LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?Stevo_666 said:
Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?tailwindhome said:Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.
Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Scarce resources my arse. It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?Stevo_666 said:
Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?tailwindhome said:Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.
Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
In other news, some people pay for this codswallop.
0 -
0
-
In danger of breaking international law there. This is where the problem begins.rick_chasey said:
Not really.pblakeney said:
You are edging closer to the problem.rick_chasey said:
Sure. UK luckily is a long way from any likely war zone so they’re only gonna get the censored ends.shirley_basso said:But they are asylum seekers not economic migrants. It's not the same.
If they’re legit asylum seekers, let em in.
If you can’t prove you’re legit, send em back where they came from; as they will literally not be in danger.
Also your transition from city slicker liberal to commuter belt tory is nearing completion. 😉The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Eh? That’s the rule the world over isn’t it?pblakeney said:
In danger of breaking international law there. This is where the problem begins.rick_chasey said:
Not really.pblakeney said:
You are edging closer to the problem.rick_chasey said:
Sure. UK luckily is a long way from any likely war zone so they’re only gonna get the censored ends.shirley_basso said:But they are asylum seekers not economic migrants. It's not the same.
If they’re legit asylum seekers, let em in.
If you can’t prove you’re legit, send em back where they came from; as they will literally not be in danger.
Also your transition from city slicker liberal to commuter belt tory is nearing completion. 😉
You can’t just pretend to claim asylum. You need a good reason to.You can obtain a residence permit if you meet one of the following requirements: You have well-founded reasons to fear of persecution in your country of origin because of your race, religion, nationality or political opinion, or because you belong to a certain social group
What’s wrong with that?
In the meantime I’d be pretty relaxed about immigration in general and just let the market decide.
Got a job here? Come. Lost the job within 5 years? You have 6 months to find another.
As long as you pass English language exams…!0 -
No can dorick_chasey said:
Not really.pblakeney said:
You are edging closer to the problem.rick_chasey said:
Sure. UK luckily is a long way from any likely war zone so they’re only gonna get the censored ends.shirley_basso said:But they are asylum seekers not economic migrants. It's not the same.
If they’re legit asylum seekers, let em in.
If you can’t prove you’re legit, send em back where they came from; as they will literally not be in danger.
Separating the legitimate asylum seekers from the economic migrants will inevitably lead to some being granted asylum.
The policy objective is to not grant asylum. So we store 'em on barges instead.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It is my policy objective however. 🤓
You make allowances for families etc but basically anyone who is good enough to get a job here should be allowed to come.
Anyone with a legit case for asylum should be allowed in too.
*as long as you learn to speak and read the lingo asap*0 -
It's a shame we can't deport those amongst the existing population that fail a basic "functional usefulness" test.rick_chasey said:*as long as you learn to speak and read the lingo asap*
0 -
I may have mis-remembered this, but I recall that there is a fairly high proportion of cases that are being processed in the current regime where asylum is ultimately granted. North of 60% rings a bell. Which makes sense, I guess, as whilst such folk may have most recently fled France, they did initially flee a war zone etc. and that is what the asylum application is based on.tailwindhome said:
No can dorick_chasey said:
Not really.pblakeney said:
You are edging closer to the problem.rick_chasey said:
Sure. UK luckily is a long way from any likely war zone so they’re only gonna get the censored ends.shirley_basso said:But they are asylum seekers not economic migrants. It's not the same.
If they’re legit asylum seekers, let em in.
If you can’t prove you’re legit, send em back where they came from; as they will literally not be in danger.
Separating the legitimate asylum seekers from the economic migrants will inevitably lead to some being granted asylum.
The policy objective is to not grant asylum. So we store 'em on barges instead.
And I've not heard any Faragian / Bravermanian tooth-gnashing at any difficulties being experienced in respect of deporting failed asylum seekers. Though that is doubtless being kept in reserve if the small boats issue is miraculously resolved without resorting to leaving the ECHR.0 -
Ha. It’s quite rare people can’t read or write.wallace_and_gromit said:
It's a shame we can't deport those amongst the existing population that fail a basic "functional usefulness" test.rick_chasey said:*as long as you learn to speak and read the lingo asap*
0 -
I suspect that if you still too far into the detail of asylum applications it all becomes a bit too human.wallace_and_gromit said:
I may have mis-remembered this, but I recall that there is a fairly high proportion of cases that are being processed in the current regime where asylum is ultimately granted. North of 60% rings a bell. Which makes sense, I guess, as whilst such folk may have most recently fled France, they did initially flee a war zone etc. and that is what the asylum application is based on.tailwindhome said:
No can dorick_chasey said:
Not really.pblakeney said:
You are edging closer to the problem.rick_chasey said:
Sure. UK luckily is a long way from any likely war zone so they’re only gonna get the censored ends.shirley_basso said:But they are asylum seekers not economic migrants. It's not the same.
If they’re legit asylum seekers, let em in.
If you can’t prove you’re legit, send em back where they came from; as they will literally not be in danger.
