Stop The Boats

Ps. What I do see as dishonest conflation is when those speaking up for illegal immigrants badge them all as desperate and fleeing persecution. I accept some of them are, but many more aren’t.
 
The elephant in the room with migration is that immigrants from some cultures integrate better than others.
That's not to say some cultures are better than others, or that we should base our migration policy with 'who fits in', but if you listen to the rhetoric of people chanting outside hotels or stirring up hatred on Facebook...amongst the racists and bigots there's a valid point about how South Asian culture and faith aligns with modern British culture.

If you look at how 'successful' immigration works around the world...the first generation come over and work like a maniac to give the second generation the chance to grow up speaking the language, getting an education and absorbing the values of the country.

I remember a Polish boy called Leszek joined my secondary school in Year 8. He got teased a bit at first because he spoke with an accent, dressed a bit different...etc...but he soon made some friends, ended up going to Cambridge to do physics and I saw recently on Facebook he married a girl from the same year as us.

There are thousands, probably millions of stories similar to that.

Now pick a random name...let's say Shamima, from Bangladesh

Shamima's family move to the UK and decide to live in a part of town where exclusively other Bangladeshi Muslims live. Her dad speaks some English, Mum speaks none and is discouraged from learning.
Shamima goes to an Islamic school because British Schools teach sinful values about tolerating perversions and celebrate other religions and ways of life. She's forced to wear a hijab to be modest, and her parents plan to send her to Bangladesh for an arranged marriage. People in her community condemn Britain as evil for it's foreign policy, and say British women are sl*gs who deserve to be r*ped. As a result..Shamima ends up with some funny old ideas about Britain.

it shouldn't be controversial to say that we should prioritise migration to get more Leszek's and fewer Shamimas.

Just to preempt the charge of racism...Leszek could have been my classmate Adam from China or Amit from India.
 
Malced said:
Neither I, nor the media, are conflating anything. There's a whole of host of people coming to this country via one means or another. It's the folk arriving via the illegal people smuggling route that many fair-minded folk have an issue with. This isn't something that should be politicised and badged as a right-wing extremist issue.
There's voters from all parties that aren't content to see the ever increasing numbers of boat crossings. They want it stopping. I can't for the life of me understand anyone who thinks these boat crossings aren't a problem.
There's bound to be some genuine asylum seekers on the boats, but it's clear that many of them are trying to cheat their way into the country as they are wanting to live in the UK as their country of choice. They're economic migrants.
The problem with the current laws and rules are that these economic migrants mostly will have their applications accepted. So they then need to be catered for and found permanent accommodation etc.
You talk about processing them quickly, which we all want. But you say:-


Well what's the difference between the two? By your own words, both need housing. So it's not conflation. Its the same requirement on social services and local authorities. Let's keep it simple - there will be additional people with a whole host of needs including accommodation needs.
The issue I have is that the economic migrants are clogging up the system and they shouldn't be taking our vital resources away from those who have genuine need for our help.

You talk about the migrants given leave to stay, but what about those not given leave to stay? As you know, many baulk at any suggestion to return migrants or send them elsewhere. So I'd say whether they're what I call genuine asylum seekers, or economic migrants, and whether they have leave to stay or not, they're a person with many needs, and they need to be managed and catered for.
So for me, it's absolutely sensible to try and limit the number of economic migrants, so we can be in a position to help those in most real need. I've no time, sympathy, or sense of obligation, to what are mainly young male men, paying thousands of euros to criminals in order to cheat their way into our country. That's not a right wing position, it's a very balanced position.
Click to expand...
You conflate immigrants with asylum seekers.
You conflate the legal means of travelling to the UK with the concept of legal migration.
You conflate the temporary housing of people awaiting asylum claims and economic migration claims with the notion of housing illegal immigrants.
You conflate my desire to see the processing of applications speeded up by the application of additional funding, with a belief that people using small boats to enter the country is acceptable - a strange one by any measure of logic.
You say that "it is clear that many of them are trying to cheat their way into the country as they are wanting to live in the UK as their country of choice. They're economic migrants." It is not clear until those people's claims are properly processed. That is unless you take hearsay as gospel, in which case the country may as well use kangaroo courts to pass judgment.
You ask what is the difference between applying for housing as an economic migrant and as a refugee- albeit I think your question was rhetorical, based on the mistaken belief that there is no difference. I suggest you look up the differences on Google. The Chartered Institute of Housing provides guidance on Refugees and Asylum seekers to Housing Officers. Economic immigrants who are awarded nationality are entitled to the same housing protections under the law as you and I.
 
