Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
We don’t have open borders but crack on.
We don’t have open borders but crack on.Short of kicking everyone out you cant. Its the price we pay for open borders. So innocent until proven guilty is the closest you can get. But its not enough, and anyone with a modicum of sense can see that
i get the impression he was pissed. the mask has slipped thoughWe don’t have open borders but crack on.
No you didn't. You said deport everyone who doesn't integrate then in the very next post admitted it was near impossible to show people who aren't integrating. So you can't deport anyone.I gave you a solution. You need to read better.
You're really sore that I noticed that about you aren't youi get the impression he was pissed. the mask has slipped though
you were defo pissed. quite funny. as i said, i don’t drinkYou're really sore that I noticed that about you aren't you
Nowt to be ashamed of squire. Cheer up its Fridayyou were defo pissed. quite funny. as i said, i don’t drink
Mask has slipped, i’m not the only one who noticed…Nowt to be ashamed of squire. Cheer up its Friday
Just out of curiosity, have you ever been diagnosed with anything personality wise? Your half trolling reminds me of someone....Mask has slipped, i’m not the only one who noticed…
yeah “serious fucking legend” disorderJust out of curiosity, have you ever been diagnosed with anything personality wise? Your half trolling reminds me of someone....
What worries me is there is so much focus on asylum seekers arriving by boat or those awaiting processing who have been placed in hotels that we are taking our focus off by far the largest group of offenders.
Tbf the data is usually deliberately Hazy to allow scope for whatever the government want to do to deal with it. If it was clear and concise they would have to do what the data shows. If its open to interpretation then they can do what they likeWhat worries me is there is so much focus on asylum seekers arriving by boat or those awaiting processing who have been placed in hotels that we are taking our focus off by far the largest group of offenders.
I completely understand the idea of certain groups being over-represented in stats but you can't just ignore the overall figures if they don't fit your narrative.
We also need far better data. This has been raised in previous reviews but it was decided the priority was to spend years on another review rather than action things we already know are an issue.
Tbf the data is usually deliberately Hazy to allow scope for whatever the government want to do to deal with it. If it was clear and concise they would have to do what the data shows. If its open to interpretation then they can do what they like
Happens on both sides of the fence unfortunatelyYeah the Casey report suggested that to be the case
Might as well when the west has given it's approval to a leader of a terrorist leader of Syria.He will still be able to make a warm cup of tea here
So if they do nothing…people complain. If they do something the right wants…people complain.3 guesses as to why theyve done this....
UK set to limit refugees to temporary stays
Shabana Mahmood is expected to say the era of permanent protection for refugees is over, in major changes to the UK's asylum and immigration system.www.bbc.co.uk
Ridiculous isn't it. Was the same with the hotels. Months of 'why don't they use army barracks', now they're doing that its 'why are they using army barracks'.So if they do nothing…people complain. If they do something the right wants…people complain.
Fair has to be fair, what do the immigration obsessives actually want them to do?
‘They’re only doing it because loads of people are complaining about it’.Ridiculous isn't it. Was the same with the hotels. Months of 'why don't they use army barracks', now they're doing that its 'why are they using army barracks'.
Same with this, exactly what people have been asking for but because it's being done those same people now aren't happy with it.
For the audience, what was net migration in 1986?Been watching reruns of Boon from 1986. Current storyline is the hotel will make more money if they take on a government contract to house immigrants.
There more things change...
What the voters actually want is 0 illegal immigrants. You scoff at the Australian and Danish models of dealing with migration without really acknowledging there’s a problem at all. This is genuinely “crisis? What crisis?!” thinking.Ridiculous isn't it. Was the same with the hotels. Months of 'why don't they use army barracks', now they're doing that its 'why are they using army barracks'.
Same with this, exactly what people have been asking for but because it's being done those same people now aren't happy with it.
Should have stayed in the euWhat the voters actually want is 0 illegal immigrants. You scoff at the Australian and Danish models of dealing with migration without really acknowledging there’s a problem at all. This is genuinely “crisis? What crisis?!” thinking.
In light of Mahmood’s plans to increase ILR to 10 years, the usual suspects are decrying it on the news round. What’s interesting is that the Migration Observatory estimates there’s between 622-820k non-EU holders of ILR and cross-referencing this with the DWP’s data, 211k were on Universal Credit (UC). Which poses the country with one of two uncomfortable prospects:
1) 27-37% of non-EU migrants are on UC. This is clearly untenable and is a damning failure. Or
2) the true scale ILR is not known and migration higher than what we currently think.
Take your pick, but the more evidence that’s in the public domain, the more it points to mass migration causing a lot of damage to the country.