Separating the legitimate asylum seekers from the economic migrants will inevitably lead to some being granted asylum.
The policy objective is to not grant asylum. So we store 'em on barges instead.
And I've not heard any Faragian / Bravermanian tooth-gnashing at any difficulties being experienced in respect of deporting failed asylum seekers. Though that is doubtless being kept in reserve if the small boats issue is miraculously resolved without resorting to leaving the ECHR.
Obviously the idea of asylum seekers being kept off the barge by lefty lawyers because they are scared of water is "hilarious" but I imagine the detailed story behind it is slightly less funny.0 -
I guess that depends on how literacy is defined. From what I've read, rates of "functional illiteracy" are scarily high in the UK. (Circa 20%.)rick_chasey said:
Ha. It’s quite rare people can’t read or write.wallace_and_gromit said:
It's a shame we can't deport those amongst the existing population that fail a basic "functional usefulness" test.rick_chasey said:*as long as you learn to speak and read the lingo asap*
0 -
The problem is that the time taken to decide between application and rejection is currently measured in years. That is why we have hotels fully booked and an empty barge.rick_chasey said:
Eh? That’s the rule the world over isn’t it?pblakeney said:
In danger of breaking international law there. This is where the problem begins.rick_chasey said:
Not really.pblakeney said:
You are edging closer to the problem.rick_chasey said:
Sure. UK luckily is a long way from any likely war zone so they’re only gonna get the censored ends.shirley_basso said:But they are asylum seekers not economic migrants. It's not the same.
If they’re legit asylum seekers, let em in.
If you can’t prove you’re legit, send em back where they came from; as they will literally not be in danger.
Also your transition from city slicker liberal to commuter belt tory is nearing completion. 😉
You can’t just pretend to claim asylum. You need a good reason to.You can obtain a residence permit if you meet one of the following requirements: You have well-founded reasons to fear of persecution in your country of origin because of your race, religion, nationality or political opinion, or because you belong to a certain social group
What’s wrong with that?
In the meantime I’d be pretty relaxed about immigration in general and just let the market decide.
Got a job here? Come. Lost the job within 5 years? You have 6 months to find another.
As long as you pass English language exams…!The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?Stevo_666 said:
Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?tailwindhome said:Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.
Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Jenrick: "...if you process claims quickly... that just encourages more people to come".Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?Stevo_666 said:
Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?tailwindhome said:Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.
Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t.0 -
Good. Most are in agreement, the system is broken. Some would say deliberately so by the tories. Still not stopping anything. All talk, no action.rick_chasey said:Sure. I’ve said that multiple times on the forum.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Unbelievable. We need a government capable of devising rational policy.kingstongraham said:
Jenrick: "...if you process claims quickly... that just encourages more people to come".Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?Stevo_666 said:
Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?tailwindhome said:Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.
Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t.
This lot are zealots.0 -
From an outsider, I thought it would be helpful to point out that you two and TWH are all violently agreeing at the moment...pblakeney said:
Good. Most are in agreement, the system is broken. Some would say deliberately so by the tories. Still not stopping anything. All talk, no action.rick_chasey said:Sure. I’ve said that multiple times on the forum.
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Meh, being in charge is difficult.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?Stevo_666 said:
Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?tailwindhome said:Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.
Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t.
0 -
That was my point. We are in agreement.ddraver said:
From an outsider, I thought it would be helpful to point out that you two and TWH are all violently agreeing at the moment...pblakeney said:
Good. Most are in agreement, the system is broken. Some would say deliberately so by the tories. Still not stopping anything. All talk, no action.rick_chasey said:Sure. I’ve said that multiple times on the forum.
Just pointing Rick to the problem, the system.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?Stevo_666 said:
Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?tailwindhome said:Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.
Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers. If (as many think) we should not be taking more or at least severely limiting numbers, then that strategy makes sense. I think that you and some others on here are coming at it with a starting assumption that we should be taking in a lot more.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?Stevo_666 said:
Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?tailwindhome said:Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.
Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?Stevo_666 said:
Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?tailwindhome said:Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.
Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t.
0 -
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?Stevo_666 said:
Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?tailwindhome said:Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.
Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You need to stop judging society by looking at the people you meet. The average reading age for an adult in the UK is equivalent to that of a 9 year old.rick_chasey said:
Ha. It’s quite rare people can’t read or write.wallace_and_gromit said:
It's a shame we can't deport those amongst the existing population that fail a basic "functional usefulness" test.rick_chasey said:*as long as you learn to speak and read the lingo asap*
0 -
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?Stevo_666 said:
Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?tailwindhome said:Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.
Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Send Boomers to Rwanda. I can think of at least one person on here that would get behind that campaign.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?Stevo_666 said:
Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?tailwindhome said:Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.
Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.0 -
Pross said:
Send Boomers to Rwanda. I can think of at least one person on here that would get behind that campaign.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?Stevo_666 said:
Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?tailwindhome said:Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.
Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.
Now that Spain is more problematic for retired people who want more sun but don't want to integrate with the local population, maybe Rwanda could fit that gap nicely, if marketed creatively. Suella has sorted the transport and accommodation already....
0
