The Only Way To Stop The Boats

[Far Canal]

6 minutes ago, Insane said:

LOL your asking one of the Hard Line Pro Mass Immigration ones for a number. I have asked time and time again for numbers when it comes to amounts of Immigrants, Population ect, you will never get an answer with a number, you will get plenty of waffle but never a number. 

The HLPMIs are the same as the Rejoiners - "Madness to Leave"

The HLPMIs who want unlimited minimum wage rises - "A fair wage"

The HLPMIs who want communism - "Much fairer"

The HLPMIs who worship the NHS - "It's ours"

[Staffsknot]

22 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

Give us a number- that is all we ask, how

many can come in on this safe and legal route.

if there are no restrictions what number do you expect?

Germany has received 300k this year illegally - can we take that ? 600k perhaps per year

give us a number ffs

Ooh Mr posted stuff in the Dublin Riots thread and when called out on his joining in the anti-immigrant gangbang of a thread said he was leaving the site, then turned up within 24hrs and claimed never said it demands someone put numbers on it... 

Given we took 50k from the boats and have zero ability to control that at present and none of you have the first clue how to do it legally its a bit rich you trying the 'how many FFS' routine.

Quite simply you could stick a number if you had a safe and legal route. But it won't get the immigration stats down because they are a tiny fraction of that 750k immigration stat and not one of you have the simplest of ideas that this is the case.

That's why you idiotically rant and rail about 50k of folks coming across in boats as if its all of 750k of people coming into the country that way... its less than 7%.

And to piss on you made up facts - Germany has never had 300k of illegal migration in its entirety, the highest ever was 112k in 2016. It is currently 92k for this year as of October.

But don't let little things like truth and facts stop your little made up games, they never normally do

[burk]

17 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Given we took 50k from the boats and have zero ability to control that at present and none of you have the first clue how to do it legally its a bit rich you trying the 'how many FFS' routine

Yeah its simple, you walk away from the ECHR.

[Trampa501]

11 minutes ago, burk said:

Yeah its simple, you walk away from the ECHR.

I bet you have no idea why even this Tory shambles would not dare put that in their manifesto.

But given you don't realise US people moving to Ireland are classified as immigrants, that is no surprise.

[debtlessmanc]

1 hour ago, Insane said:

LOL your asking one of the Hard Line Pro Mass Immigration ones for a number. I have asked time and time again for numbers when it comes to amounts of Immigrants, Population ect, you will never get an answer with a number, you will get plenty of waffle but never a number. 

They are just dreamers - I think they listen to “imagine” by John Lennon on an eternal loop.

open borders will achieve nothing to improve the life of others in either the developed world or the non developed world- it will just screw up Boths chance of getting any better.

Edited December 8, 2023 by debtlessmanc

[burk]

18 minutes ago, Trampa501 said:

I bet you have no idea why even this Tory shambles would not dare put that in their manifesto.

But given you don't realise US people moving to Ireland are classified as immigrants, that is no surprise.

To Your first point and not for the first time you're wrong (3rd paragraph in the article linked below):

Earlier in the year, Rishi Sunak, was reported to be considering contesting the next election on a commitment to withdrawing from the ECHR if the European Court of Human Rights were to find his new immigration legislation incompatible with the Convention.

Second point; moot/irrelevant, Americans not the ones beheading gay people & stabbing strangers in Ireland.

The case for leaving the ECHR

Read the article, the problems of the ECHR stem from the 'living instrument' nature of the court which leaves it wide open to being exploited and manipulated for social / political clout/gain.

#lessdramamorereading

[burk]

2 hours ago, Insane said:

You are meant to ignore the immigrants.

Apparently they all bring a house with them. Along with Doctors, Hospitals, Schools, Roads and Money.  

Yeah, I keep forgetting they're all a net gain.

The social housing phenomenon

 

[Trampa501]

11 hours ago, burk said:

To Your first point and not for the first time you're wrong (3rd paragraph in the article linked below):

Earlier in the year, Rishi Sunak, was reported to be considering contesting the next election on a commitment to withdrawing from the ECHR if the European Court of Human Rights were to find his new immigration legislation incompatible with the Convention.

Second point; moot/irrelevant, Americans not the ones beheading gay people & stabbing strangers in Ireland.

