You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
There's the nauseous lefty moral superiority again. And I say that as a lefty.
The way the issue is phrased is problematic but the truth is that we do have a problem in that people seem to be easily provoked into outrage by people who exploit that outrage to their own ends. We also seem to have a situation that many people are easily persuaded to believe one version of the ‘facts’ which fuels their outrage or they get consumed by conspiracy theories and so are put outside the debate all-together.
This applies to climate change, immigration, monetary policy, etc. We all get miserable and angry and argue and fight each other and chaos is exploited.
If people don't realise how writing off all this stuff as racism from the stupid is undermining those who want a more rational or humanitarian approach, or don't want a populist in no. 10 .. we're stuffed.
Yes it can seem stupid and moronic. But all of us could do well to get out of the habit of letting it get to that stage.
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood"
Which I assume is why there's a government page specifically for it.
That webpage reports on small boat arrivals, which is not the same as uncontrolled immigration.
I try to avoid convincing idiots of anything tbh
That webpage reports on small boat arrivals, which is not the same as uncontrolled immigration.
Ok so maybe I described the page incorrectly - should have been "government page specifically mentioning" - but if you read the entire page it has sections on clandestine arrivals and uncontrolled landings (i.e. without interception), both of which which are a strange inclusion given it's a "Good job we don't have it".
What are you saying? That if a single person enters the UK without being accounted for then we have "uncontrolled immigration"? That term is normally taken to mean no controls on immigration, and we have a hell of a lot of controls on immigration.
After a few years of Reform's circus a lot of the people who support Reform will simply be poorer and angrier as well as emboldened by a few BS immigration policies.
And the conclusion they'll be fed afterwards was that they just didn't believe / want it hard enough. As we all know, brexit would have been a roaring success but for those interfering snowflake lefty traitors wanting to make it less brexity. Y DO U HAT BIRTAIN?!! 😜
She is in no way, shape, or form "dim".
I know plenty of people with degrees who I wouldn't trust to make an omelette.
That's the thing with demographics though, rash generalisations usually aren't helpful, even if they're not far off the mark. There will always be exceptions.
What are you saying? That if a single person enters the UK without being accounted for then we have "uncontrolled immigration"?
I'm not saying that in the slightest. It was a side point that "we have no uncontrolled immigration" is patently false. It's a statement of extreme naivety, and I'm pointing out that government webpages wouldn't be addressing uncontrolled immigration if it didn't exist.
That term is normally taken to mean no controls on immigration, and we have a hell of a lot of controls on immigration.
I was a caseworker in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate back in the early 2000s so I have a solid grasp of what controlled and uncontrolled means in context as a phenomenon not a government policy - irregular or unlawful arrival into the country without presenting to the appropriate immigration or asylum services.
For the record I'm certain that the numbers are statistically insignificant, just as boat crossings as a total of all immigration; neither of them are concern of mine.
My main point being that my mum complains about this "uncontrolled immigration" and ends up talking about small boat crossings like it's the same thing, and it can't just be written off as her being "dim" because she's anything but. It's more insidious than that, and if anyone thinks they're too smart to fall for whatever has lead her to conflate the two then I reckon they're very much mistaken.
That's the thing with demographics though, rash generalisations usually aren't helpful, even if they're not far off the mark.
Unsurprising statement given you're one of the generalisation specialists on this topic.
Immigrants are the scapegoats for the UK decline over the last 50+ years.
When the finger really needs pointing at the political system (FPTP) and the standard of politicians, especially those ending up in government cabinets.
[ deleted - no point making the same point repeatedly ]
Just realised - I think I only post in here from time to time just to remind myself why not to post in here.
Ask yourself a question? When was the last time someone whose opinion you disagreed with was persuaded to change their stance after you called them an idiot?
Almost the same question back at you.
we have a hell of a lot of controls on immigration.
If we didn't, we wouldn't have small boats.
Unsurprising statement given you're one of the generalisation specialists on this topic.
Meaning what exactly?
If you're implying that I think all the "send 'em back where they came from" brigade are thick then that's not the case, that would be a very silly stance to take. They simply have the lion's share. I have no doubts that you could find some highly intelligent racists if you looked hard enough.
Almost the same question back at you
I'm not calling anyone an idiot though. And I persuade people all the time at work, it's part of my job as a SME.
Meaning what exactly?
If you're implying that I think all the "send 'em back where they came from" brigade are thick then that's not the case.
