Anything Political

[benjamin1945 16,160]

One of my sons is dissapointed with todays news..about Rwanda.........he was looking forward to escorting them.......

[DJ360 6,730]

And bang on topic...

 

Quote

Warming up for his show on GB News:

Lee Anderson says ministers should go ahead and “put planes in the air” to Rwanda anyway. When I asked if he was suggesting ignoring the Supreme Court ruling, the Tory deputy chairman said govt should “ignore the laws and send them straight back”. (Twitter).

 

Like Quote Reply

Report

 

So, there you have it folks! Straight from the Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party.. You can just ignore any law that doesn't suit you!

Beam me up Scotty!!

[Brew 5,419]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Surprised nobody has yet commented on the Supreme  Court ruling that the Govt's plans to 'export' asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Because I'm confused, At PMQ Sunak said the court had confirmed it to be legal, but had deemed Rwanda unsafe. Reading further if I have it right, sending them is legal, sending them to a declared unsafe location is not.

To this end they want to rush through legislation to declare Rwanda a safe country and guarantee no repatriation.

This seems to go against keeping the immigration election card up their sleeve.

Tackling the smugglers is not so simple, if they're here OK but most are abroad and out of out jurisdiction - another Brexit blessing

 

Labour of course object and think they have a better plan. Whether the voters will support Starmers alternative proposal of 100,000 limit is a moot point, he has not said what happens when the limit is reached. What he has said is he would negotiate a returns agreement with EU countries to send back some failed asylum seekers - if Labour wins power. Does this seem likely?

Send them back to where? Country of origin, first safe place as per Schengen, last country of exit?

 

The Lee Anderson proposal is so outrageous I had to check it was true. He proposes deliberately  flouting the law and seemingly has support from at least one cabinet member. Surely incitement is in itself a criminal act. I looked it up:

 

 According to the Crown Prosecution Service, incitement is defined as “the encouragement of another person to commit a crime”  Interesting, is incitement or contempt of court?

I think there is more that will be said...

 

Braverman lost her job for something far less serious.

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

Part of the problem with the likes of Anderson, is that many less educated voters will agree with him, because they simply won't understand  the implications of doing what he demands.  They will not understand  the relationship  between Govt., Parliament and The Law, which protects our democracy and prevents Govts from overstepping the mark.

If Govts ever establish the idea that they are above the Law, we are sunk.

Then we have the chorus of demands that we should withdraw from the European Court of Human Rghts,  for the same reasons  I.E. the Govt. doesn't like being 'ckecked' by it. But it offers protections of all sorts, to millions. As I understand it, withdrawal  from the ECHR,would put us into a very dubious 'Club' comprising Putin's Rssia and Lukashenko's Belarus. And people still refuse to accept that the present Tory party has moved so far right as to be borderline fascist in its ambitions.

[Brew 5,419]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

They will not understand  the relationship  between Govt., Parliament and The Law, which protects our democracy and prevents Govts from overstepping the mark.

 

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it's not necessarily true. Johnson prorogued Parliament and created what was essentially a constitutional crisis. It was only after the fact it was resolved, but had he just a little more support there's every chance he would have carried the day.

 

The law has stopped Sunak in his tracks, for how long? Anderson is calling for government to break the law although it's not necessary. Laws are man made and can be easily be repeal or new ones created. What Parliament makes, Parliament can break.

 

The Guardian once wrote a piece on the rising number of criminal offences in which it acknowledged the rise of authoritarianism in this country started with Blair.

 

Now if a situation arises the go-to solution seems to be the creation of an offence. Changing the law to suit is not a left or right thing it's those in power starting to realise just how fragile the boundaries between Government and Parliament are, and how easily they can be circumvented.

 

We want unelected people at the top table? Simple bung him in the Lords, doesn't matter he can't be questioned, challenged or held responsible in the commons, just do it, it will be fine.

 

Unlike the commons there is no limit to the number of lords. Taking it to extremes the cabinet can quite easily be made up of totally unelected members.

