Election Year or Fear!

[SithHappens]

Makes me wonder, if that?s true, why Ireland are having almost exactly the same problems

no idea considering the regulation we can no longer use because of brexit is called the Dublin regulation.

Unless it has since been resolved but one doubts it. I suppose depends where those appearing in Ireland have come from, if via the UK maybe that's why

Of course our nige has promised to sort it, without actually detailing how he's going to legally achieve it.

[Geoff Parkstone]

no idea considering the regulation we can no longer use because of brexit is called the Dublin regulation.

Unless it has since been resolved but one doubts it. I suppose depends where those appearing in Ireland have come from, if via the UK maybe that's why

Of course our nige has promised to sort it, without actually detailing how he's going to legally achieve it.

A promise to sort it is at least one step closer than doing f**k even if it's a false promise

[SithHappens]

A promise to sort it is at least one step closer than doing f**k even if it's a false promise

He did promise an inquiry on the rape gangs, that's gone quiet

[SithHappens]

US economy shrinks for 1st time in years but Don says it's Biden as fault.

[ramAnag]

US economy shrinks for 1st time in years but Don says it's Biden as fault.

Well he’s made my GBP go further for my forthcoming US trip and he’s doing ever so well in the snooker.

[MadAmster]

All very reasonable questions.... But we may end up short on Uber drivers 😄😄

My wife and her mother recently had 5 days in Madrid. All the taxi drivers spoke English. Maybe you should try that in the UK...

[swaledale]

A promise to sort it is at least one step closer than doing f**k even if it's a false promise

How exactly? If its false promise then by definition (at least in my understanding of the word false, you may have a different take) its not a step closer to doing something is it?

[swaledale]

Why is Labour bringing all these boat people into the country?

Why aren't they intercepting them mid channel and taking them back to France?

Why aren't the illegals having their claims dealt with quickly and efficiently and being deported if their claim is rejected?

Why aren't those who break the Law having their claims immediately refused and sent packing? Not talking about parking offence levels of Law breaking but violence theft and the like.

Why aren't they being given "training" in what is acceptable behaviour under UK Law and then be told, in no uncertain terms, that infringements such as violence theft etc will lead to immediate deportation. Preferably back to their own country but, if that's impossible as they had no ID papers/passport and won't say where they come from, a DNA test will be carried out to ascertain their probable origin and send them there.

If I was to kill 'er next door, I'd get a prison sentence. After I'd served it, I'd have my Dutch nationality rescinded, be noted as persona non grata and sent back to Blighty. That should happen to illegal immigrants too, although, having been found guilty and sentenced, merely deporting them back to wherever would save a lot of money on prison costs...

1. Labour isn't bringing them into the country, they or rather the traffickers do that.

2. Who do you suggest does the intercepting (the Navy isn't equipped and they and the border force are reluctant for obvious reasons to break international law. Plus we haven't the resources and once they reach UK territorial waters they become the UK responsibility.

3. The last Tory government mismanaged the processing of Asylum Seekers and built up a huge backlog (by the way factually they aren't illegal) plus seemed incapable of deporting those that had failed claims. Labour has cracked on with this, having according to its claims deported 16,000 and continuing to do so. One might think that the Tories deliberately created situation for political purposes, but that would be cynical. One might also believe that the minority of cases where legal issues hold up deportation are the norm when in fact that isn't the case. A case in point is the return agreement with Albania which Labour sorted pretty quickly and its unclear why the Tories couldn't.

4. Because the UK does actually operate with due process, in accordance with domestic and international law and whilst it might seem convenient in certain circumstances to dispense with this, I'd say that Trump is evidence that might not be advisable. Principally because the next people who are dealt with in such a manner might be you, your family or friends.

Of course IF the UK actually had on Brexit, reached an agreement with France (it was offered) to set up an Asylum processing centre in Calais and didn't insist that apart from certain select groups, a person can only claim asylum when in the UK, then there would be hardly any people crossing in boats as was the case prior to Brexit.

5. Asylum seekers are a very small percentage of immigrants and of an even smaller percentage actually commit crimes but of course these are the ones amplified by right wing commentators and the media, whereas a white bloke can slaughter his ex girl friend, her kids and a kids fried having a sleep over and it barely reaches the national press.

We are back to due process and the law with regards to immediate deportation, but its perfectly possible to do this legally and in fact does happen, funnily enough such cases are again hardly if ever reported on.

