| Another 700+ today 19:03 - Apr 15 with 27206 views | bluejacko |
Whatever your view on this crisis it is NOT sustainable!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddezjy97vro
So much for the smash the gangs approach,Rwanda was not by any means perfect but it had migrants here in NI going down south to get away from it in such numbers that the Irish police actually started doing checks at the border! |  | | |  |
| Another 700+ today on 19:26 - Apr 15 with 8154 views | gtsb1966 |
We need to use push back tactics like the Australians , Greece ,Spain etc do. Enough is enough. |  | | |
| Another 700+ today on 19:33 - Apr 15 with 8088 views | noggin |
| Another 700+ today on 19:26 - Apr 15 by gtsb1966 |
We need to use push back tactics like the Australians , Greece ,Spain etc do. Enough is enough. |
Yeah, these people should use the legal routes. Oh... |  |
| |
| Another 700+ today on 19:36 - Apr 15 with 8060 views | bluelagos |
| Another 700+ today on 19:26 - Apr 15 by gtsb1966 |
We need to use push back tactics like the Australians , Greece ,Spain etc do. Enough is enough. |
As far as I know the Aussies policy was to detain and process those arriving by sea - in Papua New Guinea.
And how do you push back a boat that turns up on the shores at Dover? These are rubber dingies - not sure what you are suggesting is remotely possible in the read world. |  |
| |
| Another 700+ today on 19:38 - Apr 15 with 8027 views | bluejacko |
| Another 700+ today on 19:33 - Apr 15 by noggin |
Yeah, these people should use the legal routes. Oh... |
Well funny enough a lot of migrants actually do so there are legal routes aren’t there? | | | |
| Another 700+ today on 19:42 - Apr 15 with 8001 views | bluelagos |
| Another 700+ today on 19:38 - Apr 15 by bluejacko |
Well funny enough a lot of migrants actually do so there are legal routes aren’t there? |
There are legal routes for Ukrainians, Hong Kong nationals and some Afghannis.
None that I know of if you are fleeing Syria, Yemen, East Africa or many other areas of the world. | |
| |
| Another 700+ today on 19:45 - Apr 15 with 7972 views | Tonytown |
| Another 700+ today on 19:42 - Apr 15 by bluelagos |
There are legal routes for Ukrainians, Hong Kong nationals and some Afghannis.
None that I know of if you are fleeing Syria, Yemen, East Africa or many other areas of the world. |
Stop using facts.
Racists don’t like them | | | |
| Another 700+ today on 19:48 - Apr 15 with 7951 views | gtsb1966 |
| Another 700+ today on 19:36 - Apr 15 by bluelagos |
As far as I know the Aussies policy was to detain and process those arriving by sea - in Papua New Guinea.
And how do you push back a boat that turns up on the shores at Dover? These are rubber dingies - not sure what you are suggesting is remotely possible in the read world. |
They shouldn't be allowed to get near our shores. We should have far more patrols out at sea. | | | |
| Another 700+ today on 19:52 - Apr 15 with 7904 views | bluelagos |
| Another 700+ today on 19:48 - Apr 15 by gtsb1966 |
They shouldn't be allowed to get near our shores. We should have far more patrols out at sea. |
So what boats would you use to stop what is basically a rubber dingie dangerously over loaded with migrants including women and children?
And where are you going to take them? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Another 700+ today on 19:54 - Apr 15 with 7892 views | Whos_blue |
| Another 700+ today on 19:48 - Apr 15 by gtsb1966 |
They shouldn't be allowed to get near our shores. We should have far more patrols out at sea. |
One thing I've never quite understood about this premise.
If a patrol boat happens upon an overcrowded dingy and the seas are particularly treacherous, what happens then? Pick them up and take them to safety or block them and send them back risking capsize and inevitable loss of life?
Edit: Hadn't seen BLs post when I wrote this. [Post edited 15 Apr 20:02]
|  |
| Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness. |
| |
| Another 700+ today on 20:06 - Apr 15 with 7764 views | The_Major |
It is a demographic necessity to have immigration.