Not all, but many. Not the "send 'em back" brigade, but people with reservations about immigration. Not thick, but racist. You've said as much a few times.
Look, if you distill all my posts on this thread down to a single point it's that we can talk about immigration until the cows come home, but this over-riding "I think they're wrong which means they're racist" mantra, with barely any effort to understand why these opinions exist - see e.g. "geniune concerns" earlier - does no favours to the appeal of the left. And you can not care about the appeal because you think letting everyone know you're morally right is most important of all, that's your prerogative, but that doesn't really help the cause. Quite the opposite I reckon. I'm sure there are a few right-leaning STWers dismissing this whole thread as bed-wetting yoghurt knitters high-fiving each other for being so woke. How likely are they to even consider engaging when anyone who questions the STW Lefty party line is scoffed at? And so it's just a few people going round in circles saying the same thing in different words interspersed with tosh like
unfortunately it's the weaponisation of people too dim to know better
as if that's a useful, well-considered contribution.
My main point being that my mum complains about this "uncontrolled immigration" and ends up talking about small boat crossings like it's the same thing, and it can't just be written off as her being "dim" because she's anything but. It's more insidious than that, and if anyone thinks they're too smart to fall for whatever has lead her to conflate the two then I reckon they're very much mistaken.
what was her take on the influx of Ukrainians a couple of years back.
in my experience there seems to quite an overlap between strong support for that and strong opposition to the boat crossings.
Funnily enough she housed a family from Kharkiv for a year and eventually got them set up in their own place, helped with schooling, job applications, etc. I suppose she thought they were some of the "good ones"... 😬
So it’s hard to see another conclusion there that the problem your mum perceives isn’t purely immigration. It’s non-white immigration?
To answer the original question: I think there's always been about 20% of hardline English insecure islander types - that's never going away. This has then been totally exacerbated by the current form of capitalism failing to deliver for the rest of the frustrated bunch that then get pulled into the argument and blame foreigners for successive government failures. The resentment then goes mainstream - which is where we are. Then there's the misplaced version of patriotism - flags etc rather than true patriotism (looking after the weak.)
I'd say start by fixing the stuff that makes a material difference and I bet some of the street anxiety will go away. (Banish centrism to the spreadsheet in the sky for failing to deal with just about everything related to material reality too.)
I agree it's very difficult and nothing is going to be totally fixed (such is society) but it sure would help if government's looked at the state of post-Thatcher Britain in less than stock-market casino terms.
And then you've got social media. Well at this point in my life I'd be more or less happy to see that go but it's probably part of our fabric now and at the same time more authoritarianism seems to breed even more resentment.
In short no easy answers but that's why we elect governments to do a job.
Very Much agree with all of ^^This^^...
The current issue is that both of the "big two" parties have now been baited into competing to attract that ~20%. And the 20%ers have a natural home with Reform now, they are unlikely to be coaxed back to the middle, they're not really worth chasing any more but the resources being poured into addressing the "concerns" of a loud minority come at the expense of everything else...
The "Anti-migration" position has become mainstream due to media (social, print and broadcast) elevating the the idea that we have a problem with rampant and uncontrolled migration, thus it has become the accepted narrative. At the same time the word 'Asylum' seems to have all but vanished from the discussion, noting that Nige is also going to push for the UK leaving the ECHR and back out of compliance with the Human Rights Act... To me that is abhorrent, but that is apparently a "mainstream" political position now in 2025...
Set against a background of various conflicts and disasters driving refugees and asylum seekers, "forced migration" is going to increase globally over the next decade or two (right?).
Yes "economic migration" is an issue, one for which we actually have management, rules and structures already in place (depending on how well they are operated) and if used sensibly migration is a net benefit for the nation. Forced Migration and asylum seeking is a related but different issue. But that nuance has just disappeared from the mainstream discussion. And the Far right have managed to drag everyone on to their territory, removing any of that basic detail from the debate, all that is talked about are "migrants" like they're one big homogeneous group...
Interestingly the migration numbers are worth googling, as far as I can tell (I'm bound to be put right) UK net migration stood at around ~800,000 for the first few years of this decade, but apparently 2024 saw this just about halve (Is that right? I don't feel like that got much air time Vs the narrative of the UK's coastline being overrun by Dinghys), Probably attributable to the combined effects of Covid and Brexit(?). Asylum applications sit around the 110,000 mark(?) (+/-10k?) and of course under the Tories a significant Backlog developed in Asylum processing. Typically the 'Grant' decision rate would be about 50-60% so there's potentially 50k deportations on the table just by fixing that process right(?) assuming that's the game people really want to be playing?
