Motd

[norfolk white]

Maybe Mr Lineker would like to tweet a solution to the immigration problem, he could then indeed receive as many plaudits as he wants.

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

Maybe Mr Lineker would like to tweet a solution to the immigration problem, he could then indeed receive as many plaudits as he wants.

The immigration ‘problem’ is complicated and there are many ‘solutions’ to some the sources but they involve hard work, take a long time, and may not win media headlines.


As a nation we have benefited greatly from immigration (often invasion in earlier centuries).

We also seem to ‘like’ some forms of immigration but dislike others but without being able to articulate clearly the distinction.

There is also a huge disparity of views on the topic business v government v certain personal views. People in London which has the most immigration are more likely to be in favour than those up north.

The young are more likely to be pro than the elderly.

Some economic migrants seem welcome - such as the rich and for a while the Oligarchs - others who want to better themselves and create a better life for their children No so much. Some are genuine refugees (we are 18th in Europe in terms of the numbers taken).

It really isn’t very simple but in order to pander to the right wing press and their largely elderly membership the Tories seem to not see that using vitriolic dehumanising language and playing to the media is the way to go.

Theresa May who is no walk over was scathing in the commons.


It is likely to be overturned if passed in the courts - showing how badly thought out it is but maybe that is the tactic so they can say they tried and go back to blaming people.

The solutions are complex but a start might to crack down on the gangs that organise this and improve conditions in the countries of origin.

Oh and as for a Brexit solving it the position is getting worse in part because the Eu protections against country A allowing immigrants moving to country B have gone - oh the irony of the lies of the Brexiteers - hence why we are paying France 500m

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

I got bored writing the above bit the point being the position is hard and demonising people isn’t very democratic, fair or compassionate.

Good on Mr Lineker

[Monaco_Totty]

Not really sure what's going on within UK of late about above BBC, Lineker media handbags & Government responses but over here in France slightly different carry on.


The amount of nationalities within French football squads has certainly increased our hotel 'sommelier' work load for sure in the restaurant when we get the Ligue1 teams staying over & entourage.
This season his creative non-alcoholic drinks stock range based on the dishes offered have increased by 20% to comply with the players preferences I'm told.


(Apparently France is now one of the fastest-growing no-alcohol markets & stood out for its high level of new consumers, particularly younger people aged 19/30. Last year 14% of consumers said they were alcohol abstainers whereas this year it was up to 20%) - So yeah, many differences between countries 'youth-thinking' & culture nowadays.


Dunno why so many get onto the boats to cross to UK as they're offered accommodation in France with benefits.


As an asylum seeker in France you are entitled to benefit from social rights of health insurance (allows you to access medical care), accommodation (housing), monthly allowance (financial assistance each month), and bank account (called Livret A).


Migrants are entitled to the same social security benefits as French nationals. You have the right to work in France. You have the right to family reunification. You have the possibility of obtaining French nationality through naturalisation as well.


If you wish to apply as a Stateless Person when arriving in France then you can apply in writing (in French) with your surname(s), first name(s), and French address of the applicant, as well as the specific reasons for his/her request.


If you are recognized as stateless, you are entitled to a multi-year residence permit for a maximum of 4 years, renewable, and to a travel documentation.

https://www.connexionfrance.com/arti...France-in-2021

[WTF11]

Not really sure what's going on within UK of late about above BBC, Lineker media handbags & Government responses but over here in France slightly different carry on.


The amount of nationalities within French football squads has certainly increased our hotel 'sommelier' work load for sure in the restaurant when we get the Ligue1 teams staying over & entourage.
This season his creative non-alcoholic drinks stock range based on the dishes offered have increased by 20% to comply with the players preferences I'm told.


(Apparently France is now one of the fastest-growing no-alcohol markets & stood out for its high level of new consumers, particularly younger people aged 19/30. Last year 14% of consumers said they were alcohol abstainers whereas this year it was up to 20%) - So yeah, many differences between countries 'youth-thinking' & culture nowadays.


Dunno why so many get onto the boats to cross to UK as they're offered accommodation in France with benefits.


As an asylum seeker in France you are entitled to benefit from social rights of health insurance (allows you to access medical care), accommodation (housing), monthly allowance (financial assistance each month), and bank account (called Livret A).


Migrants are entitled to the same social security benefits as French nationals. You have the right to work in France. You have the right to family reunification. You have the possibility of obtaining French nationality through naturalisation as well.


If you wish to apply as a Stateless Person when arriving in France then you can apply in writing (in French) with your surname(s), first name(s), and French address of the applicant, as well as the specific reasons for his/her request.


