hate to say this but if they can afford thousands probably not a real refugee..... or why not go through process in france .... cheaper than a flimsy boat at thousands off pounds a hate to say this even more but only way to stop boats is to shoot n sink them they will stop coming then ....horrible to say... but thats only way to stop it quickly .... 6 million a day...... get it sorted tories ........... we need to help our own first with this cost off living crisis ... get the refugees here processed and make it crystal clear any more coming will be returned to there own country and send them straight back.....then they have to go through the right process in france to get here .... its hard but only way to give people on south coast down there a rest from it the country already overpopulated down south and it needs to stop sorry folks really horrible way to say it but needs to be ----
By contrast, as Glasto yesterday, it's heartening to see our younger generation showing a little more compassion, tolerance & understanding.
"Scottish trio Young Fathers, who dedicated their scathing polemic Shame to Home Scretary Suella Braverman, before leading the audience in a chant of: "Say it loud and say it clear, refugees are welcome here.""
It is always problematic bringing up the question of race in relation to immigration. But sometimes I feel it is necessary.
I'm not saying this Government is racist. What I am saying is that unconscious bias is not something exclusive to White people.
Compare & contrast the different approaches in relation to refugees and economic migrants to this country.
Refugees tend to be from desperately poor countries, and are often comprised of desperate people who feel they have no option but to pay gangmasters £thousands to try and come here. They are now termed "illegal immigrants" simply because the Law has changed to make them illegal.
Whereas more than 95% of people who currently enter this country do so legally. The majority have a range of options, often being from developed, Asian countries.
There are people who believe the hundreds of thousands entering this country for education are doing so because of our high standards of education. But that does not explain the explosion on numbers-we have had just as good standards of education for decades. Could at least part of the reason be that people coming here know there is a high possibility that these people will remain here after their education? Why are there no reliable statistics about how many students leave? Because, currently, more students enter this country every year than the total leaving for any reason.
We have a Government that demonises the desperate, yet waves in unprecedented numbers of economic migrants. And a majority of the decision-makers in our Government have previously been economic migrants, and have previously gone abroad to further their education, some (such as our PM) previously choosing to be a permanent resident of another country as part of that. And, consequently, allow their own experiences to colour their judgment.
Not saying that is necessarily the case. But it would at least partly explain why we seek to denigrate the desperate, while welcoming the middle class entrants.
For him it was the USA, for us it's Great Britain. Less than 1% of the world are lucky enough to have been born in Great Britain. We have a civilised society & a decent standard of living, & free healthcare & enough jobs to go round. We got seriously lucky.
It behoves us all to remember that, & show a little tolerance, compassion & understanding to those who lost the ovarian lottery, & were born in a country where they don't have the advantages we have. Relatively speaking, it costs us very little to share our luck with those less fortunate. Is it so bad to allow others the chance of a better life?
For him it was the USA, for us it's Great Britain. Less than 1% of the world are lucky enough to have been born in Great Britain. We have a civilised society & a decent standard of living, & free healthcare & enough jobs to go round. We got seriously lucky.
It behoves us all to remember that, & show a little tolerance, compassion & understanding to those who lost the ovarian lottery, & were born in a country where they don't have the advantages we have. Relatively speaking, it costs us very little to share our luck with those less fortunate. Is it so bad to allow others the chance of a better life?
Completely agree.
Unfortunately, right now, we only want to share our luck with the fortunate. While using the unfortunate as both a punching bag and a smokescreen.
By contrast, as Glasto yesterday, it's heartening to see our younger generation showing a little more compassion, tolerance & understanding.
"Scottish trio Young Fathers, who dedicated their scathing polemic Shame to Home Scretary Suella Braverman, before leading the audience in a chant of: "Say it loud and say it clear, refugees are welcome here.""
Bravo the kids, & peace to all.
Showing compassion is admirable. We should all feel empathy for those less fortunate than we are. This should apply to everyone, including those in this country. Some of the asylum seekers will have heartbreaking stories. Many people seem to find it difficult to differentiate between those that arrive, they put all arrivals in the same boat, so to speak. Asylum seekers will usually be fleeing persecution, war, famines etc, It is only right that we feel empathy for them, but surely we have implement some controls to limit the numbers. Surely nobody is suggesting that we accept asylum seekers in unlimited numbers. What if the people traffickers get their act together and increase the numbers. What if they double, treble, or quadruple the total. So how do we draw the line? Where do we draw the line? @Essexphil has pointed out that small boat arrivals are currently a small percentage of the net migration total, but they still represent a significant number. Of course the Governments complete failure to process their applications in a reasonable time, only exacerbates the problem.
