Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Net immigration 'will settle at 245,000 a year': OBR upgrades estimates by 40,000 since November, pointing to big inflows from Ukraine, Hong Kong, student boom and post-Brexit points-based system


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441
On 3/17/2023 at 1:27 PM, captainb said:

Have you considered the 1951 refugee convention might no longer be fit for purpose in an age of mass air transport and globalisation?

The notion that it's gospel and the only solution is either that; or nobody ever can seek asylum period is rather odd 

Mass air transport? 

They came in boats in during the second World War and they're still coming in boats. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 293
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442
2
HOLA443
On 3/17/2023 at 2:19 PM, Insane said:

The ECHR agreement that we signed in 1951 is now out dated and needs to be reassessed. So does the UN Refugee convention. 

I absolutely agree with the right to seek Asylum. However like the agreements we have signed which are now not fit for purpose we need to look at how we assess what is a true Asylum Seeker and who are the Bogus. We also need to look at how we make countries responsible for taking in Asylum Seekers. 

At present once someone arrives in any country that is part of the agreements they are solely the responsibility of that country. They can also hop from country to country however they chose. My thinking is when anyone arrives in any country they should be the responsibility of all countries within the agreements equally. Why should a country who has 10 arrivals pay for 10 where another country that has 100,000 arrive has to pay for all 100,000 just because the Asylum Seekers chose to seek Asylum in that country.

The help given to Asylum Seekers should be equally across all the countries in the agreements and the costs shared out equally across all countries. I currently hear the mantra from the left " other countries take more than us" as if it is a competition to take the most. France currently takes more than us however they don't treat them like us hence why so many want to cross the channel and get here. In Paris there are tents in the middle of roundabouts and at the sides of the roads or the Camps in Calais filled with Asylum Seekers , why are the French not housing them?

Many countries within the ECHR will not accept applications from Albanians others like Spain do but very few are granted to Albanians however we grant 57% to all Albanians who apply. People from a country who can apply for a work visa and fly here. Why are we doing this? At one point they gave out figures that 80% of people coming via the boats were from Albanian. 

Yet the left never call out the Bogus Asylum Seekers. Why not? 

No one takes more from a Real Asylum Seeker than a Bogus Asylum Seeker. They clog up the system , they use resources and wear out the generosity of the British Tax Payer who foots the bill for this. So why are those who are so Pro Asylum Seeker not the loudest to shout about stopping the Bogus ones. Instead they argue to put them under same heading as Real Asylum Seekers? 

Doing that is madness it is like a shop keeper treating shop lifters with the same respect as shoppers and when asked why they do this they reply with " well the shop lifters left here with goods in their bags just like the shoppers". 

 

 

Which human rights do you specifically disagree with and what specifically in the refugee convention is out of date and why? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444
25 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

As anyone can seek asylum then there can be no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker. 

Wrong. If they are found to have no grounds they were Bogus quite simple. Just like someone who has claimed a crime has been committed against them which turns out to be unfounded. 

27 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

To be granted refugee status isn't a binary decision like your legal analogy. There are multiple factors involved. 

Does not stop someone being Bogus see my reply on the line above. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445
On 3/17/2023 at 2:19 PM, Insane said:

The ECHR agreement that we signed in 1951 is now out dated and needs to be reassessed. So does the UN Refugee convention. 

I absolutely agree with the right to seek Asylum. However like the agreements we have signed which are now not fit for purpose we need to look at how we assess what is a true Asylum Seeker and who are the Bogus. We also need to look at how we make countries responsible for taking in Asylum Seekers. 

At present once someone arrives in any country that is part of the agreements they are solely the responsibility of that country. They can also hop from country to country however they chose. My thinking is when anyone arrives in any country they should be the responsibility of all countries within the agreements equally. Why should a country who has 10 arrivals pay for 10 where another country that has 100,000 arrive has to pay for all 100,000 just because the Asylum Seekers chose to seek Asylum in that country.

The help given to Asylum Seekers should be equally across all the countries in the agreements and the costs shared out equally across all countries. I currently hear the mantra from the left " other countries take more than us" as if it is a competition to take the most. France currently takes more than us however they don't treat them like us hence why so many want to cross the channel and get here. In Paris there are tents in the middle of roundabouts and at the sides of the roads or the Camps in Calais filled with Asylum Seekers , why are the French not housing them?