 

Do they think they are above the law? not if they change it they they don't

[Rob.L 1,090]

17 hours ago, Brew said:

Labour of course object and think they have a better plan. Whether the voters will support Starmers alternative proposal of 100,000 limit is a moot point, he has not said what happens when the limit is reached. What he has said is he would negotiate a returns agreement with EU countries to send back some failed asylum seekers - if Labour wins power. Does this seem likely?

Send them back to where? Country of origin, first safe place as per Schengen, last country of exit?

Where did Keir Starmer propose 100,000? 
 

Or is that more likely a number conjured out of the air by the tories in some strange attempt to discredit?

[Stuart.C 491]

This fact-checker appears cast doubt on the 100000 figure,  maybe more maybe less.

That assumes the fact checker is to be believed.

Who fact checks the fact checkers??

 

https://fullfact.org/immigration/labour-forced-to-accept-100000-migrants/

[DJ360 6,730]

In my view, whether Starmer has that figure or any figure in mind is all a bit academic without some definitions.

We have effectively 'floating' immigration figures to meetc'shortage' occupations, then we have other legal migrants, asylum seekers, who may or may not succeed, and 'illegals'.

I'm not prepared to define all small boat arrivals as illegal because clearly traffickers, and the lack of safe  legal routes contributes to some migrants' decision making .

So what exactly is Starmer proposing?

[Brew 5,419]

It's an extrapolation of the suggested agreemant Stramer wants withy the EU.

 

Labour has already said it will end the use of hotels for asylum seekers and consider accepting an EU migrant quota as part of a returns agreement - if it gets into power. Their words not mine...

 

 Labour would have to take 13% of all asylum seekers who arrive in the EU as part of such an agreement because they claim the EU has a policy of sharing asylum seekers between countries based on population size, which would leave the UK taking over 100,000 of them a year.

 

So far no statement of where 100,000 will go if not into hotel accommodation, nor do they suggest how they're going to convince the immigrants to accept the rules and stop crossing the channel.

 

Edit:

More thoughts. the agreement with the EU as it stands is as reported and member states have to take their quota or face paying thousands in fines for every immigrant refused entry.

 

Why he thinks the EU will even consider such a deal with the UK I'm unsure but, as  a non member state should such an agreement be mooted, I suspect the terms and conditions Starmer will have to agree to will be far more onerous...

 

[Rob.L 1,090]

“The 100,000 figure is a Conservative party estimate, and is not reliable. It is based on a number of assumptions about a hypothetical returns agreement, including that the UK would be part of an EU quota system even though it is not in the EU, that the UK would be “forced” to relocate migrants rather than contribute financially (as is an option for EU member states), and that the quota system would relocate all asylum applicants arriving in the EU among member states.”

 

From https://fullfact.org/immigration/labour-forced-to-accept-100000-migrants/

[Brew 5,419]

The  EU rules are there for anyone to research, under said rules a  quota system, based on population would mean 100k given the present levels of immigration. The Tories quoted it but the figures stand up. At PMQ Starmer could not deny it.

Under the proposals the numbers (not specific but quoted as %), given are minimums! and mandatory (Poland and Hungary are/were holding it up) Though I must admit reading the commissions report is mind numbing with the amount of gobbledegook.

However you're quite in that the figure is not reliable and as a non member state it could be much higher.

 

I did say the figure was extrapolated and as such there are a number of 'whatifs' to be considered it's not straightforward. Principally do we get a good deal, a bad deal or no deal at all? And what if we fail?

 

Also worth pointing out is the non-member agreements so far proposed, apply to readmission states i.e taking them back in after refusing entry.

We must also consider the fact the quota policy we're discussing does not as yet exist. The EU may not even agree it among themselves, Poland is decidedly not happy, never mind doing a deal with the UK. Until it does , any deal Starmer seems to think he can setup is, at the moment, just pie in the sky.

 

Starmer has sat on the fence so long he's not sure which side to come down on. What is he proposing? he's the one who raised the possibility of a a deal but as I said, what if an agreement can't be reached, what then?

 

Everything of course is open to interpretation but, and again it's a big but, if we get the same deal there is no hiding the fact the sums come out the same no matter which side does the calculating. It could be a minimum, it could be a maximum.

