Current Affairs

[Gill W]

Begs the question , why would any immigrant want to pass through Ireland which we are told is doing really well, on to Northern Ireland which we are told is doing pretty well, and on to England which we are told is in chaos ?
Answer on a postcard please

Perhaps they’ve got family already living in England

[barney]

Begs the question , why would any immigrant want to pass through Ireland which we are told is doing really well, on to Northern Ireland which we are told is doing pretty well, and on to England which we are told is in chaos ?
Answer on a postcard please

Perhaps they’ve got family already living in England

Perhaps they just realise that life in England is better than Ireland or Northern Ireland.

[Mervyn and Trish]

It would appear NI is in a lucky position with migrants arriving with thousands to invest in their economy. England it seems is less lucky as our immigrants appear to be arriving with nothing.

[towny44]

It would appear NI is in a lucky position with migrants arriving with thousands to invest in their economy. England it seems is less lucky as our immigrants appear to be arriving with nothing.

I suspect that Ken might be letting his rhetoric run away with him.

[Onelife]

Better them than the crowd currently infesting it ... they are almost as useless as that lot in Westminister.
They apparently have a very good restaurant there serving cheap food.

We actually have a lot of immigrants arriving here at the minute, many coming with large sums of money to pump into our economy .. it is great, the value of my house is up over 40% this year (based on one of the immigrants buying the house behind ours) ... nice family, but very difficult to understand a damned word they say ... I believe they have managed to escape from Reading.

Ken…at what point would you recommend a cap on illegal immigrants or are you recommending a free at the point of entry policy?

Are we talking immigrants, illegal immigrants or asylum seekers? Assuming we are talking of 'immigrants' then the country needs a steady flow to fulfil many jobs and keep a reliable tax stream for government funding. These are much needed across many disciplines. Top of the list should be those that already have jobs or work in an industry that is actively recruiting. However, for each person that fulfils that need there could be 3-4 economically inactive others that come with them (aka spouse and 2.4 kids). I assume that you would not advocate for the splitting up of families.

There does not need to be an open door policy, it just needs to be managed ... something that the government has failed to do with each crackpot idea getting more and more desperate ... but yet avoiding the one solution Johnson was told to put in place several years back. The problem is these nonsense ideas from the government are now blocking those people the country actually needs (so the cream of the crop are finding jobs in other countries).

The reason I ask is that should we overcome the legalities of returning illegal immigrants it could open up great opportunities for those who may seek a new life but 12 miles west of Liverpool.

12 miles west of Liverpool would put them somewhere about the mouth of the river Dee ... not sure why you want to return them to there ... could you not send them via Rwanda for a little holiday first.

I was reading that Ireland is struggling to find interim accommodation due to the 2-year asylum application process…is that right?

I have no idea what Ireland is doing ... however, anecdotally, I have heard there is a lucrative path of immigration through Ireland, into the North and across on the ferry. No smuggling required.

Well, that’s left egg on my face as I was under the impression you resided in Ireland

Anyway moving 12 miles back to Liverpool I would be interested to hear about the one solution Johnson was told to put in place as I can’t recall what it was.

I thought my post made it clear that I was talking about illegal immigrants and have no issues with those who wish to transfer their job skills to this country having gone through the right immigration channels.

It would appear the lucrative path of immigration through Ireland is about to come an abrupt end…

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/n ... 52452.html

Perhaps they’ve got wise to how many spare inflatables we have for those wishing to take an alternative mode of transport to Ireland.

[Kendhni]

It would appear NI is in a lucky position with migrants arriving with thousands to invest in their economy. England it seems is less lucky as our immigrants appear to be arriving with nothing.

You missed the humour in my post. One of the bigger migrant groups moving to NI are the English. The chap behind us sold his mortgaged 'modest 1930's semi" in Reading and was able to buy outright a much bigger modern 21st century detached house and "had enough left over" for a couple of Teslas and "a bit more". We need a few more translators though so we can understand what they are saying.

[Kendhni]

Well, that’s left egg on my face as I was under the impression you resided in Ireland

That is a bit like referring to Scotland as England and probably just as insulting.

