English channel migrant crossing crisis #6

[monga]

Irish gov shitting themselves, only natural people would call time, controlled legal migration shouldn’t be used to gaslight people that have issues with thousands of illegal immigrants being placed in their communities #TitsupforLeo

---

 

[Piff paff puff]

Irish gov shitting themselves, only natural people would call time, controlled legal migration shouldn’t be used to gaslight people that have issues with thousands of illegal immigrants being placed in their communities #TitsupforLeo

---

Are the council going bankrupt like many English ones?

 

[monga]

Are the council going bankrupt like many English ones?

The tourist sector will be bankrupt along with the smaller businesses that rely on it.
---

 

[monga]

Here we have the reality of why people flock here.

 

[Moth]

View attachment 2695644

The majority of the public back removal without appeal. Hmmm. Now that's not true is it?

The article (which is from The Daily Telegraph for anybody wondering) says that the policy is backed in the majority of constituencies. But even that isn't true. It may have attracted the most support amongst the three options offered in the poll but support for not removing people without appeal was more popular in the vast majority of constituencies. In fact if one actually reads the article it explains that in only 111 constituencies out of 575 (less than 20%) was removal without appeal the preferred option.

Of course this is just part of The Telegraph's campaign to undermine Sunak and force him out before the election in favour of an (even more right wing) alternative.

 

[monga]

The majority of the public back removal without appeal. Hmmm. Now that's not true is it?

The article (which is from The Daily Telegraph for anybody wondering) says that the policy is backed in the majority of constituencies. But even that isn't true. It may have attracted the most support amongst the three options offered in the poll but support for not removing people without appeal was more popular in the vast majority of constituencies. In fact if one actually reads the article it explains that in only 111 constituencies out of 575 (less than 20%) was removal without appeal the preferred option.

Of course this is just part of The Telegraph's campaign to undermine Sunak and force him out before the election in favour of an (even more right wing) alternative.

And??? I didn’t write it so wouldn’t know if it’s full proof or not…. I do agree they’ve hatched a plan though, especially with Anderson resigning.

 

[Moley1]

I wish you would bore off (putting it politely) with your 'far right' guff. If you insist on the stupid name calling of those you don't agree with, there are plenty of derogatory names and phrases that could be thrown back in return...

Having concern for illegal immigration numbers, or the people illegally entering the country is NOT 'far right', as some seem to make out.

It is just the usual lazy and unimaginative name calling (by those on the left) in order to shut down wider discussion and action on the issue.

Whether you like it, or care to acknowledge it, immigration is one of the top election issues this year, along with the cost of living, NHS and rising crime.

Numerous polls out there have indicated majority support for dealing with the 'small boats issue, including from many traditional Labour supporters, particularly in 'red wall' areas - are you also labeling them as 'far right' too? If so, think you need to do some research on what 'far right' really means.

I would suggest a field trip to Eastern Europe to find out, where the 'far right' is a much bigger gathering than in the UK...

Edit: As for lorries. All should be throughly checked entering and leaving the country. Not only for stowaways, but contraband and drugs too.
---


The way to truly stop is is to quit with this stupid Liberal minded mindset that exists towards illegal migration in Government and the Civil Service.

Other EU countries have gotten a better grip of the issue that we have, rejecting large numbers of claims and deporting those with no right.

It is not my financial responsibility to fund everyone who fancies a better life in the UK, just because they feel self entitled to.

The Oxford Migratory Institute has predicted (at the current rate) a UK population of 80 million by the mid/late 2030's, over 100 million by mid/late 2050's - a time when many of us may well still be around.

At the end of the day the illegal migrant crisis is solely an EU made issue. If it were not for open borders across Europe, many of those migrants arriving in Greece and Italy would never make it as far as Calais to begin with. With EU open borders they are freely able to roam from country to country unchecked.