The case for leaving the ECHR

Read the article, the problems of the ECHR stem from the 'living instrument' nature of the court which leaves it wide open to being exploited and manipulated for social / political clout/gain.

#lessdramamorereading

If you think "reported to be considering" means more than a gnat's emission, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Incidentally it's not just the ECHR that prohibits torture and degrading treatment. It's in our own HRA and other common law. The Lords would stop any random playing to the crowd amendments if it's not in a manifesto.  

But to expand on my original point. The Tory party will shy away from such reckless commitments in an election manifesto. You really think politicians who want to play on the world stage, lecture the likes of Russia and Iran, get top posts in the UN and other bodies (plus do trade agreements with countries the world over) will risk pulling out of human rights to appease the gammon?  Think about where they see their monetary gain. Biggest example is allowing large numbers migrants over from India. You (and me) are pawns in their game.

[winkie]

If leaving the ECHR is something the Tories are wanting, what makes people think it would be the right thing to do for the people, going by past performance not a lot they have wanted has benefited or improved anything......therefore stay I say.

[debtlessmanc]

14 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

nd to piss on you made up facts - Germany has never had 300k of illegal migration in its entirety, the highest ever was 112k in 2016. It is currently 92k for this year as of October.

 

312k asylum application year to Nov 2023

https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/germany-60-increase-in-number-of-asylum-applications/#:~:text=From January to November 2023,applications and 21%2C220 subsequent applications.
these are people who entered via "irregular migration"

germany is now patrolling all its borders and has cut it dramatically (its supposed to in Schengen...)

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-extend-temporary-border-controls-for-2-months/a-67665728#:~:text=Police will continue carrying out,the controls were "working."

the migrants may or may not be illegal but Germany is now treating as such and pushing them back

 

I guess you are prevaricating over "irregular" and "illegal"  the individuals are the direct equivalent of the small boats fold and therefore a good guide to a minimum level expected with safe routes opened up

Yes legal migration is higher but these are individuals with jobs or education place. They are vetted and crucially can be removed if they break the law. Personally I am pretty laid back about this, I am not racist!

the asylum system is crazy, time and time again individuals have committed heinous crimes but cannot be deported as it is unsafe for them. Madness.

as to your other comments, you sound like the black knight in monty python- "okay we will it draw" after losing all your limbs...

Edited December 9, 2023 by debtlessmanc

[Brendan110_0]

14 hours ago, burk said:

Yeah its simple, you walk away from the ECHR.

Article 1  - Obligation to respect human rights

Article 2  - Right to life

Article 3  - Prohibition of torture

Article 4  - Prohibition of slavery and forced labour

Article 5  - Right to liberty and security

Article 6  - Right to a fair trial

Article 7  - No punishment without law

Article 8  - Right to respect for private and family life

Article 9  - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Article 10  - Freedom of expression

Not sure I'd do that, there's a reason you can post on here with an independent view and it's thanks to abiding by the above list (just picked the first 10).

[14stFlyer]

2 minutes ago, Brendan110_0 said:

Not sure I'd do that, there's a reason you can post on here with an independent view and it's thanks to abiding by the above list (just picked the first 10).

And how do those 10 principles you quote above in any way say that people who enter the country illegally should not be deported to a third country for asylum/economic migrant processing?   

[Innkeeper]

27 minutes ago, Brendan110_0 said:

Article 1  - Obligation to respect human rights

Article 2  - Right to life

Article 3  - Prohibition of torture

Article 4  - Prohibition of slavery and forced labour

Article 5  - Right to liberty and security

Article 6  - Right to a fair trial

Article 7  - No punishment without law

Article 8  - Right to respect for private and family life

Article 9  - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Article 10  - Freedom of expression

Not sure I'd do that, there's a reason you can post on here with an independent view and it's thanks to abiding by the above list (just picked the first 10).

We have lived with the basis of these rights in the Western/First Worlds for decades and our laws and culture have adapted to reflect those rights.

For billions of people however, some of these rights are not adopted either in law or culture and neither do some of the countries concerned have any intention of changing (whether through law, religion or culture).

So it really is not difficult for vast amounts of people to claim asylum based on  not having Western law and culture in their own country. 

Rather like the USA ‘right to bear arms’ was based on ancient weaponry but didn’t foresee Kalashnikovs, the ECHR laws were drawn up in 1950 in the aftermath of WW2 and didn’t foresee a globalised 21st Century.