What’s that got to do with anything? Under the Dublin agreement, we were net-receivers of illegal migrants. The small boats crisis began in 2018 before we’d even left and likewise, the EU has its own problems with illegal migration.Should have stayed in the eu
Who convinced us that was a good idea?
ah yep I remember
Or the small boats traffikers saw that with us leaving the EU imminently there was soon likely to be no framework to send the people they were trafficking back. So Brexit actually emboldened the small boat traffikers, not deterred them,What’s that got to do with anything? Under the Dublin agreement, we were net-receivers of illegal migrants. The small boats crisis began in 2018 before we’d even left and likewise, the EU has its own problems with illegal migration.
The Australian points style system introduced by Boris Johnson is still the basis of a controlled immigration system that voters fundamentally want.
Equally, the government needs to properly deter illegal migration, enforce visa conditions, clamp down on foreign-born individuals claiming UC. Welcome high-net worth, self-sufficient migrants, end low skill, low net-worth arrivals.
The sooner any government sorts out this toxic mess, the better. Shabana Mahmood was seriously impressive in the Commons earlier and hope she faces down critics in her own party to push through these reforms. It’s a step in the right direction.
You make this claim as if the UK is the only European country facing the issue of illegal migration. The UK was a net recipient of asylum seekers under Dublin Framework and as it happens, this framework has ensured that EU frontier countries (Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece) are incentivised to not process asylum seekers and allow them to wonder on to their destination of choice.Or the small boats traffikers saw that with us leaving the EU imminently there was soon likely to be no framework to send the people they were trafficking back. So Brexit actually emboldened the small boat traffikers, not deterred them,
What the voters actually want is 0 illegal immigrants. You scoff at the Australian and Danish models of dealing with migration without really acknowledging there’s a problem at all. This is genuinely “crisis? What crisis?!” thinking.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there. What people want is a unicorn. The reality is 0 illegal immigrants is to all intents and purposes impossible. And I'm not even sure people want to stop there. There's increasing noise around removing people already here legally let alone letting more people via legal routes.Equally, the government needs to properly deter illegal migration, enforce visa conditions, clamp down on foreign-born individuals claiming UC. Welcome high-net worth, self-sufficient migrants, end low skill, low net-worth arrivals.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there. What people want is a unicorn. The reality is 0 illegal immigrants is to all intents and purposes impossible. And I'm not even sure people want to stop there. There's increasing noise around removing people already here legally let alone letting more people via legal routes.
A large part of the issue is even if you somehow managed a net migration figure of zero it wouldn't resolve the issue of inequality which is the root cause of most, if not all, the problems currently blamed on immigration.
This of course is a huge problem for the incumbent and plays into the hands of the likes of Farage who will happily promise they can deliver the unicorn. We got Labour in because 'anyone but the current lot' and we may well get Reform because 'anyone but the current lot or the last lot'. Farage promised the unicorn with brexit and then ran a mile when it happened. He wanted nothing to do with implementing it as he knew it was doomed. Waited until he could pop back up and claim it would have been wonderful if they'd just done it right, without ever defining what right was. I understand people wanting a solution but Farage and Reform seem to have more than a touch of fool me once...
Wouldn't say I scoff at the Australian or Danish models. More that I think the geographical differences, both in terms of lack of international waters and who our neighbours are, make implementing the Australian model a very different proposition here.
And with the Danish model I feel people very much want to cherry pick one of two parts to implement. I'm certain if we started paying people tens of thousands to leave the country or spent a huge amount of money housing immigrants in 'better' areas to aid integration there would be uproar.
Not sure what figures you’re looking at but the cost of dealing with the migrant problem is about £2.1B a year. Oxfam and Tax justice UK estimate that a wealth tax would generate £25B a year, the Greens estimate is more conservative at £15-25B a year. But whichever way you cut it a wealth tax would more than cover it.Anyway, I’m sure Zach Polanski’s wealth taxes will solve ‘wealth inequality’ when it barely covers the costs of migrant hotels.
Do you believe a wealth tax would raise that per year? Check in with France and Norway.Not sure what figures you’re looking at but the cost of dealing with the migrant problem is about £2.1B a year. Oxfam and Tax justice UK estimate that a wealth tax would generate £25B a year, the Greens estimate is more conservative at £15-25B a year. But whichever way you cut it a wealth tax would more than cover it.
Not sure what figures you’re looking at but the cost of dealing with the migrant problem is about £2.1B a year. Oxfam and Tax justice UK estimate that a wealth tax would generate £25B a year, the Greens estimate is more conservative at £15-25B a year. But whichever way you cut it a wealth tax would more than cover it.
Out of his arse.Can you share the source of the £2.1 B a year please
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?