LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
the right to work in the UK would be a good start.monkimark said:You think there aren't any previous refugees working in construction or fruit picking?
What fruit picking qualifications are even available?
Maybe we could call fruitpicking a cruel and inhumane punishment and get tabloid backing to let refugees work in the fields.
With a little effort they could evoke both the Dunkirk spirit and Dig for Victory into the debate0 -
I imagine far more speak English than other European languagesbriantrumpet said:Pross said:I'm actually amazed that anyone is prepared to risk their life travelling from France to the UK though to be honest. It's almost like there must be a very important draw such as family already living here.
I can't imagine it's the warmth of the welcome they'll get in the UK, especially with Braverman in charge.0 -
you chose to argue about some strange points.rjsterry said:
Before you start fretting about the 50k refugees (twice the size of Yate sounds a little less hysterical BTW, Durham metro area has a population of 429,000) consider the 280k given visas. This government is not trying to control immigration and nobody should believe them when they say sosurrey_commuter said:
I don't think citing the UNHCR is going to win around many people.rick_chasey said:
I mean this is an obvious misnomer.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.
UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc
Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.
You need to answer how you create a city the size of Durham each year to house and look after these people.
Why when we have a housing shortage does it not matter that 50,000 extra people come here each year?
The Govt is making cuts, they will fall harder on British people because immigrants are put in hotels.
Where do the extra doctors/nurses come from to look after these people0 -
surrey_commuter said:
I imagine far more speak English than other European languagesbriantrumpet said:Pross said:I'm actually amazed that anyone is prepared to risk their life travelling from France to the UK though to be honest. It's almost like there must be a very important draw such as family already living here.
I can't imagine it's the warmth of the welcome they'll get in the UK, especially with Braverman in charge.
Perhaps we could claim that as a plus, that they all want to come here because English is better than furrin languages, and Empire, and all that.0 -
So that is exactly the point I’m making.wallace_and_gromit said:
Can I humbly suggest that you have completely missed my point?rick_chasey said:
I mean this is an obvious misnomer.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.
UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc
Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.
I'm on top of the numbers and reasons points you make. But neither of these make the claim that the arrivals in Kent are fleeing a warzone true. They are not. They have already successfully fled the warzone and ended up in France, a safe country. They are then choosing - for understandable reasons - to come to the UK in preference to staying in France.
The whole “first safest country” bit is avoided in the UN refugee convention is to avoid half another country turning up to the neighbour and flooding the place.
Your argument is basically “because Britain happens to be bad island Britain shouldn’t take any” which, if you see it that way, is a bit childish.
UK has as much obligation as any signatory to look after refugees.
You think they should take on none just by virtue of being an island away from where the fighting is?
0 -
The treaty - that we wrote - says nothing about first safe country. It's a fabrication as you know. If the government wants to withdraw from the convention it could at least have the balls to put it's Orban-lite money where it's mouth is.wallace_and_gromit said:
Can I humbly suggest that you have completely missed my point?rick_chasey said:
I mean this is an obvious misnomer.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.
UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc
Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.
I'm on top of the numbers and reasons points you make. But neither of these make the claim that the arrivals in Kent are fleeing a warzone true. They are not. They have already successfully fled the warzone and ended up in France, a safe country. They are then choosing - for understandable reasons - to come to the UK in preference to staying in France.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
No stranger than the spurious points you raised. If immigration really was the cause of public services being below the required capacity then you would start with the majority of immigration.surrey_commuter said:
you chose to argue about some strange points.rjsterry said:
Before you start fretting about the 50k refugees (twice the size of Yate sounds a little less hysterical BTW, Durham metro area has a population of 429,000) consider the 280k given visas. This government is not trying to control immigration and nobody should believe them when they say sosurrey_commuter said:
I don't think citing the UNHCR is going to win around many people.rick_chasey said:
I mean this is an obvious misnomer.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.
UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc
Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.
You need to answer how you create a city the size of Durham each year to house and look after these people.
Why when we have a housing shortage does it not matter that 50,000 extra people come here each year?
The Govt is making cuts, they will fall harder on British people because immigrants are put in hotels.