I have concern about the immigration figures. I have concern about people crossing the channel in small boats. I believe many if not most liberal people do. However there is a huge gap between that and the likes of Suella Braverman’s policies. I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but there is a far right mind set that she and her enablers speak to. Bore off? What is boring are those people who are clearly racist but try and pretend they are not. Nigel Farage is a clear example of one of those people.
So back to this ludicrous Rwandan plan, which could not be more racist if it tried, Chris Bryant made a perfect point. If the high risk of dying whilst crossing the channel isn’t a deterrent, why would any sane person think that the very slim chance of being sent to Rwanda be a deterrent?
There is a large tranche of the current Tory Party who are clearly far right and are clearly racist. The words far right and racist go hand in hand.

 

[IngressUK]

I have concern about the immigration figures. I have concern about people crossing the channel in small boats. I believe many if not most liberal people do. However there is a huge gap between that and the likes of Suella Braverman’s policies. I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but there is a far right mind set that she and her enablers speak to. Bore off? What is boring are those people who are clearly racist but try and pretend they are not. Nigel Farage is a clear example of one of those people.
So back to this ludicrous Rwandan plan, which could not be more racist if it tried, Chris Bryant made a perfect point. If the high risk of dying whilst crossing the channel isn’t a deterrent, why would any sane person think that the very slim chance of being sent to Rwanda be a deterrent?
There is a large tranche of the current Tory Party who are clearly far right and are clearly racist. The words far right and racist go hand in hand.

If you want to see 'far right' then (as suggested) you should do a field trip to Eastern Europe, where Nazi-ism is still rife and a bigger issue than in the UK.

Remember when the Ukraine-Russia conflict kicked off? Polish border guards were seen saying 'no blacks allowed'. That kind of thing would NEVER happen here!

There are no MPs in Parliament who are 'far right'. This is just (once again) lazy commentary by those who don't agree with Government policy - and still largely believe that Jeremy Corbyn should be PM.

As I also previously stated, there is a small minority whom are more than happy for the arrivals to continue, and at even greater pace. Even for them all to be given automatic right to remain. I recall one on here even wanting open borders for all - utterly bonkers!

The simple fact is the majority of people want firm action. Numerous polls support such measures being taken.

The same suspects can continue to bleat on about how hard done by and the genuineness of the people crossing the channel (and arriving in lorries).

The majority of people do not buy this crap any longer.

 

[Moth]

And??? I didn’t write it so wouldn’t know if it’s full proof or not…. I do agree they’ve hatched a plan though, especially with Anderson resigning.

Oh it's definitely not fool proof. Plenty of people will read the headline and believe it's true or at least want to believe it's true. Misinterpreting and misrepresenting statistics to people that don't understand or bother to look into them is classic strategy.
---

If you want to see 'far right' then (as suggested) you should do a field trip to Eastern Europe, where Nazi-ism is still rife and a bigger issue than in the UK.

Remember when the Ukraine-Russia conflict kicked off? Polish border guards were seen saying 'no blacks allowed'. That kind of thing would NEVER happen here!

There are no MPs in Parliament who are 'far right'. This is just (once again) lazy commentary by those who don't agree with Government policy - and still largely believe that Jeremy Corbyn should be PM.

As I also previously stated, there is a small minority whom are more than happy for the arrivals to continue, and at even greater pace. Even for them all to be given automatic right to remain. I recall one on here even wanting open borders for all - utterly bonkers!

The simple fact is the majority of people want firm action. Numerous polls support such measures being taken.

The same suspects can continue to bleat on about how hard done by and the genuineness of the people crossing the channel (and arriving in lorries).

The majority of people do not buy this crap any longer.

I guess it depends how far right you need to go to be 'far right' and how much you care about labels. People like Braverman, Jenrick and the other 60 odd Tory 'rebels' now occupy the ground that would once have been the preserve of parties well to the right of the Tory Party and I don't think that trajectory has stopped.

Personally policies that want to remove our rights, break public services, demonise minority groups and seek to put politicians above the law are plenty 'far right' enough for me to call them 'far right' even if there are 'worse' examples elsewhere in the world. Claiming that people who feel this way "largely believe that Jeremy Corbyn should be PM" is just the lazy and dismissive commentary that you accuse others of. Of course I understand that for some people, possibly yourself included, the problem with the current Tory government is that it isn't right wing enough. Some even accuse it of being 'socialist'. I wonder where that 'utterly bonkers' nonsense emanates from?

