Oh FFS. Not again!

[Notch7]

I suspect Labour might be too arrogant to do the same

Tough sh1t

If Trump wins in America, why don’t you move there, I’m sure it’ll be great.

 

[Odds]

Attack the smuggling gangs. Needs to be done at the French end though.

A smuggler was gunned down in a hail of bullets in Libya last week: he'd managed to wrangle a gig on the coastguard but was responsible for thousands of people being trafficked across the Med to Italy. Hard to say if it's related to his activities or just a victim of Libyan justice, but an armed patrol or two along the French coast wouldn't hurt.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

There used to be a bit of humour as well, now they've all gone full Farage and Yaxley-Lennon.

And Trumpian.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Have you?

Safe and legal routes. It's so obvious, but it's being ignored by all but a few.
Continuing in the same comparison from the other thread,
Accepting refugees from Germany from 1933 onwards was resisted by most countries, which gave the Nazis a free hand to mete out horrendous treatment to innocent people.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

That's funny. Our politicians have the same problems.

It's a multii faceted situation. One of the main problems is why do they leave their country of origin.
Often it's due to persecution, caused by bigotry, just like the bigotry displayed by your constant anti-ethnic minority hatred.

 

[Mottie]

Attack the smuggling gangs. Needs to be done at the French end though.

Whatever needs doing has got to come from the French side. Whether it means smashing the gangs or preventing the boats setting off. You see on the news that they have 'minders' protecting the boats being launched with clubs and bats from being stopped by a couple of French Gendarmes with their arms metaphorically tied behind their backs. We need armed riot police or the army to outnumber these thugs - send over our own if we have to. Also needed are fast response teams, drones, light aircraft with heat seeking technology to pinpoint their location before they even cross the beach. Can’t be that hard if British TV crews can find and film them leaving. None of that is being done for the £75,000,000 that we are chipping in for. A better idea would be to pool resources with the French and Italians and prevent then landing in Italy in the first place.

Any that are picked up in the sea should be taken straight back to their departure point. Once it is known that there is little chance of setting off or being returned if they are picked up in the sea, that will put an end to the smuggling gangs business model. Waving them off and ferrying them across once they are at sea is just fuelling the smuggling business.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

There's two issues.

1) Isolationists don't want to accept any asylum seekers. Racists and bigots don't want to accept particular types of asylum seekers.

2) People trying to get to the UK to claim asylum generally have to take small unsafe boats to get here.

The real problem is that people who object to 1 use 2 as the excuse.

So things like creating legal pathways or opening asylum claim centers in Calais and Embassies which would pretty much eliminate small boat crossings are unacceptable as it still allows refugees to settle here. Probably more as it will be safer for women and children who would be eligible but are scared by the journey.

So that leaves the only option: small boat crossings.
We need to be honest and admit to what is the real objection. Is it stopping the drownings in the channel?
Or is it stopping the asylum seekers arriving in UK?
Only when we accept the honest reason can we arrive at a real solution.
So let's stop pussyfooting around and accept what is the honest reason for the objections against the small boat crossings.

Most of us already know.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Is there a solution.
Maybe you just have to accept that mass immigration, legal or illegal is a fact of life.

It always has been since Homo Erectus first left Africa, about 2,000,000 years ago.
And it's been creating conflict ever since.
Civilisation hasn't yet found the answer, it's only created more developed weapons to use in those conflicts.

Poor people have always been attracted to the centres of power and wealth, with the collapse of European imperial control over Africa and Asia, the people from these areas are free to make their way to Europe in order to have a better life.
The dilemma for Britain and Europe is the fact that they have declining indigenous populations, Britain used to produce its own workers along with its own cars, ships, washing machines ect, nowadays it has to import all this stuff along with young workers.

The capitalists have exploited the labour of others to create their own wealth, not just in Britain, but throughout the empire(s).

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

There are solutions.

Unfortunately though, there are bothersome things like human rights that get in the way of them.

Youi see Human Rights as an obstacle. Most right thinking people with morals see Human Rights as a law to protect others from persecution. The kind of persecution asylum seekers are fleeing from.
You want to turn UK into the same kind of country, lacking Human Rights, of which you constantly accuse others.

 

[IT Minion]

Also needed are fast response teams, drones, light aircraft with heat seeking technology to pinpoint their location before they even cross the beach. Can’t be that hard if British TV crews can find and film them leaving.

Think about that a bit longer. You're demanding the French stop every crossing, not find a single one over an unknown timeframe.

Also, I'll bet it's a french film crew.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Not just more, double, treble, quadruple. The rest of europe is sick of these economic migrants, that is why everywhere is turning to the right (we did here but our ridiculous electoral system meant our rightward swing to reform caused a landslide labour gov)

The extreme right wing politicians are exploiting the asylum seekers for their own political ambitions.
Viktor Orban is just one such example, Farage, trump are others. There have been many throughout history. Oswald Mosely, Gert Wilders,
Anti-immigration rhetoric is a threat to democracy because it promotes violence and civil disorder.

When we set up these asylum claim centre on the continents with free ferry tickets (oh yes they are on the way), all the other EU countries will just bus all their unwanted straight to these centres. (and the ones we turn away will just get a small boat as they do now)

That is why a EU wide discussion is needed, and an honest acceptance that a EU wide solution is required. Instead people like the usual politicians insist on an isolationist approach which does not resolve the problem, and does nothing to stop the deaths of asylum seekers.

As sure as Labour will edge closer and closer to palastine and hamas (they have already started with arms embargo) They will slowly but surely open our doors to anyone who wishes to come here - its in the lefts DNA

Labour is a disaster in the making

Ah, the real reason for your comments - anti-labour.

You are still refusing to answer my question: "what has changed, with regard to immigration policies, has changed since the election?"
While you refuse to answer, you're displaying your ignorance of that which you wish to participate in discussions.

 

[motorbiking]

Carmen Its lost on you isn't it?

View attachment 354399

Everything is.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Everything is.

Another that attacks the messenger because he can't argue the message

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Let's discount #1 simply because it's a bit of a left wing trope, there are such people but they are a miniscule minority.

A vociferous minority, like Trump, Gert Wilders, Meloni, Farage, Patel, Badenoch, yaxely-lenon and reganandcarter, et al.
All promoting violent treatment of asylum seekers.

Legal pathways probably are the answer, how would you feel about a quota, an annual limit on the numbers allowed asylum. Bear in mind if it's made easier the numbers are very likely to increase dramatically.

But not the successful applications. That is within the control of the government.
Yes, it's possible that failed applicants would then try a boat crossing, but they would have already been refused asylum once.

There were roughly 67,000 asylum applications last year, would a cap on successful applications of 45,000 sound reasonable? I assume a successful application would result in family members joining them so successful applications could potentially treble or quadruple the number.

Only when they can meet the financial requirements to support them.

Or do you think there should be no limit.

Would you deny a close family relative safety because everyone else would have to squeeze up a bit more?
What was the famous British spirit of hospitality during the Wars? You want to a world where selfishness rules?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

You’ll never get an answer to that from the usual suspects and even if there was a limit, what would happen when that limit was reached?

Let's say we impose a limit.

1000 a year, is that OK?

What happens with any that arrive after that ?

Back to the same position we are now in.

Stop shouting slogans, they don't work.