Beradogs wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 7:25 pm
Last time I looked Hong Kong Chinese people were non white and we have recently let in 150,000 potentially up to 1m in the future. I guess they are more middle class, work hard, have money and don’t score as many brownie points at Islington dinner parties as your garden-variety Syrian.
123k plus right now, the potential there is incredible
Re: Migrants crossing the channel
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 12:20 am
by E10EU
So .... £500,000 spunked on hiring a plane plus unspecified additional costs of court time, lawyers, police escorts, flashing lights and drama for something that there now seems to be an admission from the government that they didn't really expect this to go ahead - but they still claim to be well spent public funds.
Seems that this public money was spent on party-policital purpose, namely seeking to impact on the 2 forthcoming bye elections which are predicted to be very poor for the Tories. So riling up their racist supporters with this drama (and blame on 'lefty lawyers') could get them to vote Tory again (despite any disgust they might feel about Johnson's conduct in partygate). Add to that the suggestion of abandoning membership of the ECHR (even though this is an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement) in pursuit of pleasing the DUP is really playing with fire.
And all because Johnson wants to stay in power and his pi** poor inadequate MPs in their job.
Re: Migrants crossing the channel
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 12:58 am
by E10EU
The funny thing is: in law people seeking asylum may apply anywhere. Within the EU there was an expectation that asylum seekers would apply in the first EU country they arrived in. Yet Brexiteers seemingly never grasped the fact that with the UK being out of the EU, there is no procedural basis on which to deny those people the right to make application here if they so wish.
So the hateful Preti Patel, despite her family being immigrants, gets ever more extreme in trying to kill them off in the Channel or send them to whoever in the world will take them if the price is right. UK Government sponsored human trafficking?
Re: Migrants crossing the channel
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 7:01 am
by Long slender neck
Good point about that EU rule, but was it often enforced?
Re: Migrants crossing the channel
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:02 am
by BoniO
E10EU wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 12:20 am
So .... £500,000 spunked on hiring a plane plus unspecified additional costs of court time, lawyers, police escorts, flashing lights and drama for something that there now seems to be an admission from the government that they didn't really expect this to go ahead - but they still claim to be well spent public funds.
Seems that this public money was spent on party-policital purpose, namely seeking to impact on the 2 forthcoming bye elections which are predicted to be very poor for the Tories. So riling up their racist supporters with this drama (and blame on 'lefty lawyers') could get them to vote Tory again (despite any disgust they might feel about Johnson's conduct in partygate). Add to that the suggestion of abandoning membership of the ECHR (even though this is an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement) in pursuit of pleasing the DUP is really playing with fire.
And all because Johnson wants to stay in power and his pi** poor inadequate MPs in their job.
The problem is that this charade probably will help them - it's this level of bastardy that seems to be appreciated by too many voters. However, I really hope I'm wrong and the Tories get completely rinsed at the bye elections.
Re: Migrants crossing the channel
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:46 am
by Stowaway
You only need to look at the front page of the Heil today to see how the Tory faithful are seeing it.
E10EU wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 12:20 am
So .... £500,000 spunked on hiring a plane plus unspecified additional costs of court time, lawyers, police escorts, flashing lights and drama for something that there now seems to be an admission from the government that they didn't really expect this to go ahead - but they still claim to be well spent public funds.
Seems that this public money was spent on party-policital purpose, namely seeking to impact on the 2 forthcoming bye elections which are predicted to be very poor for the Tories. So riling up their racist supporters with this drama (and blame on 'lefty lawyers') could get them to vote Tory again (despite any disgust they might feel about Johnson's conduct in partygate). Add to that the suggestion of abandoning membership of the ECHR (even though this is an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement) in pursuit of pleasing the DUP is really playing with fire.
And all because Johnson wants to stay in power and his pi** poor inadequate MPs in their job.
The problem is that this charade probably will help them - it's this level of bastardy that seems to be appreciated by too many voters. However, I really hope I'm wrong and the Tories get completely rinsed at the bye elections.
Chances are they will get rinsed but even if they get rid of Johnson, don't expect a change in direction from these fuckers. Johnson has removed almost all moderate Tories from the party and replaced them with utter cuntwaffles who believe you can feed a family of 4 for 30p per day and that human beings should be trafficked to dodgy East-African states rather than operate a humane asylum system.
The only hope is that they get f*cked out of office in 2024. However don't forget the electorate's amazing ability to merrily vote for more of the same. Starmer's reliance on just not being Boris is starting to wear thin all round and I'd lay reasonable odds that Streeting will be installed as Labour leader by the next election. Not that I have any real expectation that he'll be much more than a perhaps less boring Blairite with no real vision or policies.