But that last number in the context of of the UK population and net migration makes a point, all of this bluster Refuk/UKIP's entire suite of "policys" Riots and a news media propaganda effort over just 50,000 a year (people fleeing war or persecution) That's just 1/8th of the annual net migration number, less than 0.001% of our current population. it absolutely is culture war BS and the push back needs to highlight why "migration" isn't the issue that the Far Right wants it to be...
The Far Right have already scored a major goal (in their terms) by deterring half of the prospective economic migrants (mostly people with needed skills and contributions to make) Remember when we ran out of Truckers a couple of years ago, Never mind Nursing and care professions? They've subsequently managed to refocus the attention on asylum seekers (but keep labelling them as other things) and are also succeeded in removing the humanitarian aspect from that debate. To the extent that the Government don't even bother to push back now, and just look for ways look as tough on "migrants" now themselves...
People in the UK are generally discontent because of the various effects of sustained austerity and living through the end days of broken capitalism. We're collectively poorer, our public and local government services are broken and the easiest and best publicised answer on offer is that foreigner's stole your cookie, except they are a very small proportion of the population, and the only people still getting richer seem to be the same ones telling us the problem is foreigners...
The best rule to apply is not to trust anyone offering simple solutions to complex problems, especially if the problems they're looking to solve aren't actually your biggest...
So it’s hard to see another conclusion there that the problem your mum perceives isn’t purely immigration. It’s non-white immigration?
If that's the answer you're trying to arrive at to labour a point then I guess you might struggle to entertain other possibilities, yes.
It might, however, be framing of the issue by the media she consumes as the people fleeing Putin's barbarism as majority women and children while the men stay behind to fight vs small boat arrivals being overwhelmingly young adult males who've left their wives and parents and children behind in whatever horror they're escaping from, and my mum feeling a connection with one of those mindsets and not the other.
Maybe she's just sexist.
Farage has just issued some nice big meaty chunks for the racists. Bin human rights and the UN Convention Against Torture. I find the latter especially disturbing - but I don't know what it actually entails. I guess it holds open the doors for deportation of illegal immigrants back to where their came even if it means they will end up being tortured. That's bad enough but would that open other doors too? Police brutality dealing with illegal immigrants for example.
would that open other doors too?
Yes - from the flag thread and one Reform politician's comments, probably opens doors to the sort of 'pop up jails' that the US have. Some might call them camps.
Vilify, dehumanise, remove from sight. Sounds extreme to suggest but it's happening in the USA now and is where the UK and Europe is headed if we're not careful. Putin can't wait.
It might, however, be framing of the issue by the media she consumes as the people fleeing Putin's barbarism as majority women and children while the men stay behind to fight vs small boat arrivals being overwhelmingly young adult males who've left their wives and parents and children behind in whatever horror they're escaping from, and my mum feeling a connection with one of those mindsets and not the other.
Hold on just a minute there, though...
You appear to be angling this towards the 'media she consumes' but yet you've also stated the case that she is worldy-wise enough not to simply be fed her news by one source and have a look around the subject.
Actually scrub that last comment. I can't be bothered.
You've said as much a few times.
You want to try reading what I've actually said rather than what you think I said.
(Replies will be short, I'm in an airport)
You appear to be angling this towards the 'media she consumes' but yet you've also stated the case that she is worldy-wise enough not to simply be fed her news by one source and have a look around the subject.
Have I though? Clever? Yes. Successful? Demonstrably so. Focused? Without a doubt. Dim? Absolutely not.
I never claimed she was infallible though, and certainly didn't "state a case" about her objective selection of media sources. I was hinting at the exact opposite.
Once again proof of my point - too busy trying to prove how morally right you might be to realise how wrong your approach is as a whole. Trying to pick holes in my argument because I dared question the groupthink, instead of thinking about what I've actually said: not everyone who questions immigration is a "dim" racist and to suggest otherwise is lazy ego-fluffing that puts off anyone trying to have a sensible dialogue.
You want to try reading what I've actually said rather than what you think I said.
*sigh*
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/postid/13275772/
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/postid/13275809/
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/postid/13275816/
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/postid/13276575/
There's 4 examples from the first couple of pages. Am I misinterpreting these statements from you? And I was wrong, your generalisations look like they extend to people being dim as well, not just racist.