Many countries within the ECHR will not accept applications from Albanians others like Spain do but very few are granted to Albanians however we grant 57% to all Albanians who apply. People from a country who can apply for a work visa and fly here. Why are we doing this? At one point they gave out figures that 80% of people coming via the boats were from Albanian. 

Yet the left never call out the Bogus Asylum Seekers. Why not? 

No one takes more from a Real Asylum Seeker than a Bogus Asylum Seeker. They clog up the system , they use resources and wear out the generosity of the British Tax Payer who foots the bill for this. So why are those who are so Pro Asylum Seeker not the loudest to shout about stopping the Bogus ones. Instead they argue to put them under same heading as Real Asylum Seekers? 

Doing that is madness it is like a shop keeper treating shop lifters with the same respect as shoppers and when asked why they do this they reply with " well the shop lifters left here with goods in their bags just like the shoppers". 

 

 

For reference. 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446
23 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

What specific part of the convention do you believe needs changing and why? 

Most of it , already given a few examples on this thread. Go back and take a look. 

We need to stop economic immigrants from safe countries claiming they are Refugees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447
1 minute ago, Insane said:

Wrong. If they are found to have no grounds they were Bogus quite simple. Just like someone who has claimed a crime has been committed against them which turns out to be unfounded. 

Does not stop someone being Bogus see my reply on the line above. 

 

You don't seem to realise that the term 'asylum seeker' is just a description of status, nothing more, nothing less. 

Being granted refugee status is complex and subjective to individual applicants. 

There is no black and white decision making here as in your 'it's legal or illegal' analogy. 

Consider this; if an asylum seeker knows they have absolutely no case then why would they risk their life to be detained until deported? 

Surely they would just high tail it on arrival and work the black economy as an illegal immigrant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448
3 minutes ago, Insane said:

Most of it , already given a few examples on this thread. Go back and take a look. 

We need to stop economic immigrants from safe countries claiming they are Refugees. 

Can you please point me to exactly where you referenced a specific part of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees that you believe is out of date and your reasoning? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449
9
HOLA4410
6 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

Consider this; if an asylum seeker knows they have absolutely no case then why would they risk their life to be detained until deported? 

Detained where ? Fifty thousand of them are in 5* hotels right now. 

Deported from the UK 🤣Have you ever heard the term word got round? Once in the UK the chances of being deported are very slim. Maybe that is why so many are arriving here having destroyed their documents. 

9 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

Surely they would just high tail it on arrival and work the black economy as an illegal immigrant. 

Do keep up many have. You need to steer away from the MSM a bit and trawl the internet where you will get the information that the MSM hide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411
9 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

Can you please point me to exactly where you referenced a specific part of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees that you believe is out of date and your reasoning? 

1.That it is the responsibility of the country where people land to look after them. Already posted this. It should be a collective responsibility of all the countries in the agreements collectively. My reason being if you have 10 turn up your tax payers are responsibly for 10 if another country has 100,000 turn up their tax payers are responsible for 100,000. Costs and responsibility should be shared across all countries signed to these treaty's. 

2. Where ever people land the treatment should be consistent across all nations. At present the UK and Ireland are giving the most. Maybe that is why people claiming to be persecuted are traveling through many safe countries to arrive here or in Ireland.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412
14 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

And which human rights out of these do you disagree with and think are outdated?

I said the system and how it operates is outdate go back and take a look. 

In the mean time don't try putting words in other peoples mouths. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413
22 minutes ago, Insane said:

Detained where ? Fifty thousand of them are in 5* hotels right now. 

Deported from the UK 🤣Have you ever heard the term word got round? Once in the UK the chances of being deported are very slim. Maybe that is why so many are arriving here having destroyed their documents. 

Do keep up many have. You need to steer away from the MSM a bit and trawl the internet where you will get the information that the MSM hide. 

That would be strange given 50,000 haven't arrived here to seek asylum. 

It's also strange because they aren't 5 star hotels either. 

Given your wild and unsubstantiated figures and opinions presented as fact maybe you should take your own advice. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414
57 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

Mass air transport? 

