceptable to the left and there lies the problem and serious electoral consequences for labour
No, you haven’t. Taking us out of the ECHR doesn’t suddenly stop lawyers from fight deportations. Nor does leaving the ECHR suddenly make it any less or more legal to deport immigrants.
There’s also the issue that taking away rights from asylum seekers also means taking away rights from Britons. Again, that’s also a fact. You may think that’s worth it and maybe you’re right, but it’s worth considering.
There’s also a discussion to be had as to how much process you remove. One extreme is no due process at all in which case you might accidentally deport British citizens - see the USA.
If you have some process, say one hearing to establish immigration status, you will still need somewhere to house immigrants as well as a well funded system to hear the cases, as well as lawyers. If you decide they don’t deserve or don’t need lawyers, suddenly you’ve removed a fundamental part of our legal system which has nothing to do with the ECHR.
Simple lawyer fights immigration case and its judged to be an activist lawyer trying to take the piss...then we deport the lawyer with his client
I mean I think you’re joking but see my last paragraph for my response.
Not really I am all for deporting lawyers making spurious claims, I am all for lawyers that make proper claims. Too many immigration lawyers take the piss and should face consequences for it
Thank you Mr Trump.
I all smells very right wing on here tonight.
I doubt if Donald Trump is in favour of deporting lawyers that make spurious claims. Could irreparably damage his defence teams.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
No Big G, you haven’t.
I have but it is not acceptable to the left and there lies the problem and serious electoral consequences for labour
No, you haven’t. Taking us out of the ECHR doesn’t suddenly stop lawyers from fight deportations. Nor does leaving the ECHR suddenly make it any less or more legal to deport immigrants.
There’s also the issue that taking away rights from asylum seekers also means taking away rights from Britons. Again, that’s also a fact. You may think that’s worth it and maybe you’re right, but it’s worth considering.
There’s also a discussion to be had as to how much process you remove. One extreme is no due process at all in which case you might accidentally deport British citizens - see the USA.
If you have some process, say one hearing to establish immigration status, you will still need somewhere to house immigrants as well as a well funded system to hear the cases, as well as lawyers. If you decide they don’t deserve or don’t need lawyers, suddenly you’ve removed a fundamental part of our legal system which has nothing to do with the ECHR.
Simple lawyer fights immigration case and its judged to be an activist lawyer trying to take the piss...then we deport the lawyer with his client
I mean I think you’re joking but see my last paragraph for my response.
Not really I am all for deporting lawyers making spurious claims, I am all for lawyers that make proper claims. Too many immigration lawyers take the piss and should face consequences for it
Thank you Mr Trump.
I all smells very right wing on here tonight.
Too many lawyers, not merely on immigration take the piss around the law like the loophole guy who gets speeders off. Sorry the country would be better off without them
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
Let’s be honest about how this system actually works. Not how we wish it worked in theory.
In many poor but stable countries — rarely war zones — villagers or families in remote communities identify someone fit with the best odds of "making it." It’s almost always a young man. The community pools money together to fund the journey, often through a people smuggler. This isn’t chaos — it’s strategy. A calculated investment.
Once he arrives (it is almost always a he) often after a dangerous but well-planned trip aided by a smartphone, the next step is simple: craft a claim. In many of these countries, even a vague reference to discrimination or fear of mistreatment will do. With corrupt police, weak courts, and a general absence of robust institutions, it’s not difficult to build a narrative that passes the bar — especially in a system where over 80% of claims end up being accepted.
By the time he’s settled into the UK he finds work, legal or otherwise, and starts sending money back. His home community wins. The individual wins. The people smuggler profits. The only people not consulted in this transaction? The host population, whose social systems are expected to absorb this pipeline under the moral banner of “asylum.”
But this isn’t fair asylum. This is a parallel migration system, dressed up in the language of refuge and protection, but operating on incentives and outcomes that look far more like economic strategy. It's effective. It's rational. But let’s not pretend it’s about fleeing imminent danger. It’s about opportunity — for the migrant, the smuggler, and the village back home.
Understand the business model. Then maybe we can start talking about reform with eyes wide open.
I've told this story before, but my third cousin applied for asylum, under false pretences. Cell in with a group who claimed they were all persecuted. Got rejected in UK but now lives in France with his wife.
More generally - the countries who send us asylum seekers are not rarely war zones... look at the data and you will see Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria are the top places. Other countries which are 'stable' still have authoritarian leaders who definitely will execute/torture you for criticising the govt (Banglsdesh, Eritrea)
Iran, Pakistan and Bangladesh aren't war zones, and you haven't included India, Vietnam or Albania in your list which are also sources of very high numbers.
I don't agree we owe a moral duty to anyone who lives under a government that doesn't meet our own standard, unless we decide by exception to do so.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
I'd want them to not come at all, they haven't been specifically invited. Put into a detention camp to await deportation to a designated safe third country or voluntary return to their home country if they don't want to end up in Rwanda.
No one who hasn't been specifically invited by the government to seek asylum, currently Hong Kongers, Ukrainians and about 3,000 Afghani translators is owed anything and certainly not entitled to remain in the country. It is our soft touch system that allows them to stay and this soft touch system is going to result in a Reform majority government and PM Nige. People are simply fed up, how many of the arrested terrorists do you think we're migrants? What have they added to the nation, enriched us by trying to bomb the Israeli embassy and costing us millions in surveillance, court cases and supermax prison time. Simply refuse them in the first place and deport them to a safe third country or they return home voluntarily. No right of appeal, no prolonged court cases, just refusal and deportation within a week of arrival.
