English Channel migrant crossing crisis #2

[monga]

The problem is when everybody else is talking about asylum seekers the phrase 'criminal freeloaders' which you invented is absolutely meaningless

Tell you what let's start again. You ask me 'the question' and I promise I won't avoid it.

BTW it was you invented that word at no time have I said criminal freeloaders! Giving us another insight to your true perception, I see

 

[IngressUK]

Discussions are better when they're backed by facts so I fact checked you.

Didn't realise that would be so upsetting.

I'm sure you'd do the same to me if I spouted hyperbolic untruths.

The only thing I find upsetting is that you seem to have more concern for people coming here illegally from elsewhere (and in many cases not as desperate as they make out), than the people struggling in your own country to make ends meet.

I don't find anything anything else upsetting. I'm safe in the knowledge that the majority of people in the UK agree with tighter controls on the boats issue. A few virtual signalling types who think they can shout the loudest on social media isn't going to change the opinion of the majority, or change the plans made.

The statement I made previously about the rights of illegal migrants coming here trumping everyone else...

Fleeing a war zone trumps overcrowding and unemployed. We can’t be all things to all people obviously but we can try.

From 'Afghanistan' thread, page 14.

That statement clearly shows the priority of some, no doubt agreed with by others....

 

[monga]

And judging by the protests people have not become more sympathetic to the issue.

Even the asylum seekers can’t believe how grim services are in the UK

Asylum seekers in Britain are obliged to grit their teeth | Tim Adams

Dental treatment is hard to get when you’re waiting for refugee status – but no worse than if you are a British resident

www.theguardian.com

 

[monga]

Ironically those opposed to the migration bill for inhumane reasons are the very people pitting one refugee against another, do the Ukrainian people deserve to be singled out for fleeing a war zone through no fault of their own it’s laughable when they’re the very people accusing others of xenophobia and racism when they’ve no room to talk themselves.
---
More than traffickers profiting !

Private firms profiting from UK asylum hotels

The government pays millions each day to house asylum seekers in almost 400 hotels across the UK.

www.bbc.com

 

[Moth]

Why are we laughing at people who are concerned?
Really?

Why are we seeing posts about EU nationals living in the Irish Republic in a thread specifically about "the English Channel Migrant Crossing Crisis". It's the second time it's happened in recent days and appears to me to be simply to spread the narrative that foreigners are dangerous.

 

[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?

 

[Merpedy]

 

[BigMavis]

I don't think Monga is doing any of that, she's concerned some migrants are making false applications for asylum and outlining how easy it is to enter the UK without leaving a paper trail.

 

[monga]

The implication here that they’re dangerous is beautifully subtle

After such a long time of waiting, it’s in their best interest to show up for the final and big interview. The travel isn’t the problem - it’s the HO being slow at setting up these interviews

I predict we will see questionnaires be used more after this trial run

How on earth does random insinuate someone is dangerous how easy do random strangers find their way around a strange country ?

 

[monga]

Or maybe the government is rubbish at its job/creating an issue on purpose.

The pandemic only covers the last three years which the stats show had lower or equivalent numbers of applications to what Labour had to deal with. What of the 10 years before that? Labour also had to deal with the fallout of the Iraq war while the world recovered from a global financial crisis and recession.

The circumstances are very much so comparable, you might even argue that Labour had it worse - and yet, the Tories are intentionally failing.

Sure people could argue it’s the knock on effects from Blair the warlord ,forcing people to flee their country then giving them benefits and housing ,making the UK an attractive place to reside .it’s neither here nor there…No party has been better than the other that’s why they’re ousted once people realize they’ve been had with undeliverable manifesto’s, never trust a politician they tell you exactly what they want you to hear

 

[Blueblue123]

How do you propose we make that distinction? Genuine question!

Processing their applications so they can actually work would be a great start.

 

[Moth]

For me this isn't a race issue, there aren't the resources available to look after people adequately.
Why bring more people here to live in misery, even if they're housed the risk of exploitation is huge.
The government did need to do something urgently to get a handle on the problems facing people. But as usual its not enough and is much too late.

The resource argument might hold some water if it wasn't for the fact that well over a million people came to the UK with visas last year and net migration was over half a million. However we are being asked to believe that granting asylum to a small faction of that number is the thing that is overwhelming our public services.

 

[monga]

I thought Labour were for using hotels? It’s wouldn’t be they’re now trying to win over those UKIP constituents by any chance …But keep on making personal digs it just shows what you’re really about…and I’m lovin it
I thought it was only refugees crossing, there were no CRIMINALS or economic freeloaders , she’s just confirmed what people have been saying ,strong border security is paramount…Thanks for posting
---
Just had a thought ! maybe those of us with the exact concerns pointed out by Yvette Cooper should all change our username to said person it seems it’s totally acceptable for her to raise these concerns and not be branded mentally ill, racist or xenophobic but not a member of Tattle or the general public

 

[monga]

On holiday we met a lady who worked in immigration. She explained that they have to first provide proof that they are who they say they are, and that they have been honest about where they've come from - and this takes a very long time as other countries, etc take ages responding, if at all. Then, as they arrive with no paperwork, proof is also required as to their qualifications (if any) and experience.

I fully agree with your post regarding speeding things up and returning them to their country of origin, if safe to do so.

I can never understand why these people can afford so pay thousands for a dangerous crossing, but don't use a safer flight option. In the first instance they could arrive here as a tourist with passport and evidence of who they are; then apply to stay once they arrive. I'd have respect for anyone going through these sensible channels.

That’s what a lot of people question, why would you fly in and destroy your documents unless there’s something to hide

 

[Blueblue123]

Nonsense politician. How stupid to say you "understand" the reasons which led to people acting violently? No politician should be subtly or explicitly endorsing such actions.

