The Politics Thread 2020

[Rev]

2 minutes ago, Andicis said:

None of the safe nations around them will take them though? The UK has one of the highest population densities in the world, certainly in Europe. Shouldn't they follow the actual rules for seeking asylum, rather then going through a bunch of safe countries to get here to begin with? 

There's loads of room. Those caravans in Lincolnshire fields reserved for fruit and veg pickers for one example. Not the king 24' footer though, that's reserved for Charles and Camilla and their kids.

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, reverendo de duivel said:

There's loads of room. Those caravans in Lincolnshire fields reserved for fruit and veg pickers for one example. Not the king 24' footer though, that's reserved for Charles and Camilla and their kids.

Shouldn't the countries with more room than us take them? Considering most of the big nations in Europe have much, much more room than us. And are much closer. 

[Norman]

16 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

There's loads of room. Those caravans in Lincolnshire fields reserved for fruit and veg pickers for one example. Not the king 24' footer though, that's reserved for Charles and Camilla and their kids.

Is that the fruit and veg pickers we fly in who don't speak English? 

There goes that language theory. 

Suppose you could pick up basic French or German in a few weeks if you're desperate enough. Especially if the alternative it to risk it all in a dinghy. 

Nah, there must be other reasons. 

The following is taken from the BBC. Many are Iranian getting into the EU via Serbia

"Crossing by boat can only be done by people who have some money. Africans don't have any left by the time they arrive in Calais," she said.

"There is a new influx of Iranians arriving in Calais. They seem to be the only ones who both dare to do it and find the means to do so.""

[Rev]

5 minutes ago, Norman said:

Is that the fruit and veg pickers we fly in who don't speak English? 

There goes that language theory. 

Suppose you could pick up basic French or German in a few weeks if you're desperate enough. Especially if the alternative it to risk it all in a dinghy. 

Nah, there must be other reasons. 

Maybe you're right, and it's the warm and friendly greeting they receive from the natives?

[Norman]

1 minute ago, reverendo de duivel said:

Maybe you're right, and it's the warm and friendly greeting they receive from the natives?

I've edited my post. Why are so many comparatively rich Iranians doing it?

[Comrade 86]

5 minutes ago, Andicis said:

The UK has one of the highest population densities in the world

Statistics published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) put the number of empty homes in England in October 2018 at 634,453 (the most recet stat I can find). So despite this mass immigration to our tiny little island, it seems we might have a few spare rooms left nonetheless. 

Interestingly, 24.8% of NHS doctors are also immigrants. Not refugees, immigrants. Despite the influx of immigrant NHS workers, one in 11 posts in NHS England are still unfilled, equivalent to almost 90,000 vacancies. Just imagine what a mess we'd be in right now if the pandemic had hit a year later and therefore AFTER Priti Patel had managed to flush out all the 'unskilled labour'.

I think you're actually a pretty fair-minded person so let me ask you a different question, if I may; once those dinghies hit British waters, waters which also happen to be seriously busy shipping lanes, what kind of country would we be if we didn't bring them safely to land? By that point, what is and is not legal is kind of moot, as is the conduct of the French navy, unless of course we as a nation are ok with women and children drowning in our waters while we ponder their right to be there.

Of course there are some reasonable grounds for checking the rate of immigration, it's just unfortunate that they tend not to be the reasons put forward by many on this forum.

 

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Of course there are some reasonable grounds for checking the rate of immigration, it's just unfortunate that they tend not to be the reasons put forward by many on this forum.

What are the reasonable grounds? 

And also what are the unreasonable grounds that have been put forward by many?

[Comrade 86]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

What are the reasonable grounds? 

And also what are the unreasonable grounds that have been put forward by many?

You know perfectly well what are reasonable grounds because you have laid out some of them on occasions yourself. You also know the unreasonable grounds are and I feel no need to have the same old joust with you that we've bored the arses of the entire forum with on multiple occasions. It's quite telling that you take no issue with anything else stated in my post though.

The fact is, you have no intention of changing your stance, neither do I. I suppose we'll just have to live with that.

[i-Ram]

It’s too late for me now, but I wonder who makes these dinghies? Every time I bought the kids a dinghy at the seaside it only lasted about 30 minutes.

[Andicis]

1 hour ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Statistics published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) put the number of empty homes in England in October 2018 at 634,453 (the most recet stat I can find). So despite this mass immigration to our tiny little island, it seems we might have a few spare rooms left nonetheless. 

Interestingly, 24.8% of NHS doctors are also immigrants. Not refugees, immigrants. Despite the influx of immigrant NHS workers, one in 11 posts in NHS England are still unfilled, equivalent to almost 90,000 vacancies. Just imagine what a mess we'd be in right now if the pandemic had hit a year later and therefore AFTER Priti Patel had managed to flush out all the 'unskilled labour'.