One thing we can say is as a non member we cannot have or expect the same deal as the rest of the EU.

 

The solutions is glaringly obvious but he has yet to mention it. Sunak has brought it up a time or two  but he won't be around long enough to do anything about it.

 

 

[HSR 286]

On 11/13/2023 at 8:48 AM, letsavagoo said:

Suella Braverman sacked. Next PM?

She's an african/Indian opportunist..

 

Who cares.. I do, but what's the point.. people aren't wiseing up.

 

Jumped on Reform at 500/1 about 9 months ago

now 150-1, sold some on exchanges at 250-1 to 140-1 made £800 all to charity.

As things worsen I expect the price to drop.. still sitting, my integrity says don't sell.

 

 

[letsavagoo 963]

On 11/16/2023 at 2:42 PM, DJ360 said:

I'm not prepared to define all small boat arrivals as illegal because clearly traffickers, and the lack of safe  legal routes contributes to some migrants' decision making .

Because you’re not prepared to accept it, doesn’t make them legal. I’d accept the facts you mention as mitigation but nothing more. If you desire something, really really want it but you can’t afford is it okay then to steal it?

[DJ360 6,730]

I've been meaning to post something about the recent annual migration statistics for a few days now, but It's all too much of a faff on the phone and I'm still not too comfortable sitting at the P.C. for any length of time with my new knee.. still here goes.

 

Firstly, @letsavagoo

 

I think we're into semantics here Let's.

 

Of course I don't advocate stealing.

 

All I'm saying is that it is inevitable in my view, due to the nature of the situation for many refugees/asylum seekers *

(* Delete as applicable), that the boats will carry a mix of people. 

 

Whilst the Govt. deems them all 'Illegal', simply because their method of arrival is not not considered 'legal', it doesn't follow that at least some of them don't have a valid case for being considered as genuine asylum seekers/refugees.

 

I'm in favour of 'stopping the boats', for the humanitarian reasons trotted out by many, even Braverman.  To whit, the safety of those on the boats, and the closing down of the trafficking 'industry'.

 

However, the relentless focus on 'The Boats', as a major issue, is in my view both a distortion of the facts (They really do represent a small fraction of migrants) and a clear 'Dog Whistle' tactic designed to stir up the 'frothers' on the right, and attract votes.

Once again last week or whenever, I heard the same '3% of the total' applied to Small Boat arrivals by some TV commentator, compared to total migration, though admittedly it's hard to find that corroborated online.

 

We've had various figures trotted out by all sides, but it's really very difficult to 'get behind', what is really happening.. even from the Govt's own published figures.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-september-2023/summary-of-latest-statistics#how-many-people-come-to-the-uk-each-year-including-visitors

 

There are however a couple of very stark facts emerging from all of this, which really are down entirely to the actions, or inactions of the current Tory Govt.

 

1. Effects of Brexit.

 

Brexit ended the principle of 'Freedom of Movement' by EU citizens between member states, which was intended as and mostly in reality a mechanism for workers to follow opportunities.  It was very far from the uncontrolled 'invasion' of our borders by 'forriners', as portrayed by liars such as Farage et. al. It's also conveniently forgotten that many many Brits took the opportunity to seek work in the EU. And finally, there was NOTHING in the Freedom of Movement principles which in any way prevented the UK from ejecting,or refusing entry to undersirables/criminals etc., of any origin.

 

The above was highlighted hilariously last week when for some inexplicable reason, BBC News decided that it would be informative to do a 'Vox Pop' piece from that nest of 'illegals'.. Windsor, in the Royal County of Berkshire...  A couple of people in the street expressed views ranging from "I've always voted Conservative, but never again..", to a more frequent and resigned  "Well..they're doing their best..". However, the real gems emerged from interviews with members of the local Conservative Club.  One chap in perticular eagerly recalled his Brexit desire to 'Put a big sock in the Channel Tunnel', thus revealing the depth of his ignorance and the height of his xenophobia.  The same clown went on to declare that we are now getting immigration under control, but that "We couldn't do anything about it until Brexit". Once again confirming his monumental ignorance of the facts.  I was left wondering whether the BBC genuinely thought the piece might inform the debate, or whether they just wanted to set a trap for the smugly ignorant denizens of much of our country.