Callous Suella Braverman 'understands' frustrations at hotels housing migrants

The Home Secretary who is under pressure from all sides to get a grip on the Home Office's catastrophic failure to stop dangerous journeys across the Channel, spoke out after clashes across the country

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Blueblue123]

Yeah imagine turning a blind eye to far right propaganda to only wake up once it’s shown on sky news

So you admit some of the things you share here align with 'far right' views? That's the problem. Legitimising these opinions by labelling them the voice of the people is why they end up in places like our mainstream news - as you say.

 

[Moth]

Do you really think your opinion bothers me nothing is inaccurate that I post here ! it’s just others don’t need things in black n white to understand what’s being said .I could always pop u on ignore that way you’ve got no comeback to your weird vendetta to discredit a random stranger on the internet …
I don’t sub to the Telegraph why would I pay to read a false narrative , as you have pointed out
You have made personal attacks …selective memory too ,I see …Oh look who was posting grabby headlines of no substance what so ever …
Actually it does read like the government are considering it and not lies as you’ve suggested View attachment 2079594

Here's essentially the same article that's not behind a paywall. Do you still think the government are finalising plans to provide a safe route for 20,000 asylum seekers?

MPs demand Sunak opens ‘safe’ routes for 20,000 refugees

UK currently only has existing safe and legal routes for people entering the country from Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Hong Kong

www.walesonline.co.uk

As I suspected, you saw a headline in the Telegraph, you couldn't read the article but you still thought it was a good idea to post the headline based on what you believe it said. You actually had no idea what the article said yet you cling to the idea that it says what you believe it said because you "don't need things in black and white to understand what is being said". I'm afraid that sounds unbalanced. Mind you I think you could get a job in this government. They seem to think that facts are optional and it's what you believe to be true that counts

I don't think my opinion bothers you in the slightest. I don't think you can help what you do. As I have observed before your posting seems to be more about quantity than quality. Just keep posting something, anything, submerge the thread in a deluge of often irrelevant and misleading cut a paste headlines, articles and your belief about what's 'true', never take a backward step and never admit when you are wrong even if it's plain that you are.

I'll keep correcting the nonsense that you post when I think it's necessary. I'll back up my statements with real facts. It's up to other people who they believe.

 

[NeverEnough]

You really think that they don’t inform people or that those people don’t know themselves? I believe it was monga who posted reactions from asylum seekers in France, one of which said that they basically would rather in the UK than in Rwanda or France or wherever. Some of these people are making the journey with the sole intention of seeking asylum in the UK, others feel forced to because their claim in the EU wasn’t being processed quickly enough (yes really, it’s ironic), the process meant that they couldn’t support themselves or it was rejected. Important to note that just because one country rejects your asylum claim it does not mean that your claim may not be accepted by another country. Sometimes there’s problems with translators not explaining basic things well enough and the like

There also seems to be an implication that those charities are encouraging people to come over



Rwanda is hardly a safe country. You also have the EU problem of once you claim in one country your claim may not be admissible in another, hence part of the reason that UK is now popular

After Rwanda was announced people still made their way here knowing the plan and smugglers allegedly dropped the prices of crossing

OK so you are in favour of personal choice. On that we can agree. But surely you would have to agree that better choices are made if full clarity is available. (I wonder how many lives would have been saved in the 1950s if the link between smoking and cancer had been made public). But anyway I digress. Choices made are never free of consequence, and if the consequence of migrant A’s choice is that they spend an indeterminate time in detention and will not be able to claim asylum then frankly they have made a bloody stupid choice will therefore pay the consequence. Consequences which could be avoided by simply selecting another country to make their (in your example) second (3rd, 4th or 5th?) stab at an asylum grant. A journey, if taken within continental Europe, is surely much less hazardous by foot or train (or by breaking into the back of a lorry), than across the English Channel in a overcrowded boat? Therefore why should I feel even remotely sorry for the Sudanese guy in Monga’s example (Who in my opinion comes across as an entitled twat rather than a desperate man) if he is destined to be indefinitely detained on a disused airfield in Essex, be removed to Rwanda, or even die in an accident in the channel. His choice (which we are both fully supportive of) his consequence. He had lots of other options available, the current membership count of the EU is 26.

 

[Moth]

Though I'd post this article as an example of the blatant lies told by our media about asylum issues which unfortunately some people will choose to believe. This has The Sun achieving the double whammy of being anti-asylum seekers and anti-EU. Meat and drink to their readers and people of a similar mindset.

Fury as bid to house migrants in tents and ships blocked over EU rule concerns

MINISTERS want to house migrants in tents on disused airfields and cruise ships — but are being blocked by officials claiming it would breach EU rules. The furious dust-up comes as Prime Minister R…

www.the-sun.com

However as with most things written in The Sun, it's nonsense. The reason for government officials questioning the use of tents to house asylum seekers is because it could be in contravention of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) by which the UK has agreed to be bound. Article 11 of the ICESCR gives people 'the right to an adequate standard of living (including the right to food, clothing and housing).

The Covenant was accepted by all members of the EU which incorporated it into EU law as a EU directive while the UK was still a member. However it is not 'EU law' as The Sun claims and that is not the reason why UK government officials are doing their job by pointing out that the government could contravene international law (not that it seems to care about such things). It's also true that many EU countries use tents to house asylum seekers because there is no universally accepted standard for what constitutes 'an adequate standard of living'. The UK could choose to abrogate it's responsibilities under the ICESCR as part of it's bonfire of EU legislation which given it's hostility to inconvenient international law and conventions would not be surprising.

 

[Blueblue123]

Remarkable that Afghans in Afghanistan deserve our help but the 8,633 Afghans that crossed the Channel in a small boat don't.

They're looked at with pity when they're over there, but looked at with contempt when they're here. Make it make sense.