Last edited:
Malced said:
Neither I, nor the media, are conflating anything. There's a whole of host of people coming to this country via one means or another. It's the folk arriving via the illegal people smuggling route that many fair-minded folk have an issue with. This isn't something that should be politicised and badged as a right-wing extremist issue.
There's voters from all parties that aren't content to see the ever increasing numbers of boat crossings. They want it stopping. I can't for the life of me understand anyone who thinks these boat crossings aren't a problem.
There's bound to be some genuine asylum seekers on the boats, but it's clear that many of them are trying to cheat their way into the country as they are wanting to live in the UK as their country of choice. They're economic migrants.
The problem with the current laws and rules are that these economic migrants mostly will have their applications accepted. So they then need to be catered for and found permanent accommodation etc.
You talk about processing them quickly, which we all want. But you say:-


Well what's the difference between the two? By your own words, both need housing. So it's not conflation. Its the same requirement on social services and local authorities. Let's keep it simple - there will be additional people with a whole host of needs including accommodation needs.
The issue I have is that the economic migrants are clogging up the system and they shouldn't be taking our vital resources away from those who have genuine need for our help.

You talk about the migrants given leave to stay, but what about those not given leave to stay? As you know, many baulk at any suggestion to return migrants or send them elsewhere. So I'd say whether they're what I call genuine asylum seekers, or economic migrants, and whether they have leave to stay or not, they're a person with many needs, and they need to be managed and catered for.
So for me, it's absolutely sensible to try and limit the number of economic migrants, so we can be in a position to help those in most real need. I've no time, sympathy, or sense of obligation, to what are mainly young male men, paying thousands of euros to criminals in order to cheat their way into our country. That's not a right wing position, it's a very balanced position.
Click to expand...
That's not a right wing position, it's a very balanced position.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
I disagree.
Click to expand...

You’re entitled to disagree as you see fit. All your conflation and your accusations of conflation don’t make a jot of difference to accommodation constraints that we face.

You’re another that excels at being a pedant and an apologist for illegals. Yet your only solution is to process everyone quicker and put them in imaginary accommodation, seemingly so we can free up the home office immigration arrivals centre for more and more; to be quickly processed and put into more imaginary accommodation. Repeat. Repeat. Ad infinitum.

Back in the real world, I’m on the side of the genuine who should be only the ones benefiting from our limited resources, whereas you’re on the side of the illegal economic chancers who disadvantage the genuine. Your position isn’t right wing or left wing. It’s plain stupid.
 
Malced said:
You’re entitled to disagree as you see fit. All your conflation and your accusations of conflation don’t make a jot of difference to accommodation constraints that we face.

You’re another that excels at being a pedant and an apologist for illegals. Yet your only solution is to process everyone quicker and put them in imaginary accommodation, seemingly so we can free up the home office immigration arrivals centre for more and more; to be quickly processed and put into more imaginary accommodation. Repeat. Repeat. Ad infinitum.

Back in the real world, I’m on the side of the genuine who should be only the ones benefiting from our limited resources, whereas you’re on the side of the illegal economic chancers who disadvantage the genuine. Your position isn’t right wing or left wing. It’s plain stupid.
Click to expand...
Malced, if you're not prepared to understand what I write then I would be better served posting replies to those who are. Having tried to rationalise your position, only to find it coming up against reasonable qualifiers, you now throw the toys out of the pram and revert to spouting nonsense. Honetly, I would rather you take on board the points I have made in order to better consider your position. I'm not after a points scoring, yaa-boo knock about.
 