If you are recognized as stateless, you are entitled to a multi-year residence permit for a maximum of 4 years, renewable, and to a travel documentation.

https://www.connexionfrance.com/arti...France-in-2021

Ok, I agree with all the "its very problematic" and "why do they do this" sentiment, but at least some of the answer lies in the question in MTs post "Dunno why so many get on the boats to UK", and the following statement in the same post;

"If you wish to apply as a Stateless Person when arriving in France then you can apply in writing (in French) with your surname(s), first name(s), and French address of the applicant, as well as the specific reasons for his/her request."

So, first off, French is not the "lingua franca" the French would like it to be, and therefore the vast majority (not all) of those camping out at Calais don't speak French. Neither do they have a French address ("Camp outside Port of Calais" won't work). Couple those two factors with the likelihood that the "reason for request" is (if they were honest in their reply) "I'd like a better life than I can get in Afghanistan/Syria/Romania/Albania/Yemen/Morocco etc etc" and putting an asylum "gloss" on that will be difficult (in France or the UK), and the fact that many of those who end up in the boats already have family members in the UK (thanks to the "welcome to all Eastern Europeans" banner displayed on the white cliffs by our dear departed PM, Tony Blair), makes the UK sufficiently attractive for desperate people to adopt desperate measures.

a solution is required, and it already exists, it simply isn't being resourced and managed properly. Asylum processing applicable to applications made to come to the UK, based in France, are already in place, but ridiculously bureaucratic and unwieldy (I understand that applicants have to go to cities far away from the port areas, where consular facilities already exist, which is a nonsense).

It can be done, the attraction of France can be "marketed" better, the principle of asylum being sought in the first safe country an asylum seeker enters could be better enforced (yes, enforced), and the law enforcement agencies across Europe could work more effectively to interrupt the people smuggling gangs, but ALL these measures (and more) have to be employed simultaneously, not in some half-ar5ed piecemeal response to media pressure or political expediency, and it will cost money, but like the old saying goes, "Prevention is better than cure".

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

Ok, I agree with all the "its very problematic" and "why do they do this" sentiment, but at least some of the answer lies in the question in MTs post "Dunno why so many get on the boats to UK", and the following statement in the same post;

"If you wish to apply as a Stateless Person when arriving in France then you can apply in writing (in French) with your surname(s), first name(s), and French address of the applicant, as well as the specific reasons for his/her request."

So, first off, French is not the "lingua franca" the French would like it to be, and therefore the vast majority (not all) of those camping out at Calais don't speak French. Neither do they have a French address ("Camp outside Port of Calais" won't work). Couple those two factors with the likelihood that the "reason for request" is (if they were honest in their reply) "I'd like a better life than I can get in Afghanistan/Syria/Romania/Albania/Yemen/Morocco etc etc" and putting an asylum "gloss" on that will be difficult (in France or the UK), and the fact that many of those who end up in the boats already have family members in the UK (thanks to the "welcome to all Eastern Europeans" banner displayed on the white cliffs by our dear departed PM, Tony Blair), makes the UK sufficiently attractive for desperate people to adopt desperate measures.

a solution is required, and it already exists, it simply isn't being resourced and managed properly. Asylum processing applicable to applications made to come to the UK, based in France, are already in place, but ridiculously bureaucratic and unwieldy (I understand that applicants have to go to cities far away from the port areas, where consular facilities already exist, which is a nonsense).

It can be done, the attraction of France can be "marketed" better, the principle of asylum being sought in the first safe country an asylum seeker enters could be better enforced (yes, enforced), and the law enforcement agencies across Europe could work more effectively to interrupt the people smuggling gangs, but ALL these measures (and more) have to be employed simultaneously, not in some half-ar5ed piecemeal response to media pressure or political expediency, and it will cost money, but like the old saying goes, "Prevention is better than cure".

That makes the assumption that the government can properly and fairly categorise lawful immigration and distinguish it from ‘illegal’ immigration.

There is a BBC series at the moment looking at the Iraq war and told though the eyes of soldiers, civilians and journalists.

Some of it is shocking in the extreme and many look back on it wishing the invasion had never taken place including a leading US commander since retired.

The point being governments tend to be useless at dealing with big issues and a lot of immigrants are coming from countries where we played some role is screwing up their society and ultimately walking away when it got to hard leaving it in the hands of extremists having promised to rebuild the country as a flourishing democratic society.
The reality being we just destroyed things and walked away. Look at Afghanistan too or some of the African countries where the west messed up.

Not sure immigration itself is the issue but the way government tries to manage it.

Shambolic does not do it justice.

Many government ministers come from privileged academic backgrounds where the harsh realities of real life rarely encroach.