Great way to win hearts and minds 👍🏼
Yes "economic migration" is an issue, one for which we actually have management, rules and structures already in place (depending on how well they are operated) and if used sensibly migration is a net benefit for the nation
It clearly isn’t working. 700,000 were let in legally by Sunak before his departure. So clearly there is away for lots of people to come in legally. Why we need that many I’m not sure but that’s what happened. We also know that approximately half of those arriving illegally have their claims denied so there is a large proportion of those arriving legally who should have used the legal route if they were keen to come to the uk.
BBC appears to be sponsored by the Farage anti-immigration unicorn promising party tonight, two "have your say" articles!
I also wasn't impressed with the BBC article about Trump and his criticism of the US central bank, with the lead image captioned: Donald Trump (left) has openly criticised the US central bank, calling its chair Jay Powell (right) a 'numbskull' - it's actually the image from the clip where Jay Powell points out Trump is falsely inflating figures for the price of a construction project by including prices of other construction projects that have already been completed.
None of which use words like "all."
You want to try reading what I've actually said rather than what you think I said.
I'm not sure what your point is any more to be honest.
I've spelt it out pretty clearly a couple of times now. If you're not getting it that's on you, but one last time for those who aren't listening: I'm trying to point out that you can be morally right but also pretty obnoxious about it.
We also know that approximately half of those arriving illegally have their claims denied so there is a large proportion of those arriving legally who should have used the legal route if they were keen to come to the uk.
Can you remind me what that legal route is for someone with no passport? How do they get here, where do they go if they could even arrive etc,
You think they would be crossing the channel on a dinghy if there was an available legal route?
If people really cared about their plight the UK could arrange a process in France to avoid the need to use a small boat, surely the nice British people would be behind that.
Can you remind me what that legal route is for someone with no passport? How do they get here, where do they go if they could even arrive etc,
Sure just apply at any uk border post. There are lots of them across northern France. Every port has uk border posts at them before you get to the ticket barrier. You can also apply at any of our embassies round the world and there are hundreds of them. Uk law requires you to apply on arrival on uk soil. All uk embassies are legally on uk soil.
Are you sure?
Saw a few driving home Monday, all in Kent, just reinforces my opinion of the Brexit voting ****s.
I'm trying to point out that you can be morally right but also pretty obnoxious about it.
I'm at peace with concept. If that was all you had to say then we could have been in agreement in far fewer words.
I'm not sure what your point is any more to be honest. For someone claiming to be a professional persuader I'm decidedly unpersuaded this far.
Obfuscation and reductio ad absurdum.
There is a well known truth here. Many people don't like it - tough.
It has been shown that:
On average a Leave voter had lower educational attainment than a Remain voter. There would be a distribution for each and, if educational attainment was on the x axis, there would be some overlap between the rightmost part of the Leave distribution and the leftmost part of the Remain distribution. Probably a fair bit of overlap, but there would be two distinct distributions.
You can argue all you like about a few key things here:
Is educational attainment a good proxy for intelligence? It's one of the best we've got would be my counter.
There's a correlation between educational attainment and standard of living - how much does this drive a feeling of resentment etc? Easy to confuse motive with ignorance would be my counter to that.
Fast forward to 2025 and I would strongly suspect the Leave/Remain distributions are present in Reform/Other voters.
And I don't see many university graduates getting nicked for chucking bricks around whilst others hold misspelled placards nearby either.
Unpick away, but I know about stats and how politicians use them. Farage is not, in the main, spending his time chasing university graduates in their 30s/40s for votes.
It’s probably less about intelligence and more about education, personality, lived experience and environment. Education and life experience will often make people question the narrative coming from the like of Farage and they may be more comfortable with diversity. If resources feel scarce or the media pushes fear, immigration can easily be made to look like a threat. Is it more about worldview than brainpower?
Outrage politics thrives when people have fewer tools to question the story they’re being told. If you can point people at a false threat, you distract them from holding real power to account. The forces of conservatism fought the rise of ‘woke’ for this reason and won’t tolerate it in schools and the media.
This requires you to complete an Expression of Interest application, provide identification documents, and meet strict eligibility and security checks.
Good there should be stringent checks and eligibility criteria just like ever other country has
It’s probably less about intelligence and more about education, personality, lived experience and environment.