Why not flip that question on its head and ask how many migrants are arrested terrorists? A fraction of a percentage is the answer and for that you think it's fine to withdraw any moral obligation to provide asylum?
How many murders and terrorist atrocities is it worth to allow asylum seekers from these countries that we have not invited to remain in the country. What if it was your wife, son, daughter or parents that were killed in the terrorist attack if the security services hadn't caught these ones? Would their deaths be acceptable losses?
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
No Big G, you haven’t.
I have but it is not acceptable to the left and there lies the problem and serious electoral consequences for labour
No, you haven’t. Taking us out of the ECHR doesn’t suddenly stop lawyers from fight deportations. Nor does leaving the ECHR suddenly make it any less or more legal to deport immigrants.
There’s also the issue that taking away rights from asylum seekers also means taking away rights from Britons. Again, that’s also a fact. You may think that’s worth it and maybe you’re right, but it’s worth considering.
There’s also a discussion to be had as to how much process you remove. One extreme is no due process at all in which case you might accidentally deport British citizens - see the USA.
If you have some process, say one hearing to establish immigration status, you will still need somewhere to house immigrants as well as a well funded system to hear the cases, as well as lawyers. If you decide they don’t deserve or don’t need lawyers, suddenly you’ve removed a fundamental part of our legal system which has nothing to do with the ECHR.
Simple lawyer fights immigration case and its judged to be an activist lawyer trying to take the piss...then we deport the lawyer with his client
I mean I think you’re joking but see my last paragraph for my response.
Not really I am all for deporting lawyers making spurious claims, I am all for lawyers that make proper claims. Too many immigration lawyers take the piss and should face consequences for it
Does this principle of deporting people you don't approve of extend beyond deportation lawyers?
Just for reference, you understand.
As I just replied earlier, no it applies to all that twist the law out of its intention. It is not however for those that merely try and hold the state to account. We have far too many lawyers judges officials that twist the law out of all recognition to get people off when they are absolutely guilty
Well, this match may be a forgone conclusion but you can't say Williams and Zhao are making it dull with pots like that, or the one with the cue in the air.
Naughty barb from Hazel about Xintong and "second chances" before the session.
Look, if John Higgins can come back after a ban. I think it's a bit unfair to hold a rather lesser crime against Zhao.
I don't think Higgins should have had his reprieve either.
I do. Because leaving aside the fact he never actually threw a match, it was that scumbag Mahmood trying to entrap him. Nobody should ever have anything done to them on the word of a lowlife like that.
He was a twit to get trapped, and deserved a punishment for it, but he also deserved a chance to come back.
I was working in a trading room of a betting firm once, waiting for my mate who was trading the snooker to finish so we could go to the pub, and Higgins was involved in a match that was definitely bent. The odds taken in running on the score that it eventually finished were way out of kilter with what any reasonable model would have made them. This would have been sometime between 2006-08
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
No Big G, you haven’t.
I have but it is not acceptable to the left and there lies the problem and serious electoral consequences for labour
No, you haven’t. Taking us out of the ECHR doesn’t suddenly stop lawyers from fight deportations. Nor does leaving the ECHR suddenly make it any less or more legal to deport immigrants.
There’s also the issue that taking away rights from asylum seekers also means taking away rights from Britons. Again, that’s also a fact. You may think that’s worth it and maybe you’re right, but it’s worth considering.
There’s also a discussion to be had as to how much process you remove. One extreme is no due process at all in which case you might accidentally deport British citizens - see the USA.
If you have some process, say one hearing to establish immigration status, you will still need somewhere to house immigrants as well as a well funded system to hear the cases, as well as lawyers. If you decide they don’t deserve or don’t need lawyers, suddenly you’ve removed a fundamental part of our legal system which has nothing to do with the ECHR.
Simple lawyer fights immigration case and its judged to be an activist lawyer trying to take the piss...then we deport the lawyer with his client
I mean I think you’re joking but see my last paragraph for my response.
Not really I am all for deporting lawyers making spurious claims, I am all for lawyers that make proper claims. Too many immigration lawyers take the piss and should face consequences for it
Does this principle of deporting people you don't approve of extend beyond deportation lawyers?
Just for reference, you understand.
As I just replied earlier, no it applies to all that twist the law out of its intention. It is not however for those that merely try and hold the state to account. We have far too many lawyers judges officials that twist the law out of all recognition to get people off when they are absolutely guilty
Also to get people state sanctioned when they are obviously innocent
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
Let’s be honest about how this system actually works. Not how we wish it worked in theory.
In many poor but stable countries — rarely war zones — villagers or families in remote communities identify someone fit with the best odds of "making it." It’s almost always a young man. The community pools money together to fund the journey, often through a people smuggler. This isn’t chaos — it’s strategy. A calculated investment.
Once he arrives (it is almost always a he) often after a dangerous but well-planned trip aided by a smartphone, the next step is simple: craft a claim. In many of these countries, even a vague reference to discrimination or fear of mistreatment will do. With corrupt police, weak courts, and a general absence of robust institutions, it’s not difficult to build a narrative that passes the bar — especially in a system where over 80% of claims end up being accepted.
By the time he’s settled into the UK he finds work, legal or otherwise, and starts sending money back. His home community wins. The individual wins. The people smuggler profits. The only people not consulted in this transaction? The host population, whose social systems are expected to absorb this pipeline under the moral banner of “asylum.”
But this isn’t fair asylum. This is a parallel migration system, dressed up in the language of refuge and protection, but operating on incentives and outcomes that look far more like economic strategy. It's effective. It's rational. But let’s not pretend it’s about fleeing imminent danger. It’s about opportunity — for the migrant, the smuggler, and the village back home.
