Off Topic Migrant crisis

[lardiman]

I don't believe in an arbitrary number or target.
Such a number only serves politicians and newspaper headline writers. Not the needs of the Nation.

If we appear to need 400,000 or 500,000 migrants to do the jobs UK folk won't do (until ways are found to get them to) then that's the number we need.
I heard on the radio today there are around 150,000 unfilled jobs in the Care sector, most of those home carers.
God alone knows how many vacancies there are for nurses.
Very concerning that with net migration at 750,000 all those care & NHS positions are still unfilled.

What we need is Health & Care Ministries that are capable of working out who is needed where, and a Home Office that lets in the people we need.
(and in the longer term, proper training programmes and pay/conditions so we can create our own health & care staff).
That's easy to say.
But it is obvious that doing it is far beyond the ability of our failed Government.
We need competence and co-ordinated action. The kind we got when the NHS was created after WW2.
Instead we get headless chickens who have utterly failed to control immigration demonising the migrants.
Wanting anybody to be blamed except themselves.

 

[Ponders Revisited]

Talk of cutting the numbers by 300k per year is pie in the sky. Sunak has more chance of digging a quarry with a teaspoon than reducing migration. If anything, the number will increase next year.

Trouble is, not all migrants come to take jobs in healthcare or other public services. There are plenty who wander in with the aim of taking advantage of our hospitality. A strong government would weed out the dross whilst rewarding the good - but again, that is not going to happen with this current shower.

 

[The Penguin]

Global population growth is a taboo subject for some reason, and it shouldn't be.

 

[Ubedizzy2]

Interesting read. Talk of 30 French Police Officers being severely injured in the past weeks fighting migrants and smugglers.

Good the figures are down a bit, but just highlights that these are NOT the sort of people we should be allowing to stay in this country.

One way or another, every single person who crosses the channel this way must be deported or locked up and then deported.

And if Rwanda isn’t the answer then another way must be found.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67763798

 

[Smudger603]

Interesting read. Talk of 30 French Police Officers being severely injured in the past weeks fighting migrants and smugglers.

Good the figures are down a bit, but just highlights that these are NOT the sort of people we should be allowing to stay in this country.

One way or another, every single person who crosses the channel this way must be deported or locked up and then deported.

And if Rwanda isn’t the answer then another way must be found.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67763798

Absolutely

 

[Smudger603]

Put simply- NHS fuked , education system fuked , prisons full , police undermanned, social care fuked , local councils skint and we’re still letting Tom, dick and Ahmed into the country without knowing fuke all about them - We’re full up ffs! We can’t deal with what we’ve got !

 

[ElfsborgAddick]

Interesting read. Talk of 30 French Police Officers being severely injured in the past weeks fighting migrants and smugglers.

Good the figures are down a bit, but just highlights that these are NOT the sort of people we should be allowing to stay in this country.

One way or another, every single person who crosses the channel this way must be deported or locked up and then deported.

And if Rwanda isn’t the answer then another way must be found.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67763798

Immigrants without a British passport should be deported if they commit a crime in the UK.

 

[Ubedizzy2]

Just for variety, a news story NOT from the BBC….

Apparently the government are already watering down their latest ‘attempt’ to reduce immigration. Well knock me down with a feather guvnor……

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/government-reduces-salary-thresholds-foreign-spouses-visa

 

[Ubedizzy2]

Thank goodness that we do actually have the channel

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-67818686

 

[lardiman]

The Channel hasn't stopped people. It just drowns some of them.

 

[Ubedizzy2]

The Channel hasn't stopped people. It just drowns some of them.

Only if they choose to enter it.

 

[lardiman]

None of us knows why a person chooses to risk their life that way.
Some of us think we know.
But none of us have lived the lives of these people. None of us know what it is really like to be one of them.

It's far too easy in my view to ascribe motives to them that we consider wrong.
That way we don't have to lose much sleep when the sea takes them.

