How do you stop the migrants crossing the channel

[Insane]

9 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

nd...opinions are only a useful perspective if facts that contradict them don't stand in their way. Otherwise they are just...... guff.

 

9 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

You are simply misinformed or stupid. Choose which one it is. Choose wisely

I would never take advice from you. That would not be wise would it. 

[IMHAL]

9 minutes ago, Insane said:

 

I would never take advice from you. That would not be wise would it. 

Of course, choosing wisely is not usually the advice a fool would take. 

Face it, your mental model of the way this thing works is totally messed up, you have the facts wrong, you don't don't understand and can't comprehend the facts when put to you. You have no clue. Congrats....you are prime Brexit material. 

Edited April 17, 2022 by IMHAL

[Confusion of VIs]

15 minutes ago, Insane said:

Umm because they are in France. 

Wrong go back and read the Dublin Convention and the UN Convention. 

So you agree they are a problem for the UK that needs sorting. Thank you for confirming Brexit or no Brexit surely all countries involved need to get round tables and sort this situation and others like it across the Globe. 

The answer is not for people on House Price Crash to post rubbish trying to explain to others that it is not a problem and an issue in the UK. People telling others to accept the situation and anyone rocking up on a boat at Dover has a right to be here funded by the tax payers. I have asked a few posters on here who don't see 60+ thousand expected to arrive here this year as a problem what kind of numbers would they see as a problem and they are unable to answer. Which is comical. 

You can pontificate on all you like but the reality is you are wrong.

Cases have been argued before the UK courts and case law established. Asylum seekers are entitled to claim asylum in whichever country they wish and to transit others. As of 1st Jan 2021 (Brexit day) this includes transiting the EU.

 

[pig]

37 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

By 'kind of intersting' I think you mean worrrying. That is should be that difficult for someone to take in really quite simple concepts....totally incredible!

He's  probably capable of understanding but doesn't want to -  children by comparison just try to understand.

Its probably a tendentious stance of 'feck off not my problem' rather than inability to take in simple concepts. I think thats what the bold shows -  I don't think the suggested responses are beyond his capability.

how can they seek Asylum here  (they are travelling here to seek asylum)

and be ours  (they aren't anybodies other than their home countries - they are asylum seekers)

when they have never been here. (they might have but yes they come from another country)

[14stFlyer]

Thank you Insane and Imhal for discussing the current state of UN asylum law, the Dublin convention, and how Brexit has led to the current situation.  Put brutally simply, it is in France and the EU’s interests to encourage (or at least not interrupt) the current situation of mass migration across the channel in small boats.  

I guess I am seeing the EU’s response to Brexit and the U.K. government Rwanda wheeze as a bit like treating asylum as a game of Snakes and Ladders. 

Freedom of movement across EU and a recognition that post-Brexit there is no requirement for first country recievers to register asylum seekers is acting like a “ladder”, allowing more migrants to quickly arrive at the English Channel and attempt entry into the U.K. than was previously the case. 

The Rwanda wheeze will act as a “snake”, sending some of the migrants back to the start, often even further from the country where they originally started their travels.

Of course, for the vast majority of these people, this is by no means a game.  

[IMHAL]

2 hours ago, 14stFlyer said:

Thank you Insane and Imhal for discussing the current state of UN asylum law, the Dublin convention, and how Brexit has led to the current situation.  Put brutally simply, it is in France and the EU’s interests to encourage (or at least not interrupt) the current situation of mass migration across the channel in small boats.  

The UK take in less asylum seekers than many other countries in the EU, so in that context I would not call that 'mass immigration'. Just a point of note.

2 hours ago, 14stFlyer said:

I guess I am seeing the EU’s response to Brexit and the U.K. government Rwanda wheeze as a bit like treating asylum as a game of Snakes and Ladders. 

Freedom of movement across EU and a recognition that post-Brexit there is no requirement for first country recievers to register asylum seekers is acting like a “ladder”, allowing more migrants to quickly arrive at the English Channel and attempt entry into the U.K. than was previously the case. 

The Rwanda wheeze will act as a “snake”, sending some of the migrants back to the start, often even further from the country where they originally started their travels.

Of course, for the vast majority of these people, this is by no means a game.  