 

The idea that we were no longer 'able to control our own borders' was pure propaganda by Brexiteers and only given any reality by the abject failure of the Govt. to fund a properly organised and effective Border Force. In fact evidence points to cuts, rather than increases in funding and staffing of Border Force from 2010.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-17913781

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/border-agency-cut-too-many-staff-watchdog-claims-7952446.html

 

etc...

 

Right..knee hurts too much... I'll be back after a break.

 

 

 

[Brew 5,419]

Hope your knee heals  soon and stops giving you gyp Col...

 

27 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Once again last week or whenever, I heard the same '3% of the total' applied to Small Boat arrivals by some TV commentator, compared to total migration, though admittedly it's hard to find that corroborated online.

 

 The quoted site is somewhat ambiguous, a macro view if you like of all arrivals with scant reference to illegal entry.

 

In the year ending June '23 0ver 52,000, a rise of 17%, 'irregular' migrants' arrived here 85% of those via small boats.

It notes small boats have been the predominant recorded method of entry for irregular migrants since 2020 when entries via this route increased rapidly and detections on other routes declined (likely in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

 https://tiny.cc/#

 

I expect the government to start crowing about reducing the boat arrivals any day now, but I suspect any reduction will be due more to the winter weather than any official policy. Also with many Albanians being sent back they can legitimately claim a reduction overall but it's really only smoke amid mirrors.

 

Not sure the Freedom of Movement is relevant when the larger proportion of immigrants are from countries not part of that agreement. With reference to illegal immigration Brexit is unlikely to be the culprit. 

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

In fact evidence points to cuts, rather than increases in funding and staffing of Border Force from 2010.

 

The report in the Independent is from 2012 - more than 10 years out of date, as is the BBC article!

 

Perhaps we can see a more accurate account here: https://tiny.cc/#

[Brew 5,419]

Ignore the links above, my brain is having a stupid day...

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nottingham-city-council-improvement-and-assurance-board-housing-revenue-account-hra-second-assessment/nottingham-city-council-improvement-and-assurance-board-housing-revenue-account-hra-second-assessment

------------------------------------------------------------

 

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2020-01-16/4340

 

Is what it should resolve to

[DJ360 6,730]

2 hours ago, Brew said:

The quoted site is somewhat ambiguous, a macro view if you like of all arrivals with scant reference to illegal entry.

 

Well exactly.  This is the Govt's own site quoting Home Office statistics, yet it presents a complex picture from which it is difficult to extract real trends. It reads like a profit and loss account which starts by simply comparing arrivals to departures, before examining categories of migrants etc.  However, it also highlights the true complexity of the issue and pulls the rug from under the 'Send 'Em All Back' brigade.

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

In the year ending June '23 0ver 52,000, a rise of 17%, 'irregular' migrants' arrived here 85% of those via small boats.

It notes small boats have been the predominant recorded method of entry for irregular migrants since 2020 when entries via this route increased rapidly and detections on other routes declined (likely in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

I'm not disputing the above and clearly the Trafficking needs to be stopped, but as I've previously said, those figures are small compared to the total arrivals.

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

Not sure the Freedom of Movement is relevant when the larger proportion of immigrants are from countries not part of that agreement.

 

It is relevant because prior to Brexit, many of our Labour Market demands, especially in areas such as Health, Social Care, Hospitality and of course seasonal Agri/Horticultural work were met via EU Freedom of Movement.

Once that stopped, as I have pointed out several times previously, we shifted to recruiting from the Middle/Far East. That produces migration of people who are more 'obviously foreign', more likely to bring dependents and arguably less likely to return home than EU workers. Both serious 'Own Goals' for the Brexiteer mind set.

 

However, I'd squarely blame our need for the above recruitment on successive Govts who have failed to ensure proper pay and sufficient 'home grown' training, especially in Health and Social Care. Privatisation of Care has only exacerbated this by introducing a profit motive which further sucks cash away from provision, training and wages. It is a simple fact that Tory Privatisation and general de-funding of Public Services points to them being the major culprits.