Where do the extra doctors/nurses come from to look after these people1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I am sure there is a strong correlation between people who are against illegal immigrants and people who are against immigrants.rjsterry said:
No stranger than the spurious points you raised. If immigration really was the cause of public services being below the required capacity then you would start with the majority of immigration.surrey_commuter said:
you chose to argue about some strange points.rjsterry said:
Before you start fretting about the 50k refugees (twice the size of Yate sounds a little less hysterical BTW, Durham metro area has a population of 429,000) consider the 280k given visas. This government is not trying to control immigration and nobody should believe them when they say sosurrey_commuter said:
I don't think citing the UNHCR is going to win around many people.rick_chasey said:
I mean this is an obvious misnomer.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.
UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc
Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.
You need to answer how you create a city the size of Durham each year to house and look after these people.
Why when we have a housing shortage does it not matter that 50,000 extra people come here each year?
The Govt is making cuts, they will fall harder on British people because immigrants are put in hotels.
Where do the extra doctors/nurses come from to look after these people0 -
And yet their supposed party of choice appears to have actively increased immigration.surrey_commuter said:
I am sure there is a strong correlation between people who are against illegal immigrants and people who are against immigrants.rjsterry said:
No stranger than the spurious points you raised. If immigration really was the cause of public services being below the required capacity then you would start with the majority of immigration.surrey_commuter said:
you chose to argue about some strange points.rjsterry said:
Before you start fretting about the 50k refugees (twice the size of Yate sounds a little less hysterical BTW, Durham metro area has a population of 429,000) consider the 280k given visas. This government is not trying to control immigration and nobody should believe them when they say sosurrey_commuter said:
I don't think citing the UNHCR is going to win around many people.rick_chasey said:
I mean this is an obvious misnomer.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.
UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc
Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.
You need to answer how you create a city the size of Durham each year to house and look after these people.
Why when we have a housing shortage does it not matter that 50,000 extra people come here each year?
The Govt is making cuts, they will fall harder on British people because immigrants are put in hotels.
Where do the extra doctors/nurses come from to look after these people1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I wasn't commenting on who should take in refugees. I was commenting on those that claim that by coming from France to the UK the refugees are fleeing a warzone.Pross said:
So do you think the countries that are more easily accessible for refugees should have to take them all?wallace_and_gromit said:
Can I humbly suggest that you have completely missed my point?rick_chasey said:
I mean this is an obvious misnomer.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.
UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc
Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.
I'm on top of the numbers and reasons points you make. But neither of these make the claim that the arrivals in Kent are fleeing a warzone true. They are not. They have already successfully fled the warzone and ended up in France, a safe country. They are then choosing - for understandable reasons - to come to the UK in preference to staying in France.
1 -
They were probably just holidaying in Francewallace_and_gromit said:
I wasn't commenting on who should take in refugees. I was commenting on those that claim that by coming from France to the UK the refugees are fleeing a warzone.Pross said:
So do you think the countries that are more easily accessible for refugees should have to take them all?wallace_and_gromit said:
Can I humbly suggest that you have completely missed my point?rick_chasey said:
I mean this is an obvious misnomer.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.
UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc
Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.
I'm on top of the numbers and reasons points you make. But neither of these make the claim that the arrivals in Kent are fleeing a warzone true. They are not. They have already successfully fled the warzone and ended up in France, a safe country. They are then choosing - for understandable reasons - to come to the UK in preference to staying in France.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
You must be new here...surrey_commuter said:
you chose to argue about some strange points.rjsterry said:
Before you start fretting about the 50k refugees (twice the size of Yate sounds a little less hysterical BTW, Durham metro area has a population of 429,000) consider the 280k given visas. This government is not trying to control immigration and nobody should believe them when they say sosurrey_commuter said:
I don't think citing the UNHCR is going to win around many people.rick_chasey said:
I mean this is an obvious misnomer.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.
UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc
Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.
You need to answer how you create a city the size of Durham each year to house and look after these people.
Why when we have a housing shortage does it not matter that 50,000 extra people come here each year?
The Govt is making cuts, they will fall harder on British people because immigrants are put in hotels.
