Small Boats etc solution

[Andy_Faber]

We're onto the old old subject again and its slidingslowly into handbags at dawn

TTR and rA,try this:

In 500 words,

TTR explain how UK a) shows some compassion to those most 'at risk' from persecution and b) fills its many thousands (millions) of vacant job roles to kick the economy back into life WITHOUT a progressive immigration policy

rA explain how we would fund an influx of maybe millions of varying degrees of ability/dependancy/lawfulness if we just opened our borders to anyone who wanted to come

Genuine challenge.

[Trickytreesreds]

We're onto the old old subject again and its slidingslowly into handbags at dawn

TTR and rA,try this:

In 500 words,

TTR explain how UK a) shows some compassion to those most 'at risk' from persecution and b) fills its many thousands (millions) of vacant job roles to kick the economy back into life WITHOUT a progressive immigration policy

rA explain how we would fund an influx of maybe millions of varying degrees of ability/dependancy/lawfulness if we just opened our borders to anyone who wanted to come

Genuine challenge.

I have, if you read my posts.

1. Stop all illegal migration. No compromise nothing. It is a governments job, to defend a nations borders and its citizens.
We took 500 000 into our borders last year, most of them legally coming here for study/work.
That was our choice. The VISA system is there to vet those workers/students and ensure the undesirables are kept out. EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD DOES THIS. This is not as Lineker described, an anti foreigner country like 1930's Germany.

2.The VISA system has to cover all aspects of immigration and where the job market is concerned, it mostly does. Where this has fallen down, is that now we aint in the EU, the cheap labour cannot come here and claim all the benefits that the nationals do anymore.
Not our problem it doesn't suit their gimme all lifestyle and its a wage structure thing.
Someone coming here claiming housing benefit. child benefit,healthcare etc, whilst working minimum wage isn't adding to the treasury. That is exactly what was happening before. Yes for some industrialists, it helped, but for others it didn't as it impacted their quality of life.
But if we need seasonal workers, something needs to be worked out.
An example would be, Germany in the 70s needed workers and let them work, not paying tax. Your seasonal workers might accept that, blitzing the hours then going home after 4 months.

2. Refugees- The refugee system is broken. I think we can all agree on that. So what do we do?
a. Sort your own house out first. The back log is unacceptable and a claim for help or asylum should be done inside 2 weeks, not 2 years.
This is a massive restructure in itself and needs some serious input.

Fail and you are properly removed. Back to your point of origin/ back to your last point of departure/ or a neutral place like Rawanda.
Accepted fine. Though things have to change-
Single males are not going in hotels though. Those are for the vulnerable and children.
Education programme for all as well, to make integration easier and cut down on trouble. Language/social skills/ law training/ethics
We do not need to see a Sweden/Denmark/Germany problem getting hold here.

b. A proper way of claiming asylum set up, without coming here first, unless invited.
Be it a centre near an embassy abroad. Or a central european organisation, that is dealing with the bigger issue. Unless you have registered in Europe, don't even try that either. The channels have to be clear and paying crimianals to get your way, will not be tolerated, not will jumping into vehicles.

Paid a gangster thousands to defeat that system , then jog on. That includes lorry jumpers and tunnel jumpers as well. You wasn't that vulnerable to have the money or time to cherry pick your destination.

3. Asylum/ tempoary refuge
The government needs to have an agreed number of places available for entry. This must be based on all costings/ services/ accomadation to be covered for.
You can not deal fairly and humanely with any claimant, by over booking and exceeding your limits. Which is exactly whats happening now, despite what GL says.
This is what grates me the most. This country for the last 100+ years, has been a rock of shelter for the vulnerable. But it is not a bottomless pit of space/money/ resources. Those we take in, need to be dealt with properly.
Single men 18-35 do not have the right to outjump women and children in peril.

4. Commitment. The Uk and EU. need to get their acts together.
The EU borders are a joke, Too many get in by illicit means, through the porous outer borders. RNG boats acting as taxis, ferrying migrants from Areas, that don't even warrent help.

The EU allows folks to travel too easily internally, once the outer rim is breeched. This is a SCHENGEN problem and their stubborn pride stops them doing something about it. It also allows failed or non true refugees the license to roam. The black market rises as does crime. Some of it seriously organised. Fail to get asylum there, they simply move on to another country and try their luck there.

So, Europe needs to get together on this.
EU needs to man up and agree its a problem. The ECHR is doing more interfering with sense than good.
We have some countries taking in too many. Merkel starting this, with her cries of come unto me my children.
Some taken next to nothing,( hint hint )Poland ./ Hungary.

Europe has to collectively agree, that anyone found to not being genuine refugees/asylum seekers need detaining and deporting properly. It isn't happening enough. Just saying no then releasing them, is fuelling the influx. They think that, getting to Europe and you've cracked it. The opportunities are limitless. You don't have to be in the EU to have this, not matter how many zealots like Verhofstadt shout it.

The UK and Europe does not owe the 3rd world a better life, just because yours is ****.
People moaned at the foreign aid bugdget being cut? Funnily enough that it wasn't when we are spending £7million a day on hotel bills alone.

I could have been harder, but that would require a complete brake putting on all of it.
I'll get enough flak for what I've written

[ramAnag]

We're onto the old old subject again and its slidingslowly into handbags at dawn

TTR and rA,try this:

In 500 words,

TTR explain how UK a) shows some compassion to those most 'at risk' from persecution and b) fills its many thousands (millions) of vacant job roles to kick the economy back into life WITHOUT a progressive immigration policy

rA explain how we would fund an influx of maybe millions of varying degrees of ability/dependancy/lawfulness if we just opened our borders to anyone who wanted to come

Genuine challenge.

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.

[Andy_Faber]

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.

That’s a lot about your ethos rA and very laudable (that’s sincere not sarcasm) and to summarise you’ll ‘find the money from somewhere’. I’ll let you off the massive word count over run, you should have been a journalist

[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?

[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.

[ramAnag]

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.

‘Snotty answer’...‘low even for you’...now, coming from you of all people, that’s funny!

‘Untermensch’, defined in ‘30’s Germany as ‘inferior people’ or ‘the masses from the East’, i.e. the Jews, the Slavs, the Roma. A term further applied to those of mixed race, those who were black and those who were mentally and/or physically disabled. Basically all those who those in power in Germany at the time we have been speaking of regarded as sub human.

Ring any bells compared with the rhetoric of today? It’s what the newly reinstated Mr. Lineker was talking about and in answer to your particularly daft question...of course, ‘calling for proper border controls’ has nothing to do with it. They are quite separate.

I’m sorry if you feel the need to add it to you list of forbidden words when describing current government attitudes. Incidentally...you might like to look up the meaning of ‘surpassed’.