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Innkeeper
Edit

[Staffsknot]

48 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

312k asylum application year to Nov 2023

https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/germany-60-increase-in-number-of-asylum-applications/#:~:text=From January to November 2023,applications and 21%2C220 subsequent applications.
these are people who entered via "irregular migration"

germany is now patrolling all its borders and has cut it dramatically (its supposed to in Schengen...)

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-extend-temporary-border-controls-for-2-months/a-67665728#:~:text=Police will continue carrying out,the controls were "working."

the migrants may or may not be illegal but Germany is now treating as such and pushing them back

 

I guess you are prevaricating over "irregular" and "illegal"  the individuals are the direct equivalent of the small boats fold and therefore a good guide to a minimum level expected with safe routes opened up

Yes legal migration is higher but these are individuals with jobs or education place. They are vetted and crucially can be removed if they break the law. Personally I am pretty laid back about this, I am not racist!

the asylum system is crazy, time and time again individuals have committed heinous crimes but cannot be deported as it is unsafe for them. Madness.

as to your other comments, you sound like the black knight in monty python- "okay we will it draw" after losing all your limbs...

No they had 312k of asylum seekers that is not 312k of irregular or illegal immigrants that is 312k of people who have claimed asylum.

This is not the difference between irregular and illegal as Germany calls what you term illegal as irregular immigration so again you are caught out bullshitting. It is the same thing in Germany and an irregular migrant under German stats is an illegal immigrant under terminology used here. Crap deflection attempt.

You pushed the idea these were illegal immigrants and that is an out and out lie that you have been caught in yet again - a habit of yours.

You are in a thread about 'Stopping the boats' and is about the 50k or so who've come across the channel that way. You are talking about those not asylum seekers who applied outside the UK through diplomatic channels where any exist.

German equiv of that number via all routes is 112k record and so you lied through your teeth and are trying to hide it. Germany has safe and legal routes that we do not and so took more asylum seekrs via its regular system - many of the irregular migrants being as a result of the Belarus trafficking route. 

You've been caught out lying yet again manc for the umpteenth time and for an academic are strangely useless at putting accurate information out.

Now as for Germany tightening border security ( hello Brexiteers your reminder you talked rubbish on immigration controls is here again ) under Schengen - it is working with partners and simply doing more frequent checks on its borders on known routes with partner Schengen nations and basing some police in foreign countries at entry routes. This has dropped irregular immigration to 25% of its prev figure in less than a month.

Germany is not 'pushing them back' it is saying apply via our safe and legal routes or you will be stopped at the border in the country you are in and directed to apply via the legal routes / denied entry.

So something we could do all along without any of the made up stuff of that campaign... 

Next up let's pick apart the "can't deport foreign criminals" theme that comes up a lot. We can deport any foreign criminal including asylum seekers, Raab and others tried to make up stuff involving the ECJ as ever.

You can only background check legal migration from certain countries so again we are into made up games again. 

As for "we can't deport foreign criminals" - we can and do. The number not deported due to concerns for welfare on return or refusal by the state of origin are a fraction of the figure of foreign criminals deported - half of the problem being the Home Office slow processing.

Most cases of a foreign national committing a 'heinous crime' are those legal migrants coming for jobs / were background checked and were making a life here so again made up arguements to try and justify your current ramblings.

Rwanda has cost £290m of our money and that dosn't include any costs until a migrant is sent there. It allows easier travelfor Rawadans to UK and only applies to 200 or so migrants a year being sent there.

So nearly 10% of the estimated cost ( paid out to private contract mates of Gov) of housing asylum seekers for sweet FA.

If you wanted to solve the cost of asylum housing you'd process applications faster, get results and clear the huge backlog, while providing safe and legal routes that kneecap the trafficker operations.

But again that wouldn't give the wedge issue all you dafties dive head first into or opportunities for you to make stuff up would it?

Again you are an unrepentant liar who gets caught out time and again as your links even prove

[debtlessmanc]

12 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

o they had 312k of asylum seekers that is not 312k of irregular or illegal immigrants that is 312k of people who have claimed asylum.