6. It would and does happen to anybody who is convicted, that they get an appropriate sentence and then deported at the end of that sentence, sometimes they get transferred to serve that sentence in their country of origin. But not sure that deporting someone convicted of murder with no certainty they would be in prison is advisable.


In summary, the situation is less of an issue than the right wing politicians and media make out, or would be IF it was managed properly. The UK takes in a smaller proportion of asylum seekers than almost any other European country. Asylum seekers are no more prevalent to commit crimes than anybody else.

Lastly the shortage of housing, the lack of capacity in the NHS is NOT due to immigration but mostly down to a government that over the past 14 years failed to invest in social housing and services at a rate which reflected the population growth and the fact that the richest people in this country and elsewhere have increased their wealth exponentially whilst the majority of the population's income has been stagnant.

[Geoff Parkstone]

1. Labour isn't bringing them into the country, they or rather the traffickers do that.

2. Who do you suggest does the intercepting (the Navy isn't equipped and they and the border force are reluctant for obvious reasons to break international law. Plus we haven't the resources and once they reach UK territorial waters they become the UK responsibility.

3. The last Tory government mismanaged the processing of Asylum Seekers and built up a huge backlog (by the way factually they aren't illegal) plus seemed incapable of deporting those that had failed claims. Labour has cracked on with this, having according to its claims deported 16,000 and continuing to do so. One might think that the Tories deliberately created situation for political purposes, but that would be cynical. One might also believe that the minority of cases where legal issues hold up deportation are the norm when in fact that isn't the case. A case in point is the return agreement with Albania which Labour sorted pretty quickly and its unclear why the Tories couldn't.

4. Because the UK does actually operate with due process, in accordance with domestic and international law and whilst it might seem convenient in certain circumstances to dispense with this, I'd say that Trump is evidence that might not be advisable. Principally because the next people who are dealt with in such a manner might be you, your family or friends.

Of course IF the UK actually had on Brexit, reached an agreement with France (it was offered) to set up an Asylum processing centre in Calais and didn't insist that apart from certain select groups, a person can only claim asylum when in the UK, then there would be hardly any people crossing in boats as was the case prior to Brexit.

5. Asylum seekers are a very small percentage of immigrants and of an even smaller percentage actually commit crimes but of course these are the ones amplified by right wing commentators and the media, whereas a white bloke can slaughter his ex girl friend, her kids and a kids fried having a sleep over and it barely reaches the national press.

We are back to due process and the law with regards to immediate deportation, but its perfectly possible to do this legally and in fact does happen, funnily enough such cases are again hardly if ever reported on.

6. It would and does happen to anybody who is convicted, that they get an appropriate sentence and then deported at the end of that sentence, sometimes they get transferred to serve that sentence in their country of origin. But not sure that deporting someone convicted of murder with no certainty they would be in prison is advisable.


In summary, the situation is less of an issue than the right wing politicians and media make out, or would be IF it was managed properly. The UK takes in a smaller proportion of asylum seekers than almost any other European country. Asylum seekers are no more prevalent to commit crimes than anybody else.

Lastly the shortage of housing, the lack of capacity in the NHS is NOT due to immigration but mostly down to a government that over the past 14 years failed to invest in social housing and services at a rate which reflected the population growth and the fact that the richest people in this country and elsewhere have increased their wealth exponentially whilst the majority of the population's income has been stagnant.

Good grief it took you until point 5 to unveil the tired old blame it on the right wing media refrain - must be something of a record.

Put half a dozen of the boats onto the bottom of the channel and numbers trying to cross would drop dramatically. If as in your point 5 asylum seekers are such a small porportion of immigrants, then the rest sent to see Davy Jones must by definition be illegals?

As to whether such illegals carry out more crime, I guess the answer lies in the fact tht poverty and deprivation leads anyone (migdant or not) to turn to crime more readily. In my view the connection between illegals and for instance (to cite TTR) grooming gangs is far from proven as this has been a blight on society for much longer that the channel crossings - far more likely legal migrants/second generation if indeed an ethnic issue.

[Andy_Faber]

I suppose depends where those appearing in Ireland have come from, if via the UK maybe that's why

To my knowledge, from UK, and there are many thousand, drawn there because it looks a better ?bet? than the UK . They just walk/drive/catch a bus across the (open of course) border, if they are caught by the police they are shipped straight back (I believe to the mainland but not sure how that works), if ?caught? by the ?immigrants welcome? crowd they are basically ?home?. Info from my non-existent Nurse friend, and she is currently in the Deep South (Enniscorthy) so it must be more prevalent further north