Small Boats etc solution

[Andy_Faber]

Sorry, had to eat, not Farleys either.

My points are dependant on the politicians having the gumption and will to take it all serious.
But they don't/haven't

Blair and Brown opened the flood gates.
Immigration rocketed and the UK started to become an attractive draw.
Since then Tories have failed to adapt or plug the issues at hand.
The criminals have seen an opportunity and the levels have risen. It is no coincidence, since Germany/Sweden /Denmark got tougher, the focus has shifted to us. Those countries for example, didn't even give Albainians the time of day, how the hell have we?
By the migrants own admission, France gives them bugger all and the French themselves say our benefits, black market jobs are too atttractive.

I blame our politicians for all this. We are now in a situation we should not be in. Instead of dealing with this in small steps. The axe has to be swung hard.

NB criminals are too protected by the ECHR. Something has to change.
As I said earlier. The known criminal who was being deported got off, lawyers and leading Labour party politicians stepping in.
What happens? he kills someone else.

It isn't the first time either. Break the law in other countries, if you're lucky you get jail and a free flight home. We can't even do that

yes we know all that your position has been well made and we can assume the answer is the same as rA, NO. Which amazingly shows you have common ground, if only at the most obvious level. So give us a list, or a top three, or a top one. you may find some common ground with rA and/or those coming from another viewpoint, and we/you can move on. Edit, excuse this approach but we've spent nearly a decade achieving f*** all interms of any concensus so this might be worth a try for a few days

[Trickytreesreds]

a top one?

1. No one coming in on a boat or lorry, will be considered- period. They weren't in any danger to start with.

Adding-

2. The government gets its paper trail in order with the civil services. Time scales are unacceptable/ as is the money being spent.

3. Uk sets up an immigration application post at Calais(or wherever). Put in your paper work, we read it and consider it.

4. Parliament every year agrees a refugee/asylum quota.

5. British law over rides European law.

[Andy_Faber]

a top one?

1. No one coming in on a boat or lorry, will be considered- period. They weren't in any danger to start with.

with respect, with 2 to 5 youre getting ahead of yourself (or if not yourself, then me)

I'm not sure that NONE of those using boats are in no danger, what happens if the next boat includes an Afghan interpreter wh0's given a decade of service to UK but missed the last plane out of Dodge? Just giving you chance to reconsider before rA sweeps in like Maverick...

[Trickytreesreds]

with respect, with 2 to 5 youre getting ahead of yourself (or if not yourself, then me)

I'm not sure that NONE of those using boats are in no danger, what happens if the next boat includes an Afghan interpreter wh0's given a decade of service to UK but missed the last plane out of Dodge? Just giving you chance to reconsider before rA sweeps in like Maverick...

Nope, he would be in France. Not in any danger. If you don't take the hard line, they will all claim to be Afghan interpreters or an iranian Christian.
That's where your Application depot comes in. Prove to me you was an Afghan interpreter and I'll take you serious.
At the moment, most of them toss their paper work in the channel.

Lets take the Albanians. They don't claim to be refugees or asylum seekers. They have been coached to use May's trafficked card. If you don't accept boats. You can hardly claim to have been trafficked can you?

[swaledale]

Fair enough, and really, really quickly. I know times are tough, and I’m actually not advocating opening our borders to ‘anyone who wants to come’, but honestly the hardships people in this country are having to endure do not compare with those experienced by the unfortunates who, usually through no fault of their own, risk their lives arriving here in small boats having already, in all probability already lost their possessions and, quite possibly, their families. There but for the grace of God and all that.

We remain, although it is sometimes hard to believe, one of the wealthiest countries in the World and yet we are some way behind the likes of France, Germany and Spain (possibly Turkey too) in terms of the number of asylum seekers/refugees we accept. Of course we could all do without them...just as, materially speaking, we could also probably do without the old, the sick, the homeless and the disabled too. They are all an undoubted drain on our resources however we have to be better than that. It is our moral duty, in the same way as we give to charity, to show compassion and care to the weakest members of our society and refugees/asylum seekers are simply an extension of that in terms of being part of a global society.

When times are tough we have not been slow to ‘find’ funds. Consider the money spent during the pandemic, not least the amount spent on furlough or, more recently, on funding and supporting the Ukraine in its fight against Russia. The money spent in connection with the pandemic was, by and large, spent on those who suddenly, again usually through no fault of their own, found themselves amongst the most vulnerable and the amount we have spent on opposing Putin shows that, when we have to, we can find the resources to help the vulnerable from other countries too...indeed the attitude to welcoming those from the Ukraine would seem to be in stark contrast to some people’s (eg TTR’s and the Home Secretary’s) to people who arrive via less conventional, more high profile, means.