From the data available the majority of asylum seekers, who have arrived by small boats and have had their claims processed, have been granted asylum. The vast majority of Albanian men who have arrived and have been processed have been rejected.

Nobody on this thread (from what I can see) have said that all asylum seekers arriving by boat should be accepted. There is a process and if their claims are rejected then they will be deported.

There are people on this thread saying that all asylum seekers arriving by boat should be deported. People with any degree of empathy obviously don't agree with this position, especially as there is no legal route for most of this people to gain asylum.

If boat crossings were to stop, whilst fulfilling our international humanitarian requirements, then I think most people would welcome that. As the current government does not have any viable plan to do this but appears to be more interested in dogwhistling to the extreme right then a lot of people will obviously be resistant to that. If you respond to dogwhistling then you will be supportive of the government tactics.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Malced, if you're not prepared to understand what I write then I would be better served posting replies to those who are. Having tried to rationalise your position, only to find it coming up against reasonable qualifiers, you now throw the toys out of the pram and revert to spouting nonsense. Honetly, I would rather you take on board the points I have made in order to better consider your position. I'm not after a points scoring, yaa-boo knock about.
Click to expand...

That’s just a load of deflection to avoid addressing the challenges I put to to you with regards to public services. Like most other apologists for illegals, you’ve no solutions whatsoever apart from letting them in and giving them imaginary accommodation which is sat there empty waiting for their arrival.
 
Malced said:
That’s just a load of deflection to avoid addressing the challenges I put to to you with regards to public services. Like most other apologists for illegals, you’ve no solutions whatsoever apart from letting them in and giving them imaginary accommodation which is sat there empty waiting for their arrival.
Click to expand...
Total deflection from yourself.
 
Hertsseasider said:
You are 20's in disguise and I claim my prize.
Click to expand...
Typical hard left ganging up. Usual tag teams. Just need Lytham to show up now. :)
Sniping but no answers to the challenges I raised. Let them all in. Criticise any attempts to stop the boat crossings yet pretend you're against them.
Rishi Sunak is taking action to address a serious problem. You call it dog whistling probably because you know his action will be a vote winner.
 
Malced said:
Typical hard left ganging up. Usual tag teams. Just need Lytham to show up now. :)
Sniping but no answers to the challenges I raised. Let them all in. Criticise any attempts to stop the boat crossings yet pretend you're against them.
Rishi Sunak is taking action to address a serious problem. You call it dog whistling probably because you know his action will be a vote winner.
Click to expand...
Haha.
Have a nice day.
UTMP
 
Malced said:
Typical hard left ganging up. Usual tag teams. Just need Lytham to show up now. :)
Sniping but no answers to the challenges I raised. Let them all in. Criticise any attempts to stop the boat crossings yet pretend you're against them.
Rishi Sunak is taking action to address a serious problem. You call it dog whistling probably because you know his action will be a vote winner.
Click to expand...
I addressed the mitigation of improved processing. However, your far right narrative won't allow for solutions that don't involve punitive sanctions on those coming over in small boats.
 
look.its.luke said:
The elephant in the room with migration is that immigrants from some cultures integrate better than others.
That's not to say some cultures are better than others, or that we should base our migration policy with 'who fits in', but if you listen to the rhetoric of people chanting outside hotels or stirring up hatred on Facebook...amongst the racists and bigots there's a valid point about how South Asian culture and faith aligns with modern British culture.

If you look at how 'successful' immigration works around the world...the first generation come over and work like a maniac to give the second generation the chance to grow up speaking the language, getting an education and absorbing the values of the country.