Or maybe it's just that many anti-immigration racists are just angry middle-aged white men who have deluded themselves that they are victims of a system which favours foreigners and women. Over the past year I've seen 3 or 4 work colleagues disappear down this rabbit hole. I've known them for 20 years and they never previously showed any interest in politics or issues around immigration/womens right etc yet now it's all they talk about. It's so bad they now openly make racist/mysoginist comments in the office, talk about this flag bollocks or are whining about 'two-tier Keir'. I've tried telling them how pathetic it is and they should be thanking their lucky stars that they were born into one of the most priveleged cohorts of people on the planet but they just won't have it. As far as they see it they're victims, and asylum seekers, benefits claimants, women, gays, trans people and 'lefty woke liberals are all better off than them.
Good there should be stringent checks and eligibility criteria just like ever other country has
They still have to get to the UK first, how do they do that seeing that the UK Border Posts you referred to don't actually exist?
I think the explanation goes something along the lines of when someone is accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression
Over the past year I've seen 3 or 4 work colleagues disappear down this rabbit hole. I've known them for 20 years and they never previously showed any interest in politics or issues around immigration/womens right etc yet now it's all they talk about. It's so bad they now openly make racist/mysoginist comments in the office, talk about this flag bollocks or are whining about 'two-tier Keir'. I've tried telling them how pathetic it is and they should be thanking their lucky stars that they were born into one of the most priveleged cohorts of people on the planet but they just won't have it. As far as they see it they're victims, and asylum seekers, benefits claimants, women, gays, trans people and 'lefty woke liberals are all better off than them.
That’s a good point… I have colleagues and even friends from uni who should know better but have gone that way too.
Good there should be stringent checks and eligibility criteria just like ever other country has
They still have to get to the UK first, how do they do that seeing that the UK Border Posts you referred to don't actually exist?
They do exist. I drove through them a month ago and will be again at the weekend.
I think you will also find we have a lot of embassies and consulates round the world that can help
And yet again the so called nice lefties are being spiteful. Those who supposedly care about others actually have no time for the views that do not coincide with their own.
Like many people I object to immigration. Why ? Because we are full or at least at the limit that our country can take without reducing standards for those of us here. I am more than happy with immigration as long as the numbers are less than those who leave. Now to do with race, everything to do with numbers.
Like many people I object to immigration. Why ? Because we are full or at least at the limit that our country can take without reducing standards for those of us here.
Immigration doesn’t have to reduce standards overall. Immigrants do stuff and generate wealth. Immigrants can fill the massive hole in our demography and pay the pensions of the bulge of retirees. You can be against immigration and not be a racist, but you will still struggle to make a case.
Why has the general satisfaction of the average UK citizen appeared to decline so rapidly over the last 25-30 years (even though IMO it goes back further)?
Partially, because those earning big bucks have been busy trying to find ways not to pay taxes, upkeep cans have been kicked down the road in the name of profit and now everything is starting to go rotten.
everything to do with numbers
The thing is, the “shrinking pot” isn’t caused by immigrants, and excluding them will only make things worse.
They do exist. I drove through them a month ago and will be again at the weekend.
I think you will also find we have a lot of embassies and consulates round the world that can help
They exist, but don't think you claim asylum via them which is the key point.
Quick google
No, you cannot claim asylum at a UK border post in France, as UK border control in France is part of a "juxtaposed control zone" where individuals are denied entry and access to the UK asylum process. To claim asylum in the UK, you must first reach UK territory. A recent agreement allows the UK to return asylum seekers who cross the Channel in small boats and have their claim considered inadmissible to France, which may then consider their asylum claim.
Why you can't claim asylum in France at a UK border post:
- If you are on French territory, you would go through the French asylum process.
- You could be considered for a return to France by the UK if you are found to be inadmissible and have no family connection to the UK
That schem to return them has been in place for less than 1 month
The real problem as noted by the migration observatory is that those refused permission to stay don’t get deported to quite “
Of all asylum applications submitted between 2010 and 2020, which were subsequently refused, around 48% had resulted in a return from the UK by 30 June 2024, either enforced or voluntary.
The more recent the asylum claim, the less likely the claimant is to have been returned following a refusal”
It also states that top countries where people were returned to cam from India Albania and Brazil so not really war zones
That schem to return them has been in place for less than 1 month
The return 'one in one out' scheme is new, correct. You still couldn't claim asylum in the UK at a UK border control point in France before the return agreement came into force.