No, it's not a game. These people are often displaced by war or being persecuted. The UK, for a small percentage of them is their chosen place to seek asylum. Also, countries in general don't want to prevent those who want to transit to seek asylum elsewhere from leaving. We certainly would not and nor should we. 

[wighty]

14 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

The UK take in less asylum seekers than many other countries in the EU, so in that context I would not call that 'mass immigration'. Just a point of note.

No, it's not a game. These people are often displaced by war or being persecuted. The UK, for a small percentage of them is their chosen place to seek asylum. Also, countries in general don't want to prevent those who want to transit to seek asylum elsewhere from leaving. We certainly would not and nor should we. 

Unfortunately that opinion isn't generally supported on the UK.

So the answer to the topic question is to somehow change public opinion. Any ideas?.

 

 

[Innkeeper]

9 minutes ago, wighty said:

Unfortunately that opinion isn't generally supported on the UK.

So the answer to the topic question is to somehow change public opinion. Any ideas?.

 

 

The government has to be seen as being in control of immigration.  If it’s not seen as being in control, then public opinion on immigration will be negative.  Hence Brexit.

Now the government is seen as not being in control of ‘channel immigration’.  Public opinion continues to be negative.  The government has proposed a solution.  Whether this is popular or not I can’t be sure.

The UK has had ‘managed immigration’ since the Second World War.  Many weren’t happy at the time but over the generations it’s now seen as part of British life.

Uncontrolled, unmanaged and ‘illegal’ immigration will never sit well with the public and there’s not much point in pretending it ever will be.

[Bob8]

36 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

The UK take in less asylum seekers than many other countries in the EU, so in that context I would not call that 'mass immigration'. Just a point of note.

No, it's not a game. These people are often displaced by war or being persecuted. The UK, for a small percentage of them is their chosen place to seek asylum. Also, countries in general don't want to prevent those who want to transit to seek asylum elsewhere from leaving. We certainly would not and nor should we. 

Hypothetically, were I to have to flee Denmark, I would want to go to the UK. Even if it meant passing through more prosperous nations on the way (Germany, Netherlands, Belgium).  People will have different reasons, it would not make me a wanton criminal as many seem to imagine.

[IMHAL]

33 minutes ago, wighty said:

Unfortunately that opinion isn't generally supported on the UK.

So the answer to the topic question is to somehow change public opinion. Any ideas?.

 

 

Educate the people and enforce the social contract instead of voting in populist governments who spend money on folly projects and syphon off excess tax money and give it to their chums. 

The labour government broke the social contract, pandered to the banks and builders. The Tories do all that and award their chums juicy contracts. 

Lets face it, the government could restrict mortgage lending and take us back to sustainable house prices if it were not for the fact we may have gone too far down that rabbit hole. Instead, people air their grievances at the age old 'blame the migrant'. It will make not a blind jot of differance. 1/2 million EU'ers left after Brexit and it has made no difference to house prices or anything else (actually it's all got worse). So what difference a couple of 10k migrants? None. It's a convenient red herring used by populist governments to keep them in power.

[IMHAL]

25 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

Hypothetically, were I to have to flee Denmark, I would want to go to the UK. Even if it meant passing through more prosperous nations on the way (Germany, Netherlands, Belgium).  People will have different reasons, it would not make me a wanton criminal as many seem to imagine.

You are a criminal. Guilty of too much logic and not enough mental gymnastic

 

[wighty]

Just an aside, reported that part of Rwanda deal is to take asylum seekers from Rwanda

 

[byron78]

2 minutes ago, wighty said:

Just an aside, reported that part of Rwanda deal is to take asylum seekers from Rwanda

 

This is amazing if true!

I thought the math alone was mad.

It will take 480 years for an asylum seeker to "cost" what flying one out to Rwanda and all the legal bunk that will invite is going to cost.

What a clever country we are, eh?

[miguel]

It won't fly. as they say. It's just a very tiny morsel of meat thrown at the likes of inane insane, et al. 

The idea is complete and utter junk from a complete and utter junk government. 

[Insane]

44 minutes ago, Innkeeper said:

Uncontrolled, unmanaged and ‘illegal’ immigration will never sit well with the public and there’s not much point in pretending it ever will be.