Anyway moving 12 miles back to Liverpool I would be interested to hear about the one solution Johnson was told to put in place as I can’t recall what it was.

As part of Johnsons wonderful deal he shutdown all routes into the UK ... he was told what would happen, he ignored it, and guess what ... it happened. The British government has been told for several years now that they need to reopen safe/legal routes for migrants, asylum seekers, refugees .. that way we get to handle the problem on our terms rather than being forced into a position to think of more and more hairbrained ill thought out unworkable schemes.

I thought my post made it clear that I was talking about illegal immigrants and have no issues with those who wish to transfer their job skills to this country having gone through the right immigration channels.

The problem is that definitions are not clear. There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker/refugee and many labelled 'illegal immigrants' are eventually deemed to be legal immigrants ... so there may be a timeline involved. Then there are those deemed to be 'illegal' that are actually productive members of society in full time employment.

It would appear the lucrative path of immigration through Ireland is about to come an abrupt end…
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/n ... 52452.html

Perhaps they’ve got wise to how many spare inflatables we have for those wishing to take an alternative mode of transport to Ireland.

Nice to hear about your inflatibles ... we have ferries to send them back on.
Many countries are having to deal with a migrant problem ... ours is minor compared to other countries.
There is a growing problem globally, much of it our own making ... but it is about taking back control, and it is time we did that.

[barney]

It’s really quite solvable.
Albania is a safe country.
They travel through other safe countries to come to this safe country.
At no time are they escaping war or persecution.
So, pick them up on the Kent beaches, put them on a coach, take them to Dover Ferry Terminal, put them on the ferry (taxpayer paid) and let them get off in Calais.

[Manoverboard]

It is undoubtedly true that many Brits do not welcome illegal immigrants from Albania.

It is also the case that the French don't want them either.

What is less well known is that even the Albanians don't want them.

The ones that arrive on our shores are predominately Roma Gypsies, a tribe of ancient peoples who live in squalid shanty town conditions on the fringes of the major Cities in Albania. The Police move in and move them out from time to time but inevitably they return. They live off the land and organised crime and do not have anything at all to offer this Country. Working, unlike stealing, is not part of their mind set.

[Onelife]

Well, that’s left egg on my face as I was under the impression you resided in Ireland

That is a bit like referring to Scotland as England and probably just as insulting.

Anyway moving 12 miles back to Liverpool I would be interested to hear about the one solution Johnson was told to put in place as I can’t recall what it was.

As part of Johnsons wonderful deal he shutdown all routes into the UK ... he was told what would happen, he ignored it, and guess what ... it happened. The British government has been told for several years now that they need to reopen safe/legal routes for migrants, asylum seekers, refugees .. that way we get to handle the problem on our terms rather than being forced into a position to think of more and more hairbrained ill thought out unworkable schemes.

I thought my post made it clear that I was talking about illegal immigrants and have no issues with those who wish to transfer their job skills to this country having gone through the right immigration channels.

The problem is that definitions are not clear. There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker/refugee and many labelled 'illegal immigrants' are eventually deemed to be legal immigrants ... so there may be a timeline involved. Then there are those deemed to be 'illegal' that are actually productive members of society in full time employment.

It would appear the lucrative path of immigration through Ireland is about to come an abrupt end…
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/n ... 52452.html

Perhaps they’ve got wise to how many spare inflatables we have for those wishing to take an alternative mode of transport to Ireland.

Nice to hear about your inflatibles ... we have ferries to send them back on.
Many countries are having to deal with a migrant problem ... ours is minor compared to other countries.
There is a growing problem globally, much of it our own making ... but it is about taking back control, and it is time we did that.

Hi Ken, thanks for the explanation, I would however question what you mean when you say “shutting down legal routes” As far as I’m aware legal routes for asylum seekers and refuges have not been shut down. With regard to migrants this, in recent years has been a bone of contention due to the sheer numbers that wish to migrate, it is quite frankly ludicrous to suggest that those looking for a better life can just turn up in their masses and expect to be welcomed with open arms. However, had they applied through the appropriate channels instead of hiding in backs of lorries and thumbing lifts in inflatables then the door would have still open to them.