Understand the business model. Then maybe we can start talking about reform with eyes wide open.
I've told this story before, but my third cousin applied for asylum, under false pretences. Cell in with a group who claimed they were all persecuted. Got rejected in UK but now lives in France with his wife.
More generally - the countries who send us asylum seekers are not rarely war zones... look at the data and you will see Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria are the top places. Other countries which are 'stable' still have authoritarian leaders who definitely will execute/torture you for criticising the govt (Banglsdesh, Eritrea)
Iran, Pakistan and Bangladesh aren't war zones, and you haven't included India, Vietnam or Albania in your list which are also sources of very high numbers.
I don't agree we owe a moral duty to anyone who lives under a government that doesn't meet our own standard, unless we decide by exception to do so.
Yes, it's up to the citizens of that country to step up and change the nation they live in, not to turn ours into a shitty mirror image of the one they leave. The reason we've given an indefinitely long invite to Hong Kongers is that we made promises to them and guaranteed their freedoms, the government failed to do this and force China to reverse their anti freedom laws so we owe them a debt. It's the same debt that the UK government owed to Indians in East Africa which is why hundreds of thousands left Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania in the 60s after they/we were invited to the UK by the government.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
No Big G, you haven’t.
I have but it is not acceptable to the left and there lies the problem and serious electoral consequences for labour
No, you haven’t. Taking us out of the ECHR doesn’t suddenly stop lawyers from fight deportations. Nor does leaving the ECHR suddenly make it any less or more legal to deport immigrants.
There’s also the issue that taking away rights from asylum seekers also means taking away rights from Britons. Again, that’s also a fact. You may think that’s worth it and maybe you’re right, but it’s worth considering.
There’s also a discussion to be had as to how much process you remove. One extreme is no due process at all in which case you might accidentally deport British citizens - see the USA.
If you have some process, say one hearing to establish immigration status, you will still need somewhere to house immigrants as well as a well funded system to hear the cases, as well as lawyers. If you decide they don’t deserve or don’t need lawyers, suddenly you’ve removed a fundamental part of our legal system which has nothing to do with the ECHR.
You write primary legislation that's clearly declares that any migrant that can't show legitimate documents that indicates they are from an invited party (Ukraine, Hong Kong or have a specific invite as an Afghani translator) has no right to remain, no right of appeal and will be deported to a safe third country of the state's choosing should they refuse to return home voluntarily. Close all of the loopholes, close all of the challenges and deport them within days of their processing.
Declare that foreign criminals will be deported to their home nation of safe third country with no right of appeal, amend the HRA to specifically rule out any use of article 8 by non-citizen convicted criminals.
The government has a huge, huge majority. It needs to start using it or we'll get a Reform majority in 2029 and PM Nige.
That's what we'll get.
This thread shows they STILL don't get it, outside a very small handful.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
Let’s be honest about how this system actually works. Not how we wish it worked in theory.
In many poor but stable countries — rarely war zones — villagers or families in remote communities identify someone fit with the best odds of "making it." It’s almost always a young man. The community pools money together to fund the journey, often through a people smuggler. This isn’t chaos — it’s strategy. A calculated investment.
Once he arrives (it is almost always a he) often after a dangerous but well-planned trip aided by a smartphone, the next step is simple: craft a claim. In many of these countries, even a vague reference to discrimination or fear of mistreatment will do. With corrupt police, weak courts, and a general absence of robust institutions, it’s not difficult to build a narrative that passes the bar — especially in a system where over 80% of claims end up being accepted.
By the time he’s settled into the UK he finds work, legal or otherwise, and starts sending money back. His home community wins. The individual wins. The people smuggler profits. The only people not consulted in this transaction? The host population, whose social systems are expected to absorb this pipeline under the moral banner of “asylum.”
But this isn’t fair asylum. This is a parallel migration system, dressed up in the language of refuge and protection, but operating on incentives and outcomes that look far more like economic strategy. It's effective. It's rational. But let’s not pretend it’s about fleeing imminent danger. It’s about opportunity — for the migrant, the smuggler, and the village back home.
Understand the business model. Then maybe we can start talking about reform with eyes wide open.
Why do you think that's the standard?
I met many hundreds of refugees, and there's almost nothing I can think of that happened, that would fit that narrative at all. If they were villagers, or farmers, from remote communities, then they were some of the best actors I'd seen.
More common threads were people who were very politically engaged, often well educated, and coming from the better off parts of the countries they're fleeing. The kind of personalities who are involved in this page are more common - educated people with opinions, and the desire to voice them.
I'm not naïve enough to suggest that nothing of the sort goes on, but having met a lot of asylum seekers, I'd imagine that the 'farmer from a remote village' would find it very difficult to persuade even the doziest of Home Office official that they're in danger back home.
Yes, of course. All the hundreds of boat people you met were academics, surgeons and dentists, and desperate to join this board.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
No Big G, you haven’t.
I have but it is not acceptable to the left and there lies the problem and serious electoral consequences for labour
No, you haven’t. Taking us out of the ECHR doesn’t suddenly stop lawyers from fight deportations. Nor does leaving the ECHR suddenly make it any less or more legal to deport immigrants.
There’s also the issue that taking away rights from asylum seekers also means taking away rights from Britons. Again, that’s also a fact. You may think that’s worth it and maybe you’re right, but it’s worth considering.
There’s also a discussion to be had as to how much process you remove. One extreme is no due process at all in which case you might accidentally deport British citizens - see the USA.
If you have some process, say one hearing to establish immigration status, you will still need somewhere to house immigrants as well as a well funded system to hear the cases, as well as lawyers. If you decide they don’t deserve or don’t need lawyers, suddenly you’ve removed a fundamental part of our legal system which has nothing to do with the ECHR.
