Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I’m not suggesting that we do no due diligence on who enters the country. Conversely you are by saying we should let everyone in from the ‘good’ countries. What if such a person then committed some violent crime?
I’m not suggesting that we do no due diligence on who enters the country. Conversely you are by saying we should let everyone in from the ‘good’ countries. What if such a person then committed some violent crime?The world isn't right. That's the reality of it. Most people in the UK (even if it is a bit harder at the moment) live in relative comfort in pretty inoffensive environments. Most have no idea what it is like in some of the places these people are coming from.
If the world was a utopia I would agree with you, but it isn't. You cannot just open the door with no diligence and expect zero consequences. If you do, you end up in a situation like we are seeing in many places in Europe at the moment - and it is fucked.
The issue is that Indians and Portuguese reflect better than home grown Brits on that measure. Are we all to be deported and replaced on that basis?
As you and others clearly know, seeking asylum is quite different to economic migration which is again different to tourists outstaying their visas.It’s a terribly lame argument as this really is illegal unregulated people on boats and nothing to do with this
And how do you determine between the 'pieces of shit' and the decent ones? Do you ask them "are you a rapist?"Immigrants would be significantly less demonised if we didn't have so many pieces of shit coming in who are spoiling it for the rest. We have many amazing people, I agree, the majority are adding a lot. There are still a large amount of people who are total cunts though, and therefore I don't see any other choice at this stage but having to be stricter on this.
Sorry Pete, I just don't get your mindset on this. Especially after what happened to you.
And how do you determine between the 'pieces of shit' and the decent ones? Do you ask them "are you a rapist?"
You agree the majority are adding a lot then in the following sentence say we have to be much stricter. Explain the process. Do you know who are more likely to abide by the stricter rules and therefore be less likely to apply or be approved? Decent people. Do you know who is going to try and get around them and be dishonest? Pieces of shit. So it could end up being counter productive.
Of course we should do checks where possible on those entering the country and refuse those with convictions etc. But many of the 'pieces of shit' don't have that record - we only find out about it later when they commit the crimes. And when they do I agree entirely they should lose the right to stay, irrespective of what may happen to them at home.
There should be a contract on arrival of rights and responsibilities and as part of that it should be that if you commit a serious crime such as rape or murder you instantly lose the right to be in the UK, and repeated offences of lesser crimes will see the same outcome. If they don't agree to it they can't stay.
I'm not trying to be a dick, I genuinely want to understand what you're proposing. If you're saying to stop letting certain people in on the basis that there may be a small percentage risk of them being a rapist how are you applying that.No. You said I didn't want to let anyone immigrants in. Sorry, it's a lazy counter argument, and not what I said.
We need stricter measures, and frankly we cannot treat every country as the same. The world is not a paradise all the way round and there are many places on earth where many people's values are not aligned with ours.
This politically correct approach is just nonsense, and clearly hasn't worked.
Let's face it, it's fact that immigrants from countries like Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Iraq etc are more likely to go to prison.
Just because people merge in people who have moved over from places like Italy (who nobody is questioning) to skew actual stats and change context.
By definition, enforcing your borders and being selective with who you admit will be exclusionary to some degree.I'm not trying to be a dick, I genuinely want to understand what you're proposing. If you're saying to stop letting certain people in on the basis that there may be a small percentage risk of them being a rapist how are you applying that.
Because as far as I can see unless you're letting nobody at all in then that risk still exists.
Or a little worse as without safe routes people will try dangerous onesI'm not trying to be a dick, I genuinely want to understand what you're proposing. If you're saying to stop letting certain people in on the basis that there may be a small percentage risk of them being a rapist how are you applying that.
Because as far as I can see unless you're letting nobody at all in then that risk still exists.
Say we opened up a safe route between France and the UK to stop the small boat crossings…Or a little worse as without safe routes people will try dangerous ones
They aren't unrelated though are they?As I’ve said you don’t know that. You’ve taken two very unrelated numbers to work it out. But let’s say it’s true. Men are miles more likely than women to commit crime. Like far more than the difference between Iraqis and Italians or whatever. Shouldn’t we then ban all men?
If that’s stupid, why? The statistical evidence is stronger than for nationality.
Safe routes encourages people to apply safely and allows us to make decisions on who and how manySay we opened up a safe route between France and the UK to stop the small boat crossings…
How does that reduce illegal/legal migration? It doesn’t and actually creates a massive incentive for human traffickers getting people to Europe in the first place. Likewise, ‘safe routes’ to Europe only encourages more migration, not less.
Australia had this issue and they solved it by turning the boats around, processing people in third countries and not allowing illegal migrants to land on Australian soil. The UK needs to do this for our border and frankly, the EU needs to do this collectively to protect their borders.
They aren't unrelated though are they?