They came in boats in during the second World War and they're still coming in boats. 

And why do they arrive in boats not air?

Despite the notion that you can claim asylum anywhere, countries put border controls on to stop that happening. Necessary so, unless you think handling millions of claims in the UK is feasible.

So you are left with a crazy situation where people who get to the UK can claim asylum despite coming through umpteen other countries where as people who are in serious danger without the funds cannot.

That's why the 1951 is fundamentally outdated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415
19 minutes ago, Insane said:

1.That it is the responsibility of the country where people land to look after them. Already posted this. It should be a collective responsibility of all the countries in the agreements collectively. My reason being if you have 10 turn up your tax payers are responsibly for 10 if another country has 100,000 turn up their tax payers are responsible for 100,000. Costs and responsibility should be shared across all countries signed to these treaty's. 

2. Where ever people land the treatment should be consistent across all nations. At present the UK and Ireland are giving the most. Maybe that is why people claiming to be persecuted are traveling through many safe countries to arrive here or in Ireland.  

Lol. 

If we apply that we'd have to take a lot more in. 

I'd be interested in your understanding of the word treatment in that convention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416
6 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

That would be strange given 50,000 haven't arrived here to seek asylum. 

Err I think you need to go and look it up. There are over 50,000 in hotels. Not just many of the 44,000 who arrived last year but there are those that arrived pre 2022. 

8 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

It's also strange because they aren't 5 star hotels either. 

There are 5* hotels being used. Not all are 5* some are just 4*. 

9 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

Given your wild and unsubstantiated figures and opinions presented as fact maybe you should take your own advice. 

My opinions are not wild. Any MP who speaks on this will confirm that it is the biggest topic in their in box, many other people feel the same. Why is it wild to think people who have destroyed their documents arrive by boat , get put up in hotel's, taken by taxi to the NHS facility's in some cases pretend to be children and attend school when they are adults , is all very wrong? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417
11 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

If we apply that we'd have to take a lot more in. 

How do you know that? 

11 minutes ago, Mrs Doyle said:

I'd be interested in your understanding of the word treatment in that convention. 

Quite simple. Most in France are living rough in tents while in the UK they are being put up in 4 and 5 * hotels then jumping over Brits on housing lists for council and private accommodation.  Do you not see the difference ? It is blatantly evident. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418
On 17/03/2023 at 12:32, Insane said:

I am going to make a generalisation here but it does seem younger people are far more pro open borders than older people. 

Yet it is these same people who have born the brunt of the the housing crisis. Do they not see a connection between more people and lack of housing? 

No, they have no critical thinking skills and have been educated solely to pass multiple answer tests on laptops. There are vast numbers of kidults graduating from HS/Uni with the mindset that words can hurt them, that debate is something to be feared, that anxiety/depression/OCD/mental illness is the default, that we can all just change sex if we want, that having a pillow printed with the face of an anime character is the same as having a partner, that dyeing your hair a weird colour is the ultimate in personal expression, and that parents will always pay the bills while you hide in the bedroom playing games. 

For them there is no housing crisis because they happily live with parents, who are equally happy never to relinquish control of their precious darlings. I personally know family members and friends in this situation. Their kids sometimes get jobs but at the slightest problem they flounce. Equally, I know kids at uni getting good grades while completely unable to function in wider society as they have ZERO resilience and have never been allowed to fail. 

 

ml99y60f3u7a1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419
17 minutes ago, captainb said:

And why do they arrive in boats not air?

Despite the notion that you can claim asylum anywhere, countries put border controls on to stop that happening. Necessary so, unless you think handling millions of claims in the UK is feasible.

So you are left with a crazy situation where people who get to the UK can claim asylum despite coming through umpteen other countries where as people who are in serious danger without the funds cannot.

That's why the 1951 is fundamentally outdated.

+1

There are all these countries who are party to these agreements but just do as they please. Yet Mrs Doyle thinks the system has no flaws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420
3 minutes ago, Insane said:

+1

There are all these countries who are party to these agreements but just do as they please. Yet Mrs Doyle thinks the system has no flaws. 

It's actually that nobody adheres to it.