You write primary legislation that's clearly declares that any migrant that can't show legitimate documents that indicates they are from an invited party (Ukraine, Hong Kong or have a specific invite as an Afghani translator) has no right to remain, no right of appeal and will be deported to a safe third country of the state's choosing should they refuse to return home voluntarily. Close all of the loopholes, close all of the challenges and deport them within days of their processing.
Declare that foreign criminals will be deported to their home nation of safe third country with no right of appeal, amend the HRA to specifically rule out any use of article 8 by non-citizen convicted criminals.
The government has a huge, huge majority. It needs to start using it or we'll get a Reform majority in 2029 and PM Nige.
That's what we'll get.
This thread shows they STILL don't get it, outside a very small handful.
The trouble is because the way things have been framed they made this a two sided argument. For a long time any criticism of immigration was met with immigration is a total good you are a bigot and racist. You got the other side all immigration is bad and the debate got polarised
Some immigration is good, some is bad all immigration however comes with upsides and downsides. The upsides are people we absolutely want here, the down sides people we absolutely could do with out. However even the good side comes with trade offs of more infrastructure being needed etc.
We would be better off if we could have a grown up conversation but the pro and anti immigrant camps have ruined that so the boat has sailed on that one
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
Let’s be honest about how this system actually works. Not how we wish it worked in theory.
In many poor but stable countries — rarely war zones — villagers or families in remote communities identify someone fit with the best odds of "making it." It’s almost always a young man. The community pools money together to fund the journey, often through a people smuggler. This isn’t chaos — it’s strategy. A calculated investment.
Once he arrives (it is almost always a he) often after a dangerous but well-planned trip aided by a smartphone, the next step is simple: craft a claim. In many of these countries, even a vague reference to discrimination or fear of mistreatment will do. With corrupt police, weak courts, and a general absence of robust institutions, it’s not difficult to build a narrative that passes the bar — especially in a system where over 80% of claims end up being accepted.
By the time he’s settled into the UK he finds work, legal or otherwise, and starts sending money back. His home community wins. The individual wins. The people smuggler profits. The only people not consulted in this transaction? The host population, whose social systems are expected to absorb this pipeline under the moral banner of “asylum.”
But this isn’t fair asylum. This is a parallel migration system, dressed up in the language of refuge and protection, but operating on incentives and outcomes that look far more like economic strategy. It's effective. It's rational. But let’s not pretend it’s about fleeing imminent danger. It’s about opportunity — for the migrant, the smuggler, and the village back home.
Understand the business model. Then maybe we can start talking about reform with eyes wide open.
Why do you think that's the standard?
I met many hundreds of refugees, and there's almost nothing I can think of that happened, that would fit that narrative at all. If they were villagers, or farmers, from remote communities, then they were some of the best actors I'd seen.
More common threads were people who were very politically engaged, often well educated, and coming from the better off parts of the countries they're fleeing. The kind of personalities who are involved in this page are more common - educated people with opinions, and the desire to voice them.
I'm not naïve enough to suggest that nothing of the sort goes on, but having met a lot of asylum seekers, I'd imagine that the 'farmer from a remote village' would find it very difficult to persuade even the doziest of Home Office official that they're in danger back home.
Yes, of course. All the hundreds of boat people you met were academics, surgeons and dentists, and desperate to join this board.
It's literally ridiculous isn't it? The ultra liberals are sleepwalking into their own worst nightmare and they can't stop themselves. In the US it was the they/them issues that destroyed Democrat credibility, over here it's going to be this pretence that these angry male boat arrivals are actually extremely well educated and desirable migrants who are just misunderstood when they espouse stone age values wrt women and gay rights and we should be welcoming them with open arms.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
I'd want them to not come at all, they haven't been specifically invited. Put into a detention camp to await deportation to a designated safe third country or voluntary return to their home country if they don't want to end up in Rwanda.
No one who hasn't been specifically invited by the government to seek asylum, currently Hong Kongers, Ukrainians and about 3,000 Afghani translators is owed anything and certainly not entitled to remain in the country. It is our soft touch system that allows them to stay and this soft touch system is going to result in a Reform majority government and PM Nige. People are simply fed up, how many of the arrested terrorists do you think we're migrants? What have they added to the nation, enriched us by trying to bomb the Israeli embassy and costing us millions in surveillance, court cases and supermax prison time. Simply refuse them in the first place and deport them to a safe third country or they return home voluntarily. No right of appeal, no prolonged court cases, just refusal and deportation within a week of arrival.
Why not flip that question on its head and ask how many migrants are arrested terrorists? A fraction of a percentage is the answer and for that you think it's fine to withdraw any moral obligation to provide asylum?
How many murders and terrorist atrocities is it worth to allow asylum seekers from these countries that we have not invited to remain in the country. What if it was your wife, son, daughter or parents that were killed in the terrorist attack if the security services hadn't caught these ones? Would their deaths be acceptable losses?
How many deaths from IRA bombs was it worth for us to remain a society tolerant of Irish people or Catholics? Terrorists want us to be a fearful, suspicious, intolerant society because it's their best recruitment tool. You don't get to sow fear about asylum seekers because a few might be terrorists. That would be unacceptable if you applied that logic to any other group.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
The Falklands. And if they don’t want to do it, the we will take our planes home
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
I'd want them to not come at all, they haven't been specifically invited. Put into a detention camp to await deportation to a designated safe third country or voluntary return to their home country if they don't want to end up in Rwanda.
