Gynnsthetonic
Well-Known Member
The nearest safe country they come from?
12 year old raped in nuneaton (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter GIMOC
- Start date
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
They have to agree
Such a deal comes into effect today!
People still won't like it, even though it's apparently what they want.
UK-France migrant returns deal comes into force
The pilot agreement, which was announced during Emmanuel Macron's state visit to the UK last month, will see some people who have crossed the Channel sent back to France in exchange for taking some asylum seekers with ties to Britain.
Terry_dactyl
Well-Known Member
Well, you say that but I heard something similar from a lecturer many years ago ie the value of/how much value is placed upon being able to speak English.
rob9872
Well-Known Member
Surely that makes it worse and the French will be encouraging crossings? Everyone that makes it, even if they take them back, will be replaced so they're + down and we're 1 up!Such a deal comes into effect today!
People still won't like it, even though it's apparently what they want.
UK-France migrant returns deal comes into force
The pilot agreement, which was announced during Emmanuel Macron's state visit to the UK last month, will see some people who have crossed the Channel sent back to France in exchange for taking some asylum seekers with ties to Britain.news.sky.com
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It’s a joke - people were laughing at it on a discussion programme today
The point is that everyone is complaining these people are arriving illegally and only here because we're an easy touch, not because they have any ties to the UK.
This scheme returns those people, and instead we get people presenting themselves to the authorities in the proper way - which people have been asking for over the last few pages.
It's obviously not going to solve the problem, but it's literally what some in here have been demanding over the previous pages
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The point is that everyone is complaining these people are arriving illegally and only here because we're an easy touch, not because they have any ties to the UK.
This scheme returns those people, and instead we get people presenting themselves to the authorities in the proper way - which people have been asking for over the last few pages.
It's obviously not going to solve the problem, but it's literally what some in here have been demanding over the previous pages
It doesn’t ensure any are returned and its legality is already being questioned
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Of course they are and it’s only a tentative step
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No it doesn’t ensure anything and Cooper has already refused to say how many.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Course
You give me the answers within the law
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Just catching up on the posts in here from last night, see it was another perfectly normal discussion.
Seems to me its very difficult to have a discussion on this when figures and laws are just dismissed out of hand. There's a survey today on YouGov that highlights similar issues
yougov.co.uk
If you want to stop all immigration and remove people already here what process are you using and where are they being sent to?
I don't think there's anyone in the country that would tell you the current process for asylum seekers is working well but there seems to be very little by the way of alternatives put forward other than don't let anyone in which doesn't, at present, seem very reaslistic.
Seems to me its very difficult to have a discussion on this when figures and laws are just dismissed out of hand. There's a survey today on YouGov that highlights similar issues
Is there public support for large-scale removals of migrants? | YouGov
Public attitudes towards immigration are heavily influenced by the belief that most migration to the UK is 'illegal’
yougov.co.uk
If you want to stop all immigration and remove people already here what process are you using and where are they being sent to?
I don't think there's anyone in the country that would tell you the current process for asylum seekers is working well but there seems to be very little by the way of alternatives put forward other than don't let anyone in which doesn't, at present, seem very reaslistic.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
QuiteJust catching up on the posts in here from last night, see it was another perfectly normal discussion.
Seems to me its very difficult to have a discussion on this when figures and laws are just dismissed out of hand. There's a survey today on YouGov that highlights similar issues
Is there public support for large-scale removals of migrants? | YouGov
Public attitudes towards immigration are heavily influenced by the belief that most migration to the UK is 'illegal’
If you want to stop all immigration and remove people already here what process are you using and where are they being sent to?
I don't think there's anyone in the country that would tell you the current process for asylum seekers is working well but there seems to be very little by the way of alternatives put forward other than don't let anyone in which doesn't, at present, seem very reaslistic.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Just catching up on the posts in here from last night, see it was another perfectly normal discussion.
Seems to me its very difficult to have a discussion on this when figures and laws are just dismissed out of hand. There's a survey today on YouGov that highlights similar issues
Is there public support for large-scale removals of migrants? | YouGov
Public attitudes towards immigration are heavily influenced by the belief that most migration to the UK is 'illegal’
If you want to stop all immigration and remove people already here what process are you using and where are they being sent to?
I don't think there's anyone in the country that would tell you the current process for asylum seekers is working well but there seems to be very little by the way of alternatives put forward other than don't let anyone in which doesn't, at present, seem very reaslistic.
Who wants to stop all immigration?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
If anything the reverse argument seems to be getting used with people who want the UK to meet the obligations it signed up to under the Refugee Convention. It doesn't for one minute mean they excuse criminals.
rob9872
Well-Known Member
Tbf if it was an option I would. Say those who are here can stay, but no more.
I know there will be replies about needing them for the NHS and services, just pay those what they are worth and the shortage will diminish.
We have poor outdated infrastructure all over the country, creeping services, spiralling debt and not enough houses. Some will blame all of that on 14 years of Tory rule, but if they're honest it's much, much longer.
Spend a generation repairing what we have and preparing for the future. If we don't it will only get worse.
Last edited:
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
While I agree about paying the NHS more etc, I still think it would need to be a BIG increase to encourage native people to take the jobs. And that's before you even get to the "increasing wages causes inflation!" and the "how do you fund those increased wages?" arguments (which I don't necessarily believe or think wouldn't be as big an issue as some make out, but these are what will be argued.
And if you stop all immigration, does that include students, as many of our universities (which are now quite big employers) would go under without them? And also what about top experts etc. who might want to move here (again often linked to the universities) and we could benefit from their presence.