I remember a Polish boy called Leszek joined my secondary school in Year 8. He got teased a bit at first because he spoke with an accent, dressed a bit different...etc...but he soon made some friends, ended up going to Cambridge to do physics and I saw recently on Facebook he married a girl from the same year as us.

There are thousands, probably millions of stories similar to that.

Now pick a random name...let's say Shamima, from Bangladesh

Shamima's family move to the UK and decide to live in a part of town where exclusively other Bangladeshi Muslims live. Her dad speaks some English, Mum speaks none and is discouraged from learning.
Shamima goes to an Islamic school because British Schools teach sinful values about tolerating perversions and celebrate other religions and ways of life. She's forced to wear a hijab to be modest, and her parents plan to send her to Bangladesh for an arranged marriage. People in her community condemn Britain as evil for it's foreign policy, and say British women are sl*gs who deserve to be r*ped. As a result..Shamima ends up with some funny old ideas about Britain.

it shouldn't be controversial to say that we should prioritise migration to get more Leszek's and fewer Shamimas.

Just to preempt the charge of racism...Leszek could have been my classmate Adam from China or Amit from India.
Click to expand...
Living where I do, there are many of the so called elephants and what you have outlined is in a lot of cases, not every case, quite correct. Areas do become the main place where certain cultures live, meet and worship. As for being racist, I cannot see that being honest is racial, but I have little say on these subjects for fear of being labelled as such. i would add to your piece that wokism has been one of the most diversive things that I can remember experiencing, and it won't get any better because of it.
 
Curryman said:
Living where I do, there are many of the so called elephants and what you have outlined is in a lot of cases, not every case, quite correct. Areas do become the main place where certain cultures live, meet and worship. As for being racist, I cannot see that being honest is racial, but I have little say on these subjects for fear of being labelled as such. i would add to your piece that wokism has been one of the most diversive things that I can remember experiencing, and it won't get any better because of it.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you can’t even support the Government without being labelled far-right. I am not worried about being labelled by people that therefore can only be far-left radicals.
The proposals put forward by our PM and the Home Secretary are to address the boats issue and prevent people getting on the things in the first place. Some people can’t appreciate that many of the proposals of how we handle them when they arrive, are intended to disincentivise boat crossings.
The proposals will be debated and amended and voted on through our parliamentary system. But I’m far right for supporting our democratic process.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
okay this board seems to agree with all migrants flooding the country illegal or not, so would anyone who has a spare room to put these sad poor people up would you kindly visit your local council and put your names and addresses down. I would but we've no room.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Off you pop then.
Click to expand...
Jaffa's comments amaze me in their ignorance (but not surprising as our news outlets are appalling rolling out this dogshit - stimulated by our xenophobic Home Secretary). The UK is statistically n14th in Europe in the number of people seeking asylum. Bear in mind some of the countries have comparatively low populations - Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Austria. There is a clear international problem and unless we are willing to look at measures to help people stay near their own homes then this problem is going to get worse not better; despite the rhetoric of this useless Government.
 
Malced said:
Unfortunately you can’t even support the Government without being labelled far-right. I am not worried about being labelled by people that therefore can only be far-left radicals.
The proposals put forward by our PM and the Home Secretary are to address the boats issue and prevent people getting on the things in the first place. Some people can’t appreciate that many of the proposals of how we handle them when they arrive, are intended to disincentivise boat crossings.
The proposals will be debated and amended and voted on through our parliamentary system. But I’m far right for supporting our democratic process.
Click to expand...
You can support the Conservatives without being a bigoted xenophobic lunatic. Trust me on that. Unfortunately the party has been taken over by right wing lunatics at the senior level and the sensible ones keep their heads down.
 
Wizaard said:
I've never had an issue with people coming in. We have a million vacancies on the books, so they're not taking our jobs, as the myth go.

The policy is heartless. Anyone coming in is immediately deported and can NEVER come back. If they're that desperate they will still try it.
Click to expand...
Whats the matter with France, if they were desperate as you say?
 
