English Channel migrant crossing crisis #2

[Moth]

What’s the safe route you keep mentioning? Surely even you can see an open door policy is not sustainable, social services are already a joke there has to be something in place to stop the profiteers and help those in genuine need.

See that's exactly my point, you simply confuse the issue:

• You posted a link in which Michelle Donelan said the majority of people arriving by small boat are 'economic migrants' and they should use the safe and legal routes.
• You asked if she's lying
• I said yes, she's lying - I said that because the majority of people arriving by small boat are not economic migrants and there is no 'safe and legal route' that they can use
• You then ask me about 'economic freeloaders' and the safe route 'that I keep mentioning'

I don't know who you mean by 'economic freeloaders' or what safe route you are referring to so I can't offer an answer to your question. I fear if I try to do so that we'll end up back at the your interchangeable definitions of asylum seekers, migrants (economic and others), refugees etc.

 

[monga]

See that's exactly my point, you simply confuse the issue:

• You posted a link in which Michelle Donelan said the majority of people arriving by small boat are 'economic migrants' and they should use the safe and legal routes.
• You asked if she's lying
• I said yes, she's lying - I said that because the majority of people arriving by small boat are not economic migrants and there is no 'safe and legal route' that they can use
• You then ask me about 'economic freeloaders' and the safe route 'that I keep mentioning'

I don't know who you mean by 'economic freeloaders' or what safe route you are referring to so I can't offer an answer to your question. I fear if I try to do so that we'll end up back at the your interchangeable definitions of asylum seekers, migrants (economic and others), refugees etc.

So everyone arriving is fleeing persecution is that what you’re saying? There are no economic migrants arriving illegally? there are no people smugglers or black economy, the government is making it up for effect.
---
https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-su...push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674Rishi Sunak's small boats plan 'to push boundaries of international law'

Asylum-seeker hotels for children 'a supermarket for gangs'

Some young asylum seekers who have disappeared from hotels are being exploited by criminals.

www.bbc.com

Who are the criminals?

 

[Moth]

So everyone arriving is fleeing persecution is that what you’re saying? There are no economic migrants arriving illegally? there are no people smugglers or black economy, the government is making it up for effect....

See that's exactly my point, you simply confuse the issue:

• You posted a link in which Michelle Donelan said the majority of people arriving by small boat are 'economic migrants' and they should use the safe and legal routes.
• You asked if she's lying
• I said yes, she's lying - I said that because the majority of people arriving by small boat are not economic migrants and there is no 'safe and legal route' that they can use
• You then ask me about 'economic freeloaders' and the safe route 'that I keep mentioning'

I don't know who you mean by 'economic freeloaders' or what safe route you are referring to so I can't offer an answer to your question. I fear if I try to do so that we'll end up back at the your interchangeable definitions of asylum seekers, migrants (economic and others), refugees etc.

Try reading what I wrote again and this time stop to think about what the words actually mean rather than just give a knee-jerk response based on what you think or want me to have said. I've highighted the key words in your post and mine. Hopefully that will help.

As usual you've attached a link to something that is demonstrably untrue (in this case the Michelle Donelan interview) as evidence for something that you believe without understanding that it makes you look as silly as she does. I think the fundamental problem is that while you are heavily exercised by the question of asylum seekers being housed in hotels and some vague and largely undefined notion of 'economic freeloaders', you have a tenuous (at best) understanding of the wider issues of asylum and immigration.

While you profess to be happy to support the 'genuine' asylum seekers, you appear to have a distorted and again largely undefined view about who they are and by your own admission no idea how to do that. You are therefore inclined to support the kind of 'scorched earth' policies favoured by this government that will harm all asylum seekers ('genuine' or otherwise). As I observed previously it is an example of a typical Tory attitude that they are happy for everyone in a group to suffer (as long as they themselves are not in the group) if it means that the minority of 'fraudulent' or 'undeserving' people in that group don't 'get away with something'.

 

[monga]

Try reading what I wrote again and this time stop to think about what the words actually mean rather than just give a knee-jerk response based on what you think or want me to have said. I've highighted the key words in your post and mine. Hopefully that will help.