Re: Migrants crossing the channel
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 10:12 am
by Long slender neck
What would be your idea of a humane asylum system?
Re: Migrants crossing the channel
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 12:14 pm
by Admin
Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 10:12 am
What would be your idea of a humane asylum system?
One that provides a safe route (or official to use another term) for asylum seekers to make an application to come to the uk or join existing family members here already. The 2021 Borders bill restricts and in most cases removes safe routes. If anything, the bill further forces refugees to take illegal routes rather than deter them ergo the increased daily crossings.
The French offered to house a processing centre at Calais to allow asylum seekers / refugees to have their applications processed there.The UK government turned this down. Easier to just criminalise refugees rather than process claims for asylum / right to remain (which incidentally are usually 75% + genuine and successful).
It'd also be nice if generally people stopped dehumanising refugees and asylum seekers and viewing them as the cause of the problems with this county. However it's easier for most people to carry on swallowing this line rather than consider why this country if going to the f*cking dogs.
"Don't look at what we're doing to f*** this up further - here's some migrants who we can blame instead".
Re: Migrants crossing the channel
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 12:23 pm
by Dunners
This was all dealt with on the first page of this thread. The only things that's new now is that we have the prospect of the Tories weaponising human rights.
Re: Migrants crossing the channel
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 12:36 pm
by Long slender neck
That was ages ago though, how am I meant to remember that?
Re: Migrants crossing the channel
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 12:41 pm
by Beradogs
House of Lords talking about migration. As he points out, the Tories originally said numbers would be reduced. Now they are playing word semantics by always talking about control rather than a reduction. There has certainly been no reduction as the lord points out. I think we can all agree that all parties have no intention of ever bringing down immigration. It’s why the lefts rabid tendencies towards the current Tory party are so misplaced. Yes, the Tories throw the odd bone to the right wingers or they would never win a vote but for the most part they are the most fiscally and socially liberal Tories since Robert Peel. I wouldn’t be shocked if Johnson himself wasn’t phoning the Europeans pleading if someone could please stop the flight.
Re: Migrants crossing the channel
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 12:49 pm
by Dunners
Beradogs wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 12:41 pm
As he points out, the Tories originally said numbers would be reduced. Now they are playing word semantics by always talking about control rather than a reduction. There has certainly been no reduction as the lord points out. I think we can all agree that all parties have no intention of ever bringing down immigration.
Sorry bera, but this is revisionist nonsense. Those arguing to leave the UK always said it was about taking control of our borders so to control immigration. Nobody was proposing to reduce immigration.
It is obvious that this is what their willing audience elected to hear, but many of us pointed out at the time that the protagonists for Brexit were not actually anti-immigration. They just wanted even cheaper immigration than what was coming from the EU.
The greatest trick the leave campaign pulled on their gullible voters was convincing them that Brexit was ever about reducing immigration.
As for whether any party has any intention of bringing down immigration, I doubt it. With an aging population and collapsing fertility rate (across most parts of the world, not just the UK), immigration is arguably the most workable option at our disposal if we want to maintain a taxation base and viable workforce to support society.
Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 10:12 am
What would be your idea of a humane asylum system?
One that provides a safe route (or official to use another term) for asylum seekers to make an application to come to the uk or join existing family members here already. The 2021 Borders bill restricts and in most cases removes safe routes. If anything, the bill further forces refugees to take illegal routes rather than deter them ergo the increased daily crossings.
The French offered to house a processing centre at Calais to allow asylum seekers / refugees to have their applications processed there.The UK government turned this down. Easier to just criminalise refugees rather than process claims for asylum / right to remain (which incidentally are usually 75% + genuine and successful).
It'd also be nice if generally people stopped dehumanising refugees and asylum seekers and viewing them as the cause of the problems with this county. However it's easier for most people to carry on swallowing this line rather than consider why this country if going to the f*cking dogs.
"Don't look at what we're doing to f*** this up further - here's some migrants who we can blame instead".
It just dont seem right that people can travel across the world to claim asylum (I know the rules are you can claim where you like). It is seen that they must be choosing the UK because we're a soft touch.
Its certainly a useful distraction. Eventually the problem will fix itself though as the Tories will ruin the country so much that nobody will want to come here.
Beradogs wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 12:41 pm
As he points out, the Tories originally said numbers would be reduced. Now they are playing word semantics by always talking about control rather than a reduction. There has certainly been no reduction as the lord points out. I think we can all agree that all parties have no intention of ever bringing down immigration.
Sorry bera, but this is revisionist nonsense. Those arguing to leave the UK always said it was about taking control of our borders so to control immigration. Nobody was proposing to reduce immigration.