If we're going to have discussions about whether people need to make small boat crossings we should at least base it on facts, not what we think the case is and definitely not what some racists have posted on facebook.
And yet again the so called nice lefties are being spiteful. Those who supposedly care about others actually have no time for the views that do not coincide with their own.
Aaa, poor lamb - those nasty old "help the vulnerable" people are angry that the "**** the vulnerable" people want everything for themselves, and they're being... they're being spiteful!!
Well, tough shit - I think that's a lazy excuse to try not talk about it, in exactly the same way that the pro Zionists claim any criticism is antisemitic.
Like many people I object to immigration. Why ? Because we are full or at least at the limit that our country can take without reducing standards for those of us here. I am more than happy with immigration as long as the numbers are less than those who leave. Now to do with race, everything to do with numbers.
Well - those numbers you're using exclude foreigners, so forgive me if people accuse you of being racist for putting "those of us here" above "people from other places". The standards you're shitting your pants about are at risk because of shit governments, not a handful of people risking their lives to come here.
Sorry - this topic makes me SO angry.
It also states that top countries where people were returned to cam from India Albania and Brazil so not really war zones
Not surprising when we don’t tend to have return agreements with countries that are war zones. Don’t worry though, Reform say they can fix that.
Asked it a good few pages ago but is it possible for UK to pull out of 1951 Refugee Convention and would that mean the UK does not have to accept asylum seekers or does it also involve ECHR. Guess there is more to it than that and if UK pulled out it would be seen as the bad guy but there are sill 170 other countries in it who have to take asylum seekers so not really a major issue for asylum seekers if looking at it coldly. (Seeing India mentioned above, they are not one of the 170 countries out of interest)
Surprised Farage has not proposed something along those lines.
I wasn't listening intently to it but there was stuff on the radio news about it. In theory, I think yes, we can do what we like and withdraw from all sorts but it isn't without implications besides becoming a pariah state alongside Russia, Belarus and NK.
For example if I half-heard right, the GFA includes clauses about being part of the ECHR, so if we tear up the ECHR then the GFA falls over as well (or at least needs 'renegotiation') - likewise the border arrangements on the island of Ireland.
TLDR but 'it's complicated' - but that won't stop the usual suspects touting it as policy and others who can't see past 'england for the english and foreigners out' that putting some flags out over it.
It also states that top countries where people were returned to cam from India Albania and Brazil so not really war zones
Yes hence why they are being returned.
Shy kids don't get sweets, chancers gonna chance.
It shows the system works in that part at least, sending those deemed not eligible back.
So not sure exactly what the issue is?
Because we are full or at least at the limit that our country can take without reducing standards for those of us here.
Reducing standards has everything to do with the lack of govt spending and investment, the flow of money from the poor to the rich, and the influence of the media and private lobbying interests on politics, and f-all to do with the number of people. If all you really care about is not 'reducing standards' then you're directing your ire in completely the wrong direction.
Even if we were full (we're not, not by a long way!) the solution to that is govt investment in new services but I doubt you'll acknowledge that. The country actually needs more people doing productive work not less. Why do you think there are stories in the press about the drop in fertility? Fewer people = fewer taxes.
The country actually needs more people doing productive work not less
Why? To feed the rich so they can continue their infinite growth programme?
Two major things have impacted 'standards' in this country. Less working people to retired, i.e. less contributors and more takers and more wealth going to wealthy. Immigration has pretty much nothing at all to do with the average persons standard of living.
Tackling the first issue is tricky without a Logan's run type approach but the second could be at least attempted to be dealt with, but people chose the wrong government for that...
To feed the rich so they can continue their infinite growth programme?
Growth isn't the problem, all the money going to the top is. That's a very easy problem to solve. We have all the mechanisms in place right now to resolve it tomorrow if we wanted. That's not going to happen though if popular anger is directed to the wrong place. Everyone who is concerned or opposed to immigration has been played by an establishment which wants you to look the other way. If the population at large actually understood where the money is going and who benefits we'd all be out on the streets tomorrow.
That of course assumes concerns about immigration are purely about living standards and not racism. I think we probably all know why immigration is the issue and not wealth inequality.
Like many people I object to immigration. Why ? Because we are full or at least at the limit that our country can take without reducing standards for those of us here. I am more than happy with immigration as long as the numbers are less than those who leave. Now to do with race, everything to do with numbers.
"Some beans".
