FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Stopping the boats...
Stopping the boats...
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He doesn't even pay tax, in the way that most of us do, thus ensuring that our lives are degraded by his choice." Where would you get that idea? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1.2Bn more migrants forecasted to enter Europe by 2070/80. (UN) This not going away " belive me they will start blowing them out the water before it gets that bad, also sure i was watching something about piland the other dat that there border gaurds now have the right to shoit peoole trying to cross there border | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But as Trump has shown, controlling a country’s borders is very easy if the will is there." This "easy" solution is apparently costing $170 billion with $45 billion for detention facilities. Mind you it'll probably just be added to the $37 trillion of US debt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would seem the British people have a shred of decency and compassion, something lacking in the Trump administration and his wannabe imitator Farage. Imagine the RN assassinating a boatload of suspected drug dealers in international waters. I suppose having a dictator allows those sort of things." Probably make them think twice before trying that rout again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He doesn't even pay tax, in the way that most of us do, thus ensuring that our lives are degraded by his choice. Where would you get that idea?" His employment income is massaged through corporations, resulting in reductions of the tax paid, unlike the majority of hard working people who are employees and pay full tax and national insurance etc. He's perhaps avoided more tax than Angela Rayner and others combined. But he's not published his taxes, like Trump wouldn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would seem the British people have a shred of decency and compassion, something lacking in the Trump administration and his wannabe imitator Farage. Imagine the RN assassinating a boatload of suspected drug dealers in international waters. I suppose having a dictator allows those sort of things." Are you sure about that? Some UK polling on immigration: 82% think illegal immigration is far too high 46% think illegal immigrants are mostly bad for the country, only 7% think they are mostly good 52% think asylum seekers should be housed in prison camps Only 9% satisfied with current government’s handling of immigration Immigration once again the top political issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But as Trump has shown, controlling a country’s borders is very easy if the will is there. This "easy" solution is apparently costing $170 billion with $45 billion for detention facilities. Mind you it'll probably just be added to the $37 trillion of US debt. " Most of it will be one time cost. If the people trying to migrate there realise that it won't work anymore, they won't try to go there and the detention facilities won't be needed anymore. For the same reason that China or Japan doesn't have to spend so much money trying to stop asylum seekers. The asylum seekers know they won't get anything in China and Japan. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would seem the British people have a shred of decency and compassion, something lacking in the Trump administration and his wannabe imitator Farage. Imagine the RN assassinating a boatload of suspected drug dealers in international waters. I suppose having a dictator allows those sort of things. Are you sure about that? Some UK polling on immigration: 82% think illegal immigration is far too high 46% think illegal immigrants are mostly bad for the country, only 7% think they are mostly good 52% think asylum seekers should be housed in prison camps Only 9% satisfied with current government’s handling of immigration Immigration once again the top political issue. " Where did I say immigration was or wasn't too high ? Did I say the boats didn't need to be stopped ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He doesn't even pay tax, in the way that most of us do, thus ensuring that our lives are degraded by his choice. Where would you get that idea? His employment income is massaged through corporations, resulting in reductions of the tax paid, unlike the majority of hard working people who are employees and pay full tax and national insurance etc. He's perhaps avoided more tax than Angela Rayner and others combined. But he's not published his taxes, like Trump wouldn't. " There are fundamental differences between PAYE and running your own business, that warrant a different tax structure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He doesn't even pay tax, in the way that most of us do, thus ensuring that our lives are degraded by his choice. Where would you get that idea? His employment income is massaged through corporations, resulting in reductions of the tax paid, unlike the majority of hard working people who are employees and pay full tax and national insurance etc. He's perhaps avoided more tax than Angela Rayner and others combined. But he's not published his taxes, like Trump wouldn't. " so he dodges tax like pretty much every self employed person I know does,why do you think they don't close these loopholes,ah that's right because any tory,labour,lib dem snp reform or green mp with money all use them,they could close the loopholes overnight but no party wants to,the reason rayner got caught out is because she's either thick as mince or got so cocky that labour were in power she thought she was teflon | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not really a surprise that immigration is a hot topic and that Reform Ltd are popular given that Farage has been given a completely free ride by the media for about 20 years even though he was a nobody and still only has a handful of seats out of 650 in Parliament. Plus most centerist UK politicians have been hopeless at confronting him and his ilk. I suggest people check out Congressman Jamie Raskin recently tearing Farage to shreds to see how he should be being addressed in the UK. " Just Farage or every MP, Council member etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not really a surprise that immigration is a hot topic and that Reform Ltd are popular given that Farage has been given a completely free ride by the media for about 20 years even though he was a nobody and still only has a handful of seats out of 650 in Parliament. Plus most centerist UK politicians have been hopeless at confronting him and his ilk. I suggest people check out Congressman Jamie Raskin recently tearing Farage to shreds to see how he should be being addressed in the UK. " Farage has had the ability to read the mood of the nation and act accordingly. Over the last 22 years he positioned UKIP into an influential force on Europe shifting the Overton window , that created the platform for Brexit. He has formed Reform to basically finish the job he considers half done. He has shaped the course of the UK and its history, from that perspective he has been extremely successful and far more influential than any other politician in during the last 20 years. The staged verbal attack by Raskin and his Democrat cronies on Farage was poor manners, however it ticks boxes for those who prefer bullying to debate. There were plenty of moments that Farage made reasonable points and signalled the overly aggressive questioning and lack of self discipline by the senators present. It was nothing more than a performative attack by democrats on the person and his relationship with Trump rather than the subject, rather embarrassing to be fair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most of it will be one time cost. If the people trying to migrate there realise that it won't work anymore, they won't try to go there and the detention facilities won't be needed anymore. For the same reason that China or Japan doesn't have to spend so much money trying to stop asylum seekers. The asylum seekers know they won't get anything in China and Japan." Like Trump gives a damn about the US economy or debt. For all the right-winger here moaning about UK debt being out of control - US national debit to GDP is about 120% compared with the UK's 96%. Per capita that's about $109,000 in the US compared with $57,000 here. Trump's they're "poisoning the blood of our country" and "they're eating the dogs ... they're eating the cats" bullshit is just a distraction while he and his mates syphon off the cash. And Farage is just a Trump wannabe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most of it will be one time cost. If the people trying to migrate there realise that it won't work anymore, they won't try to go there and the detention facilities won't be needed anymore. For the same reason that China or Japan doesn't have to spend so much money trying to stop asylum seekers. The asylum seekers know they won't get anything in China and Japan. Like Trump gives a damn about the US economy or debt. For all the right-winger here moaning about UK debt being out of control - US national debit to GDP is about 120% compared with the UK's 96%. Per capita that's about $109,000 in the US compared with $57,000 here. Trump's they're "poisoning the blood of our country" and "they're eating the dogs ... they're eating the cats" bullshit is just a distraction while he and his mates syphon off the cash. And Farage is just a Trump wannabe." None of that rambling addresses the point I made | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most of it will be one time cost. If the people trying to migrate there realise that it won't work anymore, they won't try to go there and the detention facilities won't be needed anymore. For the same reason that China or Japan doesn't have to spend so much money trying to stop asylum seekers. The asylum seekers know they won't get anything in China and Japan. Like Trump gives a damn about the US economy or debt. For all the right-winger here moaning about UK debt being out of control - US national debit to GDP is about 120% compared with the UK's 96%. Per capita that's about $109,000 in the US compared with $57,000 here. Trump's they're "poisoning the blood of our country" and "they're eating the dogs ... they're eating the cats" bullshit is just a distraction while he and his mates syphon off the cash. And Farage is just a Trump wannabe." Reading the threads, You come across as someone who reads, researches a lot about politics, economics history etc, Genuine question, When was the last time right and left democrats, republicans was on a similar page when it comes to running their country ? Scandals, corruption, war, back stabbing and bitching no matter who is running the show. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most of it will be one time cost. If the people trying to migrate there realise that it won't work anymore, they won't try to go there and the detention facilities won't be needed anymore. For the same reason that China or Japan doesn't have to spend so much money trying to stop asylum seekers. The asylum seekers know they won't get anything in China and Japan. Like Trump gives a damn about the US economy or debt. For all the right-winger here moaning about UK debt being out of control - US national debit to GDP is about 120% compared with the UK's 96%. Per capita that's about $109,000 in the US compared with $57,000 here. Trump's they're "poisoning the blood of our country" and "they're eating the dogs ... they're eating the cats" bullshit is just a distraction while he and his mates syphon off the cash. And Farage is just a Trump wannabe." The comparison isn’t like for like.. The US has the world’s reserve currency and the largest bond market, making its debt far more sustainable than ours. As for the other references you made about Trump, I think you might have got out of the wrong side of the bed today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage has had the ability to read the mood of the nation and act accordingly. Over the last 22 years he positioned UKIP into an influential force on Europe shifting the Overton window , that created the platform for Brexit. He has formed Reform to basically finish the job he considers half done. He has shaped the course of the UK and its history, from that perspective he has been extremely successful and far more influential than any other politician in during the last 20 years." He was a nobody with a big mouth and organisations like the BBC thought he made a good public spectacle so gave him a platform completely out of proportion to his democratic political success. I think he's been on Question Time something like 39 times over the last 20 years. "The staged verbal attack by Raskin and his Democrat cronies on Farage was poor manners, however it ticks boxes for those who prefer bullying to debate. There were plenty of moments that Farage made reasonable points and signalled the overly aggressive questioning and lack of self discipline by the senators present. It was nothing more than a performative attack by democrats on the person and his relationship with Trump rather than the subject, rather embarrassing to be fair." Raskin simply didn't allow Farage to do his usual trick of completely ignoring the question or telling a crap joke. Raskin pointed out that he's a Putin sychophant, a hypocrite about free-speech and totally unpatriotic in lobbying the US against the UK. I recommend people watch the encounter and make their own mind up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not really a surprise that immigration is a hot topic and that Reform Ltd are popular given that Farage has been given a completely free ride by the media for about 20 years even though he was a nobody and still only has a handful of seats out of 650 in Parliament. Plus most centerist UK politicians have been hopeless at confronting him and his ilk. I suggest people check out Congressman Jamie Raskin recently tearing Farage to shreds to see how he should be being addressed in the UK. " They haven’t been hopeless at confronting Farage. They’ve been hopeless at dealing with the issues that the public are concerned about. It’s quite laughable that the Left spend so much time droning on about Farage as though he is the current Prime Minister. If the Left wants to stop a Farage government then it is entirely within its power. It is the current government with a large majority. Stop the illegals. Reform the immigration system. Deliver economic growth. Sort out the unproductive public sector. They won’t do any of these things of course. We will get four more years of inaction, incompetence, stagnation and sleaze, and the inevitable clear out and replacement by Reform, who will be the only ones left standing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"None of that rambling addresses the point I made" You initially said it was very easy, so I pointed out its direct financial cost. Then you said it's a one-off cost and implied it's worth it because it will reduce asylum seeker numbers. But I don't think asylum seekers are a major problem nor immigration in general. I don't think Trump really thinks it is either. the whole xenophopia thing isn't what this is about. It's just a mechanism to distract people away from the massive transfer of wealth that is the real goal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The comparison isn’t like for like.. The US has the world’s reserve currency and the largest bond market, making its debt far more sustainable than ours." Which is partly