As usual you've attached a link to something that is demonstrably untrue (in this case the Michelle Donelan interview) as evidence for something that you believe without understanding that it makes you look as silly as she does. I think the fundamental problem is that while you are heavily exercised by the question of asylum seekers being housed in hotels and some vague and largely undefined notion of 'economic freeloaders', you have a tenuous (at best) understanding of the wider issues of asylum and immigration.

While you profess to be happy to support the 'genuine' asylum seekers, you appear to have a distorted and again largely undefined view about who they are and by your own admission no idea how to do that. You are therefore inclined to support the kind of 'scorched earth' policies favoured by this government that will harm all asylum seekers ('genuine' or otherwise). As I observed previously it is an example of a typical Tory attitude that they are happy for everyone in a group to suffer (as long as they themselves are not in the group) if it means that the minority of 'fraudulent' or 'undeserving' people in that group don't 'get away with something'.

I don’t support economic free loaders and something has to change I’ve never said people in genuine need don’t deserve it ,I’m waiting to see what solution you come up with so the government can distinguish those in genuine need, but again you write a pointless essay just going over the same thing time and time again, I’ve already said we know the literal meaning of things it’s the solution we need.
---
https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-su...push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674'Our small boats plan will push boundaries of international law', admit senior Tories

 

[Moth]

I don’t support economic free loaders and something has to change I’ve never said people in genuine need don’t deserve it ,I’m waiting to see what solution you come up with so the government can distinguish those in genuine need, but again you write a pointless essay just going over the same thing time and time again, I’ve already said we know the literal meaning of things it’s the solution we need.

I'm not sure why you're waiting for me to come up with a solution when I posted my suggestions some weeks ago (around the same time that you said you didn't have any ideas). You obviously didn't read or understand it then so what would be the point of me writing it again?

And based on the evidence of your posts I don't think you do know 'the literal meaning of things'. And as for going over the same thing time and time again ... Have you ever thought that if you just stopped posting links on the same issue without making any substantive points of your own you wouldn't keep getting the same responses?

 

[monga]

I'm not sure why you're waiting for me to come up with a solution when I posted my suggestions some weeks ago (around the same time that you said you didn't have any ideas). You obviously didn't read or understand it then so what would be the point of me writing it again?

And based on the evidence of your posts I don't think you do know 'the literal meaning of things'. And as for going over the same thing time and time again ... Have you ever thought that if you just stopped posting links on the same issue without making any substantive points of your own you wouldn't keep getting the same responses?

You keep typing out the same Guardian articles, I just save myself time by posting the actual article instead of copying someone else’s I do know the difference in asylum seekers, migrants, and especially freeloaders..thank you very much

 

[Piff paff puff]

I highly doubt anything tangible will come from today but one good thing is we have now admitted the problem. Extremely doubtful Britain will ever recover now though, that stage has long passed. All we can ever do is stem the flow and deport.

 

[IngressUK]

I don’t support economic free loaders and something has to change I’ve never said people in genuine need don’t deserve it ,I’m waiting to see what solution you come up with so the government can distinguish those in genuine need, but again you write a pointless essay just going over the same thing time and time again, I’ve already said we know the literal meaning of things it’s the solution we need.
---
https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-su...push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674'Our small boats plan will push boundaries of international law', admit senior ToriesView attachment 2010473

About bloody time...

This situation could not be allowed to continue indefinitely. The numbers are increasing year on year, for which it is becoming unsustainable and out of control.

This should have been sorted out years ago when arrivals via Lorries was the big issue.

 

[monga]

About bloody time...

This situation could not be allowed to continue indefinitely. The numbers are increasing year on year, for which it is becoming unsustainable and out of control.

This should have been sorted out years ago when arrivals via Lorries was the big issue.

It’s only now it’s impacting services they’re taking notice, gangs are probably on the increase if media reports are true. the last thing we want is taking on criminals from other countries when we’ve got enough of our own.
The likes of those Iranian schoolgirls need our help more than young fit men looking to make some cash imo.
---

I highly doubt anything tangible will come from today but one good thing is we have now admitted the problem. Extremely doubtful Britain will ever recover now though, that stage has long passed. All we can ever do is stem the flow and deport.

