This a straw man and you’re better than that. If anyone is coming here legally and on a salary that means they’ll be a net-tax contributor, welcome.Sure, then imagine being a law abiding Afghan being denied entry because some of his compatriots are criminals.
I was more referring to asylum seekers. And it isn’t a straw man, at least one poster on here said ‘ban all Muslims’.This a straw man and you’re better than that. If anyone is coming here legally and on a salary that means they’ll be a net-tax contributor, welcome.
To generalise, there aren’t too many high income migrants from low income countries arriving legally or illegally. Particularly, the example of Afghan nationals who are overrepresented in crime statistics and welfare dependency.
I would bet on it. Probably get a grand next timeHe will be back next week and get some more!
I suspect Farage will end up exactly the same as the likes of Starmer and Sunak before him.No, I don’t think this is being blown out of proportion at all and MoJ data actually supports this.
From what I gather, you do seem to acknowledge that there’s a problem with migrant crime. Is that correct?
The secondary issue is that successive governments have shown they’re incapable of deporting migrants/asylum seekers when they commit crimes.
Farage wouldn’t be in business if one of the previous governments actually had the political will to resolve these issues. Starmer and Sunak have both made the same issue of staking their personal reputations on resolving the small boats issue and on their watches, it’s got worse.
@SBAndy you will have to explain the humour in this one. I'm not sure exactly how it manges to earn the laughing emoji badge.
They add so much to societyChannel migrant murdered man at random after asylum rejected
Somalian national Haybe Cabdiraxmaan Nur, 47, plunged a knife into the chest of father-of-three Gurvinder Singh Johal, 37 at a Lloyds Bank in Derby, before 'calmly' walking out of the branch.mol.im
The NHS workers are legal and proper. I doubt many came over on dingy. Same people always sticking up for them.Shame we couldn't swap all our UK born rapists and murderers (who add nothing to society) and swap them for all those migrants who keep our NHS and care homes running.
They definitely do add to society.
That source looks very reliable.It depends what criminal offences you are talking about, and the figures also vary based on country.
For example, people from Luxembourg in the UK will commit less crime, but people from Afghanistan significantly more.
Unsurprisingly, those from countries or religious backgrounds that treat women like second class citizens are overrepresented in sexual crime statistics. Here is a good example:
View attachment 46856
There were 87 nationalities with a higher conviction rate for sexual offences than the British population. In 2024, these nationalities were awarded 557,041 long-term visas by the Home Office. (Source)
Shame we couldn't swap all our UK born rapists and murderers (who add nothing to society) and swap them for all those migrants who keep our NHS and care homes running.
They definitely do add to society.
Who has said that’s what they think we should do?Wed all love to stop uk born rapists and murderers torch , but to suggest that allowing hundreds of thousands of migrants in many unvetted every year is a good thing is frankly bonkers .
Its actually irritating at this point why so many people will bend over backward to defend the current issues we have
absolutely nothing be it housing , school classrooms , hospital waiting times , crime rates etc can be attributed to mass immigration ..instead the people moaning about it are the bad ones , its all in our immaginations . give over mate
Do what ?Who has said that’s what they think we should do?
Allow hundreds of thousands in unvettedDo what ?
We are though , but you all defend it no matter whatAllow hundreds of thousands in unvetted
Apart from on the previous page to this where i specifically state these are issues and talk about what many would consider a draconian measure to keep those coming in on the straight and narrow or get deported.We are though , but you all defend it no matter what
Asylum seekers have to have claims accepted to stay hereWe are though , but you all defend it no matter what
Apart from on the previous page to this where i specifically state these are issues and talk about what many would consider a draconian measure to keep those coming in on the straight and narrow or get deported.
How about reading what's actually written, not what you think or want to have been written?
Theres estimates of 1 million plus illegal migrants estimates are always under played too , you know it i know itAsylum seekers have to have claims accepted to stay here
Economic migrants have to gain permission too
So who’s unvetted?
Anyone who arrives illegally should be barred from entry altogether, no exceptions.I was more referring to asylum seekers. And it isn’t a straw man, at least one poster on here said ‘ban all Muslims’.