why Trump thinks it's OK that his bill will add $3.4 trillion to US debt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"None of that rambling addresses the point I made You initially said it was very easy, so I pointed out its direct financial cost. " That wasn't me. But not a problem here. " Then you said it's a one-off cost and implied it's worth it because it will reduce asylum seeker numbers. But I don't think asylum seekers are a major problem nor immigration in general. " Not a problem for you. But it is for a majority of the population. And we live in a democracy. Unless I think that we should give up on democracy and just follow your views on every matter, that's how it will work. Politicians who are willing to satisfy the wishes of majority will succeed. " I don't think Trump really thinks it is either. the whole xenophopia thing isn't what this is about. It's just a mechanism to distract people away from the massive transfer of wealth that is the real goal. " You can solve both. Like the left wing party in Denmark did. Now that's a party that understands that you need social trust to sustain a social democracy and immigration against people's will breaks that social trust. Hence, they are the most successful left wing party in Europe and also manage to have high taxes for everyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reading the threads, You come across as someone who reads, researches a lot about politics, economics history etc, Genuine question, When was the last time right and left democrats, republicans was on a similar page when it comes to running their country ? Scandals, corruption, war, back stabbing and bitching no matter who is running the show." What you seem to be saying is "they're all as bad as each other". I'm not really interested in debating something so subjective and all-encompassing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That wasn't me. But not a problem here." Sorry about that I didn't mean to get you mixed up with old buffalo gorge. "Not a problem for you. But it is for a majority of the population. And we live in a democracy. Unless I think that we should give up on democracy and just follow your views on every matter, that's how it will work. Politicians who are willing to satisfy the wishes of majority will succeed." I'm not the POTUS or PM, I'm just expressing my opinions. "You can solve both. Like the left wing party in Denmark did. Now that's a party that understands that you need social trust to sustain a social democracy and immigration against people's will breaks that social trust. Hence, they are the most successful left wing party in Europe and also manage to have high taxes for everyone." We are where we are. If Denmark was where we or the USA are now they would have the problems we have but they aren't. Do you think we should put taxes up to Danish levels? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm not the POTUS or PM, I'm just expressing my opinions. " You started by arguing that whatever Trump did is too expensive and UK can't do the same. Now you are just arguing based on your own opinion on the asylum situation. " Do you think we should put taxes up to Danish levels?" If we get back the trust on the rest of the society and the government. And by Danish tax levels, I mean even low earners will pay high taxes, not a tax system that just punishes the rich. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You started by arguing that whatever Trump did is too expensive and UK can't do the same. Now you are just arguing based on your own opinion on the asylum situation." I didn't say it was too expensive, I just pointed out that it's costing $170 billion. I also didn't say whether the UK should or shouldn't do the same thing. Although I guess it's reasonable for people to assume that a similar approach would be rather expensive to implement in the UK. Some people might think it worth spending that kind of money to stop the boats. I think it would be bonkers given that we have regular immigration on a much larger scale because its necessary for the economy. "If we get back the trust on the rest of the society and the government. And by Danish tax levels, I mean even low earners will pay high taxes, not a tax system that just punishes the rich." So reading between the lines you would suggest a huge reduction in asylum and regular immigration and massively increasing taxation on low earners? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You started by arguing that whatever Trump did is too expensive and UK can't do the same. Now you are just arguing based on your own opinion on the asylum situation. I didn't say it was too expensive, I just pointed out that it's costing $170 billion. I also didn't say whether the UK should or shouldn't do the same thing. Although I guess it's reasonable for people to assume that a similar approach would be rather expensive to implement in the UK. Some people might think it worth spending that kind of money to stop the boats. I think it would be bonkers given that we have regular immigration on a much larger scale because its necessary for the economy. If we get back the trust on the rest of the society and the government. And by Danish tax levels, I mean even low earners will pay high taxes, not a tax system that just punishes the rich. So reading between the lines you would suggest a huge reduction in asylum and regular immigration and massively increasing taxation on low earners? " Isn't it preferable that the tax burden is spread fairly and not just on certain demographics? Yes, the lower paid must have the ability to pay tax and be left with enough to live on. But if we weren't relying on low cost immigrant labour, wages could be set at a level to incentivise some of our unemployed into the workplace. That's a win-win-win : a broader tax base, reduced benefits bill and less reliance on immigration. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I didn't say it was too expensive, I just pointed out that it's costing $170 billion. " What's the point of you pointing out the cost then? " I also didn't say whether the UK should or shouldn't do the same thing. Although I guess it's reasonable for people to assume that a similar approach would be rather expensive to implement in the UK. " And now you are back to arguing that it's expensive? " Some people might think it worth spending that kind of money to stop the boats. I think it would be bonkers given that we have regular immigration on a much larger scale because its necessary for the economy. " Illegal immigration is detrimental both economically and socially. " So reading between the lines you would suggest a huge reduction in asylum and regular immigration and massively increasing taxation on low earners? " Increasing tax on everyone and that includes low earners. But for people to agree with that, you need to build trust. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't it preferable that the tax burden is spread fairly and not just on certain demographics? Yes, the lower paid must have the ability to pay tax and be left with enough to live on. But if we weren't relying on low cost immigrant labour, wages could be set at a level to incentivise some of our unemployed into the workplace. That's a win-win-win : a broader tax base, reduced benefits bill and less reliance on immigration." For this to happen the profits of companies would have to be massively reduced in order to raise wages for the low paid. This doesn't seem to be acceptable to those who enjoy the status quo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't it preferable that the tax burden is spread fairly and not just on certain demographics? Yes, the lower paid must have the ability to pay tax and be left with enough to live on. But if we weren't relying on low cost immigrant labour, wages could be set at a level to incentivise some of our unemployed into the workplace. That's a win-win-win : a broader tax base, reduced benefits bill and less reliance on immigration. For this to happen the profits of companies would have to be massively reduced in order to raise wages for the low paid. This doesn't seem to be acceptable to those who enjoy the status quo. " Neither Denmark nor Sweden does anything to force companies to pay higher. They don't even have minimum wage rules and yet, it works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Farage claims he will stop the small boats in two weeks of being in government. Another Trumpian type of nonsense with no detail of how. More sound bytes with no substance. " Na he has rolled back on it now. Typical Farage songbook. Say something to grab the headlines and tickle the supporters. As soon as he is asked to explain it....a well I know a said that ....but what I really mean is this. Gobshiote.com | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the point of you pointing out the cost then?" It was a response to the other poster claiming it was very easy. "And now you are back to arguing that it's expensive?" Well it would be wouldn't it? "Illegal immigration is detrimental both economically and socially." Asylum seeking isn't illegal, but yes there is illegal immigration - generally with people overstaying their visa term. But illegal immigrants are far smaller in number than legal immigrants and we need legal immigrants to sustain the economy. I have no problem with illegal immigration being tackled by the way. It's just that the mechanisms for it aren't "easy" and asylum, illegal and regular immigration seem to be purposefully mixed up by people like Farage. "Increasing tax on everyone and that includes low earners. But for people to agree with that, you need to build trust." So. I'll take that as a yes then. But I don't think you'd get much support for that as Reform are offering to cut immigration and tax and many people seem to think this is possible.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Neither Denmark nor Sweden does anything to force companies to pay higher. They don't even have minimum wage rules and yet, it works." So is your theory then that if we cut down all forms of immigration then pay will automatically rise to the point where poor pay no longer exists and everyone will pay 50% income tax? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the point of you pointing out the cost then? It was a response to the other poster claiming it was very easy. And now you are back to arguing that it's expensive? Well it would be wouldn't it? " But you said that you aren't arguing it's expensive. Not sure why you are jumping between in the two positions. Are you arguing that UK can't follow US because it's expensive? If yes, I explained why it's a one time cost. If no, then what's the point of you mentioning the cost? " Illegal immigration is detrimental both economically and socially. Asylum seeking isn't illegal, but yes there is illegal immigration - generally with people overstaying their visa term. But illegal immigrants are far smaller in number than legal immigrants and we need legal immigrants to sustain the economy. " You are arguing semantics here. We both know we are talking about the people showing up in boats. We don't need them to sustain the economy. " So. I'll take that as a yes then. But I don't think you'd get much support for that as Reform are offering to cut immigration and tax and many people seem to think this is possible.." I never said that Reform will. I just pointed out how successful social democracies really work. They reduced illegal immigration, and instead of following a "tax those rich people" ideology, they are following a "let us all contribute to the social welfare" method. As things stand, Reform offers reducing illegal immigration. No one else offers any of these. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Neither Denmark nor Sweden does anything to force companies to pay higher. They don't even have minimum wage rules and yet, it works. So is your theory then that if we cut down all forms of immigration then pay will automatically rise to the point where poor pay no longer exists and everyone will pay 50% income tax?" Pay will obviously improve because immigration is how companies managed to push down wages. For taxes, you need a political party that promises Denmark style taxation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But you said that you aren't arguing it's expensive. Not sure why you are jumping between in the two positions. Are you arguing that UK can't follow US because it's expensive? If yes, I explained why it's a one time cost. If no, then what's the point of you mentioning the cost?" You incorrectly claimed that I said it was too expensive and that the UK can't do the same. When my argument was simply that it's expensive. If you don't understand the difference then I give up. "You are arguing semantics here. We both know we are talking about the people showing up in boats. We don't need them to sustain the economy." Do you know what the word semantics means? "I never said that Reform will. I just pointed out how successful social democracies really work. They reduced illegal immigration, and instead of following a "tax those rich people" ideology, they are following a "let us all contribute to the social welfare" method." I wasn't talking about Reform either in this instance. I was talking about your opinions on Denmark and whether the UK should follow Denmark by raising income tax to 52% or whatever it is. "As things stand, Reform offers reducing illegal immigration. No one else offers any of these." Their last _anifesto offered a reduction in illegal immigration and £90 billion in tax cuts. The first part of the offer is a distraction and the secod part is their real goal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pay will obviously improve because immigration is how companies managed to push down wages." And some people say it's the left who are naive utopians. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pay will obviously improve because immigration is how companies managed to push down wages. And some people say it's the left who are naive utopians." Wages are based on supply demand. If you have too many people to do one job well, the wages will go down. If there are less number of people to do that job, wages will go up. It's not utopia. It's basic economics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't it preferable that the tax burden is spread fairly and not just on certain demographics? Yes, the lower paid must have the ability to pay tax and be left with enough to live on. But if we weren't relying on low cost immigrant labour, wages could be set at a level to incentivise some of our unemployed into the workplace. That's a win-win-win : a broader tax base, reduced benefits bill and less reliance on immigration. For this to happen the profits of companies would have to be massively reduced in order to raise wages for the low paid. This doesn't seem to be acceptable to those who enjoy the status quo. " Or prices would rise, and if workers were paid more they'd have more disposable income. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You incorrectly claimed that I said it was too expensive and that the UK can't do the same. When my argument was simply that it's expensive. If you don't understand the difference then I give up. " What's the point of you pointing out that if it's expensive, if it has no relationship with whether UK can do it? " Do you know what the word semantics means? " Yes I know. We aren't arguing whether the people who show up in boat are illegal or not. We know that they are a net negative to the country. They aren't needed to sustain the economy. I " I wasn't talking about Reform either in this instance. " I was replying to your quote literally talking about Reform. " I was talking about your opinions on Denmark and whether the UK should follow Denmark by raising income tax to 52% or whatever it is. " I gave my opinion already " Their last _anifesto offered a reduction in illegal immigration and £90 billion in tax cuts. The first part of the offer is a distraction and the secod part is their real goal. " It's up to the mainstream parties to reduce illegal immigration if they don't like Reform's other policies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He doesn't even pay tax, in the way that most of us do, thus ensuring that our lives are degraded by his choice." "Where would you get that idea?" "His employment income is massaged through corporations, resulting in reductions of the tax paid, unlike the majority of hard working people who are employees and pay full tax and national insurance etc. He's perhaps avoided more tax than Angela Rayner and others combined. But he's not published his taxes, like Trump wouldn't." So you've gone from "he doesn't pay tax" to "he does pay tax, but not as much as I want him to". Why do you think it's reasonable to say that he doesn't pay tax, when you know that's untrue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Farage claims he will stop the small boats in two weeks of being in government. Another Trumpian type of nonsense with no detail of how. More sound bytes with no substance. " How can it be nonsense?. He is one if the most succesfull politicians of modern times. What he means that if elected he will stop illegal immigration as soon as possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pay will obviously improve because immigration is how companies managed to push down wages. And some people say it's the left who are naive utopians. Wages are based on supply demand. If you have too many people to do one job well, the wages will go down. If there are less number of people to do that job, wages will go up. It's not utopia. It's basic economics." Which is what we’re currently seeing, pay growth down to 5% from 5.3% with it a cooling labour market, with unemployment nudging up and vacancies continuing to fall (-5.8%), and companies reducing recruitment. Thanks to Mrs Reeves and Labour talking the uk down for the last year while her imaginary black hole gets larger every speech she makes. More business tax rises will expedite this further. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He doesn't even pay tax, in the way that most of us do, thus ensuring that our lives are degraded by his choice. Where would you get that idea? His employment income is massaged through corporations, resulting in reductions of the tax paid, unlike the majority of hard working people who are employees and pay full tax and national insurance etc. He's perhaps avoided more tax than Angela Rayner and others combined. But he's not published his taxes, like Trump wouldn't. " Everything he does is legal and above board. He has income from various different sources. Other people do not take risks. Most people will be payee employees as they only work for one employer. Maybe you should have investigated Nigel Farages employment status before commenting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The standard argument from the right is that increasing taxation on businesses will cause them to reduce investment, shrink their labour force, put up prices or go abroad. If labour supply shrank and businesses had to put up wages then they'd make less profit - the exact same impact as caused by increasing taxation. So from the right-wing economist perspective reducing immigration would cause lack of investment, reduced growth, capital flight, closed businesses or inflation - or a combination of all these things. That's why we have regular immigration. " You are once again mixing illegal and legal migration while the thread is about the boats. To answer your question though, you are only partially right. Yes, both increase in taxes and reducing immigration labour would result in increasing cost of products. But in one case, the money goes to the government coffer while in the latter case, money goes to the workers. Businesses could still invest in automation to reduce the impact of rising wages to an extent. Right wingers aren't a monolith. There are right libertarians in favour of legal migration for the above reasons. There are social conservatives who believe that increasing cost is a fine price to pay to reduce migration and rise worker wages. But neither of them are in favour of illegal migration. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was replying to your quote literally talking about Reform." When I said... "I wasn't talking about Reform either in this instance. I was talking about your opinions on Denmark and whether the UK should follow Denmark by raising income tax to 52% or whatever it is." I was referring to my previous question... "So reading between the lines you would suggest a huge reduction in asylum and regular immigration and massively increasing taxation on low earners?" To which you answered... "Increasing tax on everyone and that includes low earners. But for people to agree with that, you need to build trust." But, sorry if I have made a mistake in this rather convoluted conversation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are once again mixing illegal and legal migration while the thread is about the boats. To answer your question though, you are only partially right. Yes, both increase in taxes and reducing immigration labour would result in increasing cost of products. But in one case, the money goes to the government coffer while in the latter case, money goes to the workers. Businesses could still invest in automation to reduce the impact of rising wages to an extent. Right wingers aren't a monolith. There are right libertarians in favour of legal migration for the above reasons. There are social conservatives who believe that increasing cost is a fine price to pay to reduce migration and rise worker wages. But neither of them are in favour of illegal migration." I understand this thread is about small boats but the issues are conflated in much of public discourse. I'm not sure what proportion of Reform supporters are thinking about the approximately 12,000 people who came in small boats last year who won't be granted asylum. Given that there were 431,000 regular immigrants. A business owner faced with reduced profits isn't going to differentiate between that money going to workers or going to the public purse. It's less profit for them either way. As I've said I'm not in favour of illegal immigration, I'm also against uncontrolled regular migration. I'm just trying to explain my view that regular immigration while not supported by some on the right is necessary and that illegal immigration is in reality a fairly minor problem that is being blown out of all proportion by people like Farage in order to distract from their main goal which is a massive cut in taxation. £90 billion in tax cuts is about half the cost of the NHS. If Farage came to power public services would likely face cuts far beyond anything we have seen in the past but few people are discussing this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I understand this thread is about small boats but the issues are conflated in much of public discourse. " As I said, right wingers aren't a monolith. You must remember that the right wingers of today don't do ideological purity test, the way the left wingers do. They are willing to compromise on policies. There are some right wingers who are fine with legal migration, some who aren't. But both are against illegal migration. If Farage promises to stop illegal migration, they are happy to vote for him irrespective of Farage's policies on legal migration. They could always vote for Tories after Farage fixes illegal immigration, if they want more legal immigration. " I'm not sure what proportion of Reform supporters are thinking about the approximately 12,000 people who came in small boats last year who won't be granted asylum. Given that there were 431,000 regular immigrants. " - It's not just the 12,000 that are given asylum that matters. It's the total number of people showing up in the country without any kind of background check and are put up in hotels paid by taxpayers - On legal immigration, as I mentioned above, they are fairly split. " A business owner faced with reduced profits isn't going to differentiate between that money going to workers or going to the public purse. It's less profit for them either way. " They do differentiate. One cost can be reasonably mitigated if they are more efficient and can automate better. The other cost cannot be. End of the day, yes it would still affect the businesses. Hence some right wingers who are business oriented will be supportive of legal immigration. From a common man's perspective, wages will go up and the housing situation will get better. Hence they will be against too much legal immigration. But both these groups are unified against illegal immigration and that sentiment is what Farage is riding on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Farage claims he will stop the small boats in two weeks of being in government. Another Trumpian type of nonsense with no detail of how. More sound bytes with no substance. " Will Farage stop the boats? No idea but it won't be for lack of will. Did the Tories stop the boats? Failed miserably. Have Labour stopped the boats? Failing even more miserably. Plan A and B have failed so C is the natural successor. Can't be any worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I said, right wingers aren't a monolith. You must remember that the right wingers of today don't do ideological purity test, the way the left wingers do. They are willing to compromise on policies. There are some right wingers who are fine with legal migration, some who aren't. But both are against illegal migration. If Farage promises to stop illegal migration, they are happy to vote for him irrespective of Farage's policies on legal migration. They could always vote for Tories after Farage fixes illegal immigration, if they want more legal immigration" I don't the right is monolithic. That's why I use qualifying words like some, many etc. I can't think of any political party that supports illegal immigration. Farage is just making a lot of noise about it. "- It's not just the 12,000 that are given asylum that matters. It's the total number of people showing up in the country without any kind of background check and are put up in hotels paid by taxpayers - On legal immigration, as I mentioned above, they are fairly split." You've mixed up the numbers. 12,000 is approximately how many of the 37,000 people who came by small boats last year who will NOT be given asylum if we go by previous year's rates of approval. That's why I'm saying illegal immigration via small boats isn't a huge problem. 12,000 illegal immigrants in small boats v 431,000 legal immigrants who came by regular means. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't the right is monolithic. That's why I use qualifying words like some, many etc. " If you understand that right wingers aren't a monolith and are willing to compromise on other issues as long as illegal immigration is taken care of, you won't see any issues with why most of them ended up supporting Reform. " I can't think of any political party that supports illegal immigration. Farage is just making a lot of noise about it. " Anyone can make noise. But illegal immigration has only been going up and there is no sign of it stopping. So people will obviously vote for the next political party that promises the same using different methods. " You've mixed up the numbers. 12,000 is approximately how many of the 37,000 people who came by small boats last year who will NOT be given asylum if we go by previous year's rates of approval. That's why I'm saying illegal immigration via small boats isn't a huge problem. 12,000 illegal immigrants in small boats v 431,000 legal immigrants who came by regular means. " You are once again playing with semantics. People voting for Farage don't care whether the asylum claims are approved are not. When they complain about illegal immigration, they mean all the people who enter the country without a visa. That means all the people showing up in boats. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you understand that right wingers aren't a monolith and are willing to compromise on other issues as long as illegal immigration is taken care of, you won't see any issues with why most of them ended up supporting Reform." My issue is basically that Reform could win on the back of this issue and cut taxation by £90 billion a year. This would make Tory austerity look like not having second servings of turkey on xmas day. "Anyone can make noise. But illegal immigration has only been going up and there is no sign of it stopping. So people will obviously vote for the next political party that promises the same using different methods." But as I keep trying to show with numbers the problem isn't a huge one. "You are once again playing with semantics. People voting for Farage don't care whether the asylum claims are approved are not. When they complain about illegal immigration, they mean all the people who enter the country without a visa. That means all the people showing up in boats." There isn't any mechanism for the vast majority of genuine asylum seekers to seek asylum in the UK from outside the UK. That's why they come in small boats. Alongside these genuine asylum seekers are lots of chancers who think they can get asylum but eventually get turned down. It's these people who are the problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My issue is basically that Reform could win on the back of this issue and cut taxation by £90 billion a year. This would make Tory austerity look like not having second servings of turkey on xmas day. " We could discuss that separately. But not related to the topic here. " But as I keep trying to show with numbers the problem isn't a huge one. " As I keep trying to tell you, it's not the numbers alone that's the problem. Illegal and legal immigration are two different problems. Many see illegal immigration as a bigger problem, irrespective of the numbers. " There isn't any mechanism for the vast majority of genuine asylum seekers to seek asylum in the UK from outside the UK. That's why they come in small boats. Alongside these genuine asylum seekers are lots of chancers who think they can get asylum but eventually get turned down. It's these people who are the problem. " From a right wingers perspective, it's not UK's problem. Close the border first. If the country really wants to help people from some country and we have the resources to do so, we should do something similar to how we took Ukrainian refugees. Opening the borders to random strangers isn't the right approach. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Farage claims he will stop the small boats in two weeks of being in government. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Breaking..... Within two weeks of legislation being passed 🙄 Another empty and useless statement from this con man So Farage claims he will stop the small boats in two weeks of being in government. " Aspirations are accepted if they are from any other leader then Farage? