Please add to the debate.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Priti Vacant has a plan, a deal with migrants plan.
- Thread starter Rascal
- Start date
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 18,435
- Team supported
- FC Zurich (and city of course)
Absolutely, but the use of words like 'gammon' is all part of the same game / trick.The constant use of the word woke and others like radicals, Marxists, remoaners, and snowflakes have been seized upon by the media deliberately. A government think tank has pushed it forth as a way of solidifying voting positions and it has definitely polarised the nation even more.
But not used by the mass media, in my experience.Absolutely, but the use of words like 'gammon' is all part of the same game / trick.
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
I’m not entirely sure they were thinking they should enter the country of choice illegally though. As a gentle reminder.
There is no other way to enter the UK other than by nefarious means.
If you apply for a VISA and state that the reason for your visit is to apply for asylum then the Visa wont be granted. If you lie about the reason for your visit on your application , then your asylum application will not be accepted as 'lying on your visa application is a reason for your application far asylum to be denied.
The UK does not accept asylum applications at embassies or consulates overseas. So the only way to claim asylum is to reach the UK.
What we need is a safe passage system (complies with the UN Refugee Convention) and then a fast track processing system (adequately staffed not currently 5000 less than the numbers we had under the last Labour Government)
And then an appeals process that again is fast tracked and adequately staffed.
If the appeals process fails then a swift return to the country of origin ( or rejoining the Eu Dublin Convention would help).
A lot of the problems are caused by the lack of resource in the system both in the courts and the staff needed to process the applications.... once again a problem created by the Conservative cuts. It doesn't help that SERCO are sat in the middle of this managing the asylum centres and creaming off loads of profit from the system
None of this however stops the Economic migrant however who will still arrive on our shores and work in the black economy. It should be remembered though that Economic Migrants cant access the NHS or the Welfare System as they don't have an National Insurance Number.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 14,866
I really cant be bothered as the thread has already been hijacked by the usual suspects.Please add to the debate.
metalblue
Well-Known Member
I don't doubt that both need tackling. We can also stop spending 34 billion on track and trace; 120bn on HS2 and so on and so forth. The time for excuses is done: we cannot justify being unable to care for the elderly while allowing money to be frittered away on vanity projects or to the Cayman Islands.
I don’t disagree with the sentiment.
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 20,375
I'm sure this will be another cost-effective plan by the Tories. So someone comes to the UK illegally, and they've already set aside nearly £200k over four years for them. I'm sure that there are plenty of people in the UK who'd love to have that sort of government money spent on them. It's absolutely laughable that they're considered the party of fiscal responsibility.
But of course it'll never happen. Just another person saying outrageous things to wind up the mouth breathers of society.
But of course it'll never happen. Just another person saying outrageous things to wind up the mouth breathers of society.
There lies the opportunity for change, surely.I really cant be bothered as the thread has already been hijacked by the usual suspects.
metalblue
Well-Known Member
There is no other way to enter the UK other than by nefarious means.
If you apply for a VISA and state that the reason for your visit is to apply for asylum then the Visa wont be granted. If you lie about the reason for your visit on your application , then your asylum application will not be accepted as 'lying on your visa application is a reason for your application far asylum to be denied.
The UK does not accept asylum applications at embassies or consulates overseas. So the only way to claim asylum is to reach the UK.
What we need is a safe passage system (complies with the UN Refugee Convention) and then a fast track processing system (adequately staffed not currently 5000 less than the numbers we had under the last Labour Government)
And then an appeals process that again is fast tracked and adequately staffed.
If the appeals process fails then a swift return to the country of origin ( or rejoining the Eu Dublin Convention would help).
A lot of the problems are caused by the lack of resource in the system both in the courts and the staff needed to process the applications.... once again a problem created by the Conservative cuts. It doesn't help that SERCO are sat in the middle of this managing the asylum centres and creaming off loads of profit from the system
None of this however stops the Economic migrant however who will still arrive on our shores and work in the black economy. It should be remembered though that Economic Migrants cant access the NHS or the Welfare System as they don't have an National Insurance Number.
I didn’t believe this could be true. But it is. I checked and claiming asylum in the UK is a joke, it even states your claim might be considered unlikely if you arrive from a safe country.
The process is the problem here, it’s impossible to get in otherwise - it needs to be much easier and fairer to request to come here then folks won’t be arriving in dingy’s. Thanks for educating me @Ifwecouldjust....... I’m genuinely appalled.