Where do the extra doctors/nurses come from to look after these peopleWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver1 -
1. I've not even mentioned the subject of how many refugees the UK should take.rick_chasey said:1. Your argument is basically “because Britain happens to be bad island Britain shouldn’t take any” which, if you see it that way, is a bit childish.
2. UK has as much obligation as any signatory to look after refugees.
3. You think they should take on none just by virtue of being an island away from where the fighting is?
2. Agreed.
3. Again, I've not commented on the extent to which the UK is morally, legally or geographically obligated to take in refugees.
And for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a supporter of the Tories or their immigration policies.
But in the interests of balance, reading that those arriving in the UK in small boats are fleeing a warzone narks me as it's not true, notwithstanding the propensity of the Frenchies to burn their town halls, torch their (or most likely other folks') eScooters and otherwise create photo-worthy fires.
0 -
Can't tell if you are deliberately pretending to misunderstand.wallace_and_gromit said:
I wasn't commenting on who should take in refugees. I was commenting on those that claim that by coming from France to the UK the refugees are fleeing a warzone.Pross said:
So do you think the countries that are more easily accessible for refugees should have to take them all?wallace_and_gromit said:
Can I humbly suggest that you have completely missed my point?rick_chasey said:
I mean this is an obvious misnomer.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.
UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc
Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.
I'm on top of the numbers and reasons points you make. But neither of these make the claim that the arrivals in Kent are fleeing a warzone true. They are not. They have already successfully fled the warzone and ended up in France, a safe country. They are then choosing - for understandable reasons - to come to the UK in preference to staying in France.
Refugees may claim asylum in any country of their choice. They are not obliged to stop in the first safe country although the vast majority of. Having closed off the vast majority of other routes to claim asylum in the UK, the only viable option for money is to make their way over land to northern France and get a boat over the Channel. France is just in the way.
To give another example, we allowed Ukrainian refugees into the country despite them having transited through Poland.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Was it in here people were obsessing over Lineker? He has won his case.
Like I think I said, it is not as simple as wanting to be treated as a contractor. He won because he had a direct contract with the bbc and was not contracted through an intermediary company. A different tax dodge and seemingly quite effective.0 -
kingstongraham said:
Was it in here people were obsessing over Lineker? He has won his case.
Like I think I said, it is not as simple as wanting to be treated as a contractor. He won because he had a direct contract with the bbc and was not contracted through an intermediary company. A different tax dodge and seemingly quite effective.
I'm sure that Stevo will be pleased that someone won a big case against HMRC.0 -
Hang on, pleased for a woke liberal leftie like Lineker? I mean, c'mon, what's he ever done for his country eh?briantrumpet said:kingstongraham said:Was it in here people were obsessing over Lineker? He has won his case.
Like I think I said, it is not as simple as wanting to be treated as a contractor. He won because he had a direct contract with the bbc and was not contracted through an intermediary company. A different tax dodge and seemingly quite effective.
I'm sure that Stevo will be pleased that someone won a big case against HMRC.0 -
Isn’t the stat something like 80% of those arriving on small boats are legit?wallace_and_gromit said:
1. I've not even mentioned the subject of how many refugees the UK should take.rick_chasey said:1. Your argument is basically “because Britain happens to be bad island Britain shouldn’t take any” which, if you see it that way, is a bit childish.
2. UK has as much obligation as any signatory to look after refugees.
3. You think they should take on none just by virtue of being an island away from where the fighting is?
2. Agreed.
3. Again, I've not commented on the extent to which the UK is morally, legally or geographically obligated to take in refugees.
And for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a supporter of the Tories or their immigration policies.
But in the interests of balance, reading that those arriving in the UK in small boats are fleeing a warzone narks me as it's not true, notwithstanding the propensity of the Frenchies to burn their town halls, torch their (or most likely other folks') eScooters and otherwise create photo-worthy fires.
The issue is the Uk shut all the legal routes in.
0 -
rick_chasey said:
Isn’t the stat something like 80% of those arriving on small boats are legit?
The issue is the Uk shut all the legal routes in.