The people traffickers will send over as many boats as they can. Good weather allows them to send more. While feeling empathy for them. I cant see that it makes any sense for us to be at the mercy of the weather, and people traffickers, as to how many we get. Even if extreme measures like those suggested above, were adopted, then the people traffickers would simply acquire more boats. I cant see this type of solution would ever be implemented, but you couldnt be certain, with this Tory Government.
The whole system is a mess in this country and Europe. Asylum seekers are supposed to apply for asylum at the first safe country in Europe. This clearly doesnt happen. Although if it was, then it would surely be unfair on the small number of countries that the overwhelming majority arrive at. Whoever thought up our rules was an idiot. To insist that applications can only considered from those on British soil, can only encourage the boats. Maybe putting in place a system where applications were accepted from elsewhere could improve the situation. For instance, if we accepted applications from asylum seekers in France, it may discourage at least some, from making dangerous crossings.
Another problem is that in this country many people say that they feel empathy for the less fortunate asylum seekers, as long as they dont live near them. It seems that every time there is a proposal to house asylum seekers in significant numbers, there is local outrage, and many objections. This occurs whether they are to be accommodated in hotels, barges, or military bases.
The whole thing is broken in the UK and Europe. Boris wanted more visas for brain surgeons. Yet they dont fill vacancies in social care, hospitality, agriculture etc.
I am sure that the fact that we seem unable to implement any controls increases the number of people that are against immigration in general.
I think that the only way to stop the boats is unfortunately to send them all back. Nothing else will work. This should coincide with applications being accepted from elsewhere. An asylum seeker that was lets say in France, and faced with a choice of paying a people trafficker £10k to cross the channel in a small boat, and assumed that if they were successful, they would definitely be returned to France, or they could submit an application from France, there is no question in my mind which choice they would make. They wouldnt waste the £10k, and the boats would immediately stop. We would have to create safe routes, and pull our weight. We should set a number that we are prepared to accept, be in control, and feel empathy for those that were successful, as well as those that werent.
Left at the mercy of the Taliban: How Afghans who fought with British forces are being beaten, tortured and executed... while they desperately plead for sanctuary here in Britain
Afghans who fought alongside British forces are being beaten, tortured and executed by the Taliban as they wait to hear if they can relocate to the UK. New UK government figures show that there are still 61,907 cases yet to receive an eligibility decision although officials believe the vast majority will not qualify to come to Britain under the flagship Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy. The government estimates 4,300 'eligible' Afghans, including family members, are entitled to sanctuary in Britain but most are unable to escape from the country, with many living in hiding, terrified they will face Taliban revenge for working for Britain.
Always love it when the old "commercial sensitivities" argument gets trotted out.
It's not "commercially sensitive"-it is taxpayers money we are talking about.
Regardless of anyone's personal stance on immigration, there are commercial realities in relation to achieving certain objectives.
The whole Rwanda argument is rubbish on every level. If people are seeking asylum here, we have various choices. Process the applications here. Process then abroad, say in France.
But the nut worst option is the "Rwanda" solution. Because it is patently ridiculous to ignore an application to live here and try and force them to live somewhere totally different. It breaches just about every Law in relation to Refugees. It is fraught with massive logistical and (expensive) legal difficulties. Is more expensive than every other option. And is clearly not working.
The barges? Bunch of problems. This Government seems to fail to realise the costs and logistics involved. And I fear that lumping a bunch of people together in this way will lead to health problems reminiscent of the concentration camps set up by the UK in the Boer War.
This Government seems intent on trying to stop us being a Democratic nation.
1. A Parliamentary Committee is not a Court. Yet it has the power to end careers. It is able to publish findings about its "rulings" with impunity. Yet if anyone dares criticise its findings, they are to face punishment. So-7 MPs can attack 1 MP. But if that 1 MP dares to try to attack those 7 MPs, his "punishment" is to increase from 20 days' suspension to 90 days.
2. We face the prospect of this Government taking steps to subdue "rebellious" peers (that would be those that dare to have a different opinion to the Govt). So they will institute the Parliamentary equivalent of water torture:-forcing regular all-night sittings and votes repeatedly until they get the result they demand. All this while preparing to ignore any findings by UK Judges (never mind international ones) in relation to the legality of the 21st Century Slave trading to Rwanda.