No one who hasn't been specifically invited by the government to seek asylum, currently Hong Kongers, Ukrainians and about 3,000 Afghani translators is owed anything and certainly not entitled to remain in the country. It is our soft touch system that allows them to stay and this soft touch system is going to result in a Reform majority government and PM Nige. People are simply fed up, how many of the arrested terrorists do you think we're migrants? What have they added to the nation, enriched us by trying to bomb the Israeli embassy and costing us millions in surveillance, court cases and supermax prison time. Simply refuse them in the first place and deport them to a safe third country or they return home voluntarily. No right of appeal, no prolonged court cases, just refusal and deportation within a week of arrival.
Why not flip that question on its head and ask how many migrants are arrested terrorists? A fraction of a percentage is the answer and for that you think it's fine to withdraw any moral obligation to provide asylum?
How many murders and terrorist atrocities is it worth to allow asylum seekers from these countries that we have not invited to remain in the country. What if it was your wife, son, daughter or parents that were killed in the terrorist attack if the security services hadn't caught these ones? Would their deaths be acceptable losses?
How many deaths from IRA bombs was it worth for us to remain a society tolerant of Irish people or Catholics? Terrorists want us to be a fearful, suspicious, intolerant society because it's their best recruitment tool. You don't get to sow fear about asylum seekers because a few might be terrorists. That would be unacceptable if you applied that logic to any other group.
The difference being that the Irish and Catholic people were already here, asylum seekers aren't. We have no duty to invite those who wish us harm into the nation. You're saying we should invite terrorists into the country, put them up in hotels, give them priority NHS treatment all while they plot to blow us up. No thanks. I say we deport them and make sure no one we don't invite is allowed to remain in the country.
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
I'd want them to not come at all, they haven't been specifically invited. Put into a detention camp to await deportation to a designated safe third country or voluntary return to their home country if they don't want to end up in Rwanda.
No one who hasn't been specifically invited by the government to seek asylum, currently Hong Kongers, Ukrainians and about 3,000 Afghani translators is owed anything and certainly not entitled to remain in the country. It is our soft touch system that allows them to stay and this soft touch system is going to result in a Reform majority government and PM Nige. People are simply fed up, how many of the arrested terrorists do you think we're migrants? What have they added to the nation, enriched us by trying to bomb the Israeli embassy and costing us millions in surveillance, court cases and supermax prison time. Simply refuse them in the first place and deport them to a safe third country or they return home voluntarily. No right of appeal, no prolonged court cases, just refusal and deportation within a week of arrival.
Why not flip that question on its head and ask how many migrants are arrested terrorists? A fraction of a percentage is the answer and for that you think it's fine to withdraw any moral obligation to provide asylum?
How many murders and terrorist atrocities is it worth to allow asylum seekers from these countries that we have not invited to remain in the country. What if it was your wife, son, daughter or parents that were killed in the terrorist attack if the security services hadn't caught these ones? Would their deaths be acceptable losses?
How many deaths from IRA bombs was it worth for us to remain a society tolerant of Irish people or Catholics? Terrorists want us to be a fearful, suspicious, intolerant society because it's their best recruitment tool. You don't get to sow fear about asylum seekers because a few might be terrorists. That would be unacceptable if you applied that logic to any other group.
In the case of islamic terrorists its not about recruitment making a suspicious intolerant society....its the society they think is best....see afghanistan under the taliban, iran under the ayatollahs....any of the areas under isis control....it is the world they want
In any case, the Boriswave is only tangentially relevant. The immigration which is politically the most toxic is the boats. It was the failure to address that which most scuppered the Tories. But as Gallowgate points out, there was no politically acceptable answer then. Rwanada was shouted down. I think the mood of the country has changed since then.
No, it’s both
People want the boats stopped ASAFP and they want immigration brought down to near-zero, and the Boriswave must be gently returned whence they came, not given ILR
The boats are the enraging symptom but the pathology is deeper and wider. And the voters have made it very clear they want this sorted NOW or next time Farage wins the keys to Number 10
As Dan Hodges put it, the politicians have been given a blatant final warning
Yes but you’re still not answering any of the difficult questions.
Are you actually proposing to machine gun boats in the channel? I mean it’s a possible solution but when the first kids get shot at by the Royal Navy there might be a backlash. Maybe not though?
In terms of “Rwanda” or equivalent, how much are we willing to pay to deport these people? What if it costs more than the hotels? I ask because the common complaint is that our services are on their arse and we’re paying for asylum seekers to sit in hotels. If we are still paying the same money or more to deport people by long haul flight and then paying the recipient country to host them, is that palatable? I don’t know. I don’t know the figures.
If there was an easy answer to this issue it would have been solved.
Oh do piss off. I’ve literally said “shooting the boats” is hideous, inhumane and mustn’t happen. It’s right up there. I wrote it
As for “Rwanda”, we are spending £4-5bn on hotels etc - and rising. Add in the long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more
Plus all the social fracturing and decay that comes with illegal immigration
So we can afford to spend a LOT on a version of Rwanda and still save vast amounts of money. What’s more as soon as we start doing this properly - despatching every single boat person to faraway dismal-place, then the boats will stop. Very quickly. No one will bother crossing if you can’t stay in Britain
Sorted
A huge number of successful businesses are run by migrants, and someone who is willing to travel half way across the world, with a channel crossing being just one dangerous element, suggests we're dealing with people who have huge drive. I worked with refugees before the boat crossings, but one thing that stood out consistently was that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work.
What's so beautiful in this post is that you can't see the rich irony in it.
You'll have to explain. The first few explanations for your comment that jumped to mind were pretty grim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have some more justifiable reason.