Fortunately I believe that the majority of people in this country don't base their value of a life on an opinion of motives.
The value of a life isn't something that political ideology can negotiate.
History teaches us where that leads.
And it's happening right now in Ukraine, Gaza and a hundred other places, including the English Channel.

 

[The Penguin]

In the last 2 years Britain has granted asylum to 12 Rwandans fleeing their country, 8 on first application, 4 on appeal. The Home Office's own figures.

 

[lardiman]

In the last 2 years Britain has granted asylum to 12 Rwandans fleeing their country, 8 on first application, 4 on appeal. The Home Office's own figures.

Strange, as Parliament is in the process of passing a law stating that Rwanda is a safe country.

In a thousand years, a Bill in an English or UK Parliament has never before specifically declared that a foreign Country is "safe".
As in anybody deported there will not be put into danger of any kind.
So by that measure Rwanda must be safer than France, Canada, or any other democratic and peaceful Country you can think of where asylum seekers might find refuge.

Indeed it is being declared uniquely safe by our own MP's.
Our Parliament (freed of EU regulation) is now being used to legislate on what reality is. Something previously left in the purview of God.
So why then have 12 people from the safest Country on this Planet been granted asylum in the UK?
What can they possibly be running from?

Footnote

Mocking the Rwanda policy (and the convoluted wrigglings of Rishi Sunak in his attempts to implement it) is so easy, it's a free hit every time.
It's almost impossible to conceive why any politician of reasonable mind could possibly believe in it.

I guess that's the way many liberal minded people in Germany viewed the policies of the NSDAP in the months before they came to power.
How could anyone of a reasonable mind possibly believe the ranting and hate-mongering of those extremists?
It'll never happen.

 

[Ubedizzy2]

Strange, as Parliament is in the process of passing a law stating that Rwanda is a safe country.

In a thousand years, a Bill in an English or UK Parliament has never before specifically declared that a foreign Country is "safe".
As in anybody deported there will not be put into danger of any kind.
So by that measure Rwanda must be safer than France, Canada, or any other democratic and peaceful Country you can think of where asylum seekers might find refuge.

Indeed it is being declared uniquely safe by our own MP's.
Our Parliament (freed of EU regulation) is now being used to legislate on what reality is. Something previously left in the purview of God.
So why then have 12 people from the safest Country on this Planet been granted asylum in the UK?
What can they possibly be running from?

Footnote

Mocking the Rwanda policy is so easy, it's a free hit every time.
It's almost impossible to conceive why any politician of reasonable mind could possibly believe in it.

I guess that's the way many liberal minded people in Germany viewed the policies of the NSDAP in the months before they came to power.
How could anyone of a reasonable mind possibly believe the ranting and hate-mongering of these extremists?
It'll never happen.

Good arguments here Lardi BUT…..

as you’ve mentioned France, could we also have the figures for how many people have been granted asylum in this country, having entered from France. And I’ll ask the same question that you did……”What can they possibly be running from ?”

I’ll happily accept the 12 from Rwanda and send them none of ours, if France will take back the 100,000 that have come from there since 2020.

Can’t have it both ways I’m afraid.

 

[lardiman]

Thank you.
I'm no expert on the parameters for granting asylum here in the UK, but I doubt the last country an asylum seeker passed through before they arrived here is given very much weight.

If we used transit through France as a disqualifying criteria, the UK would be free to reject almost everybody.
And I don't think anybody to the left of the EDL would put it forward as a policy in an election manifesto.

I don't think it would be right for the UK to exploit the insulating layers of other 'safe' countries it enjoys to shirk its fair share of responsibility.
Almost every country that Asylum seekers are fleeing from now had the Union Flag planted on its soil at some time during the last 300 years - and British Cultural values (including the English language) imposed on its people.
Not in my name or yours perhaps.
But that's the way it was.

 

[Ubedizzy2]

Thank you.
I'm no expert on the parameters for granting asylum here in the UK, but I doubt the last country an asylum seeker passed through before they arrived here is given very much weight.

If we used transit through France as a disqualifying criteria, the UK would be free to reject almost everybody.
And I don't think anybody to the left of the EDL would put it forward as a policy in an election manifesto.