I assume that plan is to make all boat arrivals illegal so they can dismiss the remaining 80% who would have been legal otherwise. Even if that means the UK has to withdraw from international treaties. I mean it's not like we want to co-operate internationally on trade or anything is it? Right??0 -
Given the shortage of Doctors and Nurses this sounds like an incredibly stupid idea. So possibly it can become a core policy for the Tories.surrey_commuter said:
Financially there must be a sweet spot where it is cheaper for us to pay a country to take them. Like the house clearance guys we should be able to make a profit on the doctors and nurses we deport.Pross said:We could come up with an arrangement to ship our non-economically active people to Rwanda (or Spain if that's more palatable).
0 -
I have not seen confirmation of ddraver’s assertion that we let qualified medics who arrive illegally practise medicine in the UK so sending them to Rwanda as a bulk package with some undesirables would be win win.Jezyboy said:
Given the shortage of Doctors and Nurses this sounds like an incredibly stupid idea. So possibly it can become a core policy for the Tories.surrey_commuter said:
Financially there must be a sweet spot where it is cheaper for us to pay a country to take them. Like the house clearance guys we should be able to make a profit on the doctors and nurses we deport.Pross said:We could come up with an arrangement to ship our non-economically active people to Rwanda (or Spain if that's more palatable).
0 -
Don’t want to sound arrogant but I understand all the issues, thanks. I’m not commenting on the refugees, how to claim asylum, safe routes etc. I’m commenting on “progressive” types who misrepresent the status of the country in which the refuges were immediately prior to sailing for the U.K.rjsterry said:
Can't tell if you are deliberately pretending to misunderstand.wallace_and_gromit said:
I wasn't commenting on who should take in refugees. I was commenting on those that claim that by coming from France to the UK the refugees are fleeing a warzone.Pross said:
So do you think the countries that are more easily accessible for refugees should have to take them all?wallace_and_gromit said:
Can I humbly suggest that you have completely missed my point?rick_chasey said:
I mean this is an obvious misnomer.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.
UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc
Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.
I'm on top of the numbers and reasons points you make. But neither of these make the claim that the arrivals in Kent are fleeing a warzone true. They are not. They have already successfully fled the warzone and ended up in France, a safe country. They are then choosing - for understandable reasons - to come to the UK in preference to staying in France.
Refugees may claim asylum in any country of their choice. They are not obliged to stop in the first safe country although the vast majority of. Having closed off the vast majority of other routes to claim asylum in the UK, the only viable option for money is to make their way over land to northern France and get a boat over the Channel. France is just in the way.
To give another example, we allowed Ukrainian refugees into the country despite them having transited through Poland.
1 -
You want them to stay in France because they had to go through France to get to the UK?wallace_and_gromit said:
Don’t want to sound arrogant but I understand all the issues, thanks. I’m not commenting on the refugees, how to claim asylum, safe routes etc. I’m commenting on “progressive” types who misrepresent the status of the country in which the refuges were immediately prior to sailing for the U.K.rjsterry said:
Can't tell if you are deliberately pretending to misunderstand.wallace_and_gromit said:
I wasn't commenting on who should take in refugees. I was commenting on those that claim that by coming from France to the UK the refugees are fleeing a warzone.Pross said:
So do you think the countries that are more easily accessible for refugees should have to take them all?wallace_and_gromit said:
Can I humbly suggest that you have completely missed my point?rick_chasey said:
I mean this is an obvious misnomer.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.
UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc
Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.
I'm on top of the numbers and reasons points you make. But neither of these make the claim that the arrivals in Kent are fleeing a warzone true. They are not. They have already successfully fled the warzone and ended up in France, a safe country. They are then choosing - for understandable reasons - to come to the UK in preference to staying in France.
Refugees may claim asylum in any country of their choice. They are not obliged to stop in the first safe country although the vast majority of. Having closed off the vast majority of other routes to claim asylum in the UK, the only viable option for money is to make their way over land to northern France and get a boat over the Channel. France is just in the way.