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Farage claims he will stop the small boats in two weeks of being in government. Another Trumpian type of nonsense with no detail of how. More sound bytes with no substance. Will Farage stop the boats? No idea but it won't be for lack of will. Did the Tories stop the boats? Failed miserably. Have Labour stopped the boats? Failing even more miserably. Plan A and B have failed so C is the natural successor. Can't be any worse. " That does sound plausible. I think labour winning the last GE has in a way helped Reform. If the Tories had won people could still say we just need a labour government and then things will be ok. Now Labour are actually in government and showing they are just as useless as the last lot, especially when it comes to the small boat situation, that alternative has now disappeared. Still lots of other topics that labour can show the public they are the best choice, but at present it seems to be bad news on every front | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are two plausible ways of stopping the boats and I seriously doubt that Farage is capable of considering either since he campaigned to start them in the first place. First is very simple, rejoin the EU and get back the right to send them back to their first entry point in Europe. Second is to build an asylum processing center in northern France." Sigh. Firstly, it wasn't Brexit that caused the small boat issue. We had small boats coming before Brexit, and before that we had people stowing away in lorries. Secondly, we couldn't send them back when we were in the EU. In fact asylum seekers that had been accepted in other countries could just get on the ferry and come here because of freedom of movement. And last, why would the French allow us to build an asylum processing centre in France? It would attract huge numbers of refugees who would travel from across Europe to get to the new centre. France doesn't want to have to deal with all the people waiting their turn, or all the people that have been denied and now have nowhere else to go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You want the boats stopped - put the Israeli navy in the English Channel - when the small boats see the Magen David flag they will know they’ll be getting no food let alone a hotel bed, iPhone and driving lessons. They will be paddling back to France. Seriously though, there are currently no meaningful legal deterrents. Politicians of all colours are chatting shit on this subject. There will be hundreds of thousands more attempting crossings. It’s not about uk borders it’s about global migration. " The only viable political options would require the cooperation of France. Clearly, after all these years, that is never going to happen. So much for 'friendly' neighbours eh? But that being the case, the UK has to act unilaterally, and the new HS just might be the person to do it. If not, Farage might as well be selecting his wallpaper for No.10. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Refurbish a couple of old military bases into temporary holding facilities, prisons in all but name. Pause all acceptance of anyone crossing the Channel in small boats. Those who still cross go straight into these facilities and stay there until deported even if that took year or more. That would slow, if not stop, the crossings. Campaigners will make a lot of noise, but as a sovereign government we have every right to do this. The problem is the leaders of the big two parties will be too worried about votes and popularity. Farage, on the other hand...." Didn't Starmer mention something like this yesterday | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Refurbish a couple of old military bases into temporary holding facilities, prisons in all but name. Pause all acceptance of anyone crossing the Channel in small boats. Those who still cross go straight into these facilities and stay there until deported even if that took year or more. That would slow, if not stop, the crossings. Campaigners will make a lot of noise, but as a sovereign government we have every right to do this. The problem is the leaders of the big two parties will be too worried about votes and popularity. Farage, on the other hand.... Didn't Starmer mention something like this yesterday " Yes. The funny thing is that when the Tories did the same, many Labour MPs opposed it on the grounds that these places aren't good enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Refurbish a couple of old military bases into temporary holding facilities, prisons in all but name. Pause all acceptance of anyone crossing the Channel in small boats. Those who still cross go straight into these facilities and stay there until deported even if that took year or more. That would slow, if not stop, the crossings. Campaigners will make a lot of noise, but as a sovereign government we have every right to do this. The problem is the leaders of the big two parties will be too worried about votes and popularity. Farage, on the other hand.... Didn't Starmer mention something like this yesterday " I believe they are looking into using the facilities, but I'm going to put my neck on a block here and say they wont refuse to put them through the asylum process and deport. If we have no deterrent, they will continue to arrive by irregular means. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are two plausible ways of stopping the boats and I seriously doubt that Farage is capable of considering either since he campaigned to start them in the first place. First is very simple, rejoin the EU and get back the right to send them back to their first entry point in Europe. Second is to build an asylum processing center in northern France. Sigh. Firstly, it wasn't Brexit that caused the small boat issue. We had small boats coming before Brexit, and before that we had people stowing away in lorries. Secondly, we couldn't send them back when we were in the EU. In fact asylum seekers that had been accepted in other countries could just get on the ferry and come here because of freedom of movement. And last, why would the French allow us to build an asylum processing centre in France? It would attract huge numbers of refugees who would travel from across Europe to get to the new centre. France doesn't want to have to deal with all the people waiting their turn, or all the people that have been denied and now have nowhere else to go." Firstly, no we didn't and anyone who's told you otherwise it's lying. Secondly, the French have offered! Twice! And we've turned them down. Twice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Refurbish a couple of old military bases into temporary holding facilities, prisons in all but name. Pause all acceptance of anyone crossing the Channel in small boats. Those who still cross go straight into these facilities and stay there until deported even if that took year or more. That would slow, if not stop, the crossings. Campaigners will make a lot of noise, but as a sovereign government we have every right to do this. The problem is the leaders of the big two parties will be too worried about votes and popularity. Farage, on the other hand...." The MOD have been sat on 10,000 empty homes for 15-20 years costing the taxpayer £25M annually to maintain. While all this time there are homeless veterans, homeless, and illegals in migration hotels. Wasted resources. When someone previously said these properties were unfit to use, I found a parliamentary briefing that claimed 95% of them met the decent homes standard. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Refurbish a couple of old military bases into temporary holding facilities, prisons in all but name. Pause all acceptance of anyone crossing the Channel in small boats. Those who still cross go straight into these facilities and stay there until deported even if that took year or more. That would slow, if not stop, the crossings. Campaigners will make a lot of noise, but as a sovereign government we have every right to do this. The problem is the leaders of the big two parties will be too worried about votes and popularity. Farage, on the other hand.... Didn't Starmer mention something like this yesterday I believe they are looking into using the facilities, but I'm going to put my neck on a block here and say they wont refuse to put them through the asylum process and deport. If we have no deterrent, they will continue to arrive by irregular means." Pay mossad the best assassins on the globe to take out the traffickers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Refurbish a couple of old military bases into temporary holding facilities, prisons in all but name. Pause all acceptance of anyone crossing the Channel in small boats. Those who still cross go straight into these facilities and stay there until deported even if that took year or more. That would slow, if not stop, the crossings. Campaigners will make a lot of noise, but as a sovereign government we have every right to do this. The problem is the leaders of the big two parties will be too worried about votes and popularity. Farage, on the other hand.... The MOD have been sat on 10,000 empty homes for 15-20 years costing the taxpayer £25M annually to maintain. While all this time there are homeless veterans, homeless, and illegals in migration hotels. Wasted resources. When someone previously said these properties were unfit to use, I found a parliamentary briefing that claimed 95% of them met the decent homes standard. " There was a period of resistance to every alternative accommodation idea, the Bibby Stockholm, military bases etc. The argument was always not fit for purpose, and that led to hotels being used and now it seems a backlash. The progressive left will eventually bring small boat crossing to an end with their instance on prioritising those that arrive here by small boat, but not in the way they think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Refurbish a couple of old military bases into temporary holding facilities, prisons in all but name. Pause all acceptance of anyone crossing the Channel in small boats. Those who still cross go straight into these facilities and stay there until deported even if that took year or more. That would slow, if not stop, the crossings. Campaigners will make a lot of noise, but as a sovereign government we have every right to do this. The problem is the leaders of the big two parties will be too worried about votes and popularity. Farage, on the other hand.... Didn't Starmer mention something like this yesterday I believe they are looking into using the facilities, but I'm going to put my neck on a block here and say they wont refuse to put them through the asylum process and deport. If we have no deterrent, they will continue to arrive by irregular means. Pay mossad the best assassins on the globe to take out the traffickers. " It's not such a bad a idea to subcontract hunting smugglers to 'private' enterprise. They'd get the job done for sure. None other than Machiavelli taught us that the end justifies the means    | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Refurbish a couple of old military bases into temporary holding facilities, prisons in all but name. Pause all acceptance of anyone crossing the Channel in small boats. Those who still cross go straight into these facilities and stay there until deported even if that took year or more. That would slow, if not stop, the crossings. Campaigners will make a lot of noise, but as a sovereign government we have every right to do this. The problem is the leaders of the big two parties will be too worried about votes and popularity. Farage, on the other hand.... Didn't Starmer mention something like this yesterday Yes. The funny thing is that when the Tories did the same, many Labour MPs opposed it on the grounds that these places aren't good enough." They probably aren't and they will probably cost more to run than hotels, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Refurbish a couple of old military bases into temporary holding facilities, prisons in all but name. Pause all acceptance of anyone crossing the Channel in small boats. Those who still cross go straight into these facilities and stay there until deported even if that took year or more. That would slow, if not stop, the crossings. Campaigners will make a lot of noise, but as a sovereign government we have every right to do this. The problem is the leaders of the big two parties will be too worried about votes and popularity. Farage, on the other hand.... Didn't Starmer mention something like this yesterday I believe they are looking into using the facilities, but I'm going to put my neck on a block here and say they wont refuse to put them through the asylum process and deport. If we have no deterrent, they will continue to arrive by irregular means. Pay mossad the best assassins on the globe to take out the traffickers. It's not such a bad an idea to subcontract hunting smugglers to 'private' enterprise. They'd get the job done for sure. None other than Machiavelli taught us that the end justifies the means "After the Charlie Hebdo attacks France mobilised 80,000 cops to catch the Islamist terrorists. The gangs have been instrumental in people dying from capsized boats so they are far game, we are not at war our armed forces stood down - send in the SBS on the traffickers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are two plausible ways of stopping the boats and I seriously doubt that Farage is capable of considering either since he campaigned to start them in the first place. First is very simple, rejoin the EU and get back the right to send them back to their first entry point in Europe. Second is to build an asylum processing center in northern France." "Sigh. Firstly, it wasn't Brexit that caused the small boat issue. We had small boats coming before Brexit, and before that we had people stowing away in lorries. Secondly, we couldn't send them back when we were in the EU. In fact asylum seekers that had been accepted in other countries could just get on the ferry and come here because of freedom of movement. And last, why would the French allow us to build an asylum processing centre in France? It would attract huge numbers of refugees who would travel from across Europe to get to the new centre. France doesn't want to have to deal with all the people waiting their turn, or all the people that have been denied and now have nowhere else to go." "Firstly, no we didn't and anyone who's told you otherwise it's lying." Here's a link to a BBC news story from before the referendum, talking about the small boats problem: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36410828 Are they lying? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are two plausible ways of stopping the boats and I seriously doubt that Farage is capable of considering either since he campaigned to start them in the first place. First is very simple, rejoin the EU and get back the right to send them back to their first entry point in Europe. Second is to build an asylum processing center in northern France. Sigh. Firstly, it wasn't Brexit that caused the small boat issue. We had small boats coming before Brexit, and before that we had people stowing away in lorries. Secondly, we couldn't send them back when we were in the EU. In fact asylum seekers that had been accepted in other countries could just get on the ferry and come here because of freedom of movement. And last, why would the French allow us to build an asylum processing centre in France? It would attract huge numbers of refugees who would travel from across Europe to get to the new centre. France doesn't want to have to deal with all the people waiting their turn, or all the people that have been denied and now have nowhere else to go. Firstly, no we didn't and anyone who's told you otherwise it's lying. Here's a link to a BBC news story from before the referendum, talking about the small boats problem: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36410828 Are they lying?" That's an article about one boat because at that time it was an incredibly unusual event. It isn't about the "small boats problem." It is, however, rather prescient of the extreme escalation that would happen with Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You want the boats stopped - put the Israeli navy in the English Channel - when the small boats see the Magen David flag they will know they’ll be getting no food let alone a hotel bed, iPhone and driving lessons. They will be paddling back to France. Seriously though, there are currently no meaningful legal deterrents. Politicians of all colours are chatting shit on this subject. There will be hundreds of thousands more attempting crossings. It’s not about uk borders it’s about global migration. " Sorry mate, but this posting is just nonsense. It’s just parroting tabloid garbage that’s factually wrong. But this is exactly what those outlets want, or at least the outcome they're aiming for. People arriving on boats aren’t getting iPhones, driving lessons and hotel luxury. Because they’re put in basic accommodation (often overcrowded hotels because there’s nowhere else) and given £49 a week to live on. That’s straight from the government’s own website if you care to look beyond the Daily Mail/GB News spin. Hardly the “free ride” line I personally keep hearing people repeating. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You want the boats stopped - put the Israeli navy in the English Channel - when the small boats see the Magen David flag they will know they’ll be getting no food let alone a hotel bed, iPhone and driving lessons. They will be paddling back to France. Seriously though, there are currently no meaningful legal deterrents. Politicians of all colours are chatting shit on this subject. There will be hundreds of thousands more attempting crossings. It’s not about uk borders it’s about global migration. Sorry mate, but this posting is just nonsense. It’s just parroting tabloid garbage that’s factually wrong. But this is exactly what those outlets want, or at least the outcome they're aiming for. People arriving on boats aren’t getting iPhones, driving lessons and hotel luxury. Because they’re put in basic accommodation (often overcrowded hotels because there’s nowhere else) and given £49 a week to live on. That’s straight from the government’s own website if you care to look beyond the Daily Mail/GB News spin. Hardly the “free ride” line I personally keep hearing people repeating." I think you are confused, basic accommodation no way if you read threads that are similar theses migrants enter like secret agents hell bent on living in four star accommodation , ordering room service, 200 pound a week on top of their unber eats job. Have access to women and children on a scale that even draws our population to cause less "certain crimes" than the migrant. Its their fault we cannot afford homes have no jobs etc. But the problem is ive heard it all before, in the 70's, the 80's, the 90, the 2010 nothing has changed except the new generations who are made to think this is a new issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Farage claims he will stop the small boats in two weeks of being in government. Another Trumpian type of nonsense with no detail of how. More sound bytes with no substance. Will Farage stop the boats? No idea but it won't be for lack of will. Did the Tories stop the boats? Failed miserably. Have Labour stopped the boats? Failing even more miserably. Plan A and B have failed so C is the natural successor. Can't be any worse. " Crossings didn’t just magically spike because of “global migration”, they went up tenfold after Brexit. So when the UK lost the Dublin agreement to return people to the first safe EU country they entered. That’s a direct result of the very people who banged on about “taking back control". Now it's my personal opinion that there's, indeed, an immigration problem. But that is nothing to do with people being attracted by a "free ride". Boat crossings make up for about 2% of national immigration numbers. So it's technically not significant if you're (not you specifically, but generally) worried about all the brown people in the UK. The irony is Farage, Johnson and co. broke a working system, indoctrinated half the country with propaganda, and now use the exact same messaging technique to pose as the ones who’ll be there to, and "the only ones" who can fix it. And that’s before we even touch on how badly they trashed the economy with brexit, something they won't speak about as the loudest message right now (by design of the aggressive push for far right politics) is overwhelmingly about "boats". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sorry mate, but this posting is just nonsense. It’s just parroting tabloid garbage that’s factually wrong. But this is exactly what those outlets want, or at least the outcome they're aiming for. People arriving on boats aren’t getting iPhones, driving lessons and hotel luxury. Because they’re put in basic accommodation (often overcrowded hotels because there’s nowhere else) and given £49 a week to live on. That’s straight from the government’s own website if you care to look beyond the Daily Mail/GB News spin. Hardly the “free ride” line I personally keep hearing people repeating." You're thebone talking nonsense. I can take you yo any number of 3 and 4 star hotela within 30 miles of here that are being used to house migrants: the Delta Marriott at Huntingdon is a 4 star hotel. Holiday Inn at Flore (temporarily closed after the asylum seekers wrecked it. Holiday Inn at Crick (where 3 of them are awaiting trial for sexual assault in Rugby). Westone Park Hotel in Northampton. The Grand Hotel in Northampton. The Royale Hotel in Kettering. As for 49 quid a week to live on, it is actually £49.18 per week per person. If the hotel is fully catered the individual gets £9.95 a week. Bear in mind the accommodation and utilties are all provided FoC. In addition they can claim: free prescriptions, free eye tests, free dental treatment, travel expenses to and from a medical appointment. Most of these payments are still made after asylum has been refused. Mobile phones are not provided, but they are provided by NGOs many of whose funding comes from central government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sorry mate, but this posting is just nonsense. It’s just parroting tabloid garbage that’s factually wrong. But this is exactly what those outlets want, or at least the outcome they're aiming for. People arriving on boats aren’t getting iPhones, driving lessons and hotel luxury. Because they’re put in basic accommodation (often overcrowded hotels because there’s nowhere else) and given £49 a week to live on. That’s straight from the government’s own website if you care to look beyond the Daily Mail/GB News spin. Hardly the “free ride” line I personally keep hearing people repeating. You're thebone talking nonsense. I can take you yo any number of 3 and 4 star hotela within 30 miles of here that are being used to house migrants: the Delta Marriott at Huntingdon is a 4 star hotel. Holiday Inn at Flore (temporarily closed after the asylum seekers wrecked it. Holiday Inn at Crick (where 3 of them are awaiting trial for sexual assault in Rugby). Westone Park Hotel in Northampton. The Grand Hotel in Northampton. The Royale Hotel in Kettering. As for 49 quid a week to live on, it is actually £49.18 per week per person. If the hotel is fully catered the individual gets £9.95 a week. Bear in mind the accommodation and utilties are all provided FoC. In addition they can claim: free prescriptions, free eye tests, free dental treatment, travel expenses to and from a medical appointment. Most of these payments are still made after asylum has been refused. Mobile phones are not provided, but they are provided by NGOs many of whose funding comes from central government. " Have you personally been in some or any of these "hotels"? I have. I've been in dozens across London tbf. None of them scream luxury. You're not wrong they're a cost, but who was it that created such a backlog to need to house them there in the first place? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sorry mate, but this posting is just nonsense. It’s just parroting tabloid garbage that’s factually wrong. But this is exactly what those outlets want, or at least the outcome they're aiming for. People arriving on boats aren’t getting iPhones, driving lessons and hotel luxury. Because they’re put in basic accommodation (often overcrowded hotels because there’s nowhere else) and given £49 a week to live on. That’s straight from the government’s own website if you care to look beyond the Daily Mail/GB News spin. Hardly the “free ride” line I personally keep hearing people repeating. You're thebone talking nonsense. I can take you yo any number of 3 and 4 star hotela within 30 miles of here that are being used to house migrants: the Delta Marriott at Huntingdon is a 4 star hotel. Holiday Inn at Flore (temporarily closed after the asylum seekers wrecked it. Holiday Inn at Crick (where 3 of them are awaiting trial for sexual assault in Rugby). Westone Park Hotel in Northampton. The Grand Hotel in Northampton. The Royale Hotel in Kettering. As for 49 quid a week to live on, it is actually £49.18 per week per person. If the hotel is fully catered the individual gets £9.95 a week. Bear in mind the accommodation and utilties are all provided FoC. In addition they can claim: free prescriptions, free eye tests, free dental treatment, travel expenses to and from a medical appointment. Most of these payments are still made after asylum has been refused. Mobile phones are not provided, but they are provided by NGOs many of whose funding comes from central government. " That 18p makes all the difference 😂 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not really a surprise that immigration is a hot topic and that Reform Ltd are popular given that Farage has been given a completely free ride by the media for about 20 years even though he was a nobody and still only has a handful of seats out of 650 in Parliament. Plus most centerist UK politicians have been hopeless at confronting him and his ilk. I suggest people check out Congressman Jamie Raskin recently tearing Farage to shreds to see how he should be being addressed in the UK. Farage has had the ability to read the mood of the nation and act accordingly. Over the last 22 years he positioned UKIP into an influential force on Europe shifting the Overton window , that created the platform for Brexit. He has formed Reform to basically finish the job he considers half done. He has shaped the course of the UK and its history, from that perspective he has been extremely successful and far more influential than any other politician in during the last 20 years. The staged verbal attack by Raskin and his Democrat cronies on Farage was poor manners, however it ticks boxes for those who prefer bullying to debate. There were plenty of moments that Farage made reasonable points and signalled the overly aggressive questioning and lack of self discipline by the senators present. It was nothing more than a performative attack by democrats on the person and his relationship with Trump rather than the subject, rather embarrassing to be fair. " I’ve always said that Nigel Farage has been the most powerful person in UK politics. In the last fifteen years. The major parties are afraid of him. It was because oh him, David Cameron called the referendum which was the catalyst for the rubbish we have today. Nigel is now even more popular and powerful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sorry mate, but this posting is just nonsense. It’s just parroting tabloid garbage that’s factually wrong. But this is exactly what those outlets want, or at least the outcome they're aiming for. People arriving on boats aren’t getting iPhones, driving lessons and hotel luxury. Because they’re put in basic accommodation (often overcrowded hotels because there’s nowhere else) and given £49 a week to live on. That’s straight from the government’s own website if you care to look beyond the Daily Mail/GB News spin. Hardly the “free ride” line I personally keep hearing people repeating. You're thebone talking nonsense. I can take you yo any number of 3 and 4 star hotela within 30 miles of here that are being used to house migrants: the Delta Marriott at Huntingdon is a 4 star hotel. Holiday Inn at Flore (temporarily closed after the asylum seekers wrecked it. Holiday Inn at Crick (where 3 of them are awaiting trial for sexual assault in Rugby). Westone Park Hotel in Northampton. The Grand Hotel in Northampton. The Royale Hotel in Kettering. As for 49 quid a week to live on, it is actually £49.18 per week per person. If the hotel is fully catered the individual gets £9.95 a week. Bear in mind the accommodation and utilties are all provided FoC. In addition they can claim: free prescriptions, free eye tests, free dental treatment, travel expenses to and from a medical appointment. Most of these payments are still made after asylum has been refused. Mobile phones are not provided, but they are provided by NGOs many of whose funding comes from central government. Have you personally been in some or any of these "hotels"? I have. I've been in dozens across London tbf. None of them scream luxury. You're not wrong they're a cost, but who was it that created such a backlog to need to house them there in the first place?" The standard of the hotels is irrelevant. Last time I checked 67 % of the population wanted someone done about uncontrolled immigration. We are paying at least £100 per night to house people who have entered the country illegally. In addition they are getting free dental and medical care. Imagine a UK citizen entering another country and expecting everything to be free | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are two plausible ways of stopping the boats and I seriously doubt that Farage is capable of considering either since he campaigned to start them in the first place. First is very simple, rejoin the EU and get back the right to send them back to their first entry point in Europe. Second is to build an asylum processing center in northern France." "Sigh. Firstly, it wasn't Brexit that caused the small boat issue. We had small boats coming before Brexit, and before that we had people stowing away in lorries. Secondly, we couldn't send them back when we were in the EU. In fact asylum seekers that had been accepted in other countries could just get on the ferry and come here because of freedom of movement. And last, why would the French allow us to build an asylum processing centre in France? It would attract huge numbers of refugees who would travel from across Europe to get to the new centre. France doesn't want to have to deal with all the people waiting their turn, or all the people that have been denied and now have nowhere else to go." "Firstly, no we didn't and anyone who's told you otherwise it's lying." "Here's a link to a BBC news story from before the referendum, talking about the small boats problem: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36410828 Are they lying?" "That's an article about one boat because at that time it was an incredibly unusual event. It isn't about the "small boats problem." It is, however, rather prescient of the extreme escalation that would happen with Brexit." How about this one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-48649341 That describes nearly 800 arrivals, with less than 40 being returned. That was 6 months before Brexit. Still think they're lying? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Farage claims he will stop the small boats in two weeks of being in government. Another Trumpian type of nonsense with no detail of how. More sound bytes with no substance. " He also claimed the money we spent in the EU would be used on the NHS if we left the EU. I do t recall that happening! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sorry mate, but this posting is just nonsense. It’s just parroting tabloid garbage that’s factually wrong. But this is exactly what those outlets want, or at least the outcome they're aiming for. People arriving on boats aren’t getting iPhones, driving lessons and hotel luxury. Because they’re put in basic accommodation (often overcrowded hotels because there’s nowhere else) and given £49 a week to live on. That’s straight from the government’s own website if you care to look beyond the Daily Mail/GB News spin. Hardly the “free ride” line I personally keep hearing people repeating. You're thebone talking nonsense. I can take you yo any number of 3 and 4 star hotela within 30 miles of here that are being used to house migrants: the Delta Marriott at Huntingdon is a 4 star hotel. Holiday Inn at Flore (temporarily closed after the asylum seekers wrecked it. Holiday Inn at Crick (where 3 of them are awaiting trial for sexual assault in Rugby). Westone Park Hotel in Northampton. The Grand Hotel in Northampton. The Royale Hotel in Kettering. As for 49 quid a week to live on, it is actually £49.18 per week per person. If the hotel is fully catered the individual gets £9.95 a week. Bear in mind the accommodation and utilties are all provided FoC. In addition they can claim: free prescriptions, free eye tests, free dental treatment, travel expenses to and from a medical appointment. Most of these payments are still made after asylum has been refused. Mobile phones are not provided, but they are provided by NGOs many of whose funding comes from central government. Have you personally been in some or any of these "hotels"? I have. I've been in dozens across London tbf. None of them scream luxury. You're not wrong they're a cost, but who was it that created such a backlog to need to house them there in the first place? The standard of the hotels is irrelevant. Last time I checked 67 % of the population wanted someone done about uncontrolled immigration. We are paying at least £100 per night to house people who have entered the country illegally. In addition they are getting free dental and medical care. Imagine a UK citizen entering another country and expecting everything to be free " If those figures are correct, the 1097 that arrived yesterday are costing us £109,700 a night, £3.3M if they are here a month. Roll on the autumn statement so reeves can claw some of this back from the taxpayer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are two plausible ways of stopping the boats and I seriously doubt that Farage is capable of considering either since he campaigned to start them in the first place. First is very simple, rejoin the EU and get back the right to send them back to their first entry point in Europe. Second is to build an asylum processing center in northern France. Sigh. Firstly, it wasn't Brexit that caused the small boat issue. We had small boats coming before Brexit, and before that we had people stowing away in lorries. Secondly, we couldn't send them back when we were in the EU. In fact asylum seekers that had been accepted in other countries could just get on the ferry and come here because of freedom of movement. And last, why would the French allow us to build an asylum processing centre in France? It would attract huge numbers of refugees who would travel from across Europe to get to the new centre. France doesn't want to have to deal with all the people waiting their turn, or all the people that have been denied and now have nowhere else to go. Firstly, no we didn't and anyone who's told you otherwise it's lying. Here's a link to a BBC news story from before the referendum, talking about the small boats problem: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36410828 Are they lying? That's an article about one boat because at that time it was an incredibly unusual event. It isn't about the "small boats problem." It is, however, rather prescient of the extreme escalation that would happen with Brexit. How about this one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-48649341 That describes nearly 800 arrivals, with less than 40 being returned. That was 6 months before Brexit. Still think they're lying?" How many arrived that year compared to the year after and the year after that? The "problem" was caused by leaving the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about this one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-48649341 That describes nearly 800 arrivals, with less than 40 being returned. That was 6 months before Brexit. Still think they're lying?" "How many arrived that year compared to the year after and the year after that? The "problem" was caused by leaving the EU." The problem we have with small boats was caused by us blocking the previous entry method, of sneaking aboard lorries. If it were caused by Brexit, we wouldn't have records of small boat crossings from before Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Crossings didn’t just magically spike because of “global migration”, they went up tenfold after Brexit. So when the UK lost the Dublin agreement to return people to the first safe EU country they entered. That’s a direct result of the very people who banged on about “taking back control"." The Dublin Agreement didn't allow us to send people back to the first safe country they entered. It only allowed us to send back those that had previously applied in another EU country, and had been turned down. The link I posted above records that in the first half of 2019, when we were in the Dublin Agreement, about 800 people arrived, and just 35 were able to be sent back. It doesn't record the number we had to accept under the agreement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Meanwhile in the latest “Smashing the Gangs” news, illegal crossings have now passed 30,000 this year, up 37% on last year. Over 1,000 on Saturday alone. The illegals aren’t stupid, they can smell this Labour government’s weakness and cowardice a thousand miles off. " You really think that asylum seekers care which political party is in government? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Meanwhile in the latest “Smashing the Gangs” news, illegal crossings have now passed 30,000 this year, up 37% on last year. Over 1,000 on Saturday alone. The illegals aren’t stupid, they can smell this Labour government’s weakness and cowardice a thousand miles off. You really think that asylum seekers care which political party is in government? " Yes. Illegal immigrants are perfectly well aware of where the weak points are. Just look at the figures for illegal crossings under Biden and Trump. Same with Labour. Illegals know that the risks of them being turned back have dropped dramatically since July 2024, hence the surge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Meanwhile in the latest “Smashing the Gangs” news, illegal crossings have now passed 30,000 this year, up 37% on last year. Over 1,000 on Saturday alone. The illegals aren’t stupid, they can smell this Labour government’s weakness and cowardice a thousand miles off. You really think that asylum seekers care which political party is in government? Yes. Illegal immigrants are perfectly well aware of where the weak points are. Just look at the figures for illegal crossings under Biden and Trump. Same with Labour. Illegals know that the risks of them being turned back have dropped dramatically since July 2024, hence the surge." I suspect that asylum seekers main aim is to not be imprisoned or killed for whatever reason they believe they will be persecuted for, rather than which political party is in power in any given country. Anyway, you carry on believing your version. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Meanwhile in the latest “Smashing the Gangs” news, illegal crossings have now passed 30,000 this year, up 37% on last year. Over 1,000 on Saturday alone. The illegals aren’t stupid, they can smell this Labour government’s weakness and cowardice a thousand miles off. You really think that asylum seekers care which political party is in government? Yes. Illegal immigrants are perfectly well aware of where the weak points are. Just look at the figures for illegal crossings under Biden and Trump. Same with Labour. Illegals know that the risks of them being turned back have dropped dramatically since July 2024, hence the surge. I suspect that asylum seekers main aim is to not be imprisoned or killed for whatever reason they believe they will be persecuted for, rather than which political party is in power in any given country. Anyway, you carry on believing your version. " I’ve been to France on holiday many times. It’s not the hellhole you suggest. Illegal crossings up 37% under Labour. Abject failure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"New HS Shabina Mahmood has described as "utterly unacceptable" the number of people arriving illegally by small boats. I think she just might have the resolve and grit to get something done. It's Labour's last chance of stifling a Reform landslide. " Looking at the proliferation of flags up across the UK, reform have already been voted in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Meanwhile in the latest “Smashing the Gangs” news, illegal crossings have now passed 30,000 this year, up 37% on last year. Over 1,000 on Saturday alone. The illegals aren’t stupid, they can smell this Labour government’s weakness and cowardice a thousand miles off. You really think that asylum seekers care which political party is in government? Yes. Illegal immigrants are perfectly well aware of where the weak points are. Just look at the figures for illegal crossings under Biden and Trump. Same with Labour. Illegals know that the risks of them being turned back have dropped dramatically since July 2024, hence the surge. I suspect that asylum seekers main aim is to not be imprisoned or killed for whatever reason they believe they will be persecuted for, rather than which political party is in power in any given country. Anyway, you carry on believing your version. I’ve been to France on holiday many times. It’s not the hellhole you suggest. Illegal crossings up 37% under Labour. Abject failure." Who mentioned France?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"New HS Shabina Mahmood has described as "utterly unacceptable" the number of people arriving illegally by small boats. I think she just might have the resolve and grit to get something done. It's Labour's last chance of stifling a Reform landslide. Looking at the proliferation of flags up across the UK, reform have already been voted in. " True, but the electorate are fickle. If illegal crossings fall, it'll be some other crisis occupying us by 2029. Probably why we've no money in our pockets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mahmood says she will do 'whatever it takes' on small boats, saying countries which don't help with returns could face visa restrictions Who’s else is coming from Albania, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Vietnam that we’d want to threaten with visa restrictions? " If we impose visa restrictions won’t they just catch a boat from France anyway? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Farage claims he will stop the small boats in two weeks of being in government. Another Trumpian type of nonsense with no detail of how. More sound bytes with no substance. " Maybe he’ll setup giant automated fishing poles / nets off shore to scoop up boats while fishing at same time to save money | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Farage claims he will stop the small boats in two weeks of being in government. Another Trumpian type of nonsense with no detail of how. More sound bytes with no substance. Maybe he’ll setup giant automated fishing poles / nets off shore to scoop up boats while fishing at same time to save money "But who would get the fish? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Farage claims he will stop the small boats in two weeks of being in government. Another Trumpian type of nonsense with no detail of how. More sound bytes with no substance. Maybe he’ll setup giant automated fishing poles / nets off shore to scoop up boats while fishing at same time to save money
But who would get the fish? "Hopefully the local chippies do Britain can have its national dish cheap again for all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
And forgive my stupidity, it all these people are crossing on inflatable boats, surely going to the suppliers and fitting tracking devices in them should help locate the gang's.
Or is this too simple? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Meanwhile in the latest “Smashing the Gangs” news, illegal crossings have now passed 30,000 this year, up 37% on last year. Over 1,000 on Saturday alone. The illegals aren’t stupid, they can smell this Labour government’s weakness and cowardice a thousand miles off. " What's happening with the one in one out policy that was announced the other month? I know of thousands coming in but not yet seen figures for those sent out under this new policy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Meanwhile in the latest “Smashing the Gangs” news, illegal crossings have now passed 30,000 this year, up 37% on last year. Over 1,000 on Saturday alone. The illegals aren’t stupid, they can smell this Labour government’s weakness and cowardice a thousand miles off. What's happening with the one in one out policy that was announced the other month? I know of thousands coming in but not yet seen figures for those sent out under this new policy " The hokey y | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Meanwhile in the latest “Smashing the Gangs” news, illegal crossings have now passed 30,000 this year, up 37% on last year. Over 1,000 on Saturday alone. The illegals aren’t stupid, they can smell this Labour government’s weakness and cowardice a thousand miles off. What's happening with the one in one out policy that was announced the other month? I know of thousands coming in but not yet seen figures for those sent out under this new policy The hokey y" Lol even the forum doesn't allow us to put one in and take one out...  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The hokey y" "Lol even the forum doesn't allow us to put one in and take one out... " I see what you've done there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Farage claims he will stop the small boats in two weeks of being in government. Another Trumpian type of nonsense with no detail of how. More sound bytes with no substance. " He has since said it's going to happen 2 weeks after the legislation is in place - not quite the same thing, now, is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well the introduction of Great White Sharks into the English channel may help
And forgive my stupidity, it all these people are crossing on inflatable boats, surely going to the suppliers and fitting tracking devices in them should help locate the gang's.