You are unable to work out that the one thing that stood out consistently, that they were counting the days till they were able to apply to work, is because they are economic migrants.
That one popped into my head, but I thought I'd credit you with a little more intelligence. Sadly not. Maybe don't think the first thing that pops into your head is correct, and therefore no more thought is required*
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
Let’s be honest about how this system actually works. Not how we wish it worked in theory.
In many poor but stable countries — rarely war zones — villagers or families in remote communities identify someone fit with the best odds of "making it." It’s almost always a young man. The community pools money together to fund the journey, often through a people smuggler. This isn’t chaos — it’s strategy. A calculated investment.
Once he arrives (it is almost always a he) often after a dangerous but well-planned trip aided by a smartphone, the next step is simple: craft a claim. In many of these countries, even a vague reference to discrimination or fear of mistreatment will do. With corrupt police, weak courts, and a general absence of robust institutions, it’s not difficult to build a narrative that passes the bar — especially in a system where over 80% of claims end up being accepted.
By the time he’s settled into the UK he finds work, legal or otherwise, and starts sending money back. His home community wins. The individual wins. The people smuggler profits. The only people not consulted in this transaction? The host population, whose social systems are expected to absorb this pipeline under the moral banner of “asylum.”
But this isn’t fair asylum. This is a parallel migration system, dressed up in the language of refuge and protection, but operating on incentives and outcomes that look far more like economic strategy. It's effective. It's rational. But let’s not pretend it’s about fleeing imminent danger. It’s about opportunity — for the migrant, the smuggler, and the village back home.
Understand the business model. Then maybe we can start talking about reform with eyes wide open.
Why do you think that's the standard?
I met many hundreds of refugees, and there's almost nothing I can think of that happened, that would fit that narrative at all. If they were villagers, or farmers, from remote communities, then they were some of the best actors I'd seen.
More common threads were people who were very politically engaged, often well educated, and coming from the better off parts of the countries they're fleeing. The kind of personalities who are involved in this page are more common - educated people with opinions, and the desire to voice them.
I'm not naïve enough to suggest that nothing of the sort goes on, but having met a lot of asylum seekers, I'd imagine that the 'farmer from a remote village' would find it very difficult to persuade even the doziest of Home Office official that they're in danger back home.
Yes, of course. All the hundreds of boat people you met were academics, surgeons and dentists, and desperate to join this board.
It's literally ridiculous isn't it? The ultra liberals are sleepwalking into their own worst nightmare and they can't stop themselves. In the US it was the they/them issues that destroyed Democrat credibility, over here it's going to be this pretence that these angry male boat arrivals are actually extremely well educated and desirable migrants who are just misunderstood when they espouse stone age values wrt women and gay rights and we should be welcoming them with open arms.
Twenty years ago, very few people who are defending the current rate of immigration & illegal immigrants crossing the channel would have had any truck at all with the arguments they’re making. At what point did they change their minds?
Is it as simple as they can’t bring themselves to agree with people they dislike?
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
No Big G, you haven’t.
I have but it is not acceptable to the left and there lies the problem and serious electoral consequences for labour
No, you haven’t. Taking us out of the ECHR doesn’t suddenly stop lawyers from fight deportations. Nor does leaving the ECHR suddenly make it any less or more legal to deport immigrants.
There’s also the issue that taking away rights from asylum seekers also means taking away rights from Britons. Again, that’s also a fact. You may think that’s worth it and maybe you’re right, but it’s worth considering.
There’s also a discussion to be had as to how much process you remove. One extreme is no due process at all in which case you might accidentally deport British citizens - see the USA.
If you have some process, say one hearing to establish immigration status, you will still need somewhere to house immigrants as well as a well funded system to hear the cases, as well as lawyers. If you decide they don’t deserve or don’t need lawyers, suddenly you’ve removed a fundamental part of our legal system which has nothing to do with the ECHR.
You write primary legislation that's clearly declares that any migrant that can't show legitimate documents that indicates they are from an invited party (Ukraine, Hong Kong or have a specific invite as an Afghani translator) has no right to remain, no right of appeal and will be deported to a safe third country of the state's choosing should they refuse to return home voluntarily. Close all of the loopholes, close all of the challenges and deport them within days of their processing.
Declare that foreign criminals will be deported to their home nation of safe third country with no right of appeal, amend the HRA to specifically rule out any use of article 8 by non-citizen convicted criminals.
The government has a huge, huge majority. It needs to start using it or we'll get a Reform majority in 2029 and PM Nige.
It’s not as simple as that. Who is able to verify documents are legitimate? Where do you house people while they wait for their hearing? Where do you deport them to? I think this is ultimately where we’ll end up but it wont end up with people being deported within days.
I don’t think even the most woke liberal wants to house asylum seekers in hotels. The question is, what to do with them? Do we house them in camps? Do we deport them immediately? What do we do if we don’t know where they came from? What do we do if they are genuinely in danger? What if their host country refuses to take them back?
fuel them up and send them back or stop them getting into our waters rather than sending out taxis and booking hotels for them
So should the Royal Navy sit in French waters to turn back small boats? What if they refuse? What if the French refuse? It is not that simple no matter how much you like it to be.
Unless the boats are stopped this issue will fester like an open wound for Starmer and labour
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
You’re just stating the obvious. I agree we need to take action but it’s pointless just calling for “drastic action”, ANY “drastic action” without any consideration of how and what that looks like.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
There is only one way to stop the boats and I have described it
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
No Big G, you haven’t.
I have but it is not acceptable to the left and there lies the problem and serious electoral consequences for labour
No, you haven’t. Taking us out of the ECHR doesn’t suddenly stop lawyers from fight deportations. Nor does leaving the ECHR suddenly make it any less or more legal to deport immigrants.