Don’t think anyone’s happy with thatTheres estimates of 1 million plus illegal migrants estimates are always under played too , you know it i know it
Then you want to violate the refugee convention (or leave it). Which is fine, but to be clear that’s the only way we do that with asylum seekers.Anyone who arrives illegally should be barred from entry altogether, no exceptions.
I disagree with the principle of banning based on religion but the system needs to be more restrictive towards nationalities that tend to be economically unproductive and are overrepresented in crime statistics. To use an example, over 40% of Congolese migrants end up on benefits.
The universal welfare state cannot survive supporting 20-50% of certain groups.
I've just come off the phone with Gary Lineker and Jeremy Corbyn and they want us to double our intake.Don’t think anyone’s happy with that
Then you want to violate the refugee convention (or leave it). Which is fine, but to be clear that’s the only way we do that with asylum seekers.
Corbyn’s only asking for that to hide from SultanaI've just come off the phone with Gary Lineker and Jeremy Corbyn and they want us to double our intake.
There were also millions upon millions of displaced people at that time, and Britain was still rebuilding itself. We didn’t pull up the drawbridge then and I’m not convinced why we should be doing it now.The convention was to be fair supposed to be for people desperately fleeing persecution - it’s clearly being manipulated and the opening of borders in Europe now allows people to come across many countries that are safe then end up here.
There were also millions upon millions of displaced people at that time, and Britain was still rebuilding itself. We didn’t pull up the drawbridge then and I’m not convinced why we should be doing it now.
It's coming any minute now ... that we don't take as many as other countries ... I can feel it, not too far away .. hold tightThe situation is now different though and I do find it strange that people fleeing from persecution would not claim asylum in the first country they entered that offers safety. Then they could apply for a visa to the uk if they meet the necessary criteria.
Is it different? If anything the European countries of that time were much more poorly equipped and were coping with movements of many more people.The situation is now different though and I do find it strange that people fleeing from persecution would not claim asylum in the first country they entered that offers safety. Then they could apply for a visa to the uk if they meet the necessary criteria.
Is it different? If anything the European countries of that time were much more poorly equipped and were coping with movements of many more people.
I’m open to discussing how the convention should be adapted for modern times, but it’s a risk precedent to set to punish someone fleeing for their own safety based on how they got here.
The majority of the electorate accept that trade off. This is how leaving the ECHR has gone from fringe opinion to the mainstream in little over a year.Then you want to violate the refugee convention (or leave it). Which is fine, but to be clear that’s the only way we do that with asylum seekers.
In his specific case yeah I agree with you. My own preference for how to deal with this is something I’ve described elsewhere.It’s different because the EU changed from a trading common market and then allowed freedom of entry across member states. The Somalian guy who was saying he was 19 but was 27 tried out Italy and Germany and didn’t fancy it so came here. By any definition he isn’t seeking sanctuary here at all is he?
Did it involve being strung up from a great height by the bollocks?In his specific case yeah I agree with you. My own preference for how to deal with this is something I’ve described elsewhere.
Though it does make me ask the question-how exactly is someone fleeing a threat to their lives meant to come here legally?The majority of the electorate accept that trade off. This is how leaving the ECHR has gone from fringe opinion to the mainstream in little over a year.
The current frameworks are just not working for us (or Europe) and there’s no sign of that changing. This is an issue that seems to be impacting Europe the most so perhaps we adapt similar regimes that Australia, Japan and the USA adhere too.
Japan’s grants around 1% (or thereabouts) of asylum claims, peaking at 9%. In the UK, our rate peaked at 76% in 2022 and before the Human Rights Act was enacted in law, it was around 8%.
Clearly the problem lies somewhere with the passing of the Human Rights Act that enshrined th ECHR in UK law. This is something David Blunkett and Jack Straw recognise when calling to reverse a measure they voted for. It’s clearly had v unintended consequences.
Oi, only the wife does thatDid it involve being strung up from a great height by the bollocks?
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?