Warsi was talking about Braverman's racist comments regarding Pakistani grooming gangs. Nothing to do with illegal migrants - or even asylum seekers. You should read the article.
She needs to criticise Alibhai-Brown too then, because she's highly critical of the Pakistani grooming gangs
Everyone should be highly critical of grooming gangs of all kinds. It's wrong to pretend that the problem exists exclusively in the Pakistani community, though.
It's not exclusive but it's highly disproportionate. Bame, left wing journalists like Alibhai-Brown recognise that
The problem for you is, most of the country are concerned about this issue. You and your mates that stand on the corner selling Socialist Worker are greatly in the minority
In your graph, of the top three concerns, the economy and health are descending in imporance and immigration is the only one going up, and mostly that will be illegal immigration. It will be a major factor at the next GE
Not really most of the country. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country if you use the filters it seems that it is mostly people aged 50 plus who voted for Brexit and vote Tory who think immigration and asylum is a key issue. Which is hardly a surprise and these people have a tremendous influence on Tory policy and focus. Although it’s a bit stupid to put legal immigration, genuine asylum seekers and illegal immigration in the same bucket as they are different things, at the same time I’m guessing in the heads of the particular demographic highlighted they aren’t. You yourself leapt from ‘illegal migrants’ (post #84617) ‘we can’t take 1.1 m immigrants’ (post#84619). Is your problem legality or the British governments visa policy and system or both?
Obviously. It’s not like the Tories can point to their sparkling record on the economy, health, education, the environment or anything else so they’ll have to trawl for votes with catchy slogans about immigration and gender-neutral toilets.
You've misquoted me. I did not say "We can't take 1.1m immigrants" in #84619. I said: "1.1 million legal immigrants came into the UK last year. There has to be a finite amount. Voters are saying that's it." My issue is with illegal immigrants coming in through organised crime, without knowing anything about who they are (because often they throw ID into the sea before landing.) 3 days ago we learn 19 terrorists have come in this way, including Islamic State. There is also the issue of numbers. With numbers of illegals increasing every year, it's unsustainable. Most do not want to be moved around the country. They want to be given accomodation in or around London. We already have a housing problem, and neither the Tories or Labour are willing to lose votes by promising a huge housebuilding era. Unsustainable
So it’s the people arriving illegally (including genuine asylum seekers) who you think are making overall immigration ‘unsustainable’? If these (let’s say 80,000 this year) were stopped and we didn’t grant anyone asylum, would you be happy for an extra 80,000 legal, visa carrying immigrants to be admitted, on top of the numbers already arriving by this route?
We should take our share of asylum seekers. They should come in legally and be properly vetted. As to numbers, what you make no mention of, is that the number of illegals is increasing each year, into Europe as well as the UK. We need to assess our annual allocation, as well as of legal migrants. If countries like Rwanda are considered safe, illegals should be sent there. Let them carve out a good life there and enhance that progressive country.
Unless they're from Ukraine, or Hong Kong, or a few Afghans, how do asylum seekers get here legally? Are you saying you're in favour of opening legal routes from other countries? As for the Rwanda plan, it's not just 'illegals' that would be sent there, it's all those arriving in boats, including genuine asylum seekers. The 'progressive' Rwanda is a country that is already more crowded than the UK and where 12 asylum seekers were shot dead by police in 2018 after they protested about their food rations being cut.
The Rwanda plan sounds kind of fun and kooky until you look at the astronomical cost, low number of people Rwanda are willing to have and the people Rwanda have ruled out having (families, kids). So basically we’ll maybe send a few hundred with a fixed cost of £120m plus £20k-£30k each for their relocation plus **** knows what else in legal challenges when they could just live and work here and contribute to our economy and ease our ageing population. I’ve probably missed something. Surely it’s more than a few hundred.
Yes, I think there should be legal routes presumably through British embassies, but as to numbers, we'd include admissions from e.g. the examples of HK and Ukraine you quote, to make up the quota total. Apparently there was violence from the Congolese asylum seekers in 2018. The High Court here has looked at Rwanda today and ruled that it is safe. Let's face it, if you riot in America, you can get shot. Best not to riot at all.
