Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Stopping them in the Channel requires France to step up and stop them taking off, but this is familiar ground from what we've discussed before.
Immigration and Asylum (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter mmttww
- Start date
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Proof please.
Prove that all the pensioners have created the wealth that provides the money in the system. Given the sums that were done on people's life expectancy and how much they would need to set aside to cover their retirement anyone around or above the age of 80 will have already used up their own contributions from their working life and now be a drain on the economy. And those calculations didn't visualise the massive need for health and social care many of those people would need as they'd spend around 10 years in very poor health. And that's of course assuming all pensioners worked throughout their life paying into the system, which won't be the case.
Then prove that all welfare claimants have contributed nothing. (JK Rowling says hello)
They're nothing but lazy assumptions based on class warfare. Rich people were more likely to be old so we shouldn't blame the old. Poor people are more likely to need welfare payouts (because they haven't got a family that can just pay it off for them) so we should blame them.
Last edited:
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
That is what Australia did. Like our current policy, they tried paying Indonesia to stop the boats and they weren’t doing it because it’s not in their interest to. So they started turning boats back and escorted them all the way to Indonesia.
It caused a diplomatic ruckus and no doubt this policy would. Ultimately, the UK has a right to defend its territory.
It is practical, there’s a blueprint in place and we’re not the only country to has experienced an asylum crisis via small boats.
Australia’s policy was successful. Paying the French, ‘1 in, 1 out’, ‘safe and legal routes’ do not stop the issue.
If the French want to play ping pong with migrant boats in the Channel, so be it. France will never stop 30-50k refugees leaving their shores every year if they know Britain will pick the tab.
fatso
Well-Known Member
This has to be the most rediculous post on here! Are you deliberately wumming?
You clearly have absolutely no idea how the economy functions.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Deliberately wumming.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
What matters to me on this issue is that human trafficking stops and that vulnerable people are able to make asylum claims in the safest possible way. The problem as I've said before is that no country in Europe, including ourselves, seems interested in a group effort to process claims either near the common points of entry or elsewhere. Instead they all want to fob people off somewhere else and hope the problem goes away.
Then eventually it becomes their problem anyway.
fatso
Well-Known Member
But bearing in mind political leaders only stay in office for 2 or 3 years anyway, its not going to be their problem, they are more than happy to kick the can down the road.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Of course you can.This is true even if some people who want to claim asylum are prevented from getting on a plane.
You can't. Not legally anyway.
I haven't said otherwise.
I'm not the one trying to claim it's fine to jump on a 20 quid Ryanair flight so I'm not sure why you're trying to pull me up and not those that believe that.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
The simple fact is that you can hop on a plane and claim asylum. EU nationals cannot claim asylum in the UK and vice versa. Non-EEA nationals (such as Albania, Serbia, Bosnia etc) can claim asylum in the UK and EU.
However, if you’re a career criminal, you obviously don’t want to present legal documents of who you are. There’s plenty of videos of channel migrants destroying their documents on the channel, why is that? For whatever reason, those people do not want UK authorities knowing who are and where they’ve come from exactly.
Sorry but you're wrong, it's not possible (legally).
And so by your own reasoning every single person on every single boat is a 'career criminal'.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
It’s illegal… what mechanisms physically stop some claiming asylum at an airport?
After all, it’s illegal to hop on a small boat in Calid and sail across to Dover to claim asylum. Alas, it happens.
There’s undeniably disproportionate criminality of channel migrants. Anyone who actively destroys their documents shouldn’t be granted asylum under any circumstances.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
The fact you need a visa to get on a plane.
But if it's so easy to get on a plane for 20 quid rather than pay thousands and risk your life then the vast majority would be doing that - so that must mean everyone on the boats are career criminals. You're contradicting yourself somewhat.
Now you're introducing caveats because what you said initially was preposterous.
It's not preposterous.
I'm beginning to see why so many people are so miffed about the small boats now when they think you can just pop on a plane for a few quid.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
So not willing to provide the proof that many pensioners, especially those over a certain age, aren't a net drain on the economy or that everyone on welfare is I see.
Oh, and you've been told at least two other times on here its r I diculous. With an I. Silly little errors like that can make someone look like they don't know what they're talking about..
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Yes and nothing stops you claiming asylum once you get to an airport, irrespective of visa status. Plenty of asylum claims are made by people who have short stay/student visas.
If you have links to various crime organisations or committed any crimes from the long journey from Greece/Italy/France/Spain… you’re not going to want present ID at a port of entry. Given the specific example of Albania:
1. Safe country
2. At one point made up 25% of small boat crossings
3. 20% of all Albanian nationals based in the UK are in jail
It’s v obvious there’s criminality linked here. If you don’t believe, I’m not sure what evidence you need
FYI - see below, pretty dated, but before the small boats crisis:
Majority of illegal migrants enter UK via Heathrow on a visa, not on a lorry
If Theresa May wants to tackle illegal immigration, better to target overstayers and focus on root cause of Mediterranean migrant crisis
fatso
Well-Known Member
Tell me you realise that pensioners have contributed tax and NI for 50.years or more.
And you do realise that the businesses they worked for paid tax on the profits they made.
And do you even realise that the pension payments given to pensioners are spent in British shops who pay tax and VAT which means the money paid to pensioners eventually returns (through tax and vat) back to the treasurey.
So with that in mind please please please explain to us, your totally ridiculous (with an i) idea that pensioners are a drain on the economy.
I've never ever heard such a totally bat shit bonkers and 100% wrong theory.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Tell me you realise that not all pensioners have worked their entire lives (and a small number will have barely worked at all) and so will not have contributed tax and NI for 50 years or more?
Tell me you realise that the calculations made when they were paying into the system were based on statistics where life expectancy was expected to be younger and a pension claim was expected to last around 10-15 years, when now many of them are claiming it for 20 or more years? This is especially true for women who until a short time ago could retire at 60, live longer on average than men and that generation will statistically have been less likely to have worked for their entire lives.
Tell me you realise that those calculations made no allowance for the fact that these people would not only live longer than expected but would be more likely to spend a number of years of that time with poor health requiring complicated, intensive health and social care?
And tell me you realise the money spent on welfare is spent in British shops who pay tax and VAT which means the money paid to welfare claimants eventually returns (through tax and VAT) back to the treasury (again, check your spelling).
So with that in mind please please please explain to us your totally ridiculous (congratulations on getting it right) idea that all welfare claimants are a drain on the economy, when JK Rowling, who famously was on benefits when writing Harry Potter) pays an estimated £40m per annum in tax. Or do you think this doesn't cover the child benefit she claimed?