[WTF11]

That makes the assumption that the government can properly and fairly categorise lawful immigration and distinguish it from ‘illegal’ immigration.

There is a BBC series at the moment looking at the Iraq war and told though the eyes of soldiers, civilians and journalists.

Some of it is shocking in the extreme and many look back on it wishing the invasion had never taken place including a leading US commander since retired.

The point being governments tend to be useless at dealing with big issues and a lot of immigrants are coming from countries where we played some role is screwing up their society and ultimately walking away when it got to hard leaving it in the hands of extremists having promised to rebuild the country as a flourishing democratic society.
The reality being we just destroyed things and walked away. Look at Afghanistan too or some of the African countries where the west messed up.

Not sure immigration itself is the issue but the way government tries to manage it.

Shambolic does not do it justice.

Many government ministers come from privileged academic backgrounds where the harsh realities of real life rarely encroach.

Lawful immigration (as opposed to those seeking asylum) is controlled by a set of agreed and well-established processes and procedures (such as those seeking to study (the largest body of those seeking to migrate to the UK) and whilst there may be political disagreement as to whether those processes and procedures are adequate, they ARE in place and established in large part by parliamentary statute, aka, the Law.

Those using the small boat route are largely illegal immigrants, applying the tests that the legal immigration process imposes), simply because, for those whose nationality can be established, they originate in countries where no such immigration is allowed without the application for, and granting of, the relevant visas.

As examples;

8% of asylum applications in 2021 were from those originating in Albania
4% of such applications were from those from India or Pakistan
5% of applications were from those from Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Nigeria

So, whilst I wouldn't argue that any of the countries mentioned are exactly paradise, they don't currently have the kind of internal "situation" that exists in (for instance) Iran or Iraq (combined 32%), or Syria and Afghanistan (12%). Why do Albanians destroy their passports (as has been evidenced) and seek to gain entry to the UK as a child when actually a man (as has happened and the person involved went on to murder a trainee Royal Marine). I know exceptions don't make for good law, and I'm not suggesting that example should, but there are at least as many "suspect" asylum claims as genuine ones, and prevention of such would allow the authorities to process genuine ones more quickly, to the benefit of all.

Take the 17% away from those remaining (and even then there are smaller numbers from places where there is no clear and present danger to individuals from the state) and the remaining number becomes more manageable.

By the way, those stats come from here;

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u...the-uk-asylum/

Not a government spin doctor.

We have to start somewhere, and simply because we weren't so good in the past shouldn't prevent us from being better (in all ways) in the future

[Rev72]

Lieneker is a massive hypocrite and if there is one thing in life I can't stand its these arse-holes who take the moral high ground despite having questionable morals themselves.

He is indeed a cnut.

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

Lawful immigration (as opposed to those seeking asylum) is controlled by a set of agreed and well-established processes and procedures (such as those seeking to study (the largest body of those seeking to migrate to the UK) and whilst there may be political disagreement as to whether those processes and procedures are adequate, they ARE in place and established in large part by parliamentary statute, aka, the Law.

Those using the small boat route are largely illegal immigrants, applying the tests that the legal immigration process imposes), simply because, for those whose nationality can be established, they originate in countries where no such immigration is allowed without the application for, and granting of, the relevant visas.

As examples;

8% of asylum applications in 2021 were from those originating in Albania
4% of such applications were from those from India or Pakistan
5% of applications were from those from Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Nigeria

So, whilst I wouldn't argue that any of the countries mentioned are exactly paradise, they don't currently have the kind of internal "situation" that exists in (for instance) Iran or Iraq (combined 32%), or Syria and Afghanistan (12%). Why do Albanians destroy their passports (as has been evidenced) and seek to gain entry to the UK as a child when actually a man (as has happened and the person involved went on to murder a trainee Royal Marine). I know exceptions don't make for good law, and I'm not suggesting that example should, but there are at least as many "suspect" asylum claims as genuine ones, and prevention of such would allow the authorities to process genuine ones more quickly, to the benefit of all.

Take the 17% away from those remaining (and even then there are smaller numbers from places where there is no clear and present danger to individuals from the state) and the remaining number becomes more manageable.

By the way, those stats come from here;

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u...the-uk-asylum/

Not a government spin doctor.

We have to start somewhere, and simply because we weren't so good in the past shouldn't prevent us from being better (in all ways) in the future

Not sure we are disagreeing just looking at different issues involved.

Whilst I don’t disagree you have to start somewhere the government’s approach seems a little bit like the punch line to the old joke about along for directions in Ireland

I wouldn’t be starting from here.

I would quite like to return to the days when I could sometimes respect or even occasionally be proud of what our governments do.

The short to medium term outlook doesn’t look very good from here