O/T 48,000 illegal immigrants housed in mainly 4 star UK hotels

[millertop]

Football Fixtures our at nine

Oops wrong board

[wendun]

A thread typically full of obfuscation and disingenuity from the usual suspects. One prominent leftie suggested "most" came from war torn countries and specifically mentioned Syria. In fact most of the Dover mob are from Iran, the second biggest group from Iraq. In a group analysed by the HO of 493, 266 were Iranians, 119 Iraqis, only 47 were Syrians and 13 Afghanis. This finding is supported and replicated by every study made since 2018, eg, Oxford University Migration Observatory which found the majority were (in order) from Iran, Iraq, Eritrea, Pakistan and Albania. Albanians in fact make up the largest group of "clandestine" illegal migrants, ie, those not being brought into ports but arriving hidden in lorries etc. Charities support the HO interpretation that Iranians make up the bulk for the simple reason that they can afford to pay the smugglers. They are not desperate in any usual sense of the word. The main motivation - where it can be established - is that these are single young men, 18-26 aiming to secure better paid employment.
Even were they fleeing war this would not explain "hazardous" Channel crossings as the Syrians (say) are no longer in Syria but in France. Therfore quite clearly the motivation for attempting a crossing can have nothing to do with war but must relate to perceived or actual advantages of UK over France.

[howdydoo]

Is Wanchai in a different timezone?

Appears to be p!ssed up. What a baby.

[ragingpup]

A thread typically full of obfuscation and disingenuity from the usual suspects. One prominent leftie suggested "most" came from war torn countries and specifically mentioned Syria. In fact most of the Dover mob are from Iran, the second biggest group from Iraq. In a group analysed by the HO of 493, 266 were Iranians, 119 Iraqis, only 47 were Syrians and 13 Afghanis. This finding is supported and replicated by every study made since 2018, eg, Oxford University Migration Observatory which found the majority were (in order) from Iran, Iraq, Eritrea, Pakistan and Albania. Albanians in fact make up the largest group of "clandestine" illegal migrants, ie, those not being brought into ports but arriving hidden in lorries etc. Charities support the HO interpretation that Iranians make up the bulk for the simple reason that they can afford to pay the smugglers. They are not desperate in any usual sense of the word. The main motivation - where it can be established - is that these are single young men, 18-26 aiming to secure better paid employment.
Even were they fleeing war this would not explain "hazardous" Channel crossings as the Syrians (say) are no longer in Syria but in France. Therfore quite clearly the motivation for attempting a crossing can have nothing to do with war but must relate to perceived or actual advantages of UK over France.

Fair enough if talking about the channel crossings but Syrians make up one third of all resettled UK asylum seekers, so I was talking about the total amount. Sorry if not clear.

Which charities are you referring to which support the view that Iranians make up the highest numbers as they can afford to pay the smugglers? Not seen that.

If France pays more AS allowance, why are they making the crossing to the UK? Most evidence I have seen supports the view that the majority cross here as 1. They speak English better than other EU languages 2. They have family/friends here 3. They hear that the UK is a fair and good place to work and settle. Why do you think that they are crossing here? It appears the predominant view is that they are coming for our welfare system but this report suggests that other EU countries have more attractive benefit packages: https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/blog/soc...-isnt-britain/

As usual I repeat, just because they are coming here to do a fair days work (on assumption they are) and build a better life for themselves, then that is no reason to take them. I am only happy to fund, via my taxes, those who demonstrate they cannot live in their home country. Of course I would like us to be tight on stopping people from safe countries entering illegally and not granting asylum to those that are just seeking a better life than a safe but poorer country. I don't give anyone who arrives here and then disappears into the Kent night the benefit of any doubt, the less of that the better. But I think we have bigger problems personally, a minority view on here I accept.

[ragingpup]

A radio talk show said yesterday that we accept 90% of Sudanese asylum requests, quite a difference

Have you seen the atrocities that are going on in Sudan? I would expect there to be a high number of accepted asylum cases here or in any country (and I accept Kerr's observations that other countries may not be as honorable as the UK on this, but again, this makes me proud of my country tbh) where Sudanese nationals have landed. What alternative was suggested on the radio show?

[WanChaiMiller]

There are 26m refugees globally. 85% of refugees are hosted in Developing Countries. 50% of refugees are children.

Per country:
Turkey 3.6m+
Jordan 2.9m
Pakistan 1.4m
Columbia 1.7m
Uganda 1.4m
Germany 1.1
Lebenon 1.4
Sudan 1m
Iran 979,000
Bangkadesh 854,000
[Amnesty]

By contrast the UK offered protection to 19,480 people in the year ending September 2019. [UK Gov]

Many wealthier states continue to prioritise policies that will deter people from seeking asylum, and finding ways to stop people coming altogether.* [Amnesty]

Pretty clear we're no where near main destination. Its the poor who pay the price every time.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Have you seen the atrocities that are going on in Sudan? I would expect there to be a high number of accepted asylum cases here or in any country (and I accept Kerr's observations that other countries may not be as honorable as the UK on this, but again, this makes me proud of my country tbh) where Sudanese nationals have landed. What alternative was suggested on the radio show?

Makes you proud if your country?

Fast forward a couple of decades and you will more than likely think differently

[gm_gm]

Have you seen the atrocities that are going on in Sudan? I would expect there to be a high number of accepted asylum cases here or in any country (and I accept Kerr's observations that other countries may not be as honorable as the UK on this, but again, this makes me proud of my country tbh) where Sudanese nationals have landed. What alternative was suggested on the radio show?

I havent seen the atrocities myself as i havent visited Sudan, have you seen the atrocities first hand?

I bet you know someone who has...lol

[ragingpup]

Makes you proud if your country?

Fast forward a couple of decades and you will more than likely think differently

We're a strong economy Gristy, strong enough to tell the EU to kiss our ass and we'll be even stronger out of there. Right?

So I'm sure we can cope with taking our paltry share of approx 20k genuine refugees per year. Need to be a bit tighter with illegal immigration though, I'd agree with that but I agree with Kerr (sorry Kerr!) - no one seems to have any workable answers on here so seems quite a tough one to crack.

[John2]

A thread typically full of obfuscation and disingenuity from the usual suspects.

If you want to talk about obfuscation and disingenuity let me refer you back to this post you made.

Yesterday Lucy Moreton, general secretary of the Immigration Services Union told Radio 4 that we were reaching a crisis point on illegal immigration, that (quote); "hardly any are sent back even if their claims fail", the BBC reported (ragingpup disagrees of course) ""record numbers landing at Dover", that incredibly right wing outlet The Independent mentioned that of 1839 failed asylum claims only 155 had been deported "the rest had disappeared into the Black economy." Today, former head of Immigration Services, Tony Smith, tells the BBC "we are at crisis point." But no, don't listen to these people. Listen instead to Wan and raging who would happily give their wives and daughters to these people rather than look non-PC at their dinner parties. Pathetic.

You make a number of very specific claims about articles here that do not appear to exist. You have been asked to provide links and have failed.

It raises the question, where do you get your information from?

Are you just incompetent at distinguishing credible sources from dodgy ones, or do you literally just make stuff up?

Case in point:
"The Independent mentioned that of 1839 failed asylum claims only 155 had been deported "the rest had disappeared into the Black economy."'

You used a very specific quote that a quick search seems to suggest does not exist.

A search for the numbers used, '1839 failed asylum claims and 155 deportations' does not seem to exist either.

Can you provide a link to the Independent article in question?

Or are you the one guilty of "obfuscation and disingenuity"? Talk us through how you come to end up sharing things like this, do you care whether the information you share and consume is correct?