It is obvious that this is what their willing audience elected to hear, but many of us pointed out at the time that the protagonists for Brexit were not actually anti-immigration. They just wanted even cheaper immigration than what was coming from the EU.
The greatest trick the leave campaign pulled on their gullible voters was convincing them that Brexit was ever about reducing immigration.
As for whether any party has any intention of bringing down immigration, I doubt it. With an aging population and collapsing fertility rate (across most parts of the world, not just the UK), immigration is arguably the most workable option at our disposal if we want to maintain a taxation base and viable workforce to support society.
And no party will be honest and say that we need immigrants because that'd be unpopular?
Why dont they let asylum seekers work? (apologies if the answer is buried 20 pages back)
Beradogs wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 12:41 pm
As he points out, the Tories originally said numbers would be reduced. Now they are playing word semantics by always talking about control rather than a reduction. There has certainly been no reduction as the lord points out. I think we can all agree that all parties have no intention of ever bringing down immigration.
Sorry bera, but this is revisionist nonsense. Those arguing to leave the UK always said it was about taking control of our borders so to control immigration. Nobody was proposing to reduce immigration.
It is obvious that this is what their willing audience elected to hear, but many of us pointed out at the time that the protagonists for Brexit were not actually anti-immigration. They just wanted even cheaper immigration than what was coming from the EU.
The greatest trick the leave campaign pulled on their gullible voters was convincing them that Brexit was ever about reducing immigration.
As for whether any party has any intention of bringing down immigration, I doubt it. With an aging population and collapsing fertility rate (across most parts of the world, not just the UK), immigration is arguably the most workable option at our disposal if we want to maintain a taxation base and viable workforce to support society.
Agree that they never said about reduction per se during the brexit referendum but the Tories had a long standing target of immigration below 100,000 a year and one could transpose that leaving the EU would help with that targets. Anyway.. this will never be solved and you know what, the youngsters really don’t seem to care and are far more relaxed about multiculturalism so good luck to them. If the Uk turns into Hong Kong and the population lives cheek by jowl but for the most part everyone is happy then it matters not one jot
Beradogs wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 12:41 pm
As he points out, the Tories originally said numbers would be reduced. Now they are playing word semantics by always talking about control rather than a reduction. There has certainly been no reduction as the lord points out. I think we can all agree that all parties have no intention of ever bringing down immigration.
Sorry bera, but this is revisionist nonsense. Those arguing to leave the UK always said it was about taking control of our borders so to control immigration. Nobody was proposing to reduce immigration.
It is obvious that this is what their willing audience elected to hear, but many of us pointed out at the time that the protagonists for Brexit were not actually anti-immigration. They just wanted even cheaper immigration than what was coming from the EU.
The greatest trick the leave campaign pulled on their gullible voters was convincing them that Brexit was ever about reducing immigration.
As for whether any party has any intention of bringing down immigration, I doubt it. With an aging population and collapsing fertility rate (across most parts of the world, not just the UK), immigration is arguably the most workable option at our disposal if we want to maintain a taxation base and viable workforce to support society.
And no party will be honest and say that we need immigrants because that'd be unpopular?
Why dont they let asylum seekers work? (apologies if the answer is buried 20 pages back)
Of course they won't. They've all spent the best part of the last 20 years (labour included at times) telling everyone that immigration is a problem. Letting brown / black people come and live here don't win votes in middle england and the red wall.
Beradogs wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 12:41 pm
As he points out, the Tories originally said numbers would be reduced. Now they are playing word semantics by always talking about control rather than a reduction. There has certainly been no reduction as the lord points out. I think we can all agree that all parties have no intention of ever bringing down immigration.
Sorry bera, but this is revisionist nonsense. Those arguing to leave the UK always said it was about taking control of our borders so to control immigration. Nobody was proposing to reduce immigration.
It is obvious that this is what their willing audience elected to hear, but many of us pointed out at the time that the protagonists for Brexit were not actually anti-immigration. They just wanted even cheaper immigration than what was coming from the EU.
The greatest trick the leave campaign pulled on their gullible voters was convincing them that Brexit was ever about reducing immigration.
As for whether any party has any intention of bringing down immigration, I doubt it. With an aging population and collapsing fertility rate (across most parts of the world, not just the UK), immigration is arguably the most workable option at our disposal if we want to maintain a taxation base and viable workforce to support society.
Agree that they never said about reduction per se during the brexit referendum but the Tories had a long standing target of immigration below 100,000 a year and one could transpose that leaving the EU would help with that targets. Anyway.. this will never be solved and you know what, the youngsters really don’t seem to care and are far more relaxed about multiculturalism so good luck to them. If the Uk turns into Hong Kong and the population lives cheek by jowl but for the most part everyone is happy then it matters not one jot
What don't you like about other cultures?