Finally, I accept that this shouldn’t be regarded as just a UK problem. It is a global issue and it would help enormously, just as it would with climate change, if the bigger players weren’t as distracted by other issues as they currently are. Unfortunately however that isn’t the way of the world at the moment and, in the meantime, we have a duty to play our part, a leading part hopefully, in trying to help the weakest in society and not treating those same desperate and vulnerable people as an inconvenient irritant to be moved on and abandoned at our earliest convenience. We have to do our fair share and, for once, lead by example again.

As I say...very quick and off the top of my head but ‘challenge’ accepted.

rA, not sure the country could as you put it "do with out them", we need immigration, yes controlled, not necessarily against that, but by far the majority of asylum seekers and refugees are actually talented people who can, do and have made great contributions to the economy, to arts, to services, sport and science.

Mo Farah, Zahawi, refugees who can hardly be described as a drain on the country, thousands of scientists - wasn't the Covid vaccine developed by refugees in Germany.

The hysteria over people arriving by boats is gob smacking - lets be clear, many more arrived by other means pre Brexit. there were hardly any journeys by boat before 2016, wonder what changed? Oh yes Brexit and the UK failing to renegotiate the agreement whereby asylum seekers who had no good reason not to have claimed in the first safe country, could and were returned to that country.

So we have a problem created by the Tory party, now being inflated for base political reasons, yet one which they could resolve fairly easily.

1. Set up a safe route by which refugees and asylum seekers can reach the UK and have their claims processed.
2. Ensure claims are processed quickly and those granted asylum are assisted in being integrated into society and able to work to contribute to that society.
3. Deport those whose claims aren't valid, either back to the first safe country, or their country of origin.
4. Work with the UN and other agencies to target aid in countries where conditions are making people leave.
5. Increase the resources available to the enforcement agencies to address the issue of the people smugglers who operate within the UK.

Now once you have a safe and efficient, fair and effective processing, then by all means ensure that those that arrive by boat ( the numbers would be virtually nil, except for the most desperate/those who wouldn't qualify) gain no advantage over those who apply via the legal route. Indeed it would be entirely possible to ahve an agreement with France that saw them returned to France for processing. I suspect that is what will eventually happen.

I mean for ****s sake, we processed over 250,000 Ukrainians in a short space of time, its entirely possible to do this.

We seem to manage to deport Albanian economic migrants quickly as well, so again its possible to do.

By all means have a cap on numbers included in an overall immigration policy, say 30% of the required immigration per annum (thats not scientifically arrived at, but its possible to set a figure using data I'm sure).

As to how many we require - that's largely determined by what the UK needs to counter its negative birth rate and keep the economy and ***** services running.

Finally of course the government should undertake the required investment in services such as schools, health etc. as any competent government would be doing to cope with the population required.

The simple fact is that if the growth was from a natural high birth rate, then nobody would be wringing their hands about immigration, but would be asking why the government of the day was not investing in the infrastructure and services necessary to cope with that population growth.

One simple fact - the government has failed to provide anywhere near the required numbers of social (council) hosing for over a decade, whilst still selling off those that do exist. Immigration isn't the problem, its intentional government policy which is the issue.

Or would the likes of Farage et al, be asking for the implementation of one child policies, and compulsory euthanasia?

Incidentally, there were at the last count over 1 million empty homes in the UK. Add to that 495,000 second homes and thats a lot of property that isn't used for housing people permanently.

[Andy_Faber]

rA, not sure the country could as you put it "do with out them", we need immigration, yes controlled, not necessarily against that, but by far the majority of asylum seekers and refugees are actually talented people who can, do and have made great contributions to the economy, to arts, to services, sport and science.

Mo Farah, Zahawi, refugees who can hardly be described as a drain on the country, thousands of scientists - wasn't the Covid vaccine developed by refugees in Germany.

The hysteria over people arriving by boats is gob smacking - lets be clear, many more arrived by other means pre Brexit. there were hardly any journeys by boat before 2016, wonder what changed? Oh yes Brexit and the UK failing to renegotiate the agreement whereby asylum seekers who had no good reason not to have claimed in the first safe country, could and were returned to that country.

So we have a problem created by the Tory party, now being inflated for base political reasons, yet one which they could resolve fairly easily.

1. Set up a safe route by which refugees and asylum seekers can reach the UK and have their claims processed.
2. Ensure claims are processed quickly and those granted asylum are assisted in being integrated into society and able to work to contribute to that society.
3. Deport those whose claims aren't valid, either back to the first safe country, or their country of origin.
4. Work with the UN and other agencies to target aid in countries where conditions are making people leave.
5. Increase the resources available to the enforcement agencies to address the issue of the people smugglers who operate within the UK.