Look at a UK birth rate graph. See how high it was in the late fifties/early sixties. They're the folk coming up to retirement.
See how much lower it was in the late 2000s. They're the teenagers about to reach working age.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/liv
That's a big old gap. And even if you had full employment, you couldn't make that up.
And so, we're an aging population. That's one of the reasons why I, and others, have got to wait longer for our state pensions. There's less people paying into the system. When I started work, it was 65. It's now 67,and it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up being 70. For my 11 year old niece, she'll probably have to be 83 at this rate.
Plus, idiots like Farage then say the best way to counter this is for British people to have more babies. Well, unless something has changed in biology that I haven't noticed, even if people said "Righto Nige, we'll get right on it!", these babies won't be of working age until 2044.
Provide more legal and safe routes, vet thoroughly, keep to limits. |  | | |
| Another 700+ today on 20:10 - Apr 15 with 7716 views | portmanking |
| Another 700+ today on 19:54 - Apr 15 by Whos_blue |
One thing I've never quite understood about this premise.
If a patrol boat happens upon an overcrowded dingy and the seas are particularly treacherous, what happens then? Pick them up and take them to safety or block them and send them back risking capsize and inevitable loss of life?
Edit: Hadn't seen BLs post when I wrote this. [Post edited 15 Apr 20:02]
|
You pick them up and take them back to the shores of France in a dignified fashion.
What gets my goat the most is that these people have come through MULTIPLE safe countries en-route to the UK. They've had multiple opportunities to seek asylum in safe nations, especially France, but choose to come across to the UK. I wonder why?
If these men of fighting age are *genuinely* fleeing poverty and war-torn nations, why wouldn't they settle for the first safe nation they land in? [Post edited 15 Apr 20:12]
| | | |
| Another 700+ today on 20:12 - Apr 15 with 7664 views | StokieBlue |
| Another 700+ today on 19:48 - Apr 15 by gtsb1966 |
They shouldn't be allowed to get near our shores. We should have far more patrols out at sea. |
It's interesting that you criticise Trump fairly frequently but then essentially want to replicate some of his policies.
"Build a wall", "don't let them near our shores" - Not really much difference there.
SB |  | | |
| Another 700+ today on 20:12 - Apr 15 with 7668 views | bluelagos |
| Another 700+ today on 20:06 - Apr 15 by The_Major |
It is a demographic necessity to have immigration.
Look at a UK birth rate graph. See how high it was in the late fifties/early sixties. They're the folk coming up to retirement.
See how much lower it was in the late 2000s. They're the teenagers about to reach working age.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/liv
That's a big old gap. And even if you had full employment, you couldn't make that up.
And so, we're an aging population. That's one of the reasons why I, and others, have got to wait longer for our state pensions. There's less people paying into the system. When I started work, it was 65. It's now 67,and it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up being 70. For my 11 year old niece, she'll probably have to be 83 at this rate.
Plus, idiots like Farage then say the best way to counter this is for British people to have more babies. Well, unless something has changed in biology that I haven't noticed, even if people said "Righto Nige, we'll get right on it!", these babies won't be of working age until 2044.
Provide more legal and safe routes, vet thoroughly, keep to limits. |
Indeed.
Yet our politicians of all persuasions except maybe the SNP are afraid of making that argument.
We literally need migrants now and in the future. And I honestly believe (because the birth rates are dropping all over Europe) that in maybe 20 years time we will be fighting to attract them.
The demonising of migrants is a particularly unpleasant habit of many. | |
| |
| Another 700+ today on 20:13 - Apr 15 with 7659 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Another 700+ today on 20:10 - Apr 15 by portmanking |
You pick them up and take them back to the shores of France in a dignified fashion.
What gets my goat the most is that these people have come through MULTIPLE safe countries en-route to the UK. They've had multiple opportunities to seek asylum in safe nations, especially France, but choose to come across to the UK. I wonder why?