There’s also the issue that taking away rights from asylum seekers also means taking away rights from Britons. Again, that’s also a fact. You may think that’s worth it and maybe you’re right, but it’s worth considering.
There’s also a discussion to be had as to how much process you remove. One extreme is no due process at all in which case you might accidentally deport British citizens - see the USA.
If you have some process, say one hearing to establish immigration status, you will still need somewhere to house immigrants as well as a well funded system to hear the cases, as well as lawyers. If you decide they don’t deserve or don’t need lawyers, suddenly you’ve removed a fundamental part of our legal system which has nothing to do with the ECHR.
You write primary legislation that's clearly declares that any migrant that can't show legitimate documents that indicates they are from an invited party (Ukraine, Hong Kong or have a specific invite as an Afghani translator) has no right to remain, no right of appeal and will be deported to a safe third country of the state's choosing should they refuse to return home voluntarily. Close all of the loopholes, close all of the challenges and deport them within days of their processing.
Declare that foreign criminals will be deported to their home nation of safe third country with no right of appeal, amend the HRA to specifically rule out any use of article 8 by non-citizen convicted criminals.
The government has a huge, huge majority. It needs to start using it or we'll get a Reform majority in 2029 and PM Nige.
That's what we'll get.
This thread shows they STILL don't get it, outside a very small handful.
Comments
We should legislate that anyone entering the country without papers is deemed to have enlisted in the Royal Navy.
https://x.com/keiranpedley/status/1919352600727548082?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
'Smashing the gangs' is just as ill fated as Rwanda and ultimately the UK will have to recluse part of the ECHR and find a way to remove all those landing by boat immediately to a processing centre somewhere far away and certainly no accommodation in hotels in the UK
It sounds drastic but Starmer has a choice, take dramatic action or see Farage and Reform overwhelm his government
Now consider you're an asylum seeker, coming from somewhere like Iraq, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. You've made the journey to the UK. What do you want to do? Sit around in a hotel, with your little handout, doing nothing? Or perhaps you're desperate to do something with your days? It may be tricky to comprehend, but those people counting down, were also pretty grateful to have been "welcomed", and were keen to be contributing, rather than taking (and I wasn't in a position where they would benefit from telling me this - I got to know many refugees very well, and it may be difficult to believe, but that thought process of wanting to contribute was very common).
I am curious though. How would you want an asylum seeker to behave, to not be classed in a negative fashion? Surely the alternative to being desperate to work is that they were quite content to sit around and live off state handouts. I don't like to assume, but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd prefer.
*I'm only teasing of course. Your comment about the dense Liberal herd amused me (I do realise that there are plenty of people who appear not to understood your arguments today, so realise it wasn't aimed directly at me), and thought you'd enjoy a little in return. One of the beauties of this site, after all, is that it's not an echo chamber.
We could legislate to take rights away from ourselves in order to more efficiently tackle the issue and that will work, but is it worth the trade off? Why is nobody talking about that?
Grown up politics is about trade offs. Nothing is ever easy and nothing is ever cost free. Nobody is talking about what costs we are willing to pay to solve the issue, both economically, socially, morally and politically.
Until Starmer and labour understand how toxic it is for them Farage and Reform will run rings round them
But as has been pointed out, the boats are only a secondary issue to the overstayers and legal migrants. So let's see what Reform do in the areas they now have responsibility for and see if the do have solutions.
I'd be amazed if they did, but let's see.
States have the right — and duty — to control their borders. If your argument is that doing so is illegal, then just say that. But don’t dress up total paralysis as thoughtful scepticism. That’s not nuance. It’s a dodge.
This particular one feels like fading into history now.
And do they class those people as 'immigrants' when they say, or read, the word 'immigrants' on PB?
I knew a quite a few people well enough to know that they weren't being pressured for money by anyone. It's also not difficult to recognise someone who is bored, and just wants to work, compared with someone who is scared and is being pressured to pay someone back.
Wifey is also both a cockney and an Essicks girl...
And it has survived four PMs and counting, making them just as bad as her.
You’ll forgive me if I’m not scrambling to hand out awards. I’ve got limited patience for lazy arguments that waste time and add nothing new.
Contempt? Sure — but it’s earned.
Easier to defeat, and means they don't have to do any hard thinking.
I can almost understand the attack on Labour where these illegal immigrants will be asylum scroungers and taking our jobs and voting Labour. Mad, but the people saying it are mad. But if its a plot to boost the number of Labour voters, why did the Tories push the door wide open to let so many in?
I have no doubt that a deal can be done with the EU to reign in the boats. It won't involve tow backs or just sinking them as the mob want. It won't care whether we leave the EHRC or not. It will involve international cooperation with the EU which is an anathema to the people most aggrieved by the boats.
The true lunacy? When you point to the real world problems they accuse you of wanting the boats to come. Which nobody does.
You have to be 80 to even have been born on VE day now, the final big event will likely be the 100th anniversary in 2045 as the 2018 100th anniversary of the 1918 Armistice was the final big event for WW1 commemorations then after that it won't be any bigger than Trafalgar Day and World War events won't be remembered much beyond Remembrance Sunday
However, it is not acceptable for criminal gangs to put desperate people in boats to cross the dangerous channel risking their lives and those who go to rescue them
The boats have to be stopped, but immigration from across the world should be encouraged where we have the need
The comment on fiscal drag, however, was the "long term fiscal drag of migrants who will always be a net negative on the economy and we’re talking billions more", so was referring to their lives in the UK post-decisions.