To give another example, we allowed Ukrainian refugees into the country despite them having transited through Poland.0 -
80% sounds about right.rick_chasey said:
Isn’t the stat something like 80% of those arriving on small boats are legit?wallace_and_gromit said:
1. I've not even mentioned the subject of how many refugees the UK should take.rick_chasey said:1. Your argument is basically “because Britain happens to be bad island Britain shouldn’t take any” which, if you see it that way, is a bit childish.
2. UK has as much obligation as any signatory to look after refugees.
3. You think they should take on none just by virtue of being an island away from where the fighting is?
2. Agreed.
3. Again, I've not commented on the extent to which the UK is morally, legally or geographically obligated to take in refugees.
And for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a supporter of the Tories or their immigration policies.
But in the interests of balance, reading that those arriving in the UK in small boats are fleeing a warzone narks me as it's not true, notwithstanding the propensity of the Frenchies to burn their town halls, torch their (or most likely other folks') eScooters and otherwise create photo-worthy fires.
The issue is the Uk shut all the legal routes in.
Small boats is a particular issue as all other illegal routes in (eg via trucks) have apparently been successfully shut down in addition to there being no legal routes in. Or should we say “approved” routes in. Under international law, arriving unapproved in a country isn’t illegal. Failing to report to the authorise when you arrive is illegal though.
All utterly irrelevant to my original point about France’s implied status as a war zone.
0 -
It's a bit rich to be complaining about other people misrepresenting things when nobody has said France is a warzone.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don’t want to sound arrogant but I understand all the issues, thanks. I’m not commenting on the refugees, how to claim asylum, safe routes etc. I’m commenting on “progressive” types who misrepresent the status of the country in which the refuges were immediately prior to sailing for the U.K.rjsterry said:
Can't tell if you are deliberately pretending to misunderstand.wallace_and_gromit said:
I wasn't commenting on who should take in refugees. I was commenting on those that claim that by coming from France to the UK the refugees are fleeing a warzone.Pross said:
So do you think the countries that are more easily accessible for refugees should have to take them all?wallace_and_gromit said:
Can I humbly suggest that you have completely missed my point?rick_chasey said:
I mean this is an obvious misnomer.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have to admit I'm mildly narked about the "We must be charitable to people fleeing a warzone" rhetoric when the people landing in Kent are actually fleeing France. I'm not bothered about immigration, but I am bothered about blatant misrepresentation of the facts for political gain.
UK barely gets any refugees versus other countries already for precisely this reason and the reasons for why they have come all this way are usually specific to them ie they already have connection here etc
Your logic also goes against the UN refugee convention.
I'm on top of the numbers and reasons points you make. But neither of these make the claim that the arrivals in Kent are fleeing a warzone true. They are not. They have already successfully fled the warzone and ended up in France, a safe country. They are then choosing - for understandable reasons - to come to the UK in preference to staying in France.
Refugees may claim asylum in any country of their choice. They are not obliged to stop in the first safe country although the vast majority of. Having closed off the vast majority of other routes to claim asylum in the UK, the only viable option for money is to make their way over land to northern France and get a boat over the Channel. France is just in the way.
To give another example, we allowed Ukrainian refugees into the country despite them having transited through Poland.0 -
One more time: there's no such thing as arriving illegally. Yes, we have Syrian refugee doctors working in the NHS.surrey_commuter said:
I have not seen confirmation of ddraver’s assertion that we let qualified medics who arrive illegally practise medicine in the UK so sending them to Rwanda as a bulk package with some undesirables would be win win.Jezyboy said:
Given the shortage of Doctors and Nurses this sounds like an incredibly stupid idea. So possibly it can become a core policy for the Tories.surrey_commuter said:
Financially there must be a sweet spot where it is cheaper for us to pay a country to take them. Like the house clearance guys we should be able to make a profit on the doctors and nurses we deport.Pross said:We could come up with an arrangement to ship our non-economically active people to Rwanda (or Spain if that's more palatable).
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Now I know you are deliberately pretending to misunderstand.wallace_and_gromit said:
80% sounds about right.rick_chasey said:
Isn’t the stat something like 80% of those arriving on small boats are legit?wallace_and_gromit said:
1. I've not even mentioned the subject of how many refugees the UK should take.rick_chasey said:1. Your argument is basically “because Britain happens to be bad island Britain shouldn’t take any” which, if you see it that way, is a bit childish.