If it was widely accepted you have a right to claim asylum wherever you please, you could hop on a plane to new York, or Stockholm, London, Berlin, Paris etc with an Eritrean or Sudanese or afghan etc etc passport... The fact that you can't suggests you can't claim asylum wherever you please in any reasonable notion of.

System need a rework. Sadly I expect will will see at least one European (including UK) far right government before that happens.

 

Edited by captainb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421
10 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

No, they have no critical thinking skills and have been educated solely to pass multiple answer tests on laptops. There are vast numbers of kidults graduating from HS/Uni with the mindset that words can hurt them, that debate is something to be feared, that anxiety/depression/OCD/mental illness is the default, that we can all just change sex if we want, that having a pillow printed with the face of an anime character is the same as having a partner, that dyeing your hair a weird colour is the ultimate in personal expression, and that parents will always pay the bills while you hide in the bedroom playing games. 

For them there is no housing crisis because they happily live with parents, who are equally happy never to relinquish control of their precious darlings. I personally know family members and friends in this situation. Their kids sometimes get jobs but at the slightest problem they flounce. Equally, I know kids at uni getting good grades while completely unable to function in wider society as they have ZERO resilience and have never been allowed to fail. 

 

ml99y60f3u7a1.png

You forgot my pet hate "safe spaces" at university.

As if young adults habitually need to be protected from 'incorrect' thoughts. Better stay in the safety of mum's house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422
25 minutes ago, captainb said:

And why do they arrive in boats not air?

Despite the notion that you can claim asylum anywhere, countries put border controls on to stop that happening. Necessary so, unless you think handling millions of claims in the UK is feasible.

So you are left with a crazy situation where people who get to the UK can claim asylum despite coming through umpteen other countries where as people who are in serious danger without the funds cannot.

That's why the 1951 is fundamentally outdated.

You can only apply for asylum once you are actually in the country. 

There are a few exceptions notably the Ukrainian scheme but even Ukrainians have turned up in boats. 

If we stopped people coming through other countries we'd have none. How would that be fair? 

Anyway, human traffickers don't run a hail and ride service. You can't just jump off on request. 

Glad though to see your concern for those with out funds, you know, the one's that walk for hundreds of miles and cling onto the bottom of lorries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423
6 minutes ago, captainb said:

System need a rework. Sadly I expect will will see at least one European (including UK) far right government before that happens.

I think the big push back is going to come from Ireland. As they have such a small population (around 6 million) they are really seeing the effects of this current situation right now. They also have a chronic housing shortage how long can this absurd system carry on.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424
1 minute ago, Mrs Doyle said:

You can only apply for asylum once you are actually in the country. 

There are a few exceptions notably the Ukrainian scheme but even Ukrainians have turned up in boats. 

If we stopped people coming through other countries we'd have none. How would that be fair? 

Anyway, human traffickers don't run a hail and ride service. You can't just jump off on request. 

Glad though to see your concern for those with out funds, you know, the one's that walk for hundreds of miles and cling onto the bottom of lorries. 

I didn't say stop without reform... That's your odd binary choice of current system or nothing at all.

I can't quite understand why you continue to defend a system that's quite so clearly broken.

If you actually cared for plight of those fleeing (insert whatever you feel strongly about here) you would seek to reform a system that makes some people who have the 30k in funds to travel on a lorry for all those hours, and leaves others without.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425
15 minutes ago, Insane said:

How do you know that? 

Quite simple. Most in France are living rough in tents while in the UK they are being put up in 4 and 5 * hotels then jumping over Brits on housing lists for council and private accommodation.  Do you not see the difference ? It is blatantly evident. 

You make a lot of forceful claims like 50,000 are in 5* hotels although you've now deviated from that 'fact'. 

11 minutes ago, captainb said:

It's actually that nobody adheres to it.

If it was widely accepted you have a right to claim asylum wherever you please, you could hop on a plane to new York, or Stockholm, London, Berlin, Paris etc with an Eritrean or Sudanese or afghan etc etc passport... The fact that you can't suggests you can't claim asylum wherever you please in any reasonable notion of.

System need a rework. Sadly I expect will will see at least one European (including UK) far right government before that happens.

 

You can't claim asylum until you are physically on the ground of the country you want to claim in hence the boats, lorries, shipping containers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information