The truth is that if it wasn’t for illegal immigrant swamping our vetting procedures, we would have been in a far better position to deal with genuine asylum seekers/refugees who have come here for the right reasons.

[oldbluefox]

I wasn't aware that safe and legal routes have been shut down. Migration Watch UK reports:
"On 15 June 2022, the Home Secretary stated in Parliament on 15 June: ‘Over 200,000 people have used safe and legal routes to come to the UK since 2015.’

Our fact-check finds that this is true. Not including refugee family reunion (2016-22), the number of people directly resettled to the UK was 267,000. If refugee family reunion is included, the total is just over 300,000".
More details here.

My own feelings are that this country is not big enough to take many more. We should be taking those who have skills we can use, who can be off benefit to the nation. However much we applaud the fact they want to enjoy a better life we cannot afford to provide a nanny state for the rrest of the world. Already our infrastructure is under stress - a lack of affordable housing, the NHS, Ambulance Service and social care need addressing, education suffers from lack of funding etc etc and many of those arriving on boats are bringing their own mental and physical problems into an already creaking service. The opposition parties' stance seems to be to let them all in as a humane act but can we realistically afford it, and would that not encourage even more to come?
My other concern is that having established themselves in the country there is a reluctance/determination not to integrate and worse still, seem to believe that it is the indigenous population who should change to accommodate them. The fights in Leicester are a good example where unrest can break out, not with the white residents but amongst their own groups where one religion/caste doesn't get along with another.
Of course immigration on a large scale is also affecting other countries - Sweden and Germany report issues (and no doubt others) and are already tightening their own immigration laws. I presume the open border policy of the EU could have made matters worse.

[barney]

You are 100% correct OBF.
Phrases seem to come into public use and are then quoted as facts by the hard of thinking.
A lady said just this morning on tv that there is no legal way to claim asylum in the U.K., totally unchallenged.
This government has a massive majority and the ability to actually change the law to deter illegal migrants but is choosing not to for some reason.

[Onelife]

Hi Foxy, this post just about sums it up for me….how it will all end up is going to be the bigger problem.

Is multiculturalism an interconnection of various cultures?
I'm English, and have many Pakistani, Polish and Bulgarians in my local area. Do we speak each other's languages as a sign of coming together to be multicultural?
I've eaten polish bread, a curry and went into a Romanian shop to buy flour.. does that make me multicultural? I spend more time watching American films, sometimes Scandinavian ones; am I being even more multicultural still? I squeezed a fresh lime in my taco, so I'm part Mexican.
.
Come off it!

We barely know bugger all about each other and avoid getting personal with people who are different from ourselves, unless you are a bit of an odd ball.
We are more like animals in a game reserve sharing the same watering hole, suspiciously tip toeing around other creatures who are not on our side.. It sounds good to be multicultural, but barely anyone is..

Mike Carter

[Ray B]

My own feelings are that this country is not big enough to take many more.

Moby, that may be true, but this country is getting smaller as we in the east can testify. Parts of our coastline is being taken by the sea at an alarming rate of meters per year.
If it's the same on the south coast, one positive is, it makes it a tad further to get here.

[Manoverboard]

oldbluefox post_id=330339 time=1667389623 user_id=244]

My own feelings are that this country is not big enough to take many more.

Moby, that may be true, but this country is getting smaller as we in the east can testify. Parts of our coastline is being taken by the sea at an alarming rate of meters per year.
If it's the same on the south coast, one positive is, it makes it a tad further to get here.

Que ?

[Kendhni]

Hi Ken, thanks for the explanation, I would however question what you mean when you say “shutting down legal routes” As far as I’m aware legal routes for asylum seekers and refuges have not been shut down.

You did explicitly say you were talking about 'illegal immigrants', I answered on that basis. That is why it is confusing, one minute we are talking about one thing and the next talking about a different, but similar, thing (and I am as guilty as everyone else of blurring the lines sometimes).

With regard to migrants this, in recent years has been a bone of contention due to the sheer numbers that wish to migrate, it is quite frankly ludicrous to suggest that those looking for a better life can just turn up in their masses and expect to be welcomed with open arms. However, had they applied through the appropriate channels instead of hiding in backs of lorries and thumbing lifts in inflatables then the door would have still open to them.