Or is this too simple?"Send the met police over, if they can arrest 425 pensioners for holding up cardboard placards then they can arrest a few people in rubber dingys. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Farage claims he will stop the small boats in two weeks of being in government. Another Trumpian type of nonsense with no detail of how. More sound bytes with no substance. " Tbf, he has remained true to type. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just sink them. That’s what the Spanish did. A couple of days of sinkings should stop it. " Well yeah as long as it's done within a few feet of the shore , but the Frenchers aren't going to do that are they? In fact they could probably stop 90% of the crossings by puncturing the boat's when they are still on shore. But then that makes them France's problem not ours. Soooo it's never going to happen. Also the damage is done, there's already too many illegal unknowns in the country who at a moments notice could easily go from "undocumented immigrant" to "terrorist" Trying to stop more entering now is kinda shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. I really really hope I'm wrong and all these single men of fighting age who are here are genuine refugees and not sleeper cells waiting for the signal. How many more sex attacks, murders, robberies and violent criminal acts need to happen before the government finally grows a pair and starts turning boats round as soon as they enter British water's? But what'll happen is the criminals will start intentionally sinking boat's to get sympathy, which I'm pretty sure is already happening. Meanwhile how many genuine asylum seekers are being ignored or used as fodder by criminal gangs and politicians? It's a fucked up situation that will only ever end when someone decides to take a very hard stance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just sink them. That’s what the Spanish did. A couple of days of sinkings should stop it. Well yeah as long as it's done within a few feet of the shore , but the Frenchers aren't going to do that are they? In fact they could probably stop 90% of the crossings by puncturing the boat's when they are still on shore. But then that makes them France's problem not ours. Soooo it's never going to happen. Also the damage is done, there's already too many illegal unknowns in the country who at a moments notice could easily go from "undocumented immigrant" to "terrorist" Trying to stop more entering now is kinda shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. I really really hope I'm wrong and all these single men of fighting age who are here are genuine refugees and not sleeper cells waiting for the signal. How many more sex attacks, murders, robberies and violent criminal acts need to happen before the government finally grows a pair and starts turning boats round as soon as they enter British water's? But what'll happen is the criminals will start intentionally sinking boat's to get sympathy, which I'm pretty sure is already happening. Meanwhile how many genuine asylum seekers are being ignored or used as fodder by criminal gangs and politicians? It's a fucked up situation that will only ever end when someone decides to take a very hard stance. " Some harsh truths seldom acknowledged in all that. First, the real enemy are the French. The could stop the crossings in 24 hours if they really wanted to. But they don't, and the UK government dare not confront them. Then there's the real victims in all this - the genuine asylum seekers who are being squeezed out of the system and ignored. Finally the petty crime wave fuelled by illegals that is being covered up : cigarette smuggling, money laundering, drugs, prostitution, you name it, controlled by Iraqis, Somalis and Afghans. Again, too sensitive to declare the truth. Yes, a truly fucked up situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we are discussing the threat of terrorism, here's some information that might be useful. https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/YouGov_-_extremist_groups_July_2025.pdf " Pivoting again... Do you want to reduce threat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You want the boats stopped - put the Israeli navy in the English Channel - when the small boats see the Magen David flag they will know they’ll be getting no food let alone a hotel bed, iPhone and driving lessons. They will be paddling back to France. Seriously though, there are currently no meaningful legal deterrents. Politicians of all colours are chatting shit on this subject. There will be hundreds of thousands more attempting crossings. It’s not about uk borders it’s about global migration. Sorry mate, but this posting is just nonsense. It’s just parroting tabloid garbage that’s factually wrong. But this is exactly what those outlets want, or at least the outcome they're aiming for. People arriving on boats aren’t getting iPhones, driving lessons and hotel luxury. Because they’re put in basic accommodation (often overcrowded hotels because there’s nowhere else) and given £49 a week to live on. That’s straight from the government’s own website if you care to look beyond the Daily Mail/GB News spin. Hardly the “free ride” line I personally keep hearing people repeating." Agreed, just 1 thing though, the prepaid and restricted bank cards there given have 49 quid a week on them only if they are housed in accommodation that doesn't feed them If there in somewhere that does then the cards have (if memory serves) £9.95 per week on them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are two plausible ways of stopping the boats and I seriously doubt that Farage is capable of considering either since he campaigned to start them in the first place. First is very simple, rejoin the EU and get back the right to send them back to their first entry point in Europe. Second is to build an asylum processing center in northern France. Sigh. Firstly, it wasn't Brexit that caused the small boat issue. We had small boats coming before Brexit, and before that we had people stowing away in lorries. Secondly, we couldn't send them back when we were in the EU. In fact asylum seekers that had been accepted in other countries could just get on the ferry and come here because of freedom of movement. And last, why would the French allow us to build an asylum processing centre in France? It would attract huge numbers of refugees who would travel from across Europe to get to the new centre. France doesn't want to have to deal with all the people waiting their turn, or all the people that have been denied and now have nowhere else to go. Firstly, no we didn't and anyone who's told you otherwise it's lying. Here's a link to a BBC news story from before the referendum, talking about the small boats problem: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36410828 Are they lying? That's an article about one boat because at that time it was an incredibly unusual event. It isn't about the "small boats problem." It is, however, rather prescient of the extreme escalation that would happen with Brexit. How about this one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-48649341 That describes nearly 800 arrivals, with less than 40 being returned. That was 6 months before Brexit. Still think they're lying?" Just a query - how many of those 800 were found to be genuine asylum seekers? Got those figures? "It is an established principle that those in need of protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach and since January more than 35 people who arrived illegally in the UK in small boats have been returned to Europe." A note on terminology: The BBC uses the term migrant to refer to all people on the move who have yet to complete the legal process of claiming asylum. This group includes people fleeing war-torn countries, who are likely to be granted refugee status, as well as people who are seeking jobs and better lives, who governments are likely to rule are economic migrants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not really a surprise that immigration is a hot topic and that Reform Ltd are popular given that Farage has been given a completely free ride by the media for about 20 years even though he was a nobody and still only has a handful of seats out of 650 in Parliament. Plus most centerist UK politicians have been hopeless at confronting him and his ilk. I suggest people check out Congressman Jamie Raskin recently tearing Farage to shreds to see how he should be being addressed in the UK. "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Farage claims he will stop the small boats in two weeks of being in government. Another Trumpian type of nonsense with no detail of how. More sound bytes with no substance. " He has been very clear that the 2 weeks is after the legislation was passed. If you don’t like the guy or his political stance, it tends to help your case if you don’t omit the most important part. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From September 2023 to September 2024 US Border Patrol in the south west was encountering about 115,000 illegals a month crossing the border. Since Trump became President: February 2025 8450 over the month (the lowest in 25 years. Under Biden at the worst points there were 8,000 per day) July 2025 4598 over the month (lower than the daily average under the entire Biden Presidency). The lowest daily figure under Trump has been 88. The Trump Presidency has also seen the lowest national figures in recorded history. When people say “it can’t be done” what they usually mean is “I don’t want it to be done because I want open borders” or perhaps “I’m so accustomed to public sector failure that I don’t believe anything will happen”. But as Trump has shown, controlling a country’s borders is very easy if the will is there. In the UK of course the political will isn’t there, which is why nothing has happened. " Well said! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A note on terminology: The BBC uses the term migrant to refer to all people on the move who have yet to complete the legal process of claiming asylum. This group includes people fleeing war-torn countries, who are likely to be granted refugee status, as well as people who are seeking jobs and better lives, who governments are likely to rule are economic migrants." Fleeing war is not an acceptable reason for an asylum claim. The 1951 Convention only mandates that asylum be given if the applicant has "a justifiable fear of persecution" in the country they are escaping. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What if the war involves persecution of the people seeking asylum? They're not fleeing a war, as such, they are fleeing because they will be tortured, imprisoned or worse, due to their religion, sexuality, political persuasion etc. which are being targeted by the ruling power. Indeed, and that's why we should support genuine asylum seekers by putting a permanent stop to bogus claimants aided and abetted by criminal gangs. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Which claimants are bogus, then? " The ones who've left their wives, children and family behind in a 'hostile' situation to exploit lax asylum and benefits rules here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I read alot of posts here I will say this only,if Margaret Thatcher was in power now I'm telling you no boats would be coming here not a chance" You could always dig her up and place her on the beach. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the Migration Observatory "Most asylum seekers are men (76% of adult applicants from 2014 to 2024). " Concurs with the online video ‘visits’ to asylum hotels on facebook that seem only to show young men. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I read alot of posts here I will say this only,if Margaret Thatcher was in power now I'm telling you no boats would be coming here not a chance You could always dig her up and place her on the beach." Well yes she must be turning in her grave already | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the Migration Observatory "Most asylum seekers are men (76% of adult applicants from 2014 to 2024). Concurs with the online video ‘visits’ to asylum hotels on facebook that seem only to show young men. " Is that where you stopped reading?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the Migration Observatory "Most asylum seekers are men (76% of adult applicants from 2014 to 2024). Young male refugees who receive asylum often go on to be joined by their female partners through refugee family reunion. From 2014 to 2024, 82% of adults receiving refugee family reunion visas were women. As a result, after accounting for family reunion, the gender balance of those granted protection becomes more even over time. Taken together, women made up 35% of adults granted asylum-related status or refugee family reunion between 2014 and 2024 (Table 2), while men made up 65%. Note that these figures exclude asylum applicants who are initially refused but are successful on appeal, as the immigration statistics do not include a gender breakdown for this group." " Hopefully the new Home Secretary will uphold Cooper’s suspension on family reunion for those who arrived by small boat. The law needs be changed to close the loopholes of “what ifs” and semantics, our system needs firm, clear rules that protect the country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What "what ifs" and semantics are you referring to? " The ones exploited by Human Rights lawyers enriching themselves on your dollar. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What "what ifs" and semantics are you referring to? The ones exploited by Human Rights lawyers enriching themselves on your dollar." If they are helping people in need, I don't have a problem with that. Do you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What "what ifs" and semantics are you referring to? The ones exploited by Human Rights lawyers enriching themselves on your dollar. If they are helping people in need, I don't have a problem with that. Do you? " The helping or the enriching? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What "what ifs" and semantics are you referring to? The ones exploited by Human Rights lawyers enriching themselves on your dollar. If they are helping people in need, I don't have a problem with that. Do you? The helping or the enriching?" Both | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What "what ifs" and semantics are you referring to?" "The ones exploited by Human Rights lawyers enriching themselves on your dollar." "If they are helping people in need, I don't have a problem with that." Would you have a problem with it if they weren't helping people in need, but were instead helping criminals to take advantage of legal loopholes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What "what ifs" and semantics are you referring to? The ones exploited by Human Rights lawyers enriching themselves on your dollar. If they are helping people in need, I don't have a problem with that. Would you have a problem with it if they weren't helping people in need, but were instead helping criminals to take advantage of legal loopholes?" So predictable! Solicitors are required to represent their clients to the best of their ability. End of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What "what ifs" and semantics are you referring to?" "The ones exploited by Human Rights lawyers enriching themselves on your dollar." "If they are helping people in need, I don't have a problem with that." "Would you have a problem with it if they weren't helping people in need, but were instead helping criminals to take advantage of legal loopholes?" "So predictable! Solicitors are required to represent their clients to the best of their ability. End of." Of course solicitors are required to do what's best for their client. We all agree on that. But that's not the question I asked. I see that you're happy for human rights lawyers to be given public money to defend the rights of needy people. Many of us would agree with that. But are you also happy for those lawyers to be given money if the people they defend are not needy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What if the war involves persecution of the people seeking asylum? They're not fleeing a war, as such, they are fleeing because they will be tortured, imprisoned or worse, due to their religion, sexuality, political persuasion etc. which are being targeted by the ruling power. " Gosh there are so many cultures who have despicable practices that persecute people, that come under that unmbrella. I guess the limit comes when our infrastructure breaks completely | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I read alot of posts here I will say this only,if Margaret Thatcher was in power now I'm telling you no boats would be coming here not a chance You could always dig her up and place her on the beach. Well yes she must be turning in her grave already " According to some people she's been turning un her grave since 2013. Surprised she's not tunneled her way to Australia, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A note on terminology: The BBC uses the term migrant to refer to all people on the move who have yet to complete the legal process of claiming asylum. This group includes people fleeing war-torn countries, who are likely to be granted refugee status, as well as people who are seeking jobs and better lives, who governments are likely to rule are economic migrants. Fleeing war is not an acceptable reason for an asylum claim. The 1951 Convention only mandates that asylum be given if the applicant has "a justifiable fear of persecution" in the country they are escaping." Interesting! What's your opinion on whether the government should be accepting refugees from Ukraine? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A note on terminology: The BBC uses the term migrant to refer to all people on the move who have yet to complete the legal process of claiming asylum. This group includes people fleeing war-torn countries, who are likely to be granted refugee status, as well as people who are seeking jobs and better lives, who governments are likely to rule are economic migrants." "Fleeing war is not an acceptable reason for an asylum claim. The 1951 Convention only mandates that asylum be given if the applicant has "a justifiable fear of persecution" in the country they are escaping." "Interesting! What's your opinion on whether the government should be accepting refugees from Ukraine?" The problem here is the word 'refugee'. The 1951 Convention defines it as 'a person fleeing a country due to a justifiable fear of persecution from the authorities (legitimate or otherwise) of that country'. That's not the way normal English speakers use the word. The 1951 Convention mandates that we must accept any applicant that fits the description of a 1951-refugee. That means that we must offer them protection for life, and treat them the same way as any other citizen. So my opinion is that the original scheme for accepting escapees from Ukraine was a generous thing for us to do, and that we should look after these people until the war is over, and then send them home. None of them should be granted 1951-asylum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Farage claims he will stop the small boats in two weeks of being in government. Another Trumpian type of nonsense with no detail of how. More sound bytes with no substance. " Defund the councils stop the hotels immediately ban every company from employing illegals will stop the boats in their tracks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another 2023 in the last for days. Have any been returned yet on the 1 in 1 out arrangement " Have we still got that arrangement, it was struck with a previous government..... Are the French actually still stopping trying to stop the boats, that has gone quiet too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sorry mate, but this posting is just nonsense. It’s just parroting tabloid garbage that’s factually wrong. But this is exactly what those outlets want, or at least the outcome they're aiming for. People arriving on boats aren’t getting iPhones, driving lessons and hotel luxury. Because they’re put in basic accommodation (often overcrowded hotels because there’s nowhere else) and given £49 a week to live on. That’s straight from the government’s own website if you care to look beyond the Daily Mail/GB News spin. Hardly the “free ride” line I personally keep hearing people repeating. You're thebone talking nonsense. I can take you yo any number of 3 and 4 star hotela within 30 miles of here that are being used to house migrants: the Delta Marriott at Huntingdon is a 4 star hotel. Holiday Inn at Flore (temporarily closed after the asylum seekers wrecked it. Holiday Inn at Crick (where 3 of them are awaiting trial for sexual assault in Rugby). Westone Park Hotel in Northampton. The Grand Hotel in Northampton. The Royale Hotel in Kettering. As for 49 quid a week to live on, it is actually £49.18 per week per person. If the hotel is fully catered the individual gets £9.95 a week. Bear in mind the accommodation and utilties are all provided FoC. In addition they can claim: free prescriptions, free eye tests, free dental treatment, travel expenses to and from a medical appointment. Most of these payments are still made after asylum has been refused. Mobile phones are not provided, but they are provided by NGOs many of whose funding comes from central government. Have you personally been in some or any of these "hotels"? I have. I've been in dozens across London tbf. None of them scream luxury. You're not wrong they're a cost, but who was it that created such a backlog to need to house them there in the first place? The standard of the hotels is irrelevant. Last time I checked 67 % of the population wanted someone done about uncontrolled immigration. We are paying at least £100 per night to house people who have entered the country illegally. In addition they are getting free dental and medical care. Imagine a UK citizen entering another country and expecting everything to be free If those figures are correct, the 1097 that arrived yesterday are costing us £109,700 a night, £3.3M if they are here a month. Roll on the autumn statement so reeves can claw some of this back from the taxpayer. " Does any one deduct the amount for those that are, in fact, deported, or are these projections based on arrivals only? 🤷 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Farage claims he will stop the small boats in two weeks of being in government. Another Trumpian type of nonsense with no detail of how. More sound bytes with no substance. Defund the councils stop the hotels immediately ban every company from employing illegals will stop the boats in their tracks. " “immediately ban every company from employing illegals” , this made me laugh 😂🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another 2023 in the last for days. Have any been returned yet on the 1 in 1 out arrangement " So that's approximately 500 per day. The boat operators are making a fortune. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A note on terminology: The BBC uses the term migrant to refer to all people on the move who have yet to complete the legal process of claiming asylum. This group includes people fleeing war-torn countries, who are likely to be granted refugee status, as well as people who are seeking jobs and better lives, who governments are likely to rule are economic migrants. Fleeing war is not an acceptable reason for an asylum claim. The 1951 Convention only mandates that asylum be given if the applicant has "a justifiable fear of persecution" in the country they are escaping. Interesting! What's your opinion on whether the government should be accepting refugees from Ukraine? The problem here is the word 'refugee'. The 1951 Convention defines it as 'a person fleeing a country due to a justifiable fear of persecution from the authorities (legitimate or otherwise) of that country'. That's not the way normal English speakers use the word. The 1951 Convention mandates that we must accept any applicant that fits the description of a 1951-refugee. That means that we must offer them protection for life, and treat them the same way as any other citizen. So my opinion is that the original scheme for accepting escapees from Ukraine was a generous thing for us to do, and that we should look after these people until the war is over, and then send them home. None of them should be granted 1951-asylum." OK Raises another question, in your opinion should the same criteria apply to those arrivals who arrive in small boats? I.e. successful and genuine refugees from other parts of the world, should things materially change in there country of origin (for example regime change) and they are no longer under a verifiable threat of persecution or death etc, should they be granted asylum and refugee status in this country until such time as that happens? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A note on terminology: The BBC uses the term migrant to refer to all people on the move who have yet to complete the legal process of claiming asylum. This group includes people fleeing war-torn countries, who are likely to be granted refugee status, as well as people who are seeking jobs and better lives, who governments are likely to rule are economic migrants. Fleeing war is not an acceptable reason for an asylum claim. The 1951 Convention only mandates that asylum be given if the applicant has "a justifiable fear of persecution" in the country they are escaping. Interesting! What's your opinion on whether the government should be accepting refugees from Ukraine? The problem here is the word 'refugee'. The 1951 Convention defines it as 'a person fleeing a country due to a justifiable fear of persecution from the authorities (legitimate or otherwise) of that country'. That's not the way normal English speakers use the word. The 1951 Convention mandates that we must accept any applicant that fits the description of a 1951-refugee. That means that we must offer them protection for life, and treat them the same way as any other citizen. So my opinion is that the original scheme for accepting escapees from Ukraine was a generous thing for us to do, and that we should look after these people until the war is over, and then send them home. None of them should be granted 1951-asylum. OK Raises another question, in your opinion should the same criteria apply to those arrivals who arrive in small boats? I.e. successful and genuine refugees from other parts of the world, should things materially change in there country of origin (for example regime change) and they are no longer under a verifiable threat of persecution or death etc, should they be granted asylum and refugee status in this country until such time as that happens?" Also, the Hong Kong and Afghan schemes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A note on terminology: The BBC uses the term migrant to refer to all people on the move who have yet to complete the legal process of claiming asylum. This group includes people fleeing war-torn countries, who are likely to be granted refugee status, as well as people who are seeking jobs and better lives, who governments are likely to rule are economic migrants." "Fleeing war is not an acceptable reason for an asylum claim. The 1951 Convention only mandates that asylum be given if the applicant has "a justifiable fear of persecution" in the country they are escaping." "Interesting! What's your opinion on whether the government should be accepting refugees from Ukraine?" "The problem here is the word 'refugee'. The 1951 Convention defines it as 'a person fleeing a country due to a justifiable fear of persecution from the authorities (legitimate or otherwise) of that country'. That's not the way normal English speakers use the word. The 1951 Convention mandates that we must accept any applicant that fits the description of a 1951-refugee. That means that we must offer them protection for life, and treat them the same way as any other citizen. So my opinion is that the original scheme for accepting escapees from Ukraine was a generous thing for us to do, and that we should look after these people until the war is over, and then send them home. None of them should be granted 1951-asylum." "OK Raises another question, in your opinion should the same criteria apply to those arrivals who arrive in small boats? I.e. successful and genuine refugees from other parts of the world, should things materially change in there country of origin (for example regime change) and they are no longer under a verifiable threat of persecution or death etc, should they be granted asylum and refugee status in this country until such time as that happens?" The Convention doesn't work like that. If someone is granted asylum, they have it for life. They can choose to go back, but they can never be sent back. "... no longer under a verifiable threat of persecution ..." I'm sure this was an autocorrect error, but just in case - the threat of persecution doesn't need to be verifiable, it only needs to be justified. Before the war a lot of Jews fled Germany. In the late 1940s a lot of countries were starting to say "why are all these Jews still here, the Nazis are gone, why don't we send them all back". The countries that didn't want these people were thinking that the threat had passed, so they could go home. The people involved feared, not unreasonably, that the threat might return. There was no immediate threat, but the people involved had a justifiable reason to believe that the threat was still there but just hidden. So the 1951 Convention was written to make sure that all of these displaced people could stay where they were. That was the original purpose of the Convention, to make sure that people who already had a settled life in a country, were not forcibly 'sent back' to their country of origin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