 

At this point, I may as well throw in a further cause of immigration to the UK, i.e., Study.  Of course we can argue that it's a 'good thing', that people want to come and study at our World Renowned Universities, but what has really happened to our HE sector is yet another version of Tory Privatisation.  Uni's now make a loss on teaching UK students, and are therefore incentivised to admit Foreign Students.  It's just become yet another 'business opportunity', which the Tories are very unlikely to see any need to fix.

 

As for numbers employed in Border Force:

2 hours ago, Brew said:

The report in the Independent is from 2012 - more than 10 years out of date, as is the BBC article!

 

Again.. that is precisely the point.  The Tories reduced border force funding, staffing and thus capability from 2010, but then many of them and their fellow travellers set about blaming everyone but themselves for what they defined as 'uncontrolled borders'. We've seen the Home Office and Border Force running to catch up since  and failing.

 

In summary, the Tories have had 13 years in which to grip, Migration, Workforce Planning, Training, Higher Education Funding etc., etc.. but the actions required, I.E., adequate funding and regulation of education, training and public services conflict directly with their obsessions with cuts, deregulation and privatisation.

 

Which is why we are where we are, with everything broken.

 

It also why the Tories, in the run up to the election, continue to focus on the relatively minor issue of 'The Boats', as they try to appeal to their natural voter base and ignore everything that they promised to do, everything that they have failed to do and everything they have broken.

[DJ360 6,730]

P.S. Thanks for the good wishes re: the knee.  It is coming right slowly, but seems to be suffering from the cold weather and a few 'post op' issues which are taking longer to resolve than was the case with the first one.

[Brew 5,419]

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I'm not disputing the above and clearly the Trafficking needs to be stopped, but as I've previously said, those figures are small compared to the total arrivals.

 

Not so, 85,000 is the total of illegal entries for the year, I'm not counting legal entrants. My point its that 85% came by boat

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Once that stopped, as I have pointed out several times previously, we shifted to recruiting from the Middle/Far East

But they were actively recruited and not counted as illegals, i can't see how they factor into this discussion.

 

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

The Tories reduced border force funding, staffing and thus capability from 2010,

Agreed but the need and demand for more did not become apparent for another nine years, in 2010 there were no boat crossings and therefore there was no requirement for the numbers or infrastructure we need today. In 2010 we were part of the EU and the Freedom of Movement mandate, why would we want a massive border force when illegal entry was minimal?

 

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

However, I'd squarely blame our need for the above recruitment on successive Govts who have failed to ensure proper pay and sufficient 'home grown' training, especially in Health and Social Care.

A moot point but I agree with the criticism of privatisation though I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the phrase 'obviously foreign'

 

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

In summary, the Tories have had 13 years in which to grip, Migration, Workforce Planning, Training, Higher Education Funding etc., etc.. but the actions required, I.E.

 

We are now way off beam and into general criticism of Tory policy.  The topic is immigration, we can't lump every aspect of fiscal policy into one pot.

Again in 2010 the need for massive investment in the border force did not exist, we can't say  "ah yes but worrabout universities"...

 

The boats a minor issue? Most folks I know would I'm sure disagree and consider it rather more than a 'minor' issue both from the point of view of the population and the poor sods so desperate they risk their lives to get here.

 

That we cannot sustain the number coming here is fairly obvious and the only proper solution I can see  is to remove the factors that make them leave home. 

i said it before if they have full bellies, shelter and safe environment they will in all probability stay put.

Sunak has raised this point at the Grenada conference. Starmer seemingly has no idea...

[DJ360 6,730]

On 12/2/2023 at 10:23 PM, Brew said:

Not so, 85,000 is the total of illegal entries for the year, I'm not counting legal entrants. My point its that 85% came by boat

 

Can you point to your source for this?  It doesn't align with any immigration figures I can find in Govt's own reports.

 

On 12/2/2023 at 10:23 PM, Brew said:

But they were actively recruited and not counted as illegals, i can't see how they factor into this discussion.