It would make for an interesting couple of transfer windows that’s for sure.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
If you pay them what they’re worth so they move from other industries you’re leaving shortages elsewhere. The fundamental problem is we are short of people. Unless you want to pay a lot more tax or give pensioners a lot less, we need more workers.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Who would we blame for everything then though?
fatso
Well-Known Member
Maybe we should put a temporary halt to immigration while we get through the current backlog of applications, and can empty the hotels.Just catching up on the posts in here from last night, see it was another perfectly normal discussion.
Seems to me its very difficult to have a discussion on this when figures and laws are just dismissed out of hand. There's a survey today on YouGov that highlights similar issues
Is there public support for large-scale removals of migrants? | YouGov
Public attitudes towards immigration are heavily influenced by the belief that most migration to the UK is 'illegal’
If you want to stop all immigration and remove people already here what process are you using and where are they being sent to?
I don't think there's anyone in the country that would tell you the current process for asylum seekers is working well but there seems to be very little by the way of alternatives put forward other than don't let anyone in which doesn't, at present, seem very reaslistic.
That might at least stem the ever increasing anger that the public have.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
How can you do that? You don’t choose when people cross the channel.
fatso
Well-Known Member
Well here's a novel idea, ....
we turn them back!!!
Other country's do it.
If only we had a navy or a coast guard!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Countries that do that do it in international waters to avoid international law. There’s no international water in the channel so if you want to “turn them back” without France agreeing you’re talking about invading France.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Like we had a government for 14 years guys that literally planned to use wave machines at one point to try and get around the law and plausible deniability. And they really wanted to stop the boats. Like a lot.
The idea there’s some simple solution no one has tried is just fantasy nonsense. If Suella Braverman and Priti Patel can’t manage it, no one sane will be able to.
The idea there’s some simple solution no one has tried is just fantasy nonsense. If Suella Braverman and Priti Patel can’t manage it, no one sane will be able to.
There are definitely solutions to improve things, Cooper* sounds like she’s got the right idea on some stuff; changing/speeding up appeal process as mentioned yesterday and agreement with France (if it can be ramped up). I think we’ll also club together with those looking to amend (provide clarity of interpretation) of ECHR.
The one mistake was not using Rwanda for male rejections pre appeal as I mentioned yesterday. Massive disincentive
Bravermann was a shambles, who oversaw runaway (‘legal’) migration and appeared soley focussed on Rwanda plan/leaving ECHR, so wouldn’t judge anything on her past performance
*said through gritted teeth as listening to her is like nails down a chalkboard. Will also await nutters in the party to start complaining how it’s all unfair etc
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I think that’s all we can do realistically without some nuclear buttons that put us in a questionable position with the countries around us. I always liked the idea of a French processing centre but then why would the French let those we reject stay there?
I think we have to get access to EU databases and any other screening we can do, and I’d be happy to tighten up on rules around entry. But I keep coming back to the fact that you need a country that will have them.
Maybe we need an Israel for refugees, though that was supposed to be America.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
There is the argument of making work a much better prospect that not doing so, and I'm not convinced at the moment it does.
Plus there are certain industries where we really don't need people. Do we really need people hoarding property and making their income from renting them out? I'd say no. Those people could get a proper job.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
What “we need” is determined by who will pay for it. We should destroy landlords through mass house building and transport improvements, but what would happen if a load of people moved into care is we’d lose an industry somewhere else. There’s only so many people to go around and for companies to grow they generally need staff. But even if you accept the economic loss you still have fewer taxpayers paying for more elderly people. The maths just ain’t mathing without tax rises or service cuts.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It’s been one of the main focuses of the current and last government. It’s just not as simple as people like to make out. Most people seemingly have a cartoon view of how countries interoperate.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
It should be possible to make the initial decision much quicker but even with the current process there's a huge shortage of qualified staff, this results in a large amount of wrong decisions, 48% of which get overturned at appeal.
It's the appeals process that takes forever as it's long and complex. The cost, in terms of keeping asylum seekers accommodated and fed during that period, providing the relevant legal assistance and the admin cost of the process itself must be huge.
Work out what is going wrong so that the vast majority of initial decisions are correct and you immediately relieve a large part of the system and free up staff.
Having said all that I wouldn't be surprised if it's policy to maximise how many applications are turned down at the initial stage and just hope people don't appeal. That certainly seems to be the case in the care system, at least from my experience.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
The pay and conditions immigrant workers put up with simply would not be accept by British workers.
Companies won't take a cut to their profits, look at the uproar every time minimum wage increases or there is the slightest increase in workers right, so you have to work out how you deal with price increases and the impact on inflation and the economy.
We've been reliant on labour paid poverty wages for so long we've back ourselves into a corner.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
We need to build houses and transport, but will take decades to fulfil.
Or short-term you can pass legislation saying people can only own one (maybe two houses) and other legal entities cannot own residential property. Decreases demand a bit as landlords are no longer wanting properties so improves prices for people and maybe owning a home and having that security of property becomes potentially achievable. And with that extra motivation to work. If you pay rent and look like that's all you'll ever do, why work to pay it when you can get benefits?
There are a lot of economically inactive people that just don't have a massive incentive to change that because wages are poor and it gets you less and less. I can understand how some people would decide to just 'slum' it and claim off the state. That's potentially a few million extra workers right there before taking any form other industries.
And if for profit businesses would lose out as workers would go elsewhere, then those companies would have to increase their wages to prevent it. If that isn't economically viable then that industry is of no value to the economy.
Why is growth so important? Land is finite, resources are finite. Growth just sees them used up quicker.