Considering you're posting random polls based on opinions of a few thousand people, you're trying hard to write off actual prison statistics.
Not sure why it pains some people so much to say that statistically, somebody from Somalia in the UK is more likely to commit a crime.
The numbers aren't unrelated, it's the number of people of that nationality in the UK and number of people of that nationality in prison in the UK.
Safe routes encourages people to apply safely and allows us to make decisions on who and how many
I like the debate is more than send everyone home or accept everyone that asks
Sbt maturing
They aren't unrelated though are they?
Considering you're posting random polls based on opinions of a few thousand people, you're trying hard to write off actual prison statistics.
Not sure why it pains some people so much to say that statistically, somebody from Somalia in the UK is more likely to commit a crime.
The numbers aren't unrelated, it's the number of people of that nationality in the UK and number of people of that nationality in prison in the UK.
They are unrelated. As I explained to you you are taking a 2024 crime rate and dividing it by a 2021 population estimate for a group you are complaining started coming to the country en masse in the last couple of years. You are undercounting the population. And if you didn’t think that the country someone was born in could really make someone 20 or 60 times as criminal then you would question why there’s such a disparity. Unless you believe in fundamental differences between humans based on where they were born.
Now answer the question: if we shouldn’t let demographics into the country based on comparative crime risks why should we allow any men in?
Wouldn’t the theory be that by providing a safe route you reduce the need for migrants to rely on human traffickers, and instead funnel people through routes where they can be properly processed and screened? Would seem to be a decent way to tackle illegal migration on paper.Say we opened up a safe route between France and the UK to stop the small boat crossings…
How does that reduce illegal/legal migration? It doesn’t and actually creates a massive incentive for human traffickers getting people to Europe in the first place. Likewise, ‘safe routes’ to Europe only encourages more migration, not less.
Seems like he regards the trafficked as bigger criminals than the traffickers.Wouldn’t the theory be that by providing a safe route you reduce the need for migrants to rely on human traffickers, and instead funnel people through routes where they can be properly processed and screened? Would seem to be a decent way to tackle illegal migration on paper.
Yes it would require significant resources, and yes it wouldn’t mean a decline in ‘legal’ migration, but if those are dealbreakers for you then it sounds like this is about something more than just small boats.
Wouldn’t the theory be that by providing a safe route you reduce the need for migrants to rely on human traffickers, and instead funnel people through routes where they can be properly processed and screened? Would seem to be a decent way to tackle illegal migration on paper.
Yes it would require significant resources, and yes it wouldn’t mean a decline in ‘legal’ migration, but if those are dealbreakers for you then it sounds like this is about something more than just small boats.
Great idea, just women. They're more likely to fill in the caring and nursing shortages we're told about and then when they die off there is no next generation to support. Women much more likely from any country to not make up crime statistics either. Any that can't get a job can go into the adult film making industry and we all get more lesbian porn. Win-winThey are unrelated. As I explained to you you are taking a 2024 crime rate and dividing it by a 2021 population estimate for a group you are complaining started coming to the country en masse in the last couple of years. You are undercounting the population. And if you didn’t think that the country someone was born in could really make someone 20 or 60 times as criminal then you would question why there’s such a disparity. Unless you believe in fundamental differences between humans based on where they were born.
Now answer the question: if we shouldn’t let demographics into the country based on comparative crime risks why should we allow any men in?
Who’s arguing in bad faith now?In practice, people advocating for ‘safe routes’ actually mean they want to rubber stamp all arrivals. Which would exacerbate the problem further
One may want less migration but we’ve fucked the planet and the reality is there will be more not lessIn practice, people advocating for ‘safe routes’ actually mean they want to rubber stamp all arrivals. Which would exacerbate the problem further so the issue still remains. You run the risk of being overwhelmed because if hundreds of thousands of people make the journey using unsafe routes, it seems obvious to me that making that journey ‘safe’ would increase demand exponentially.
Considering the electorates in the UK and the EU want less migration… yes it is a problem. It doesn’t really address the wider issues around where to house these new arrivals and so on. In UK specifically, we have a housing shortage as it is.
Certainly not me. That was a point you yourself seemed to concede.Who’s arguing in bad faith now?
One may want less migration but we’ve fucked the planet and the reality is there will be more not less
The top 10 countries in the world who have refugees taken in 3m a year!!!
Anyway I’m not for unrestricted immigration and I’m certain many others aren’t either
One may want less migration but we’ve fucked the planet and the reality is there will be more not less
The top 10 countries in the world who have refugees taken in 3m a year!!!
Anyway I’m not for unrestricted immigration and I’m certain many others aren’t either
Ukraine quite closeCertainly not me. That was a point you yourself seemed to concede.
It may reduce the ‘visibility’ of the problem but if an increased amount of arrivals (or even the same amount), that doesn’t actually solve the problem that this country is having with migration as a whole.