I think you're actually a pretty fair-minded person so let me ask you a different question, if I may; once those dinghies hit British waters, waters which also happen to be seriously busy shipping lanes, what kind of country would we be if we didn't bring them safely to land? By that point, what is and is not legal is kind of moot, as is the conduct of the French navy, unless of course we as a nation are ok with women and children drowning in our waters while we ponder their right to be there.

Of course there are some reasonable grounds for checking the rate of immigration, it's just unfortunate that they tend not to be the reasons put forward by many on this forum.

 

We'd be an awful country if we didn't bring them safely to land. We should not be okay with anyone drowning in our waters no matter what. I don't want to demonize them either, I can completely understand wanting to move for economic reasons, should I have been in their position I'd likely want to do so the same thing. I just think that with the rules of asylum seeking, that I find it odd that so many would want to leave France and come to Britain. 

Also for what it's worth, I find some of the recent actions of Priti Patel and the Tory's appalling. 

[Archied]

5 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

What are the reasonable grounds? 

And also what are the unreasonable grounds that have been put forward by many?

It’s an issue where I really don’t believe there is a reasonable please all answer , you just cannot let people drown in our waters so have no choice as decent society ( humans) but to pick them up and bring them ashore , on the issue of why some head for The U.K. rather than stay put in France then I’m sure the natural thing in people is to head for the place they feel will give them and their children the best Chance in life ,why some think that is the U.K. is a bit irrelevant, they just do 

the French ships (escort to U.K. waters) is not good though , the policy should be clear and adhered to at all times so it’s clearly understood is that whichever waters these people are rescued from is where they should be landed to

[TramRam]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

 

the French ships (escort to U.K. waters) is not good though , the policy should be clear and adhered to at all times so it’s clearly understood is that whichever waters these people are rescued from is where they should be landed to

The British are seen by some as of being of "fair play in Politics", While the French are seen by some as "self serving in Politics", Would Britain allow a "Jungle" as it's known in Calais...in Kent...I doubt it, Britain thought they had the answer when the French Bulldozed Sangatte and trashed parts of the "Jungle" even letting in TV cameras for the viewing public, Offering asylum to those who wanted it but not too many taking up the offer, It just moved the problem to another area, The French were/are fire fighting all the time.

I've travelled on Euro Star and seeing the fences around train stations in France close to Calais must be a blight on the French citizens living there, This is a game of politics with people, A very delicate situation in todays world of "not being seen to be bad people", The British Government said openly that they will take 20,000 Syrian people who are fleeing a war torn Country, Lord Dubbs is behind getting some immigrants in Greece a plane journey to the UK on grounds of "humanity", The plane landed last week, A female Labour MP who was shouting from the roof tops saying the Brtish people should offer bedrooms to support the Syrians, I'm pretty sure it was Yvette Cooper but not certain it was her, She was asked how many Syrian refugees is she offering to house...we're still waiting on the response.

Immigration is like sticking your hand in a lions cage, Mention it and there's a fair chance the hand will be bitten off, Either for or against, And i'll say it again, The people who are trafficking those who want to come to the UK are making vast amounnts of money from an illigal activity, The French and British Governments look to be helping the funding of criminal gangs, Who inturn will use that money to expand their illigal activities.

 

It was Yvette Cooper.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/listen-nick-ferrari-asks-a-squirming-yvette-cooper-if-she-has-taken-syrian-refugees-into-her-home

 

 

[G STAR RAM]

10 hours ago, Eddie said:

Things not worth defending...

1. The indefensible

I've run out of anything to add to the list

2. The cabinet sending all of their kids to private school

3. The Government placing British citizens under house arrest 

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, TramRam said:

It was Yvette Cooper.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/listen-nick-ferrari-asks-a-squirming-yvette-cooper-if-she-has-taken-syrian-refugees-into-her-home

Perfect example of the hypocrisy that has become the norm.

[TramRam]

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Perfect example of the hypocrisy that has become the norm.

"Hypocrisy" I prefer lying, Play to the camaras, Let the public see your angst. Then mooch off to her comfortable life style, There's people out there doing great work...Sir Tom and his walking for the NHS being just one of them.

It's the B*****d Polititians that put fuel on the fire to stoke the electorate up...and I mean ALL Polititians., Left, Right and Centre.

I wouldn't pi$$ on any of them if they were on fire to help put them out.