So I was 100% correct you are prevaricating “illegal” and “irregular” you were caught out bull shitting again

ANSWER The point that 300k is a minimum leveL you will expect if you have open up more legal routes - would that 300k number increase or decrease if more routes are opened up ? and is it sustainable to take in that many largely illiterate young men

Germany clearly believes that it is not that is why is stepping up border controls!! And Germany is larger than the U.K.

Edited December 9, 2023 by debtlessmanc

[Staffsknot]

17 hours ago, debtlessmanc said:

Germany has received 300k this year illegally

@debtlessmanc you are clearly illiterate here is your lie in black and wite.

There is no prevarication illegal and irregular are interchangeable.

The true figure is around 112k

You were caught lying and you don't like it you billy bullshitter and are trying to deflect from your many inadequacies of truth

Edited December 9, 2023 by Staffsknot

[debtlessmanc]

9 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

@debtlessmanc you are clearly illiterate here is your lie in black and wite.

There is no prevarication illegal and irregular are interchangeable.

You were caught lying and you don't like it you billy bullshitter and are trying to deflect from your many inadequacies of truth

It has receive 300k asylum claims - do you think they all flew in, pea brain. The articles are clear, these are people crossing surface borders just as those in the channel do. They are precisely the same issue except the channel is More of a barrier than a land border that is all.

if you had read the article the German move has had knock on effects, they have moved a large fraction of the police to the borders with a corresponding rise in crimes around immigration in the cites

there is no magic bullet to this. Western countries will end up destabilised by it

Edited December 9, 2023 by debtlessmanc

[Staffsknot]

1 hour ago, 14stFlyer said:

And how do those 10 principles you quote above in any way say that people who enter the country illegally should not be deported to a third country for asylum/economic migrant processing?   

The country must be a safe country with non-refoulement policy.

It is not just EHR and retained rights law but derived from international treaties predating these.

Basically Rwanda is not a safe country and the risk of torture, etc...

Find a safe 3rd country compatible with the obligations and the UKSC would accept procssing in 3rd country and it would be lawful.

It isn't the 'evil EU' that is another Tory lie to blame the ECJ.

The Israeli supreme court struck down its 3rd country processing agreeent for same thing in 2013

[Staffsknot]

2 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

It has receive 300k asylum claims - do you think they all flew in, pea brain. The articles are clear, these are people crossing surface borders just as those in the channel do. They are precisely the same issue except the channel is More of a barrier than a land border that is all.

if you had read the article the German move has had knock on effects, they have moved a large fraction of the police to the borders with a corresponding rise in crimes around immigration in the cites

there is no major bullet to this. Western countries will end up destabilised by it

No they applied through safe and legal routes with the exception of 112k who entered illegally. The others were processed prior and judged to have legitimate claims or worthy of safe and legal entry pea brain BS merchant, a good number may have flown in after claiming asylum through these channels.

If you had read the article you would have known you were caught lying. Just like your made up 'we will have to take 300k because Germany does' routine

Germany receives 30% of all EU claims due to itbeing a hub for Kurdish and other settled nationalities.

As it provides safe routes it can pick and choose cases and also could set a limit on how many it takes. As part of the EU it can also spread immigrant settlement within the EU.

France has safe and legal routes but has less applications, same Norway and Switzerland.

Again if you are going to make stuff up try and do better than your current crap and easily seen through efforts.

Now for your latest lie about that DW article, there is no mention of a surge in immigrant crime in the cities, in fact the only mention of cities is from a police union official citing "It needs to be clarified "whether thousands of police officers should actually remain at the border or whether they would not be better deployed for security in the cities and the asylum problem solved within the EU framework," he said."

So you lied yet again

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-extend-temporary-border-controls-for-2-months/a-67665728#:~:text=Police will continue carrying out,the controls were "working."

Go on quote the entry that says crime has surged... it isn't in there I know I read it and it isn't in there because you made it up, hence no quote

[burk]

3 hours ago, Trampa501 said:

If you think "reported to be considering" means more than a gnat's emission, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Incidentally it's not just the ECHR that prohibits torture and degrading treatment. It's in our own HRA and other common law. The Lords would stop any random playing to the crowd amendments if it's not in a manifesto.  