Do you mean 'migrant' or 'immigrant' here? .. there is a subtle difference.
By definition, there is no 'appropriate channel' for illegal immigrants or asylum seekers/refugees (there are exceptions, for example Ukrainian refugees have a channel opened up for them to many countries). The means of arrival does not (currently) shut any doors ... they all get "processed" (hate that word) in a similar manner and, irrespective of means of arrival, approx. 75% are granted refugee status.

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that before we can find a solution we have to understand the actual problem and not what we, the public, think it is. We also have to understand that, over the decades, we have been part of the problem with (far too many) wars, extraction of resource, displacement of indigenous populations etc.

The truth is that if it wasn’t for illegal immigrant swamping our vetting procedures, we would have been in a far better position to deal with genuine asylum seekers/refugees who have come here for the right reasons.

Again, I don't disagree with you, but we are bound by the 1951 convention which says that anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed up to the convention. There is no law that says a refugee has to claim asylum in the first country they reach (not even the Dublin agreement). Also, it is our own laws that do not allow those seeking asylum to work in this country ... so they will always be dependent on benefits and forced to live in poverty during that period.

[towny44]

You are 100% correct OBF.
Phrases seem to come into public use and are then quoted as facts by the hard of thinking.
A lady said just this morning on tv that there is no legal way to claim asylum in the U.K., totally unchallenged.
This government has a massive majority and the ability to actually change the law to deter illegal migrants but is choosing not to for some reason.

I am not sure how we can stop the illegal boat trafficking across the channel, without using force or duress. We would all like to see it stop. Especially since this seems to be the most visible source of asylum seeking, and which is most likely to have the highest percentage of economic migrants who are likely to fail the asylum test, but who, with the help of dubious law firms, will tie up our courts in spurious claims for many months before they can be legally deported.

[towny44]

Hi Ken, thanks for the explanation, I would however question what you mean when you say “shutting down legal routes” As far as I’m aware legal routes for asylum seekers and refuges have not been shut down.

You did explicitly say you were talking about 'illegal immigrants', I answered on that basis. That is why it is confusing, one minute we are talking about one thing and the next talking about a different, but similar, thing (and I am as guilty as everyone else of blurring the lines sometimes).

With regard to migrants this, in recent years has been a bone of contention due to the sheer numbers that wish to migrate, it is quite frankly ludicrous to suggest that those looking for a better life can just turn up in their masses and expect to be welcomed with open arms. However, had they applied through the appropriate channels instead of hiding in backs of lorries and thumbing lifts in inflatables then the door would have still open to them.

Do you mean 'migrant' or 'immigrant' here? .. there is a subtle difference.
By definition, there is no 'appropriate channel' for illegal immigrants or asylum seekers/refugees (there are exceptions, for example Ukrainian refugees have a channel opened up for them to many countries). The means of arrival does not (currently) shut any doors ... they all get "processed" (hate that word) in a similar manner and, irrespective of means of arrival, approx. 75% are granted refugee status.

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that before we can find a solution we have to understand the actual problem and not what we, the public, think it is. We also have to understand that, over the decades, we have been part of the problem with (far too many) wars, extraction of resource, displacement of indigenous populations etc.

The truth is that if it wasn’t for illegal immigrant swamping our vetting procedures, we would have been in a far better position to deal with genuine asylum seekers/refugees who have come here for the right reasons.

Again, I don't disagree with you, but we are bound by the 1951 convention which says that anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed up to the convention. There is no law that says a refugee has to claim asylum in the first country they reach (not even the Dublin agreement). Also, it is our own laws that do not allow those seeking asylum to work in this country ... so they will always be dependent on benefits and forced to live in poverty during that period.

Ken, we are taking in many thousands of asylum seekers from the refugee camps in all the trouble spots in the world, as well as Afghans, Ukranians and others with family already in the UK. However I suspect that the majority crossing the channel in boats, or in the back of lorries will be economic migrants who will fail the asylum tests but, as I said earlier, will clog up our court and legal aid system for many months while dubious law firms grow fat on our far too "human right" friendly judicial system.