 

[TramRam]

26 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

2. The cabinet sending all of their kids to private school

3. The Government placing British citizens under house arrest 

4. Helping your Wife to sharpen her knives.

[maxjam]

It appears that the Government has the capability to stop Brits from visiting beauty spots but lacks the capability to stop illegal migrants from landing on them...

https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2020-05-20/more-migrants-intercepted-in-channel-as-numbers-reach-1-000-since-lockdown/

 

 

[Comrade 86]

7 hours ago, Andicis said:

We'd be an awful country if we didn't bring them safely to land. We should not be okay with anyone drowning in our waters no matter what. I don't want to demonize them either, I can completely understand wanting to move for economic reasons, should I have been in their position I'd likely want to do so the same thing. I just think that with the rules of asylum seeking, that I find it odd that so many would want to leave France and come to Britain. 

Also for what it's worth, I find some of the recent actions of Priti Patel and the Tory's appalling. 

Fair play mate. On the question of why they would choose the UK, it's helpful to first understand whether there really is a disproportionate number of immigrants heading to the UK. I had a look at the figures from fullfact.org which is a useful source and found an article dealing with this written around the time of the Brexit refrendum. I've enclosed the link below but some snippets as follows:

• The UK isn’t particularly high up the league table of countries by number of asylum seekers. Last year it had the eighth highest number of new applications in the 28-country EU, or the 17th highest in terms of existing population.  
   
• The International Organisation for Migration carried out over 4,000 interviews with migrants earlier this year. It found that 6% of migrants “interviewed along the Central Mediterranean route” from North Africa to Italy said they intended to reach the UK.
   
• Of those travelling through Hungary and the Balkans, the UK wasn’t a popular enough destination to be singled out in the analysis, which says that most wanted to reach Germany.
   
•  AN IOM study of 473 Iraqis now living in Europe, which asked about intended destination at the time of departure found almost half chose Germany and only a handful the UK. While almost one in three ended up in a different country to that intended, hardly anyone in this study reported a frustrated desire to get to Britain.

Studies pertaining to economic migrants as opposed to aylum seekers (bear in mind that immigrants can be both) indicate that social and economic factors are relevant, less so the availability of benefits, a finding that is at odds with the thinking of some who believe it is the benefits system that draws immigrants to the UK.

I'll allow you to do your own research on whether that is likely, but I can assure you that our welfare state is a long walk from the most generous in the EU which seems to confirm that social and economic factors and the fact that traffickers often give immigrants no choice as to their end-destination, are all more significant factors in where people's end destination. FullFact suggest that where people can choose, factors such as colonial and historical links, the presence of family members, general reputation as a safe country and language are key.

EDIT - Forgot link! https://fullfact.org/immigration/why-do-migrants-and-asylum-seekers-want-come-uk/

 

[TimRam]

Are they actually being security checked? Who knows what beliefs they are bringing in.

[Comrade 86]

1 hour ago, TimRam said:

Are they actually being security checked? Who knows what beliefs they are bringing in.

What do you mean buddy? Are you asking whether immigrants and asylum seekers are being security checked? Also what do you mean by 'beliefs'? 

On the latter query, how would we go about checking people's belief systems? I'm guessing you mean affiliations not 'beliefs' and if so, I can assure you that any individuals are flagged up by any or the security services as being linked to undesirable or terrorist organisations, are soon shown the door. Even then however, the classification of some groups as being terrorist organisations by Western governments and the US and UK specifically, can be a little 'subjective'. Some groups are labelled this way simply because they are at odds with US and UK 'interests' so I'd argue that in this regard, checks may often be overly invasive rather than too lax.

It's also important to understand that most terrorist activity and terrorist cells in the UK are perpetrated by UK nationals and not by individuals who have crossed borders. In this regard, radicalisation of disaffected ethic groups within the UK is a far greater threat to national security than lax border controls.

The very small percentage of individuals who do come to the UK for unsavoury reasons, will generally tend to avoid any scrutiny so we can safely assume the asylum route at least, will not be their preferred methodology. Quite the opposite. They will instead try and breach our borders without any interaction with customs and immigration units. Unfortunately, so will a lot of folk who simply don't believe they will be granted asylum or any form of work visa and it is not straightforward trying to sort the innocent from those who mean us harm. Worse still, this is also true of the asylum process.

Setting aside the 'beliefs' aspect for and to offer 'balance', it is clear that organised criminal gangs have sent groups of affiliated individuals to the UK but then it's not just the UK that is being targeted, far from it. Because of they way these groups fund their activities, once here they are able to stay off-grid because they don't need jobs or benefits. In fact, they avoid anything that creates a footprint as drugs, extortion, and human trafficking are cash businesses. Rather their 'activities' disctate that staying under the radar for as long as possible is mandatory. I'd like to see a greater focus on these groups as despite the protestations of some on here, us lefties really don't want a 'blanket policy' that leaves borders wide open to criminals or terrorists, far from it, but it seems 'softer targets' are very much the government's priority at present. I believe the reasoning behind this strategy is about politics than any real desire to protect the UK public.