But to expand on my original point. The Tory party will shy away from such reckless commitments in an election manifesto. You really think politicians who want to play on the world stage, lecture the likes of Russia and Iran, get top posts in the UN and other bodies (plus do trade agreements with countries the world over) will risk pulling out of human rights to appease the gammon?  Think about where they see their monetary gain. Biggest example is allowing large numbers migrants over from India. You (and me) are pawns in their game.

It's rather quaint you think you have any human rights in light of lockdowns? As I said:

#lessdramamorereading

[burk]

2 hours ago, Brendan110_0 said:

Article 1  - Obligation to respect human rights

Article 2  - Right to life

Article 3  - Prohibition of torture

Article 4  - Prohibition of slavery and forced labour

Article 5  - Right to liberty and security

Article 6  - Right to a fair trial

Article 7  - No punishment without law

Article 8  - Right to respect for private and family life

Article 9  - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Article 10  - Freedom of expression

Not sure I'd do that, there's a reason you can post on here with an independent view and it's thanks to abiding by the above list (just picked the first 10).

And did you see how the majority of the above were rescinded during lockdown? 

#dreamer

[shlomo]

4 hours ago, Trampa501 said:

If you think "reported to be considering" means more than a gnat's emission, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Incidentally it's not just the ECHR that prohibits torture and degrading treatment. It's in our own HRA and other common law. The Lords would stop any random playing to the crowd amendments if it's not in a manifesto.  

But to expand on my original point. The Tory party will shy away from such reckless commitments in an election manifesto. You really think politicians who want to play on the world stage, lecture the likes of Russia and Iran, get top posts in the UN and other bodies (plus do trade agreements with countries the world over) will risk pulling out of human rights to appease the gammon?  Think about where they see their monetary gain. Biggest example is allowing large numbers migrants over from India. You (and me) are pawns in their game.

+1

I cannot see them leaving the ECHR

[nightowl]

6 hours ago, Innkeeper said:

Rather like the USA ‘right to bear arms’ was based on ancient weaponry but didn’t foresee Kalashnikovs, the ECHR laws were drawn up in 1950 in the aftermath of WW2 and didn’t foresee a globalised 21st Century.

I suppose the right to bear arms is to protect people from their government, and didn't foresee automatic weapons, but also didn't foresee mass surveillance by the government either. 

It does raise the issue of how any long standing such agreements or treaties can ever be and under what circumstances those in power can chose to blatently break them.

Stress points in history to give govs opportunity to do such things and creep their powers

[debtlessmanc]

7 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

8 hours ago, debtlessmanc said:

No they applied through safe and legal routes with the exception of 112k who entered illegally. The others were processed prior and judged to have legitimate claims or worthy of safe and legal entry pea brain BS merchant, a good number may have

Any link for this? There is no break down I can find and the eu’s figures do not add up. It’s most likely that the irregular entries are the ones who admit it. 
anyway you obviously agree that >300k a year asylum seekers is the kind of numbers the U.K. would expect to receive if it had legal safe routes similar to Germany

- is that sustainable?

also would it stop the boats? Many on the boats destroy ID documents. They could not do that and apply for a safe route they might not get? What would happen is you would get people on boats AND the legal and safe ones. It wouldn’t stop the boats.

 

[Staffsknot]

32 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

Any link for this? There is no break down I can find and the eu’s figures do not add up. It’s most likely that the irregular entries are the ones who admit it. 
anyway you obviously agree that >300k a year asylum seekers is the kind of numbers the U.K. would expect to receive if it had legal safe routes similar to Germany

- is that sustainable?

also would it stop the boats? Many on the boats destroy ID documents. They could not do that and apply for a safe route they might not get? What would happen is you would get people on boats AND the legal and safe ones. It wouldn’t stop the boats.

 

If there are 112k of irregular asylum seekers out of 300k of total asylum seekers then the logical facts are the others were regular asylum seekers going through regular routes - or safe and legal routes. You stated 300k 'illegal asylum seekers' which was you being a BS merchant. It had 300k total asylum seekers. So 300k - 112k who did not enter through regular routes.

No the UK would not see more than 300k asylum seekers that's another made up number by you. You have no basis whatsoever bar you pulling whatever daft figure out thin air as an attempt at a gotcha.

You got caught out yet again lying about an article you even posted.

You keep doing this and it keeps blowing up in your face - you can't do a Boris Johnson and make stuff up and expect to not be called out on it - people have got your number as you've done it too often.

Just stop lying for a start