People Smugglers Showing Drunk And Scantily Clad British Girls In Social Media

[Delayed]

6 minutes ago, redruby said:

I don’t consider by views ‘extreme’ at all.  My issue is that *unlimited* immigration is unsustainable and that *some* are playing the system with asylum seeking.  Please note the little *’s are to emphasise I’m not saying ‘all’.  These are not concerns I feel that should be dismissed by quoting current laws on asylum seeking and a refusal to accept that they do need addressing.  

I've never refused that concerns don't need addressing.

 

They just can't be addressed in the way that people want. So the UK will continue to house people by any means necessary, they will be supported and they will be allowed into the UK until it's decided they can or can't stay. If they can stay, they can then support themselves. If they can't. They leave or be deported.

 

Ultimately you can't pick and choose who gets support and who doesn't. The system doesn't work like that. So it has to be managed. Unfortunately, support isn't determined based on nationality.

 

Just like Doctors don't ask for immigration status before deciding to offer medical care. 

Quote

.

 

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Delayed

[Guest]

1 hour ago, fools said:

you should be well aware by now, the discussion is about economic migrants taking the mick, not genuine refugees from war torn environments

Before you can do anything,  you need to sort out the economic migrants from the genuine ones.   That is not happening fast enough and more are arriving  than are being processed. 

When they have been processed,  what do you propose happens to those who have been refused asylum ?

You keep making the noises but not coming up with any answers.

47 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

27 pages now and from the looks of it almost all of it is pointless bickering. 

 

Which is likely to get much worse now you've joined in

[Mr Bloke]

47 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

27 pages now and from the looks of it almost all of it is pointless bickering. 

 

Hmmm...

But I thought that was the whole point of these threads?

 

Just think of the clicks...

[fools]

1 minute ago, Organgrinder said:

You keep making the noises but not coming up with any answers.

As I've told you before, the solution is in France, the backlog stuff is a diversion of no relevance - which is why the Labour party bleat on about it. Consecutive home secretaries and their minions have failed to deal with it, perhaps you should apply for the role, as you think a chat with the French is going to solve everything - cloud cuckoo land, check the figures when the Dublin agreement was in place.

 

ps, if you saw someone breaking in next door, do you just shrug your shoulders because you haven't signed a contract to help

[Guest]

1 minute ago, fools said:

As I've told you before, the solution is in France, the backlog stuff is a diversion of no relevance - which is why the Labour party bleat on about it. Consecutive home secretaries and their minions have failed to deal with it, perhaps you should apply for the role, as you think a chat with the French is going to solve everything - cloud cuckoo land, check the figures when the Dublin agreement was in place.

 

ps, if you saw someone breaking in next door, do you just shrug your shoulders because you haven't signed a contract to help

I agree that the solution is in France, together with the rest of Europe and I have previously pointed this out to you.

I don't care what Labour bleat on about because they seem to have no answers too. 

I also agree that consecutive  home secretaries and their minions have failed to deal wit it.  This is another fact that I have previously told you.

Now is when you start getting stupid again with remarks about me applying for the role.     You always manage to make yourself look even more foolish somewhere in each post.

I have NEVER said that I think a chat with the French is going to solve everything.   Are you bright enough to understand that nobody can deal with just France   -   they have to deal with the whole of Europe.

This would have to be very much more than "a little chat"  It would have to be a full blown International negotiation where Britain would have to swallow pride to achieve similar to the Dublin Agreement.

The one who lives in cloud cuckoo land is the one who thinks we can order every country in the world  to do what we wish.     

Ridicule if you wish but,   everything works on Agreements,  Contracts,  Treaties etc.    It's just that you're not grown up enough to realise that.

 

[redruby]

9 hours ago, Delayed said:

I've never refused that concerns don't need addressing.

 

They just can't be addressed in the way that people want. So the UK will continue to house people by any means necessary, they will be supported and they will be allowed into the UK until it's decided they can or can't stay. If they can stay, they can then support themselves. If they can't. They leave or be deported.

 

Ultimately you can't pick and choose who gets support and who doesn't. The system doesn't work like that. So it has to be managed. Unfortunately, support isn't determined based on nationality.

 

Just like Doctors don't ask for immigration status before deciding to offer medical care. 

 

But reasonable concerns should be allowed to discussed sensibly without someone like you constantly trying to close them down.  Which you repeatedly do by parroting laws on asylum and immigration.  Something may be allowed by law at present but laws do change over time.  The current situation with is unsustainable.  You are living in fairytale land of unicorns and rainbows if you really think we can continue with the current situation with no limit on numbers and no end.  Good bye.

Edited August 28, 2023 by redruby

[Delayed]

48 minutes ago, redruby said:

But reasonable concerns should be allowed to discussed sensibly without someone like you constantly trying to close them down.

 

I'm not shutting anything down. Everyone has contributed to this thread. I just add context. 

48 minutes ago, redruby said:

 

 

 Which you repeatedly do by parroting laws on asylum and immigration.

Who'd have thought that a discussion about immigration and asylum would also involve the law around Asylum and immigration?

 

Well that's too bad. I'm going to keep stating that is lawful and what isn't. 

