Gary Lineker

[GboroRam]

3 hours ago, Archied said:

Hmmm the old elastic trick ehhh , my old mum always told me ( I do my best to stick to it ) keep your own side of the street clean , I consider neither Lineker or Neville either humanists or socialists , I consider them self serving hypocrites who do more harm than good because because the slightest glance at they’re side of the street makes decent people think ahhh that’s the kind of world/ country your calling for,,,duck that ??‍♂️

Is it impossible to be a Socialist and a hypocrite? 

[PistoldPete]

2 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Of course it's illegal. The government has criminalised it. 

It has been illegal for as long as I know.  Some people who may legitimately claim asylum may be able to claim protection from prosecution. That doesn't mean they haven't broken the law.  

[Ramarena]

Lots of talk about immigration being too high and needing to be reduced (which is fine).

And people seemingly onboard with this bill being part of the answer to reducing immigration.

However, did anyone notice todays budget is built upon the premise of immigration increasing to 250k net per year?

As I mentioned further up. It’s just window dressing to dupe you. It’s designed to fail.

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Ramarena

[Archied]

31 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Is it impossible to be a Socialist and a hypocrite? 

This question for you or are you asking for a friend ? ??

[Archied]

34 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Is it impossible to be a Socialist and a hypocrite? 

On a serious note if you’re a hypocrite about walking the walk while preaching the talk then yes it’s impossible, your not a socialist your a sham pain socialist ??‍♂️
take me , I believe in lots of socialist values but I can’t look myself in the mirror and claim to be a proper socialist, how about you ?

Edited March 15, 2023 by Archied

[Archied]

30 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

Lots of talk about immigration being too high and needing to be reduced (which is fine).

And people seemingly onboard with this bill being part of the answer to reducing immigration.

However, did anyone notice todays budget is built upon the premise of immigration increasing to 250k net per year?

As I mentioned further up. It’s just window dressing to dupe you. It’s designed to fail.

 

The real issue is that we can’t have the ever increasing numbers of undocumented people turning up on our shores for many reasons least of all we can’t check they’re background and motivation, we are already seeing the danger in terms of crime , we are seeing people claiming to be children who clearly aren’t which may play a part in the number of recorded children going missing ,

surely nobody can claim we do not have a growing problem that really needs addressing?

[Ramarena]

7 minutes ago, Archied said:

The real issue is that we can’t have the ever increasing numbers of undocumented people turning up on our shores for many reasons least of all we can’t check they’re background and motivation, we are already seeing the danger in terms of crime , we are seeing people claiming to be children who clearly aren’t which may play a part in the number of recorded children going missing ,

surely nobody can claim we do not have a growing problem that really needs addressing?

Then they needs to be addressed properly. Not with soundbites and smoke and mirrors!

[Archied]

7 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

Then they needs to be addressed properly. Not with soundbites and smoke and mirrors!

Neither the government or labour are making a fist of things in my view but before anyone jumps on me ,I’m not sure what the complete answer is , as always there has to be some middle ground the idiots like Lineker , some mp s and the media on both sides just make things worse 

[BaaLocks]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

It has been illegal for as long as I know. Some people who may legitimately claim asylum may be able to claim protection from prosecution. That doesn't mean they haven't broken the law.  

Or, alternately, they didn't. I mean, just take a moment to read what you've written here. Where would they claim protection from prosecution? In the UK? But you've already suggested they've entered illegally so not sure how that's going to work. And if they didn't, claiming protection from prosecution is otherwise referred to as asylum, which they can't do based on Rishi's previous assumption that anyone entering will be considered a criminal.

Your whole point just collapses in a pile of lightly dusted logic.

[Archied]

43 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

Then they needs to be addressed properly. Not with soundbites and smoke and mirrors!

Perhaps there needs to be an international change in terms of asylum seekers need to be given the facility to then apply for asylum in the first country they land in to they’re chosen country at which point identity and background can be checked as I’m sure many flee countries without documents for safety reasons but this is being abused by bogus asylum seekers throwing documents into the channel ??‍♂️

Edited March 15, 2023 by Archied

[BaaLocks]

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

Of course it's illegal. The government has criminalised it. 

Amnesty International says there are no safe and legal routes for most people to seek asylum in the UK. Let that settle for a moment - the world's leading non-governmental human rights organization, founded in London by a British lawyer, said that.

[BaaLocks]

7 minutes ago, Archied said:

Perhaps there needs to be an international change in terms of asylum seekers need to be given the facility to then apply for asylum in the first country they land in to they’re chosen country at which point identity and background can be checked as I’m sure many flee countries without documents for safety reasons but this is being abused by bogus asylum seekers throwing documents into the channel ??‍♂️

Why the first country they land in? Why? Because it won't ever be the UK and that let's us off the hook? I can think of no other reason.

[Ramarena]

7 minutes ago, Archied said:

Perhaps there needs to be an international change in terms of asylum seekers need to be given the facility to then apply for asylum in the first country they land in to they’re chosen country at which point identity and background can be checked as I’m sure many flee countries without documents for safety reasons but this is being abused by bogus asylum seekers throwing documents into the channel ??‍♂️

For the large part this already happens. 

As I mentioned further up the thread 70% of asylum seekers go to neighboring countries.

The problem with this is that often those countries get more than they can deal with.