I don't think it would be right for the UK to exploit the insulating layers of other 'safe' countries it enjoys to shirk its fair share of responsibility.
Almost every country that Asylum seekers are fleeing from now had the Union Flag planted on its soil at some time during the last 300 years - and British Cultural values (including the English language) imposed on its people.
Not in my name or yours perhaps.
But that's the way it was.

But that doesn’t address the double standard of highlighting that we have taken 12 people from Rwanda, so that must mean that Rwanda isn’t a safe country, but then say that if 100,000 people have come here from France that doesn’t mean that France isn’t a safe country.

You can have it either way, but not both.

 

[Smudger603]

Strange, as Parliament is in the process of passing a law stating that Rwanda is a safe country.

In 1,000 years, a Bill in Parliament has never before specifically declared that a foreign Country is "safe".
As in anybody deported there will not be put into danger of any kind.
So by that measure Rwanda must be safer than France, Canada, or any other democratic and peaceful Country you can think of where asylum seekers might find refuge.

Indeed it is being declared uniquely safe by our own MP's.
Our Parliament (freed of EU regulation) is now being used to legislate on what reality is. Something previously left in the purview of God.
So why then have 12 people from the safest Country on this Planet been granted asylum in the UK?
What can they possibly be running from?

They’re running from the expected mass influx of illegal migrants being dumped on their doorsteps , probably worried about the damage that’ll be done to their already unstable economy

 

[lardiman]

I can think of around a million reasons why Rwanda isn't a safe country, though very few of them ever got a headstone or even a grave.

I believe the UN Charter states that Asylum seekers have the right to choose their destination, and are not obliged to remain in the first 'safe' country they arrive in during the course of their flight from danger.

Millions of French speaking African asylum seekers settle in France for obvious reasons. Most of them don't want to come to the UK.
But unsafe countries which used to be part of the British Empire will produce fleeing refugees who do want to resettle here.
That's one of the legacies of our Colonial past.
A Colonial past which brought huge financial gains to many of the powerful families who still run this Country - through the Conservative Party among other institutions.
It is a supreme irony that Rishi Sunak is the Prime Minister who seeks any avenue he can, however morally bankrupt, in order to deny our Colonial past and close our borders to people in need, whose parents and grandparents were taught that Great Britain was the shining Motherland.

 

[Ubedizzy2]

I can think of around a million reasons why Rwanda isn't a safe country, though very few of them ever got a headstone or even a grave.

I believe the UN Charter states that Asylum seekers have the right to choose their destination, and are not obliged to remain in the first 'safe' country they arrive in during the course of their flight from danger.

Millions of French speaking African asylum seekers settle in France for obvious reasons. Most of them don't want to come to the UK.
But unsafe countries which used to be part of the British Empire will produce fleeing refugees who do want to resettle here.
That's one of the legacies of our Colonial past.
A Colonial past which brought huge financial gains to many of the powerful families who still run this Country - through the Conservative Party among other institutions.
It is a supreme irony that Rishi Sunak is the Prime Minister who seeks any avenue he can, however morally bankrupt, in order to deny our Colonial past and close our borders to people in need, whose parents and grandparents were taught that Great Britain was the shining Motherland.

Mmm….think it’s stretching things a bit to be bringing up Rwanda’s past genocide and the injustices throughout the world during the British Empire. We can make a case for virtually any position, many of which would then be in conflict with each other, if we selectively scroll back through history.

History is history and no one can ever change that, but we can do something about the present and the future and us taking 12 people from Rwanda and giving them asylum is a poor argument to counter the view that we should send the tens of thousands of fit, healthy young men, who have destroyed their identity documents on the way here, back to where they embarked from, or failing that another 3rd country in order to create a small deterrent.

But if you believe that all those fit, healthy young men are genuinely fleeing for their lives from some distant country and just happened to lose anything that can be used to identify if they are criminals back in that country, then I guess I won’t be able to convince you.

Personally I’m a little more cynical.