Only 15% of voters believe 100,000+ net migration is an acceptable level. Bearing in mind small boat arrivals are projected to reach c. 85,000, funnelling them down ‘safe routes’ doesn’t actually solve the problem the UK electorate has with migration: the belief we’ve taken in too many people in the first place.
The small boats gets disproportionate amount of airtime on this because it’s indicative of all the failures of border control.
No, you and others keep saying that you’re not for ‘unrestricted’ migration. I’ll take that at face value, what restrictions are you for?
The ‘safe routes’ argument does not tell us how we reduce numbers of people claiming asylum. It does, however, take it out of the public eye.
You wouldn’t expect the UK to be anywhere near the top because we’re no where near a war zone.
No you’re right we can look at Ukraine and say suck it up Russia are your friendsIn truth we do not have to take more whatever the state of the planet
No you’re right we can look at Ukraine and say suck it up Russia are your friends
we can say to Syrian children fuck off it’s not our fault bashir thinks your community should be destroyed
or to children in Gaza you should have been born in Doncaster then we would have given a shit about you
bloody hell mate
lol okI was actually talking about the likely impact of climate change on countries closer to the Equator
They are unrelated. As I explained to you you are taking a 2024 crime rate and dividing it by a 2021 population estimate for a group you are complaining started coming to the country en masse in the last couple of years. You are undercounting the population. And if you didn’t think that the country someone was born in could really make someone 20 or 60 times as criminal then you would question why there’s such a disparity. Unless you believe in fundamental differences between humans based on where they were born.
Now answer the question: if we shouldn’t let demographics into the country based on comparative crime risks why should we allow any men in?
lol ok
They’ll need to be a coordinated global answer though
We can’t just say sorry I know it’s a struggle but we’re alright Jack
If it was genuinely true that “safe routes for migrants” in reality meant “wave all migrants through with minimal checks” then I would agree with you that safe routes are a bad thing.Certainly not me. That was a point you yourself seemed to concede.
It’s another stupid argument the liberal-left continues to make.In truth we do not have to take more whatever the state of the planet
Farage and Zia have not manipulated the media. The demand is there for their policies, after all, David Cameron and May were elected on pledges to get net migration to 100k.Ukraine quite close
I’m really proud of our embracing of for instance the following communities being brought to our country for education and work
Caribbean in the 60’s
Indian pakistan for education
Ukraine for protection
Hong Kongongers as promised when China gained the territory
Afghanistan
Syria
Some lovely friends from Latvia and Poland before Brexit too
So I think it’s an ongoing discussion and agreement of levels in terms of absolute numbers
I understand the change of attitude and how Farage and tice and Zia have manipulated the media and many in our country to blame immigration for all that’s wrong and I think that’s what annoys me and many others. Just like it was before 2016 and if we leave the eu all will be well and we replaced Schengen migration with non eu migration
Most of our issues are down to the widening chasm between the haves and the have nots not 50000 people coming on small boats
Tbf that's just as reactionary as saying 'get yourselves over here by whatever means you can. No need to respect our cultures or traditions or laws, we'll bend to help you settle and give you whatever you need, no requirement to contribute'. I know that's not what you've said but it's not what G was alluding to either in his post.No you’re right we can look at Ukraine and say suck it up Russia are your friends
we can say to Syrian children fuck off it’s not our fault bashir thinks your community should be destroyed
or to children in Gaza you should have been born in Doncaster then we would have given a shit about you
bloody hell mate
I think I’m centre left now unfortunately without the courage of my socialist convictionsIt’s another stupid argument the liberal-left continues to make.
2% of
Farage and Zia have not manipulated the media. The demand is there for their policies, after all, David Cameron and May were elected on pledges to get net migration to 100k.
This is your fundamental misunderstanding of the political climate in this country. Working class communities all over the country have not like what they see from the impacts of net migration. ‘Bigotgate’ with Gordon Brown is where you can trace the disconnect with electorate and elected politicians back too.
Really glad you raised some of these examples because:
- Migrants from ex-Empire/Commonwealth countries have a shared culture, language and love of the country (Windrush specifically)
- Indian migrants have some of the most economically productive people that come to the UK
- With Ukraine, fighting age males where banned from leaving so most of the Ukrainian refugees were women, children and older men
- most importantly, high levels of integration
This does not describe much of low skilled legal migration nor asylum seekers from countries making up the bulk of small boat crossings.
No shared culture, language, religious values or even legal values. This acts as a barrier to successful integration.
The reality is, most young men making the small boat crossings or claiming asylum post-VISA expiration are economic migrants. Particularly with the disproportionate about of illegal migrants working in the gig economy. As a leftist Pete, this should be a massive red flag for you as big corporations get away with paying poverty wages.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?