Re: Migrants crossing the channel
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 1:26 pm
by Beradogs
Numbers old chap numbers, as my mum used to say when she first moved to Woodford from Islington in the 70’s. “It was lovely, all I could hear in the mornings was the sound of milk bottles, now it takes me 10 minutes to reverse out of the driveway” It’s self centred but we know that about the right already.
Re: Migrants crossing the channel
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 1:31 pm
by PutneyO
It's common sense to everyone but the Government, but prevention is better than the cure
Re: Migrants crossing the channel
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 1:35 pm
by Admin
Beradogs wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 1:26 pm
Numbers old chap numbers, as my mum used to say when she first moved to Woodford from Islington in the 70’s. “It was lovely, all I could hear in the mornings was the sound of milk bottles, now it takes me 10 minutes to reverse out of the driveway” It’s self centred but we know that about the right already.
Tell her to move out a bit further then.
Re: Migrants crossing the channel
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 2:38 pm
by Dunners
Beradogs wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 1:06 pm
Anyway.. this will never be solved and you know what, the youngsters really don’t seem to care and are far more relaxed about multiculturalism so good luck to them. If the Uk turns into Hong Kong and the population lives cheek by jowl but for the most part everyone is happy then it matters not one jot
It depends on what you define as the 'problem' that needs to be 'solved'.
If it's purely about numbers, then there needs to be a workable counter-proposal to how we function as a consumption-led, net-importing economy with an ageing population and collapsing fertility rate. And before you point at Japan, they have made a go of it since the 90s, but that is one train that is rapidly coming off its rails.
If it's about the 'type' of people coming here, and not the numbers, then you need to explain what is wrong with the current 'type' and who the correct type would be instead. If you want a type of a similar culture, then you really shouldn't have voted for Brexit.
For what it's worth, I think a net-positive immigration policy only delays the inevitable (I also think there are ethical questions about what such a policy means for those countries from who we take immigrants). 1st generation immigrants generally provide a one-time fertility hit, but 2nd generations and onwards rapidly see their fertility rates align with the host population.
This decade vast swathes of the world will see more than 50% of their populations move past nominal retirement age. We in the UK are going to get a 10 to 20-year window, thanks to net-positive immigration, whereby we get to witness the devastating effects this will have on many other nations. Hopefully we will use that time wisely to learn from others and make good decisions.
Beradogs wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 1:06 pm
Anyway.. this will never be solved and you know what, the youngsters really don’t seem to care and are far more relaxed about multiculturalism so good luck to them. If the Uk turns into Hong Kong and the population lives cheek by jowl but for the most part everyone is happy then it matters not one jot
It depends on what you define as the 'problem' that needs to be 'solved'.
If it's purely about numbers, then there needs to be a workable counter-proposal to how we function as a consumption-led, net-importing economy with an ageing population and collapsing fertility rate. And before you point at Japan, they have made a go of it since the 90s, but that is one train that is rapidly coming off its rails.
If it's about the 'type' of people coming here, and not the numbers, then you need to explain what is wrong with the current 'type' and who the correct type would be instead. If you want a type of a similar culture, then you really shouldn't have voted for Brexit.
For what it's worth, I think a net-positive immigration policy only delays the inevitable (I also think there are ethical questions about what such a policy means for those countries from who we take immigrants). 1st generation immigrants generally provide a one-time fertility hit, but 2nd generations and onwards rapidly see their fertility rates align with the host population.
This decade vast swathes of the world will see more than 50% of their populations move past nominal retirement age. We in the UK are going to get a 10 to 20-year window, thanks to net-positive immigration, whereby we get to witness the devastating effects this will have on many other nations. Hopefully we will use that time wisely to learn from others and make good decisions.
Any thoughts on why the 1st gen are mad shaggers but the 2nd gen aren't?
Looking forward to the UK using its time wisely and learning from others to make good decisions.
Re: Migrants crossing the channel
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 4:09 pm
by Dunners
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 3:09 pm
Any thoughts on why the 1st gen are mad shaggers but the 2nd gen aren't?
Looking forward to the UK using its time wisely and learning from others to make good decisions.
1st genners tend to migrate from non-urban/industrialised locations, where higher fertility rates are the norm.
2nd genners soon have to get to grips with the cost and space constraints of living in urbanised, industrial society, like the rest of us. Kids soon become a luxury you cannot afford.
And, yeah, I'm about as optimistic as you that we'll use any time wisely.