48 minutes ago, redruby said:

 Something may be allowed by law at present but laws do change over time.

 

Yes they do. But what people seem to ignore is Domestic and International law. 

48 minutes ago, redruby said:

 The current situation with is unsustainable.  You are living in fairytale land of unicorns and rainbows if you really think we can continue with the current situation with no limit on numbers and no end.  Good bye.

I've never said it is sustainable. My argument has always been that the solution is not stopping boats.

 

Can you all please read and understand posts before replying? I'm getting bored of repeating myself.

 

Organgrinder understands so I'm not sure why others are incapable 

[Guest]

I hope no one objects if I try to bring a bit of clarity to the debate.  Everyone has strong views but not necessarily identical views even when arguing on the same side..

For many reasons,  migration has become a constant and is predicted to increase as climate change brings new effects to play,  such as famine, flooding etc.   So it is not going away.

One of the problems,  whatever one's views is that laws often decide what we can or cannot do.  These laws are sometimes our own but sometimes International, which we can't change.

I don't pretend to be an expert on immigration but as I understand it,  we plainly cannot stop the boats so the migrants will keep coming.  I agree with redruby that the situation seems unsustainable.

Added to the problem of being unable to stop the boats,  is the fact that,  we cannot send people back if other countries refuse to take them.

When we were in Europe, we could send them back under European Law ( the Dublin Agreement ),  In the Brexit negotiations,  Johnson refused to renegotiate that agreement so we cannot now,  send them back.

People will say that we didn't send them back before but that wasn't because we couldn't   -   it was because it suited our government to have immigrants who represented cheap labour and kept our wages down.

Since the public have realised the effects of mass immigration,  the mood has changed and the government were quick to note that this could be an election winner,  thus declaring themselves as against immigration.

Unfortunately,  they have realised that they have thrown away the Dublin agreement by which they could have sent economic / criminal migrants back.

We can change our own laws but it has to be done in context with International laws which we are signed up to and often stop us acting on our own.

Many,  like myself,  are in favour of accepting genuine asylum seekers but refusing economic migrants and criminals.  Not because we love immigration but because we have to play our part in the world.

A further problem is that the government are processing claimants much slower than they are arriving which means the numbers are still growing and will continue to do so.  175 thousand at this time.

Our poster "Delayed"  seems to be involved in immigration work and so will be more knowledgeable than me but please remember that the decisions are not made by him.  He's just a cog in the wheel.

The job of answering questions,  should really fall to the departments in charge such as the Home Office and it isn't "Delayed"  or myself who are inviting people to come.

Sorry for the length of this post but we are all going around in circles,  asking the same questions,  and repeating the same answers.      It's the governments job to sort it and not ours.

 

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Organgrinder

[Mr Bloke]

9 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

I hope no one objects if I try to bring a bit of clarity to the debate.  Everyone has strong views but not necessarily identical views even when arguing on the same side..

For many reasons,  migration has become a constant and is predicted to increase as climate change brings new effects to play,  such as famine, flooding etc.   So it is not going away.

One of the problems,  whatever one's views is that laws often decide what we can or cannot do.  These laws are sometimes our own but sometimes International, which we can't change.

I don't pretend to be an expert on immigration but as I understand it,  we plainly cannot stop the boats so the migrants will keep coming.  I agree with redruby that the situation seems unsustainable.

Added to the problem of being unable to stop the boats,  is the fact that,  we cannot send people back if other countries refuse to take them.

When we were in Europe, we could send them back under European Law ( the Dublin Agreement ),  In the Brexit negotiations,  Johnson refused to renegotiate that agreement so we cannot now,  send them back.

People will say that we didn't send them back before but that wasn't because we couldn't   -   it was because it suited our government to have immigrants who represented cheap labour and kept our wages down.

Since the public have realised the effects of mass immigration,  the mood has changed and the government were quick to note that this could be an election winner,  thus declaring themselves as against immigration.

Unfortunately,  they have realised that they have thrown away the Dublin agreement by which they could have sent economic / criminal migrants back.

We can change our own laws but it has to be done in context with International laws which we are signed up to and often stop us acting on our own.

Many,  like myself,  are in favour of accepting genuine asylum seekers but refusing economic migrants and criminals.  Not because we love immigration but because we have to play our part in the world.

A further problem is that the government are processing claimants much slower than they are arriving which means the numbers are still growing and will continue to do so.  175 thousand at this time.

Our poster "Delayed"  seems to be involved in immigration work and so will be more knowledgeable than me but please remember that the decisions are not made by him.  He's just a cog in the wheel.

The job of answering questions,  should really fall to the departments in charge such as the Home Office and it isn't "Delayed"  or myself who are inviting people to come.

Sorry for the length of this post but we are all going around in circles,  asking the same questions,  and repeating the same answers.      It's the governments job to sort it and not ours.

 

 

Hmmm...

I think your "return" key may be broken, Mr Grinder!

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Mr Bloke said:

Hmmm...

I think your "return" key may be broken, Mr Grinder!

 

Thank you for your most helpful reply,  and for bringing my post to greater prominence.  best wishes