I also don't believe your claim that the majority of people want the sort of 'firm action' against asylum seekers that this government is hell bent on introducing. However the one sure way to find out is for Sunak to call an election and then we'll find out for sure.

 

[NeverEnough]

If you want to see 'far right' then (as suggested) you should do a field trip to Eastern Europe, where Nazi-ism is still rife and a bigger issue than in the UK.

Remember when the Ukraine-Russia conflict kicked off? Polish border guards were seen saying 'no blacks allowed'. That kind of thing would NEVER happen here!

There are no MPs in Parliament who are 'far right'. This is just (once again) lazy commentary by those who don't agree with Government policy - and still largely believe that Jeremy Corbyn should be PM.

As I also previously stated, there is a small minority whom are more than happy for the arrivals to continue, and at even greater pace. Even for them all to be given automatic right to remain. I recall one on here even wanting open borders for all - utterly bonkers!

The simple fact is the majority of people want firm action. Numerous polls support such measures being taken.

The same suspects can continue to bleat on about how hard done by and the genuineness of the people crossing the channel (and arriving in lorries).

The majority of people do not buy this crap any longer.

From what I have seen anyone who is in favour of a controlled immigration is regarded as "far right" these days. Which is odd because the Far Right have traditionally favoured not only a policy of immigration based primarily on race, but have also called for "repatriation" of minorities. Even British citizen from minority backgrounds. And I have seen literally no one advocating anything even approaching this as a policy.

The reality in my opinion is that the vast majority of people, even the ones arguing on the other side on this thread, favour some level of control, the only real difference being the size of the safety net and the liberalisation of the policy. Because the opposite of control is a complete No borders free for all. All comers welcome. Not even basic Interpol checks for fleeing serial killers, international terrorists, or organised criminals (all those things would be considered immigration control). And I fear for the sanity of anyone who thinks that is anything other than a spectacularly bad idea. And ultimately anyone who supports a no borders solution is the extremist in this scenario.

Well, is there anyone who admits to being a no borders no control advocate?

 

[Piff paff puff]

 

[Moth]

From what I have seen anyone who is in favour of a controlled immigration is regarded as "far right" these days. Which is odd because the Far Right have traditionally favoured not only a policy of immigration based primarily on race, but have also called for "repatriation" of minorities. Even British citizen from minority backgrounds. And I have seen literally no one advocating anything even approaching this as a policy.

The reality in my opinion is that the vast majority of people, even the ones arguing on the other side on this thread, favour some level of control, the only real difference being the size of the safety net and the liberalisation of the policy. Because the opposite of control is a complete No borders free for all. All comers welcome. Not even basic Interpol checks for fleeing serial killers, international terrorists, or organised criminals (all those things would be considered immigration control). And I fear for the sanity of anyone who thinks that is anything other than a spectacularly bad idea. And ultimately anyone who supports a no borders solution is the extremist in this scenario.

Well, is there anyone who admits to being a no borders no control advocate?

I don't recall anyone posting on this thread being in favour of uncontrolled, 'open borders' immigration. I am not. However I have seen plenty of posts accusing people of advocating that position simply because they don't support demonisation of asylum seekers and other immigrants and the sometimes cruel, inhumane and unlawful policies proposed. I have also seen posts claiming that we already have an uncontrolled, 'open borders' immigration system.

Having been on this thread since it's fairly early days it was noticeable how attitudes changed from concern about some asylum seekers not being genuine (and debates about how that could be dealt with), to being against anyone coming to the UK to seek asylum, to being against accepting any refugees, to being largely or wholly anti any kind of immigrant. In most cases I don't know whether that was simply people taking a more extreme position in order to 'fight their corner' or gradually revealing their true opinions.

 

[monga]

Might be down to tolerance?? When Abdul is paying 10 grand because he heard good things about a country ,it’s not surprising people object to fitting the bill for him ! Especially now the country he’s landed in is deemed more unsafe than the country he’s fleeing from.