 

Because, the debate which erupted last week was not just about 'irregular' arrivals, which the Govt. seems to have no answer for ( and which I suspect they don't WANT to solve before the election, since they see it as a voter winner),but also about the increase in LEGAL migration, which many people are equally unsettled by and not just for reasons of xenophobia.

 

On 12/2/2023 at 10:23 PM, Brew said:

Agreed but the need and demand for more did not become apparent for another nine years, in 2010 there were no boat crossings and therefore there was no requirement for the numbers or infrastructure we need today.

 

Of course there was..hence the outcry over cuts at the time!  We were struggling to stop people coming in stowed away on freight vehicles, or even via airports etc.

On 12/2/2023 at 10:23 PM, Brew said:

In 2010 we were part of the EU and the Freedom of Movement mandate, why would we want a massive border force when illegal entry was minimal?

 

Because not everyone coming here was from the EU. And nobody said we needed a 'massive' Border Force.  We needed an adequate one.

 

On 12/2/2023 at 10:23 PM, Brew said:

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the phrase 'obviously foreign'

 

Simply meaning that most EU citizens are 'Caucasian', whereas most middle and fare eastern citizens aren't and thus they are more visible to those who are bothered by skin colour.

On 12/2/2023 at 10:23 PM, Brew said:

We are now way off beam and into general criticism of Tory policy.  The topic is immigration, we can't lump every aspect of fiscal policy into one pot.

 

But this is entirely the point.  The reason that the Tories are struggling with LEGAL immigration, which was the subject of just as much debate as the boats last week.  And they are struggling because their privatisation, cuts to education and training etc..all central planks of their Neo Con economic 'thinking', have created Labour Force shortages. Those same ideologies prevent them from applying long term solutions without either spending public money, OR requiring business to spend money.  They are notoriously reluctant to do either,

hence their reliance on other measures, such as increasing the supply of work visas for people from the middle and far east..AND allowing companies to pay them less than UK workers.

Can you not see the contradictions? It is one part of Tory ideology which prevents them from solving problems which offend other parts of their ideology!

 

On 12/2/2023 at 10:23 PM, Brew said:

That we cannot sustain the number coming here is fairly obvious and the only proper solution I can see  is to remove the factors that make them leave home. 

i said it before if they have full bellies, shelter and safe environment they will in all probability stay put.

Sunak has raised this point at the Grenada conference. Starmer seemingly has no idea...

 

I could not agree more with your first sentence.  This is not just a UK problem and migrants are coming from numerous countries for a variety of reasons, but we need a concerted INTERNATIONAL effort to minimise the factors causing migration.

[Brew 5,419]

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Can you point to your source for this?  It doesn't align with any immigration figures I can find in Govt's own reports

 

Certainly : http://tiny.cc/75egvz : (In the year ending June 2023, there were 52,530 irregular migrants detected entering the UK, up 17% from the year ending June 2022. 85% of these arrived via small boats.)

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

for ( and which I suspect they don't WANT to solve before the election, since they see it as a voter winner)

Which really doesn't fly. A greater 'vote winner' would be a working solution before an election. Voters will go for positive action rather than some pie in the sky promise they know may never happen.  

And I dispute people have a problem with workers recruited from abroad to the same degree as illegals.

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Of course there was..hence the outcry over cuts at the time!  We were struggling to stop people coming in stowed away on freight vehicles, or even via airports etc.

True there were a few doing things like creeping through the tunnel and in trucks etc but it hardly amounted to more than a minimal level. It did not require small ships at millions of pounds a pop to patrol the channel or setup facilites on the French coast and ports. The French were also playing a much more proactive part.

 

Every organisation that sees some trimming, redundancies or reductions will see an outcry. In 2010 the numbers of irregulars was so small they weren't even recorded - records start in 2018 when  there were only 29 illegal boats crossing and 81 in 2019. The cuts you mention were warranted at the time and spending has been hugely increasing over the years as demand made it necessary.

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

But this is entirely the point.  The reason that the Tories are struggling with LEGAL immigration, which was the subject of just as much debate as the boats last week

Not so, the point is illegal immigration, and drifting into different fiscal policy is merely muddying the water.