In many poor but stable countries — rarely war zones — villagers or families in remote communities identify someone fit with the best odds of "making it." It’s almost always a young man. The community pools money together to fund the journey, often through a people smuggler. This isn’t chaos — it’s strategy. A calculated investment.
Once he arrives (it is almost always a he) often after a dangerous but well-planned trip aided by a smartphone, the next step is simple: craft a claim. In many of these countries, even a vague reference to discrimination or fear of mistreatment will do. With corrupt police, weak courts, and a general absence of robust institutions, it’s not difficult to build a narrative that passes the bar — especially in a system where over 80% of claims end up being accepted.
By the time he’s settled into the UK he finds work, legal or otherwise, and starts sending money back. His home community wins. The individual wins. The people smuggler profits. The only people not consulted in this transaction? The host population, whose social systems are expected to absorb this pipeline under the moral banner of “asylum.”
But this isn’t fair asylum. This is a parallel migration system, dressed up in the language of refuge and protection, but operating on incentives and outcomes that look far more like economic strategy. It's effective. It's rational. But let’s not pretend it’s about fleeing imminent danger. It’s about opportunity — for the migrant, the smuggler, and the village back home.
Understand the business model. Then maybe we can start talking about reform with eyes wide open.
Will Reform voters be happy?
No! Because they want their towns to stop being crap and schools and the NHS and council services to stop being broken and jobs to pay the bills. Yes there is a cultural element, especially where there have been a lot of new arrivals. Mostly though, they blame immigrants for everything that's wrong. Unless those things start to get fixed, stop the boats won't matter.
On a tomato?
They can all wave at Trump in Turnberry.
No one who hasn't been specifically invited by the government to seek asylum, currently Hong Kongers, Ukrainians and about 3,000 Afghani translators is owed anything and certainly not entitled to remain in the country. It is our soft touch system that allows them to stay and this soft touch system is going to result in a Reform majority government and PM Nige. People are simply fed up, how many of the arrested terrorists do you think we're migrants? What have they added to the nation, enriched us by trying to bomb the Israeli embassy and costing us millions in surveillance, court cases and supermax prison time. Simply refuse them in the first place and deport them to a safe third country or they return home voluntarily. No right of appeal, no prolonged court cases, just refusal and deportation within a week of arrival.
Lampedusa on Solent.
(*And so was mine. And yours probably.)
There seems to be a mental incongruity: immigrants you see as 'good' are not immigrants; yet someone in exactly the same situation you see as 'bad' is an immigrant. In other words: someone loses their immigrant status if you know and/or like them. But to others spewing the hatred, they are probably included.
https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1919454768134582452
More generally - the countries who send us asylum seekers are not rarely war zones... look at the data and you will see Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria are the top places. Other countries which are 'stable' still have authoritarian leaders who definitely will execute/torture you for criticising the govt (Banglsdesh, Eritrea)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0vv717yvpeo
The Greek coastguard has caused the deaths of dozens of migrants in the Mediterranean over a three-year period, witnesses say, including nine who were deliberately thrown into the water.
The nine are among more than 40 people alleged to have died as a result of being forced out of Greek territorial waters, or taken back out to sea after reaching Greek islands, BBC analysis has found.
I met many hundreds of refugees, and there's almost nothing I can think of that happened, that would fit that narrative at all. If they were villagers, or farmers, from remote communities, then they were some of the best actors I'd seen.
More common threads were people who were very politically engaged, often well educated, and coming from the better off parts of the countries they're fleeing. The kind of personalities who are involved in this page are more common - educated people with opinions, and the desire to voice them.
I'm not naïve enough to suggest that nothing of the sort goes on, but having met a lot of asylum seekers, I'd imagine that the 'farmer from a remote village' would find it very difficult to persuade even the doziest of Home Office official that they're in danger back home.
There’s also the issue that taking away rights from asylum seekers also means taking away rights from Britons. Again, that’s also a fact. You may think that’s worth it and maybe you’re right, but it’s worth considering.
There’s also a discussion to be had as to how much process you remove. One extreme is no due process at all in which case you might accidentally deport British citizens - see the USA.
If you have some process, say one hearing to establish immigration status, you will still need somewhere to house immigrants as well as a well funded system to hear the cases, as well as lawyers. If you decide they don’t deserve or don’t need lawyers, suddenly you’ve removed a fundamental part of our legal system which has nothing to do with the ECHR.
What Hamas and its allies did in Israel was unfathomable. Israel had every right to react robustly and I was (and am) a strong supporter of their right to do so.
But that doesn’t give them a carte blanche to withhold food from the general population. That is a war crime. It doesn’t give them the right to invade and conquer a neighbouring territory.
It all smells very right wing on here tonight.
Declare that foreign criminals will be deported to their home nation of safe third country with no right of appeal, amend the HRA to specifically rule out any use of article 8 by non-citizen convicted criminals.
The government has a huge, huge majority. It needs to start using it or we'll get a Reform majority in 2029 and PM Nige.
He was a twit to get trapped, and deserved a punishment for it, but he also deserved a chance to come back.
Just for reference, you understand.
I don't agree we owe a moral duty to anyone who lives under a government that doesn't meet our own standard, unless we decide by exception to do so.
This thread shows they STILL don't get it, outside a very small handful.
Some immigration is good, some is bad all immigration however comes with upsides and downsides. The upsides are people we absolutely want here, the down sides people we absolutely could do with out. However even the good side comes with trade offs of more infrastructure being needed etc.
We would be better off if we could have a grown up conversation but the pro and anti immigrant camps have ruined that so the boat has sailed on that one
He couldn't- could he?
Is it as simple as they can’t bring themselves to agree with people they dislike?