Sack Braverman. Pretend it is all her fault. As opposed to the entire Govt.
Continue to fail to actually process asylum applications. Desperately try and make the next election about race and immigration. Rather than the Economy.
Comments
@legascaac
Hi mate,
There are right-wing websites dedicated to that sort of stuff, but this is not one of them. Please, no more hate speech.
TIA
"Scottish trio Young Fathers, who dedicated their scathing polemic Shame to Home Scretary Suella Braverman, before leading the audience in a chant of: "Say it loud and say it clear, refugees are welcome here.""
Bravo the kids, & peace to all.
I'm not saying this Government is racist. What I am saying is that unconscious bias is not something exclusive to White people.
Compare & contrast the different approaches in relation to refugees and economic migrants to this country.
Refugees tend to be from desperately poor countries, and are often comprised of desperate people who feel they have no option but to pay gangmasters £thousands to try and come here. They are now termed "illegal immigrants" simply because the Law has changed to make them illegal.
Whereas more than 95% of people who currently enter this country do so legally. The majority have a range of options, often being from developed, Asian countries.
There are people who believe the hundreds of thousands entering this country for education are doing so because of our high standards of education. But that does not explain the explosion on numbers-we have had just as good standards of education for decades. Could at least part of the reason be that people coming here know there is a high possibility that these people will remain here after their education? Why are there no reliable statistics about how many students leave? Because, currently, more students enter this country every year than the total leaving for any reason.
We have a Government that demonises the desperate, yet waves in unprecedented numbers of economic migrants. And a majority of the decision-makers in our Government have previously been economic migrants, and have previously gone abroad to further their education, some (such as our PM) previously choosing to be a permanent resident of another country as part of that. And, consequently, allow their own experiences to colour their judgment.
Not saying that is necessarily the case. But it would at least partly explain why we seek to denigrate the desperate, while welcoming the middle class entrants.
Worth reading what Warren Buffett calls "The Ovarian Lottery".
https://www.sloww.co/ovarian-lottery/
For him it was the USA, for us it's Great Britain. Less than 1% of the world are lucky enough to have been born in Great Britain. We have a civilised society & a decent standard of living, & free healthcare & enough jobs to go round. We got seriously lucky.
It behoves us all to remember that, & show a little tolerance, compassion & understanding to those who lost the ovarian lottery, & were born in a country where they don't have the advantages we have. Relatively speaking, it costs us very little to share our luck with those less fortunate. Is it so bad to allow others the chance of a better life?
Unfortunately, right now, we only want to share our luck with the fortunate. While using the unfortunate as both a punching bag and a smokescreen.
We should all feel empathy for those less fortunate than we are.
This should apply to everyone, including those in this country.
Some of the asylum seekers will have heartbreaking stories.
Many people seem to find it difficult to differentiate between those that arrive, they put all arrivals in the same boat, so to speak.
Asylum seekers will usually be fleeing persecution, war, famines etc,
It is only right that we feel empathy for them, but surely we have implement some controls to limit the numbers.
Surely nobody is suggesting that we accept asylum seekers in unlimited numbers.
What if the people traffickers get their act together and increase the numbers.
What if they double, treble, or quadruple the total.
So how do we draw the line?
Where do we draw the line?
@Essexphil has pointed out that small boat arrivals are currently a small percentage of the net migration total, but they still represent a significant number.
Of course the Governments complete failure to process their applications in a reasonable time, only exacerbates the problem.
The people traffickers will send over as many boats as they can.
Good weather allows them to send more.
While feeling empathy for them. I cant see that it makes any sense for us to be at the mercy of the weather, and people traffickers, as to how many we get.
Even if extreme measures like those suggested above, were adopted, then the people traffickers would simply acquire more boats.
I cant see this type of solution would ever be implemented, but you couldnt be certain, with this Tory Government.
The whole system is a mess in this country and Europe.
Asylum seekers are supposed to apply for asylum at the first safe country in Europe.
This clearly doesnt happen.
Although if it was, then it would surely be unfair on the small number of countries that the overwhelming majority arrive at.
Whoever thought up our rules was an idiot.
To insist that applications can only considered from those on British soil, can only encourage the boats.
Maybe putting in place a system where applications were accepted from elsewhere could improve the situation.