Rascal
El Presidente
Well this turned into an interesting thread with some additional tangents. Some excellent contributions from CB, Oldius and others. Some wild stupidity, the odd dose of RW nutjobbery and some lively chest beating.
I am as left wing as they come, a lifelong Socialist as posters probably know and Immigration has always been an issue for the left, the right take advantage of that by being tough on Immigration. It is not in the lefts nature to be tough on immigration but much of our immigration is a result of Imperialism and sections of the left have always been anti-imperialist. Vladimir Lenin, describes the function of financial capital in generating profits from imperialist colonialism as the final stage of capitalist development to ensure greater profits. Some sections of the left see imperialism as colonial exploitation and there willingness to accept immigration from former colonies is a means of reparation for our colonial past.
Me, I am not in favour of open door immigration, but i am in favour of providing a safe haven for refugees and asylum seekers. The problem is because of the historical debate the waters have been muddied and immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees have morphed into one. Patel's rhetoric only exacerbates that morphing and there becomes no distinction. Instead we have a country where rich men can buy UK citizenship but poor men are now being considered as possible criminals. Wealthy immigrants can fly into a British airport and be treated as one of us and poor immigrants cross the channel on a raft made out of dustbins and they are vilified. The rules around wealth make immigration difficult, that then precludes people we do need but allows in people we don't need. Who is of more value to Britain and society? A poor Doctor who arrives on a raft or a rich oligarch who arrives on a private jet. That needs addressing so immigration is on merit not on wealth.
We should always of course accept asylum seekers and refugees because that is what a decent country does.
Macroeconomic evidence suggests that asylum seekers are not a “burden” for Western European countries | Science Advances (sciencemag.org)
The above study is one of a number that suggests that asylum seekers are actually good for the country and in my opinion should be treated as possible enhancements to our country not as potential welfare claimants.
The right-wing though is throwing a collective hissy fit about the alleged ‘invasion’ of asylum seekers coming to the UK from France. Following a campaign by that fuckwit Farage, the Government has institutionalised a crusade against people crossing the Channel in small boats. It was Farage and his poster that helped demonise many in the first place
The argument – pitched by Farage and legitimised by the lying **** Johnson and Patel – is that by accepting these asylum seekers we are placing an unmanageable economic burden on the British state, but the evidence says different. Patel ordered aircraft to the Channel, y in an effort to deter migrant boats. The A400M aircraft used for the campaign is worth roughly £150 million, and its daily deployment must cost approaching a million quid given how long it has gone on for. All to satisfy a cretin stood on the cliffs on Dover with a brolly and a pair of Binoculars shouting migrants Ahoy! like the deranged lunatic he is. It plays with the RW base though, they lap it up, they see Farage as some sort of hero, not the twisted nasty **** he is.
Asylum seekers though have a basic right. The 1951 Geneva Convention, drawn up by the United Nations , stipulates that someone has a right to asylum if:
"He or she has a “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it”.
liar Johnson and Patel, stoked by Farage and facilitated by the media, are pursuing a silly season campaign against powerless people they can portray as foreign trespassers.
Though they claim otherwise, this isn’t about economics, and it certainly isn’t about humanity. Farage and co. do not like immigrants coming over here and ‘taking our jobs’, but they also don’t want asylum seekers coming over and being a burden on the state.
There’s something else at play here: the callous use of populist xenophobia to drum up nativist sentiments among voters who’ve been swayed away from their populist, pro-Brexit instincts by the Coronavirus pandemic.
Even without the catalysing force of Brexit, immigrants are still being deployed in moments of crisis as a useful right-wing scapegoat for all of society’s problems.
As a country we have to abide by the Geneva Convention, if we don't what do we become ??
The reality is that the refugee convention was created to deal with the mass flight of refugees from war ravaged Europe in the 1950s. The reality now is that people are fleeing in much greater numbers. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, at the end of 2011 Pakistan had 1.7 million refugees. As a result, there are substantial resource implications for such countries of signing the refugee convention. The costs of processing asylum seeker claims and meeting education, health and housing obligations can be prohibitive for poorer nations. For those bordering refugee-sending nations, these obligations are a very real resource issue, so it is no surprise that refugee's head to countries who are wealthy. Moroccans head to France, Turks head to Germany, people of the nations of Empire head to Great Britain.