If these men of fighting age are *genuinely* fleeing poverty and war-torn nations, why wouldn't they settle for the first safe nation they land in? [Post edited 15 Apr 20:12]
|
Perhaps they speak the most commonly spoken and taught language in the world? | | | |
| Another 700+ today on 20:14 - Apr 15 with 7646 views | bluelagos |
| Another 700+ today on 20:10 - Apr 15 by portmanking |
You pick them up and take them back to the shores of France in a dignified fashion.
What gets my goat the most is that these people have come through MULTIPLE safe countries en-route to the UK. They've had multiple opportunities to seek asylum in safe nations, especially France, but choose to come across to the UK. I wonder why?
If these men of fighting age are *genuinely* fleeing poverty and war-torn nations, why wouldn't they settle for the first safe nation they land in? [Post edited 15 Apr 20:12]
|
For that you would need French agreement - which we don't currently have. | |
| |
| Another 700+ today on 20:15 - Apr 15 with 7622 views | StokieBlue |
You should direct your anger towards the Tories and Brexit, they caused a lot of this mess.
Anyone advocating the Rwanda policy needs to take a long look at themselves.
Given your posting history I doubt you voted for Labour so you can't really call them out on their manifesto.
SB | | | |
| Another 700+ today on 20:15 - Apr 15 with 7621 views | Plums |
| Another 700+ today on 20:10 - Apr 15 by portmanking |
You pick them up and take them back to the shores of France in a dignified fashion.
What gets my goat the most is that these people have come through MULTIPLE safe countries en-route to the UK. They've had multiple opportunities to seek asylum in safe nations, especially France, but choose to come across to the UK. I wonder why?
If these men of fighting age are *genuinely* fleeing poverty and war-torn nations, why wouldn't they settle for the first safe nation they land in? [Post edited 15 Apr 20:12]
|
I think there are a range of reasons, some of which may be below:
* They have family here
* Hundreds of years of British Empire advertising how great it is
* The warm welcome they will receive. That Farage chap seems to spend a long time on the shore looking out for them and raising the alarm so they can be rescued. He's all heart.
* English is their second language |  |
| |
| Another 700+ today on 20:16 - Apr 15 with 7611 views | J2BLUE |
| Another 700+ today on 20:10 - Apr 15 by portmanking |
You pick them up and take them back to the shores of France in a dignified fashion.
What gets my goat the most is that these people have come through MULTIPLE safe countries en-route to the UK. They've had multiple opportunities to seek asylum in safe nations, especially France, but choose to come across to the UK. I wonder why?
If these men of fighting age are *genuinely* fleeing poverty and war-torn nations, why wouldn't they settle for the first safe nation they land in? [Post edited 15 Apr 20:12]
|
Can you imagine if it was the other way around and some country said "we're ok, we're an island, good luck though lol".
There would be outrage. |  |
| |
| Another 700+ today on 20:18 - Apr 15 with 7583 views | StokieBlue |
| Another 700+ today on 20:10 - Apr 15 by portmanking |
You pick them up and take them back to the shores of France in a dignified fashion.
What gets my goat the most is that these people have come through MULTIPLE safe countries en-route to the UK. They've had multiple opportunities to seek asylum in safe nations, especially France, but choose to come across to the UK. I wonder why?
If these men of fighting age are *genuinely* fleeing poverty and war-torn nations, why wouldn't they settle for the first safe nation they land in? [Post edited 15 Apr 20:12]
|
It's a myth that people are legally obliged to settle in the first country they land in, one perpetuated by politicians whom it serves.
There could be lots of reasons not to settle in the first safe nation, language and relatives being the most obvious.
You're essentially saying that geography trumps human rights, not exactly fair on safe countries that border many other countries but probably quite appealing for an island nation....
SB | | | |
| Another 700+ today on 20:19 - Apr 15 with 7592 views | WestStanderLaLaLa |
| Another 700+ today on 20:10 - Apr 15 by portmanking |
You pick them up and take them back to the shores of France in a dignified fashion.