 

[NeverEnough]

I don't recall anyone posting on this thread being in favour of uncontrolled, 'open borders' immigration. I am not. However I have seen plenty of posts accusing people of advocating that position simply because they don't support demonisation of asylum seekers and other immigrants and the sometimes cruel, inhumane and unlawful policies proposed. I have also seen posts claiming that we already have an uncontrolled, 'open borders' immigration system.

Having been on this thread since it's fairly early days it was noticeable how attitudes changed from concern about some asylum seekers not being genuine (and debates about how that could be dealt with), to being against anyone coming to the UK to seek asylum, to being against accepting any refugees, to being largely or wholly anti any kind of immigrant. In most cases I don't know whether that was simply people taking a more extreme position in order to 'fight their corner' or gradually revealing their true opinions.

And in a similar vein I haven't seen anyone arguing for net zero immigration, racial profiling or repatriation of minority groups, yet the "far right" moniker is thrown around like confetti as well. Is this a racist he'll hole or not? You use words like cruel and inhumane on a regular basis. Yet I see no evidence of large scale violence against any asylum seeker. The worst you can say is they can't work and live on a barge. Cruel is a judgement call, but that's an awful low bar.

I've seen quite a few corking head scratching suggestions as well, ranging from automatic right to work, to being plucked off the beach and trained as paramedics (my particular favourite).

But at least we agree on one thing. No borders is a monumentally stupid idea and virtually everyone accepts that some form of immigration control is essential. Small steps....

 

[Merpedy]

There’s definitely a person or two here who have alluded to conspiracy theories pushed by the far right

I also vaguely remember a conversation about how other countries that pay foreign workers less are good and are doing the right thing and we should do similar which is concerning when the UK is a very diverse society. Several people here also seem to often be confused by differences between asylum seekers, refugees and even those that have received citizenship or are economic immigrants that have never claimed asylum. People here seem to tiptoe around their opinions but if you read a little bit or let the thread turn into an echo chamber it becomes very obvious where it’s all heading

 

[monga]

What conspiracies?

 

[Piff paff puff]

What conspiracies?

How about the one that we're all better off with uncontrolled migration

 

[Merpedy]

What conspiracies?

I’m pretty sure there have been multiple times people outright or subtly alluded to the great replacement theory

Some of the language echoes the far right too and that’s not accidental. The way radicalisation works these days is that “extreme” ideas are packaged in pretty little boxes and ideas that are seen as more acceptable than outright racism and discrimination

Protesting outside hotels? Just your average concerned local person not at all influenced by far right groups

fairly interesting article on how the far right and language all link together:

Migration, Firebombings and the Risks of Mainstreamed Far-Right Extremism

In the wake of the recent far-right attack in Dover, the UK government’s alarmist rhetoric around migration is unhelpful and potentially dangerous, as it helps to bring narratives spread by far-right extremists into the mainstream discourse, thereby creating an environment that enables and...

www.rusi.org

 

[monga]

I’m not sure it’s a CT when the data of some countries show their citizens will be a minority in their own country in two generations time, 1 in 5 weren’t born in the country etc ..Infastructure isn’t in line with the never ending flood of people they’re expected to accommodate, people that choose to come but can’t support themselves…All too real I’m afraid!
---

 

[bubbadabut]

I had a guy today (previously a NASS client, now granted refugee status) refuse to move into the hotel that our homeless section had offered him. Therefore he's lost his section 28 and out on the streets

View attachment 2698275

This is basically my job and it's been going on for months. Today Rishi mentioned the 50 hotels that have been turned back over to the communities after the asylum seekers were dispersed. What he didn't say is that they are immediately rebooked back in under section 122 of that particular council's homeless policy.

My advice for Rishi. Forget Rwanda, if you want to stop the boats, do a leaflet drop on the Calais shores of pics of the hotel accommodation in my town. Earlier this week I was told that one of my clients took one look at it and he refused the placement, thereby losing his right to any future placements. God knows where he is now.