Limechase said:
Whats the matter with France, if they were desperate as you say?
Click to expand...
France take 3 times as many as us. The ones who come to us do so mainly because they have links to us through the military, such as Afghans, or come from former colonies, so have English as a language, and therefore have a shared history, or family already here.
 
Wizaard said:
France take 3 times as many as us. The ones who come to us do so mainly because they have links to us through the military, such as Afghans, or come from former colonies, so have English as a language, and therefore have a shared history, or family already here.
Click to expand...
Well surely they can apply from where they are rather than coming in illegally? I dont have the answer, but the status quo is not acceptable...
 
Malced said:
Ps. What I do see as dishonest conflation is when those speaking up for illegal immigrants badge them all as desperate and fleeing persecution. I accept some of them are, but many more aren’t.
Click to expand...
O)ne point which every one ignores is the fact that most of these 'illegal immigrants' have already passed through a few European
countries.
Why? It's because they know that they will be treated better in the UK.
In other words 'We are a soft touch'.
Why don't they stop in other countries?
 
Wizaard said:
France take 3 times as many as us. The ones who come to us do so mainly because they have links to us through the military, such as Afghans, or come from former colonies, so have English as a language, and therefore have a shared history, or family already here.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. No shared history with Albanian economic migrants. Give your commie head several wobbles.🙄😛
 
Trammo said:
Bullshit. No shared history with Albanian economic migrants. Give your commie head several wobbles.🙄😛
Click to expand...
You're not familiar with the word mainly, preferring to deal in Daily Mail clichés instead. Albanians are not the largest group claiming asylum by any means.
 
Davepick said:
O)ne point which every one ignores is the fact that most of these 'illegal immigrants' have already passed through a few European
countries.
Why? It's because they know that they will be treated better in the UK.
In other words 'We are a soft touch'.
Why don't they stop in other countries?
Click to expand...
85% of asylum seekers world wide do seek refuge in the neighbouring state, for what its worth.

The logical conclusion to your argument is that Ukrainians would all be in Poland, all Syrians in Turkey, all Afghans in Pakistan. There really isn't room in those countries, and as I said, they do take the majority anyway.
 
Cuthbert said:
You can support the Conservatives without being a bigoted xenophobic lunatic. Trust me on that. Unfortunately the party has been taken over by right wing lunatics at the senior level and the sensible ones keep their heads down.
Click to expand...

This is just typical over the top anti-government rhetoric. Saying the party has been taken over by right wing lunatics is silly and wide of the mark.
 
Junior_BentsPlatformShoes said:
I think part of the issue is why are they coming through other safe European countries and bypassing seeking asylum there just to get here? They’re no longer in danger if they’re in France etc. so why risk everything on a dingy here?
Two main points are the gangs making a lot of money by promising people a better life, but also the fact I think we’re seen as a soft touch where housing and welfare etc is concerned.
Click to expand...
robbed from facebook:

In 2003 the Labour party was taken to court by a lefty lawyer who demanded illegal immigrants get benefits.
He won the case and this laid the ground for todays scandal of hotels and benefits for illegal immigrants.
The lefty lawyer who won the case was.............

KEIR STARMER
 
Goldfinger said:
robbed from facebook:

In 2003 the Labour party was taken to court by a lefty lawyer who demanded illegal immigrants get benefits.
He won the case and this laid the ground for todays scandal of hotels and benefits for illegal immigrants.
The lefty lawyer who won the case was.............

KEIR STARMER
Click to expand...
Wow 😮
 
Goldfinger said:
robbed from facebook:

In 2003 the Labour party was taken to court by a lefty lawyer who demanded illegal immigrants get benefits.
He won the case and this laid the ground for todays scandal of hotels and benefits for illegal immigrants.
The lefty lawyer who won the case was.............

KEIR STARMER
Click to expand...
He also won a case allowing illegal immigrants to eat British babies. It's true I tell ya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top