What gets my goat the most is that these people have come through MULTIPLE safe countries en-route to the UK. They've had multiple opportunities to seek asylum in safe nations, especially France, but choose to come across to the UK. I wonder why?
If these men of fighting age are *genuinely* fleeing poverty and war-torn nations, why wouldn't they settle for the first safe nation they land in? [Post edited 15 Apr 20:12]
|
The vast majority do stop in the first safe nation. And their intention is return home when possible.
If you had to leave the UK and had distant relatives in Italy and could speak Italian, would you stop in France?
The whole fighting age thing bemuses me. |  |
| |
| Another 700+ today on 20:20 - Apr 15 with 7577 views | portmanking |
| Another 700+ today on 20:14 - Apr 15 by bluelagos |
For that you would need French agreement - which we don't currently have. |
That's the ridiculous nature of it all. Why would they want an agreement? They're happy to let them go on their merry way. If the French actually cared, they wouldn't let them risk their lives doing so. | | | |
| Another 700+ today on 20:21 - Apr 15 with 7545 views | Lord_Lucan |
| Another 700+ today on 20:06 - Apr 15 by The_Major |
It is a demographic necessity to have immigration.
Look at a UK birth rate graph. See how high it was in the late fifties/early sixties. They're the folk coming up to retirement.
See how much lower it was in the late 2000s. They're the teenagers about to reach working age.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/liv
That's a big old gap. And even if you had full employment, you couldn't make that up.
And so, we're an aging population. That's one of the reasons why I, and others, have got to wait longer for our state pensions. There's less people paying into the system. When I started work, it was 65. It's now 67,and it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up being 70. For my 11 year old niece, she'll probably have to be 83 at this rate.
Plus, idiots like Farage then say the best way to counter this is for British people to have more babies. Well, unless something has changed in biology that I haven't noticed, even if people said "Righto Nige, we'll get right on it!", these babies won't be of working age until 2044.
Provide more legal and safe routes, vet thoroughly, keep to limits. |
I welcome immigration but you can have as many legal and safe routes as you like, but that wont stop unchecked people on unchecked boats.
My daughter’s firm successfully gets migrant workers from the Philippines and some from Africa - so it seems that part isn’t too difficult. |  |
| |
| Another 700+ today on 20:23 - Apr 15 with 7499 views | portmanking |
| Another 700+ today on 20:18 - Apr 15 by StokieBlue |
It's a myth that people are legally obliged to settle in the first country they land in, one perpetuated by politicians whom it serves.
There could be lots of reasons not to settle in the first safe nation, language and relatives being the most obvious.
You're essentially saying that geography trumps human rights, not exactly fair on safe countries that border many other countries but probably quite appealing for an island nation....
SB |
No, I'm not saying geography trumps human rights. But if an immigrant from say, North Africa, reaches the UK they've likely travelled through the whole of Europe to get there.
Most European nations speak English and I *highly* doubt most of these immigrants crossing the Channel have families in the UK waiting for them. They'd be living with them instead of being put up in hotels, no? | | | |
| Another 700+ today on 20:25 - Apr 15 with 7438 views | Plums |
| Another 700+ today on 20:20 - Apr 15 by portmanking |
That's the ridiculous nature of it all. Why would they want an agreement? They're happy to let them go on their merry way. If the French actually cared, they wouldn't let them risk their lives doing so. |
They offered to build a processing centre in France but the previous UK Tory government was so concerned by the boats issue they turned the offer down. | |
| |
| Another 700+ today on 20:27 - Apr 15 with 7410 views | Lord_Lucan |
| Another 700+ today on 20:23 - Apr 15 by portmanking |
No, I'm not saying geography trumps human rights. But if an immigrant from say, North Africa, reaches the UK they've likely travelled through the whole of Europe to get there.
Most European nations speak English and I *highly* doubt most of these immigrants crossing the Channel have families in the UK waiting for them. They'd be living with them instead of being put up in hotels, no? |
I don’t think they technically have the freedom to leave the hotel and live where they want.
That’s probably why they just feck off and work for £10 a day in a takeaway. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