2. UK has as much obligation as any signatory to look after refugees.
3. You think they should take on none just by virtue of being an island away from where the fighting is?
2. Agreed.
3. Again, I've not commented on the extent to which the UK is morally, legally or geographically obligated to take in refugees.
And for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a supporter of the Tories or their immigration policies.
But in the interests of balance, reading that those arriving in the UK in small boats are fleeing a warzone narks me as it's not true, notwithstanding the propensity of the Frenchies to burn their town halls, torch their (or most likely other folks') eScooters and otherwise create photo-worthy fires.
The issue is the Uk shut all the legal routes in.
Small boats is a particular issue as all other illegal routes in (eg via trucks) have apparently been successfully shut down in addition to there being no legal routes in. Or should we say “approved” routes in. Under international law, arriving unapproved in a country isn’t illegal. Failing to report to the authorise when you arrive is illegal though.
All utterly irrelevant to my original point about France’s implied status as a war zone.
The country that a refugee was in immediately before the UK is irrelevant and is almost certainly not the country they are fleeing from.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You can arrive illegally, but it is not a factor that can be considered in an asylum application.rjsterry said:
One more time: there's no such thing as arriving illegally. Yes, we have Syrian refugee doctors working in the NHS.surrey_commuter said:
I have not seen confirmation of ddraver’s assertion that we let qualified medics who arrive illegally practise medicine in the UK so sending them to Rwanda as a bulk package with some undesirables would be win win.Jezyboy said:
Given the shortage of Doctors and Nurses this sounds like an incredibly stupid idea. So possibly it can become a core policy for the Tories.surrey_commuter said:
Financially there must be a sweet spot where it is cheaper for us to pay a country to take them. Like the house clearance guys we should be able to make a profit on the doctors and nurses we deport.Pross said:We could come up with an arrangement to ship our non-economically active people to Rwanda (or Spain if that's more palatable).
0 -
The EU managed to justify returning refugees both in its agreement with Turkey and the Dublin Regulation. The UK case law is stronger on this point and considers "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” to allow stopovers.rjsterry said:
Now I know you are deliberately pretending to misunderstand.wallace_and_gromit said:
80% sounds about right.rick_chasey said:
Isn’t the stat something like 80% of those arriving on small boats are legit?wallace_and_gromit said:
1. I've not even mentioned the subject of how many refugees the UK should take.rick_chasey said:1. Your argument is basically “because Britain happens to be bad island Britain shouldn’t take any” which, if you see it that way, is a bit childish.
2. UK has as much obligation as any signatory to look after refugees.
3. You think they should take on none just by virtue of being an island away from where the fighting is?
2. Agreed.
3. Again, I've not commented on the extent to which the UK is morally, legally or geographically obligated to take in refugees.
And for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a supporter of the Tories or their immigration policies.
But in the interests of balance, reading that those arriving in the UK in small boats are fleeing a warzone narks me as it's not true, notwithstanding the propensity of the Frenchies to burn their town halls, torch their (or most likely other folks') eScooters and otherwise create photo-worthy fires.
The issue is the Uk shut all the legal routes in.
Small boats is a particular issue as all other illegal routes in (eg via trucks) have apparently been successfully shut down in addition to there being no legal routes in. Or should we say “approved” routes in. Under international law, arriving unapproved in a country isn’t illegal. Failing to report to the authorise when you arrive is illegal though.
All utterly irrelevant to my original point about France’s implied status as a war zone.
The country that a refugee was in immediately before the UK is irrelevant and is almost certainly not the country they are fleeing from.
1 -
Just goes to show that it's not just evil Tories who like to mitigate their tax burden.briantrumpet said:kingstongraham said:Was it in here people were obsessing over Lineker? He has won his case.
Like I think I said, it is not as simple as wanting to be treated as a contractor. He won because he had a direct contract with the bbc and was not contracted through an intermediary company. A different tax dodge and seemingly quite effective.
I'm sure that Stevo will be pleased that someone won a big case against HMRC."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