+ 1 

If politicians had listened to and acted on the concerns of people over the last few decades we might not have got Brexit. The UK population might have absorbed the open borders EU immigration if we had not had as much again from outside of the EU. 

When immigration discussions did come up politicians often resorted to the default option of telling people if they did not champion mass immigration they were little Englanders, Bigots, Racist and of course Lazy so we needed more and more people to do the jobs Brits would not do. 

There were many reasons people Voted out not just immigration but it was a big issue , for those who voted remain it does not mean that they do not have concerns with the amount of immigration. I know many who did vote remain who are also concerned about immigration. 

 

[Insane]

8 minutes ago, byron78 said:

They don't cost £39.63 a week. We currently pay £120 - £150 per night per person for a hotel room then there is the medical care , the people who are paid to organise and administer the situation , the processing ect. 

If Ava-Santina had put a figure of about £2000 a week per person I might take her post a bit more seriously but then if fooled you so she did not completely waste her time.   

[Insane]

33 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Educate the people and enforce the social contract

I think you would fit very nicely in North Korea !

[winkie]

2 hours ago, IMHAL said:

The UK take in less asylum seekers than many other countries in the EU, so in that context I would not call that 'mass immigration'. Just a point of note.

No, it's not a game. These people are often displaced by war or being persecuted. The UK, for a small percentage of them is their chosen place to seek asylum. Also, countries in general don't want to prevent those who want to transit to seek asylum elsewhere from leaving. We certainly would not and nor should we. 

The people of the UK who are against migration will often look upon them as all economic migrants....get off my land. If for arguments sake we were France and a group of people wanted to claim asylum over the water in a different land we would not stop them, or say to them that they would have to stay in France.....when we were part of the EU we could return those who did not qualify for asylum to France, now we no longer have the control to do that. 

[byron78]

53 minutes ago, miguel said:

It won't fly. as they say. It's just a very tiny morsel of meat thrown at the likes of inane insane, et al. 

The idea is complete and utter junk from a complete and utter junk government. 

Yeah. I can't see it actually happening either. It'll be a "flag ship" thing floated before the next GE. The 40 new hospitals of racism.

Aside from the obvious hypocrisy of who is pushing it, it simply isn't workable...

 

Edited April 18, 2022 by byron78

[byron78]

52 minutes ago, Insane said:

They don't cost £39.63 a week. We currently pay £120 - £150 per night per person for a hotel room then there is the medical care , the people who are paid to organise and administer the situation , the processing ect. 

If Ava-Santina had put a figure of about £2000 a week per person I might take her post a bit more seriously but then if fooled you so she did not completely waste her time.   

If that's true it is a government issue. They should be able to house asylum seekers for less than £150 a night. That cost isn't the asylum seeker's faults tbf. That is just woeful planning and management by what we have in power etc.

But even if you assume no migrant ever goes on to work or benefit the country, you are still talking about spending far more to fly them to a foreign country than it would ever cost to keep them here.

Nof that it's ever going to happen anyway of course.

It's just chum chucked into the sea to distract (again).

Edited April 18, 2022 by byron78

[pig]

1 hour ago, Innkeeper said:

The government has to be seen as being in control of immigration.  If it’s not seen as being in control, then public opinion on immigration will be negative.  Hence Brexit.

Now the government is seen as not being in control of ‘channel immigration’.  Public opinion continues to be negative.  The government has proposed a solution.  Whether this is popular or not I can’t be sure.

The UK has had ‘managed immigration’ since the Second World War.  Many weren’t happy at the time but over the generations it’s now seen as part of British life.

Uncontrolled, unmanaged and ‘illegal’ immigration will never sit well with the public and there’s not much point in pretending it ever will be.

 

Inside the EU we could better control asylum seekers outside we've lost control.

I guess what we're seeing is the difference in 'control'  or 'power' between a nominal sovereignty over the uk and practical influence over the continent.

Perhaps one way of putting is that the continent is our border and we've lost control.

[Insane]

18 minutes ago, byron78 said:

If that's true it is a government issue. They should be able to house asylum seekers for less than £150 a night. That cost isn't the asylum seeker's faults tbf. That is just woeful planning and management by what we have in power etc.

Really a country that is short to the tune of 3 million homes should have adequate empty properties to house Asylum seekers when they rock up at Dover. I have asked you a few times now how many have you housed in your surplus of homes ? Don't expect a proper reply as you never give one do you. 