For instance, if we accepted applications from asylum seekers in France, it may discourage at least some, from making dangerous crossings.
Another problem is that in this country many people say that they feel empathy for the less fortunate asylum seekers, as long as they dont live near them.
It seems that every time there is a proposal to house asylum seekers in significant numbers, there is local outrage, and many objections.
This occurs whether they are to be accommodated in hotels, barges, or military bases.
The whole thing is broken in the UK and Europe.
Boris wanted more visas for brain surgeons.
Yet they dont fill vacancies in social care, hospitality, agriculture etc.
I am sure that the fact that we seem unable to implement any controls increases the number of people that are against immigration in general.
I think that the only way to stop the boats is unfortunately to send them all back.
Nothing else will work.
This should coincide with applications being accepted from elsewhere.
An asylum seeker that was lets say in France, and faced with a choice of paying a people trafficker £10k to cross the channel in a small boat, and assumed that if they were successful, they would definitely be returned to France, or they could submit an application from France, there is no question in my mind which choice they would make.
They wouldnt waste the £10k, and the boats would immediately stop.
We would have to create safe routes, and pull our weight.
We should set a number that we are prepared to accept, be in control, and feel empathy for those that were successful, as well as those that werent.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/allowing-asylum-seekers-to-work-in-uk-would-add-over-1bn-to-economy-as-cross-party-mps-back-change/ar-AA1d01Bj?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=1ff81783b57f495597a02741b236916a&ei=22
Afghans who fought alongside British forces are being beaten, tortured and executed by the Taliban as they wait to hear if they can relocate to the UK. New UK government figures show that there are still 61,907 cases yet to receive an eligibility decision although officials believe the vast majority will not qualify to come to Britain under the flagship Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy. The government estimates 4,300 'eligible' Afghans, including family members, are entitled to sanctuary in Britain but most are unable to escape from the country, with many living in hiding, terrified they will face Taliban revenge for working for Britain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12226749/How-Afghans-fought-British-forces-beaten-pleading-sanctuary-Britain.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/campaigners-alarmed-rejection-refugees-using-060002671.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/government-says-does-not-know-160751981.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/asylum-barge-plan-unworkable-critics-say-after-braverman-s-missed-target/ar-AA1d3d9r?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c7b847a378d74dc482972fae197c01cf&ei=57
It's not "commercially sensitive"-it is taxpayers money we are talking about.
Regardless of anyone's personal stance on immigration, there are commercial realities in relation to achieving certain objectives.
The whole Rwanda argument is rubbish on every level. If people are seeking asylum here, we have various choices. Process the applications here. Process then abroad, say in France.
But the nut worst option is the "Rwanda" solution. Because it is patently ridiculous to ignore an application to live here and try and force them to live somewhere totally different. It breaches just about every Law in relation to Refugees. It is fraught with massive logistical and (expensive) legal difficulties. Is more expensive than every other option. And is clearly not working.
The barges? Bunch of problems. This Government seems to fail to realise the costs and logistics involved. And I fear that lumping a bunch of people together in this way will lead to health problems reminiscent of the concentration camps set up by the UK in the Boer War.
Security barriers, tents, food stalls, toilets.
Sounds perfect
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/braverman-ally-hints-new-cabinet-row-about-to-erupt-over-unbearable-immigration-figures/ar-AA1d7XZO?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=e9582166b2414bed9f2cf2fc39a66f80&ei=89
1. A Parliamentary Committee is not a Court. Yet it has the power to end careers. It is able to publish findings about its "rulings" with impunity. Yet if anyone dares criticise its findings, they are to face punishment. So-7 MPs can attack 1 MP. But if that 1 MP dares to try to attack those 7 MPs, his "punishment" is to increase from 20 days' suspension to 90 days.
2. We face the prospect of this Government taking steps to subdue "rebellious" peers (that would be those that dare to have a different opinion to the Govt). So they will institute the Parliamentary equivalent of water torture:-forcing regular all-night sittings and votes repeatedly until they get the result they demand. All this while preparing to ignore any findings by UK Judges (never mind international ones) in relation to the legality of the 21st Century Slave trading to Rwanda.
When did we cease being a civilised country?
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/suella-braverman-stop-boat-policy-184346116.html
Sack Braverman. Pretend it is all her fault. As opposed to the entire Govt.
Continue to fail to actually process asylum applications. Desperately try and make the next election about race and immigration. Rather than the Economy.