They know there’s a problem throughout Europe, be interesting to see how the tourist trade is affected in towns where the hotels are block booked by the HO ,it’ll be other businesses will suffer, will the government step in and help them? I’d doubt it.
---
This man wants the UK to be deemed an unsafe country

 

[Blueblue123]

Why would the government come up with a "solution" that is being called unworkable by their own MPs and pushes the boundaries of human rights law?

It's almost as if they're setting themselves up to fail. Then they'll blame everyone who challenges and softens the bill.

If it passes with no amendments, then expect more "activism" from "leftie lawyers" who rightfully find aspects of it that fall outside of what's legal.

The government clearly do not want to truly and effectively sort the issue out, otherwise they wouldn't have any enemies to blame in their ongoing culture wars.

A simple solution would be to process people faster and open a legal route for people who don't come from Afghanistan or Ukraine. But nooooo. Let's create more us and them tension because why not?

 

[Piff paff puff]

Live news saying 5 boat loads already this morning. No doubt they and the smugglers will be hearing the latest from Gov and making a last dash.

 

[BigMavis]

The house is in chaos

 

[Merpedy]

Live news saying 5 boat loads already this morning. No doubt they and the smugglers will be hearing the latest from Gov and making a last dash.

There was talk on twitter yesterday that the plan is to apply the law retrospectively which is a sprinkle of controversy over an already controversial proposal

 

[Campari]

Why would the government come up with a "solution" that is being called unworkable by their own MPs

That's infighting, even a perfect solution there would still be sniping from their own MPs. Not a logical way to pass judgement.

 

[BigMavis]

Whats in the legislation? Did she tell us?

 

[Blueblue123]

Very interesting that the conversation around refugees - which let's remember includes survivors of war - predominately describes them as criminals and not the victims that the majority of them are.

And yet, people can't detect the bias and stereotyping!

 

[Merpedy]

Very interesting that the conversation around refugees - which let's remember includes survivors of war - predominately describes them as criminals and not the victims that the majority of them are.

And yet, people can't detect the bias and stereotyping!

I wonder what the opinions would be if we focused on war-based asylum claims and let people know about the wars going on in those countries. I'm somewhat doubtful that they'd suddenly be in support of a Ukrainian-style system

 

[monga]

Why would the government come up with a "solution" that is being called unworkable by their own MPs and pushes the boundaries of human rights law?

It's almost as if they're setting themselves up to fail. Then they'll blame everyone who challenges and softens the bill.

If it passes with no amendments, then expect more "activism" from "leftie lawyers" who rightfully find aspects of it that fall outside of what's legal.

The government clearly do not want to truly and effectively sort the issue out, otherwise they wouldn't have any enemies to blame in their ongoing culture wars.

A simple solution would be to process people faster and open a legal route for people who don't come from Afghanistan or Ukraine. But nooooo. Let's create more us and them tension because why not?

There should be legal routes open to African nations gripped by war and persecution, I don’t agree with only granting certain war torn countries safe passage.

 

[IngressUK]

There was talk on twitter yesterday that the plan is to apply the law retrospectively which is a sprinkle of controversy over an already controversial proposal

Why is it controversial, because you say so?

At the end of the day this cannot continue for ever more.

As it is has been said, 100 million people are currently eligible apply for Asylum with the current rules.

Whilst some on this thread are more than happy for the country to be swamped by such a number of 'desperate souls' ; The fact of the matter is the country does not have the money nor resources to take in the entire world's 'hard luck cases'. There is an absolute limit to the numbers that can be helped. Unfortunately some still can't seem to grasp that. Expecting the good hard pressed taxpayer to stump up ever more for the mumerous costs involved with their wet dreams of taking in the entire world and no borders.

Also when - for example- Asylum is granted to 50,000 people, the number is actually far more.

When family members eventually join them, that 50,000 can soon become 200,000+.

I also don't agree with that. Asylum was granted for that one person, not for their their entire family to come over and join them.

 

[Merpedy]

Why is it controversial, because you say so?

You should be able to live your life with some certainty that what you're doing isn't going to suddenly become illegal and you'll be penalised for it. Whatever your views on asylum are, and I expect you to reply to me with "they're arriving illegally" (even when it has been judged that this is not the case where the intention is to seek asylum), this is just basic legal stuff