It's a semi-obscure reference. 😉
And yet those are the top would have the rest of us believe it is all the fault of immigrants...
Luckily not all of us buy this tripe propagated by the real elites. But a worrying (and increasing) number of people do...
Luckily not all of us buy this tripe propagated by the real elites. But a worrying (and increasing) number of people do...
Its not just those that buy into the "it's the immigrants fault" but the bigger problem is those who buy into the "we can't afford to fix it" myth. There are plenty of people on here who like to put on a public face of caring on threads like this, but on the more general political threads argue against the solutions and attack anyone who dares challenge the economic dogma that has created these problems that migrants are scapegoated for.
It also states that top countries where people were returned to cam from India Albania and Brazil so not really war zones
Yes hence why they are being returned.
well half of them are. The rest who have exhausted their appeal process are still here with no right to be here and not returned. That’s wrong and an easy win
How many of them are there?
saw this, thought of this thread...
Quite. The vast majority of people I've come across in my life who bang on about immigration have no interest in 'looking after our own'. They're only interested in looking after themselves. It's also highly ironic that these people who probably identify with traditional conservative values of self-reliance and hard work seem highly dependent on state intervention and support to lead a decent life. They can't have it both ways!
well half of them are. The rest who have exhausted their appeal process are still here with no right to be here and not returned. That’s wrong and an easy win
Probably need some actual evidence to back up what you say since you have outed yourself as someone who just makes stuff up, i.e. border posts for asylum claimants. Just a link to wherever you got the numbers that "half of them are" will do it.
It's far from easy to return people to places like Afghanistan, partly because of a series of "messy situations" we've left behind.
Probably need some actual evidence to back up what you say since you have outed yourself as someone who just makes stuff up, i.e. border posts for asylum claimants. Just a link to wherever you got the numbers that "half of them are" will do it.
Not quite half way down the page. 48% of those refused asylum between 2010-2020 had been removed by June 2024. Caveats to that number are at the bottom, but I doubt Oxford University are in the habit of releasing dodgy analysis.
Can you remind me what that legal route is for someone with no passport? How do they get here, where do they go if they could even arrive etc,
You can also apply at any of our embassies round the world and there are hundreds of them. Uk law requires you to apply on arrival on uk soil. All uk embassies are legally on uk soil.
It is not true that you can apply for asylum in the UK at a UK embassy (or high commission):
It is not true that UK embassies are legally on UK soil - this is a myth and a misunderstanding of the principle that host countries do not (generally) enter foreign representations without the consent of the diplomatic mission in question: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/diplomatic-immunity-and-diplomatic-premises
well half of them are. The rest who have exhausted their appeal process are still here with no right to be here and not returned. That’s wrong and an easy win
Probably need some actual evidence to back up what you say since you have outed yourself as someone who just makes stuff up, i.e. border posts for asylum claimants. Just a link to wherever you got the numbers that "half of them are" will do it.
I’ve already provided the link to the migration observatory further up the page which is my source But just for you here it is again https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/returns-of-unauthorised-migrants-from-the-uk/
That 48% is also misleading. Further down the page there's a chart that shows that bluntly, removing failed asylum seekers takes time, not least due to the time taken in getting the recipient country to agree to the return and come up with the paperwork to facilitate it. The data shows that returns are much more like 70+% IF you allow time for the return to happen.
OK, two counters would still be what about the other 30%, fair. And also how can we speed up the process so there isn't such a delay. But "well half of them are. The rest who have exhausted their appeal process are still here with no right to be here and not returned. That’s wrong and an easy win" isn't particularly true either....if it was easy the numbers would be higher.
I too have 'concerns about immigration', that would be fair to say. But mine are about we need more of the right type, of people that add to our culture and economy and yes, less of the ones that have no intent to do that. But to me having concerns means I find out about it and decide a reasoned position...not repeating lies that are fed to me by fascists on social media. You can draw your own opinion on whether it takes a certain level of education or understanding to be able to be 'do your own research' but I know a few very educated people that are happily parroting SM lies. And it's not because they don't know better, it's because they're racists and they know that reposting these lies adds weight to them.
Where out of interest did you get your info from that you can apply for asylum at the french border?
Good video covering some of the issues raised in the debate and including an interesting take I wasn't aware of linking the rise of immigration to the restriction of movement started in the 70s (when immigration was more stable). TLDR - seasonal / temporary workers applying for permanent residency for fear of not being able to come back.