Is France Correct?

Jeez, I'm the thick one?? You seriously think that migrants read Regan's Wisdom on DiyNot in Sangatte, or wherever they squat these days, about the stupidity of politicians and liberals like you giving cushy lifestyles to freeloading migrants......................................................................... and this causes them all to hop on the next dinghy to here???


Unless you believe that you are the sole voice on this, your frothing rant above is just cobblers.

So, "thick" is as apt as "deluded", or just outright "bullshoiter" (y)
 
Sponsored Links
Personally I feel Starmer's idea does have merit. The bleat that new gangs will appear means a structure needs building up and will likely need to remain. As it always will stay around with terrorists. Most countries have the services that are needed. Other ideas - bit difficult to say they work.

How do they arrive? We see small groups walking along railway lines. One was interviewed on TV. His trip included transport and also a period in a small airfield. How common?

Most routes include a sea crossing. 2 to get here, Many get trapped in Belarus. The land route (?). There is a Balkan root but most go another way.
 
why are you lying?

you know that is simply not true for the majority of countries where most refugees are coming from
I’m not. If it’s impossible to claim, you better tell the government who granted 10s of thousands of applications and continue to do so.
 
If you are going to include other immigrants for various reasons, the French numbers do not include the French overseas territories.
From memory there were over 300,000 immigrants to France in 2023, not including those from French Overseas territories.


Those (nearly 3,000,000) French citizens living in French Overseas territories don't need a visa nor a permit to migrate to France.


300,000 vs 1.2m. Not going too well for you this argument. Not that legal migration is relevant.

The fact remains more people were granted asylum in the U.K. than France and it’s been like that for a while.
 
Sponsored Links
Personally I feel Starmer's idea does have merit. The bleat that new gangs will appear means a structure needs building up and will likely need to remain. As it always will stay around with terrorists. Most countries have the services that are needed. Other ideas - bit difficult to say they work.

How do they arrive? We see small groups walking along railway lines. One was interviewed on TV. His trip included transport and also a period in a small airfield. How common?

Most routes include a sea crossing. 2 to get here, Many get trapped in Belarus. The land route (?). There is a Balkan root but most go another way.

If you think it has merit. Can you explain how he will obtain policing jurisdiction in other countries and what will happen once we exceed our agreed quota?
 
Can you explain how he will obtain policing jurisdiction in other countries and what will happen once we exceed our agreed quota?
It will be worked out through dialogue and discussion with other countries. The PM is on it.
 
we exceed our agreed quota
Who said anything about a quota. The objective is to end boat crossings. Maybe you didn't notice that Hard to see how as much noise has been made about it by all that experience it. A subject of interest to many countries. Prospects of death does not put them off.

Accepting a quota is an entirely different subject also methods of getting any here.
 
Such a contrast to the vast armies of young men invading Europe who have clearly left their women and children behind. We have no room for these
You prefer that women and children attempt the channel crossings, instead of the men?? :mad:
 
Not directly. The government do it for them. Paid for by taxpayers, whom I would guess would mostly be in favour of charity beginning at home. Not having billions of their tax dollars spent on all comers arriving here from anywhere.
UK doesn't spend billions of dollars on accommodating asylum seekers.
The quicker they process them the less they spend on accommodation.
If you stop processing them, as the Tories did, you still have to accommodate them :rolleyes:
And if you never process them. you have to accommodate them for aver and a day. :rolleyes:
 
300,000 vs 1.2m. Not going too well for you this argument. Not that legal migration is relevant.
The UK’s foreign-born population increased rapidly between 2004 and 2021. According to data from the latest Census – which combines 2021 data from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland with 2022 data for Scotland – it stood at 10.7 million. That means that 16% of people in the UK, which had a total estimated population of 66.9 million, had been born abroad. The number of foreign-born residents had increased by 34% since the 2011 Census (Figure 1).
London stands out among all other regions in the UK. More than 40% of its residents had been born abroad, according to the 2021 Census. The national average was 16%, and percentages were below this average in all other regions of the country (Figure 4). The North East (7%), Wales (7%), and Northern Ireland (9%) had the lowest shares of foreign-born residents (for more details at the local authority level, see the Migration Observatory’s


Key statistics:
  • there have been 7.7 million EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) applications made since the scheme launched
  • these applications relate to 6.2 million people (some people will have multiple applications)
  • 5.7 million people had obtained a grant of status through the scheme (3.7 million settled status and 2 million pre-settled status)

Yet more on the NOS.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top