Currently Turkey is home to 3.7 million asylum seekers, due to everything that is/has been going on in neighboring countries. Which makes the U.K’s problems a drop in the ocean in comparison.

For the U.K specifically, a good idea would be to try and resurrect the Le Touquet Treaty with France. It wouldn’t be easy to get them to agree, since it was scrapped a couple of years ago. But it would certainly help reduce crossings and speed up processing, if you could get something similar back in place.

Sadly this migration problem will only worsen as war, famine, climate change, etc push people to leave increasingly hostile environments.

[Archied]

3 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Why the first country they land in? Why? Because it won't ever be the UK and that let's us off the hook? I can think of no other reason.

Why does it let the U.K. off the hook ? If there’s international agreement to make these changes then it falls to the fleeing person to choose destination and apply , as people say they may have family here or elsewhere , they may speak the language of desired destination ect ect ect ,it takes disgusting trafficker s out of the equation which I’m sure is massive as we are seeing people meet they’re death s in shonky boats or suffocating in the back of hgv lorries , it’s costing a fortune to people fleeing which could well be the money that could set them up on arrival at destination or they get to destination in debt to some seriously criminal/ dangerous people ,yes there would be cost but it could be met by the international community,, perhaps it’s a daft idea but I’m not seeing too many people trying to think of better ways 

[PistoldPete]

41 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Or, alternately, they didn't. I mean, just take a moment to read what you've written here. Where would they claim protection from prosecution? In the UK? But you've already suggested they've entered illegally so not sure how that's going to work. And if they didn't, claiming protection from prosecution is otherwise referred to as asylum, which they can't do based on Rishi's previous assumption that anyone entering will be considered a criminal.

Your whole point just collapses in a pile of lightly dusted logic.

If you have arguments with the logic then you can join Mr Bumble. It is the law and has been for a very long time that you cannot enter the Uk if you do not have permission to do so. 

[GboroRam]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

On a serious note if you’re a hypocrite about walking the walk while preaching the talk then yes it’s impossible, your not a socialist your a sham pain socialist ??‍♂️
take me , I believe in lots of socialist values but I can’t look myself in the mirror and claim to be a proper socialist, how about you ?

No, I can't claim you're a proper socialist either. 

[Archied]

6 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

No, I can't claim you're a proper socialist either. 

My your a slippery one?

so I take it your a proper socialist,,,,, or a rather not say?

Edited March 15, 2023 by Archied

[BaaLocks]

9 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

If you have arguments with the logic then you can join Mr Bumble. It is the law and has been for a very long time that you cannot enter the Uk if you do not have permission to do so. 

Intention to seek asylum is considered permission under international law, which is what Suella et al are trying to revoke in this bill.

We're going round in circles now so I will leave you with a quote from the United Nations Refugee Agency who, with respect to every single person posting on this thread, I will hold in higher authority than any other comment in the previous 42 pages of back and forth.

"There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker or an illegal asylum-seeker. As an asylum-seeker, a person has entered into a legal process of refugee status determination. Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country."

It isn't up for debate beyond that point, it is international law. You, personally, might not agree with it but it is still the unrefutable law.

[Stive Pesley]

13 minutes ago, Archied said:

Why does it let the U.K. off the hook ? If there’s international agreement to make these changes then it falls to the fleeing person to choose destination and apply , as people say they may have family here or elsewhere , they may speak the language of desired destination ect ect ect ,it takes disgusting trafficker s out of the equation which I’m sure is massive as we are seeing people meet they’re death s in shonky boats or suffocating in the back of hgv lorries , it’s costing a fortune to people fleeing which could well be the money that could set them up on arrival at destination or they get to destination in debt to some seriously criminal/ dangerous people ,yes there would be cost but it could be met by the international community,, perhaps it’s a daft idea but I’m not seeing too many people trying to think of better ways 

As I mentioned a few times - the whole problem is being exacerbated by the complete failure of our government to process asylum claims

In actual fact the real solution is to set up a safe and legal route for asylum seekers to come here and then process their claims quickly  and fairly. That way - no more rubber dinghies in the channel, no more trafficking gangs, no more asylum hotels. And on the upside - we get to manage the immigration that we need to survive as a functioning economy. If your claim is valid and you are someone willing and able to contribute to our society then in you come. If you claim is invalid then back you go. It feels almost too simple for words

Instead the government have consciously chosen to turn it into a political battleground

You wouldn't mind so much if Sunak and Braverman weren't the children of South-east Asian African immigrants themselves! 

[Ramarena]

18 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

As I mentioned a few times - the whole problem is being exacerbated by the complete failure of our government to process asylum claims

In actual fact the real solution is to set up a safe and legal route for asylum seekers to come here and then process their claims quickly  and fairly. That way - no more rubber dinghies in the channel, no more trafficking gangs, no more asylum hotels. And on the upside - we get to manage the immigration that we need to survive as a functioning economy. If your claim is valid and you are someone willing and able to contribute to our society then in you come. If you claim is invalid then back you go. It feels almost too simple for words

Instead the government have consciously chosen to turn it into a political battleground

You wouldn't mind so much if Sunak and Braverman weren't the children of South-east Asian African immigrants themselves! 

They don’t even have to be processed in the U.K, many weren’t a few years ago.

Which is why this problem has grown.