[Kendhni]

Ken, we are taking in many thousands of asylum seekers from the refugee camps in all the trouble spots in the world, as well as Afghans, Ukranians and others with family already in the UK. However I suspect that the majority crossing the channel in boats, or in the back of lorries will be economic migrants who will fail the asylum tests but, as I said earlier, will clog up our court and legal aid system for many months while dubious law firms grow fat on our far too "human right" friendly judicial system.

That's what I was saying to Keith, there is very little in what you say that I disagree with, many of your points I have also made.

The problem is not that it is happening, it is our inability to deal with it that is the problem.

[Mervyn and Trish]

We apparently need to be building 340,000 new homes per year in the UK at present. With that sort of shortage there will inevitably be tensions if immigrants, legal or not, get priority over those who have already been waiting for years. That alone is reason enough to get a grip and soon.

[barney]

We apparently need to be building 340,000 new homes per year in the UK at present. With that sort of shortage there will inevitably be tensions if immigrants, legal or not, get priority over those who have already been waiting for years. That alone is reason enough to get a grip and soon.

A lady on the radio today said that she and her family are living in poor privately rented accommodation and have been on the social housing list for three years.
She’d happily take anything decent within her area and simply asked why any family coming from abroad should take priority over her kids.
It’s a difficult one to answer, isn’t it?

[screwy]

I’m sick of hearing about the problems at Manston. The reporting of diseases being spread, well, guess who brought them in. Diseases we eradicated decades ago.!

Have to agree with you Merv. Some woman was talking on LBC yesterday pm complaining that these people should not even be housed in Hotels, but better accommodation should be sought.

[Onelife]

Ken, we are taking in many thousands of asylum seekers from the refugee camps in all the trouble spots in the world, as well as Afghans, Ukranians and others with family already in the UK. However I suspect that the majority crossing the channel in boats, or in the back of lorries will be economic migrants who will fail the asylum tests but, as I said earlier, will clog up our court and legal aid system for many months while dubious law firms grow fat on our far too "human right" friendly judicial system.

That's what I was saying to Keith, there is very little in what you say that I disagree with, many of your points I have also made.

The problem is not that it is happening, it is our inability to deal with it that is the problem.

The inability to deal with this issue is partly due to those who disagree, take offense, or use to their advantage factual statements that say it as it is…respect to Suella Braverman for doing just that…it’s a bloody invasion that needs a no-nonsense approach.

[towny44]

Ken, we are taking in many thousands of asylum seekers from the refugee camps in all the trouble spots in the world, as well as Afghans, Ukranians and others with family already in the UK. However I suspect that the majority crossing the channel in boats, or in the back of lorries will be economic migrants who will fail the asylum tests but, as I said earlier, will clog up our court and legal aid system for many months while dubious law firms grow fat on our far too "human right" friendly judicial system.

That's what I was saying to Keith, there is very little in what you say that I disagree with, many of your points I have also made.

The problem is not that it is happening, it is our inability to deal with it that is the problem.

No Ken you have said repeatedly that we had closed down all legal routes, which is why we have the problems with the illegal channel crossings. Which is clearly untrue when you look at the annual asylum statistics.
Which begs the question, how can we believe anything you say when we see clear indications of your incorrect statements?

[Kendhni]

We apparently need to be building 340,000 new homes per year in the UK at present. With that sort of shortage there will inevitably be tensions if immigrants, legal or not, get priority over those who have already been waiting for years. That alone is reason enough to get a grip and soon.

This was being discussed on a radio station the other day. One point that one of the commentators made was the growing number of second homes. Such homes tie up stock, lie idle for long periods, limit the ability for local councils and business owners to generate revenue and cause migration to dormitory towns. It was suggested that second homes should be taxed as if populated.

Other suggestions included
- many older tenants, in public housing, are tying up valuable larger family accommodation, even though their families have moved on. Maybe force them to downsize.
- re-designation of many brown and green zones, and denying any complainants that boil down to NIMBY.
- with more WFH there is an opportunity to re-designate some commercial properties as residential

The over-riding argument was It does not have to boil down to building new houses ... possibly just better management of the housing stock we already have.