Now once you have a safe and efficient, fair and effective processing, then by all means ensure that those that arrive by boat ( the numbers would be virtually nil, except for the most desperate/those who wouldn't qualify) gain no advantage over those who apply via the legal route. Indeed it would be entirely possible to ahve an agreement with France that saw them returned to France for processing. I suspect that is what will eventually happen.

I mean for ****s sake, we processed over 250,000 Ukrainians in a short space of time, its entirely possible to do this.

We seem to manage to deport Albanian economic migrants quickly as well, so again its possible to do.

By all means have a cap on numbers included in an overall immigration policy, say 30% of the required immigration per annum (thats not scientifically arrived at, but its possible to set a figure using data I'm sure).

As to how many we require - that's largely determined by what the UK needs to counter its negative birth rate and keep the economy and ***** services running.

Finally of course the government should undertake the required investment in services such as schools, health etc. as any competent government would be doing to cope with the population required.

The simple fact is that if the growth was from a natural high birth rate, then nobody would be wringing their hands about immigration, but would be asking why the government of the day was not investing in the infrastructure and services necessary to cope with that population growth.

One simple fact - the government has failed to provide anywhere near the required numbers of social (council) hosing for over a decade, whilst still selling off those that do exist. Immigration isn't the problem, its intentional government policy which is the issue.

Or would the likes of Farage et al, be asking for the implementation of one child policies, and compulsory euthanasia?

Incidentally, there were at the last count over 1 million empty homes in the UK. Add to that 495,000 second homes and thats a lot of property that isn't used for housing people permanently.

Don’t spoil this with a rant Swale

[swaledale]

Don’t spoil this with a rant Swale

No idea what you are alluding to, please explain?

[Andy_Faber]

No idea what you are alluding to, please explain?

I’m alluding to the fact that we/I’m trying things a different way, and working through the many differences we have bit by bit. It’s just an idea I had to try to reduce a return to the mudslinging of the past, including between you and I, and based on dispute resolution techniques I used to use and have used on me in industry. Looking at the three respondents above, rA was getting it and confirmed that there are limits even for a liberal like himself. Trickys found it more difficult to actually answer the exam question but he’s getting there. Then in you steam with yet another manifesto. So I’ll assume you have come to this late and I’ll ask you what I asked the other two:

‘do you think U.K. should just open the borders to all comers?’

To save you looking back, rA said no, Tricky said no amongst other things and for the record I say no.

To be fair we could have come at it from totally the other direction but we didn’t, we may do later

What’s your answer?

[ramAnag]

rA, not sure the country could as you put it "do with out them", we need immigration, yes controlled, not necessarily against that, but by far the majority of asylum seekers and refugees are actually talented people who can, do and have made great contributions

Sorry, I think you may have misinterpreted me. I just tire of the likes of Tricky, Braverman, Farage and many others of a right wing persuasion treating refugees/asylum seekers as some sort of ‘Untermensch’ which is, I think, what Gary Lineker was hinting at.

My point, in context, was that, especially at a time when we are recovering from the pandemic and have additional Ukraine generated financial demands to consider it isn’t especially ‘convenient’ to have so many displaced people seeking sanctuary on our shores. The same though is true of many others...those with serious or long term illness, the victims of abuse, those with mental health issues, ex soldiers with PTSD, topically in Derby tonight...those with Special Needs etc...and I wondered where they’d draw the line as regards these other ‘drains on the public purse’.

Fine lines, though relevant I feel to your comments earlier in the thread about fascism....agree with virtually all of the rest of your post.

P.S. Andy...I think Swale has already said ‘no’ too.

[Trickytreesreds]

Sorry, I think you may have misinterpreted me. I just tire of the likes of Tricky, Braverman, Farage and many others of a right wing persuasion treating refugees/asylum seekers as some sort of ‘Untermensch’ which is, I think, what Gary Lineker was hinting at.

My point, in context, was that, especially at a time when we are recovering from the pandemic and have additional Ukraine generated financial demands to consider it isn’t especially ‘convenient’ to have so many displaced people seeking sanctuary on our shores. The same though is true of many others...those with serious or long term illness, the victims of abuse, those with mental health issues, ex soldiers with PTSD, topically in Derby tonight...those with Special Needs etc...and I wondered where they’d draw the line as regards these other ‘drains on the public purse’.

Fine lines, though relevant I feel to your comments earlier in the thread about fascism....agree with virtually all of the rest of your post.

P.S. Andy...I think Swale has already said ‘no’ too.

Whoa, you need to explain that.
Untermensch, what a snotty answer that is.
How is calling for proper border controls in line with untermensch?

Thats low even for you. In fact its another slur to rival the usual racist/nazi/gammon/little englander the left normally resort to, to win an argument.
Congratulations, you've surpassed the conversation.