Did you hear about the one's refusing to leave hotels when they were allocated housing , I expect they did not want to cook and clean for themselves. 

21 minutes ago, byron78 said:

But even if you assume no migrant ever goes on to work or benefit the country, you are still talking about spending far more to fly them to a foreign country than it would ever cost to keep them here.

No you have to speculate to accumulate. Maybe if the word gets around that if you arrive in the UK you don't get put up in a hotel until the house provided by going to the top of 20+ year housing lists becomes available it could stop tens of thousands that we have coming in the future so our costs on those future people will be cut to Zero.  

Now are you going off to Dover today to welcome some into your homes , I know it is bank holiday but I don't think that will stop them coming. So off you Trott. 

[Insane]

39 minutes ago, winkie said:

The people of the UK who are against migration will often look upon them as all economic migrants....get off my land.

I have seen quite a few news reports recently of people living in not-fit-for-purpose housing. People who work, pay taxes, their full rent and council tax. They were showing families where the children were ill due to damp and mould, water dripping from pipes and ceilings, carpets that squelched when they were stepped on and even sewerage flooding into the bathrooms. 

If one of these people complained that they were living like this while boat people were being put up in four and five star hotels , would you expect to fob them off with " get off my land " ?  

[byron78]

2 hours ago, Insane said:

Really a country that is short to the tune of 3 million homes should have adequate empty properties to house Asylum seekers when they rock up at Dover. I have asked you a few times now how many have you housed in your surplus of homes ? Don't expect a proper reply as you never give one do you. 

Did you hear about the one's refusing to leave hotels when they were allocated housing , I expect they did not want to cook and clean for themselves. 

No you have to speculate to accumulate. Maybe if the word gets around that if you arrive in the UK you don't get put up in a hotel until the house provided by going to the top of 20+ year housing lists becomes available it could stop tens of thousands that we have coming in the future so our costs on those future people will be cut to Zero.  

Now are you going off to Dover today to welcome some into your homes , I know it is bank holiday but I don't think that will stop them coming. So off you Trott. 

Blimey. You really do have no idea you are propping up the problem do you?

It's not as if asylum seekers have SUDDENLY become an issue, is it? If we are having to use hotels because we do not have space that is a government issue. Exactly the same as if we were paying over the odds to house prisoners if we did not have enough prison spaces.

Asylum seekers are offered the most basic accomodation going and can't actually choose where they get sent either btw. It should be very very easy to house those whilst their claims are being processed (remember, 71% have a genuine claim).

They could have used an old prison site over here when they closed a lot of the Isle of Wight prison system during early austerity cuts for instance. Camp Hill is empty and there are other government buildings like this all over the country. The problem is political. When it was suggested asylum seekers be housed here for instance people got very upset about it. Why should we put them up in a posh part of the country (admittedly an old prison) when we can just ship them up north as per usual instead?

Your assumption all these people are sub-human is a bit much for me as well tbh.

Many will be like this man I'm sure.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/dabirul-islam-choudhury-people-obe-muslim-bow-b2059374.html

But let's pretend they're not. Let's pretend they're all evil, it's totally not the government's fault there is still no proper place to detain and house them, and that spending a million quid a head to ship them somewhere else is a great idea instead...

 

 

Edited April 18, 2022 by byron78

[Riedquat]

3 hours ago, winkie said:

The people of the UK who are against migration will often look upon them as all economic migrants....get off my land. If for arguments sake we were France and a group of people wanted to claim asylum over the water in a different land we would not stop them, or say to them that they would have to stay in France.....when we were part of the EU we could return those who did not qualify for asylum to France, now we no longer have the control to do that. 

The people who are all for it love to draw an equivalence between economic migrants and refugees, makes it easier to do their self-justification moralising by pretending everyone they disagree with is an uncaring monster, rather than just people who are very understandably unhappy with the impact of continuing rapid population growth and the problems that causes, which appears to be the prime reason for being anti-immigration (since it's the largest driving force of population growth in the UK). Often ignored or glossed over though because people would rather feel smug and morally superior than accept there's an actual issue that they're keen on worsening - that would make them bad, which can't be the case, therefore that can't be the reason.