Is there an easy left wing answer as CB asks, no there isn't, there is however things we could do better and things we could avoid doing, it might make it fairer, but sadly I cannot see it solving the problem as has been pointed out it will possibly get worse thanks to climate change.
I am as left wing as they come, a lifelong Socialist as posters probably know and Immigration has always been an issue for the left, the right take advantage of that by being tough on Immigration. It is not in the lefts nature to be tough on immigration but much of our immigration is a result of Imperialism and sections of the left have always been anti-imperialist. Vladimir Lenin, describes the function of financial capital in generating profits from imperialist colonialism as the final stage of capitalist development to ensure greater profits. Some sections of the left see imperialism as colonial exploitation and there willingness to accept immigration from former colonies is a means of reparation for our colonial past.
Me, I am not in favour of open door immigration, but i am in favour of providing a safe haven for refugees and asylum seekers. The problem is because of the historical debate the waters have been muddied and immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees have morphed into one. Patel's rhetoric only exacerbates that morphing and there becomes no distinction. Instead we have a country where rich men can buy UK citizenship but poor men are now being considered as possible criminals. Wealthy immigrants can fly into a British airport and be treated as one of us and poor immigrants cross the channel on a raft made out of dustbins and they are vilified. The rules around wealth make immigration difficult, that then precludes people we do need but allows in people we don't need. Who is of more value to Britain and society? A poor Doctor who arrives on a raft or a rich oligarch who arrives on a private jet. That needs addressing so immigration is on merit not on wealth.
We should always of course accept asylum seekers and refugees because that is what a decent country does.
Macroeconomic evidence suggests that asylum seekers are not a “burden” for Western European countries | Science Advances (sciencemag.org)
The above study is one of a number that suggests that asylum seekers are actually good for the country and in my opinion should be treated as possible enhancements to our country not as potential welfare claimants.
The right-wing though is throwing a collective hissy fit about the alleged ‘invasion’ of asylum seekers coming to the UK from France. Following a campaign by that fuckwit Farage, the Government has institutionalised a crusade against people crossing the Channel in small boats. It was Farage and his poster that helped demonise many in the first place
The argument – pitched by Farage and legitimised by the lying **** Johnson and Patel – is that by accepting these asylum seekers we are placing an unmanageable economic burden on the British state, but the evidence says different. Patel ordered aircraft to the Channel, y in an effort to deter migrant boats. The A400M aircraft used for the campaign is worth roughly £150 million, and its daily deployment must cost approaching a million quid given how long it has gone on for. All to satisfy a cretin stood on the cliffs on Dover with a brolly and a pair of Binoculars shouting migrants Ahoy! like the deranged lunatic he is. It plays with the RW base though, they lap it up, they see Farage as some sort of hero, not the twisted nasty **** he is.
Asylum seekers though have a basic right. The 1951 Geneva Convention, drawn up by the United Nations , stipulates that someone has a right to asylum if:
"He or she has a “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it”.
liar Johnson and Patel, stoked by Farage and facilitated by the media, are pursuing a silly season campaign against powerless people they can portray as foreign trespassers.
Though they claim otherwise, this isn’t about economics, and it certainly isn’t about humanity. Farage and co. do not like immigrants coming over here and ‘taking our jobs’, but they also don’t want asylum seekers coming over and being a burden on the state.
There’s something else at play here: the callous use of populist xenophobia to drum up nativist sentiments among voters who’ve been swayed away from their populist, pro-Brexit instincts by the Coronavirus pandemic.
Even without the catalysing force of Brexit, immigrants are still being deployed in moments of crisis as a useful right-wing scapegoat for all of society’s problems.
As a country we have to abide by the Geneva Convention, if we don't what do we become ??
The reality is that the refugee convention was created to deal with the mass flight of refugees from war ravaged Europe in the 1950s. The reality now is that people are fleeing in much greater numbers. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, at the end of 2011 Pakistan had 1.7 million refugees. As a result, there are substantial resource implications for such countries of signing the refugee convention. The costs of processing asylum seeker claims and meeting education, health and housing obligations can be prohibitive for poorer nations. For those bordering refugee-sending nations, these obligations are a very real resource issue, so it is no surprise that refugee's head to countries who are wealthy. Moroccans head to France, Turks head to Germany, people of the nations of Empire head to Great Britain.
Is there an easy left wing answer as CB asks, no there isn't, there is however things we could do better and things we could avoid doing, it might make it fairer, but sadly I cannot see it solving the problem as has been pointed out it will possibly get worse thanks to climate change.