 

Migrant workers rather than being discouraged are, as far as I can see, much in demand in agriculture and many famers have appeared on  TV news to say so. The old saw of working for peanuts has long gone

 

[letsavagoo 963]

On 12/2/2023 at 11:48 AM, DJ360 said:

Whilst the Govt. deems them all 'Illegal', simply because their method of arrival is not not considered 'legal', it doesn't follow that at least some of them don't have a valid case for being considered as genuine asylum seekers/refugees.

Sorry Col but my view on this is far more black and white. If their arrival isn’t legal then by definition they are illegal immigrants. No shades of grey. If they do have a valid case for coming here (and let’s not kid our self’s, many don’t) then they should use the legal route and if that proves difficult, hard, impossible (delete as applicable) then I don’t see this as a valid reason to flaunt the law and enter illegally. 

[Brew 5,419]

14 hours ago, DJ360 said:

This is not just a UK problem and migrants are coming from numerous countries for a variety of reasons, but we need a concerted INTERNATIONAL effort to minimise the factors causing migration.

 Which is the point I'm making. Sunak raised it in a speech at the Granada meeting of 50 heads of government. Sadly i think it fell on deaf ears as did the Armenia and Balkan situation which were  the prime reasons for the meeting.

 

 

14 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Because not everyone coming here was from the EU. And nobody said we needed a 'massive' Border Force.  We needed an adequate one.

 

 

A point I missed. The Border Force did not come into being until 2012. Up to that point the there was a mishmash...

 

From Wiki: 

In 2005, the border enforcement functions of HMCE were transferred (along with the organisation responsible for them) to HMRC; but in 2008 they were again transferred (at least in part) to the new UK Border Agency of the Home Office,[13] which due to various failings was itself disbanded in 2012, whereupon a new UK Border Force was established with border enforcement responsibilities and powers.

 

My point to this is there were 25,000 employees in the old setup and still failing. Today we have less than half and whilst maybe not perfect seem to be at least competent in what they do.

[DJ360 6,730]

22 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

Sorry Col but my view on this is far more black and white. If their arrival isn’t legal then by definition they are illegal immigrants. No shades of grey. If they do have a valid case for coming here (and let’s not kid our self’s, many don’t) then they should use the legal route and if that proves difficult, hard, impossible (delete as applicable) then I don’t see this as a valid reason to flaunt the law and enter illegally. 

 

I repeat, once more, that I support the stopping of 'the boats'.

 

However, it seems that Govt. has given up on that and has now decided to gather up the 'Boat People' and ship them off to Rwanda.  James Cleverly our latest Home Secretary is there as I type..trying to (re)establish the 'safety' of Rwanda.

One reporter stated rather tellingly that so far, the UK has managed to send three Home Secretaries, but no Migrants, to Rwanda....

 

I agree that many boat arrivals may not have a case for Asylum, but that doesn't mean none do. Quoting 'legal' routes means little or nothing to me, since trhey are hardly clear, simple or efficient.

 

I suspect it means even less to some who are desperate enough to pay traffickers huge sums and make a perilous journey.

I don't think we can assume that they know what we know or that whatever knowledge they have is not easily pushed aside by the 'promises and assurances' of traffickers.

 

The UK has a number of country specific programmes around for e.g., Ukraine, Hong Kong and so on..  but the general principle is that Asylum Seekers should stay in the first safe destination they reach.  The Gov.UK information says nothing about how they are supposed to subsist while they make an application to the UK Asylum system, which in itelf is notoriously slow. Below, the Govt. view:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes#what-safe-and-legal-routes-does-the-uk-offer

 

From which:

Quote

Those who wish to claim asylum should do so in the first safe country they arrive and typically those fleeing humanitarian disasters remain in the region in which they have been displaced. There are no visa routes to enable people to claim asylum in the UK from overseas – just as there are no ways to apply for asylum from outside many other countries, such as Sweden or Germany.

 

And the information from from 'Right to Remain', which sets out the process.

 

https://righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/claimasylum/

 

 

[letsavagoo 963]

23 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

The Gov.UK information says nothing about how they are supposed to subsist while they make an application to the UK

Why is that our problem.