The NHS

So people who are against mass immigration are all racists?

 

I think I've got renal calculus envy, mine was only 3mm

 

The international court of justice says that you can't claim asylum till you reach the country in which you want asylum. Our immigration rules mean that nobody is allowed to come here by normal means (other than a few notable exceptions like Hong Kong and Ukraine) in order to do so. They are not illegal immigrants until their asylum claim had been processed and rejected. The huge majority of claims are successful.

Sorry if these facts upset anyone.

 

Are you from there then ?.
I always thought you were from Burnsley taarn.
And is there a brewery near the hospital there, in Burton. I only ask because we get some drivers from there, coming to our site.

 

Edit: can't be bothered.

Sick of blatant racism.

 

I live in Swadlincote but come from Bolton on Dearne originally. Been down this way since 1984, never stopped watching the Reds though.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-64898507

Some info on how Australia dealt with small boat crossings. They got tough on it the boats stopped. It's not racist to be opposed to mass immigration.

 

• Over the course of a decade (2013-2023), there has been a 667% surge in antisemitic hate incidents.
• Nearly 80% of all charges related to terrorism in the UK since 2001 were connected to a group or ideology based outside of the country, i.e., ‘international terrorism’.
• The top foreign nationals involved in UK terror-related offenses from 2002 to 2021 were people from Algeria, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Somalia, India, and Sri Lanka. With the exception of Algeria, all these countries are among the top 20 nationalities engaged in illegal crossings of the English Channel.
• 94% of those arrested for terrorism-related offences in 2021/22 were men. This statistic is particularly significant given the substantial number of male migrants arriving illegally across the English Channel. Since January 2018, 70% of irregular arrivals have been adult males aged 18 and over.
• Foreign national offenders (FNOs) constitute 12% of the total prison population, with a 3% increase in foreign national offenders compared to the previous year.
• Albanians, who illegally crossed the Channel in record numbers until the agreement to return them to Albania was made, are the most prevalent nationality in prison after British nationals.
• Although most immigrants adhere to the law, certain demographics show a higher propensity for criminal activity. Academic research into crime rates in Sweden, Denmark and other Nordic nations like Norway and Finland has highlighted this disparity.
• In addition, the security threats posed by immigration span across many generations, as shown by the disproportionate number of Muslims being arrested for group localised child sexual exploitation (GLCSE) in the United Kingdom.

 

I'd like to say I can't believe that anyone would put forward Australia's sadistic and barbaric policies as a solution, but as it's coming from you, I can.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...plicated-by-the-uk?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

 

Here we go. Get your cards out for immigration bingo boys and girls.

Migrants who successfully claim asylum here get less - much less - in terms of benefits and government financial/social assistance than many other countries; most in fact.

Including France.

You might not be racist - evidence doesn’t support that you aren’t but I’ll be fair, it’s possible you aren’t.

You are damned ignorant as to basic facts though.

 

]][emoji[emoji6]]">

It isn’t.

 

Wow.

 

It is when you single out one element of it. Particularly given that element is a small proportion of the total. Or are you advocating for all immigration to be stopped? Because the ‘mass’ is the overwhelming majority and includes the doctors, nurses etc that we have lured from other countries.

 

Aah, some lovely statistics published by Migrant Watch UK.

The source of argument for the thinking man’s bigotry.

Definitely not far right biased claptrap.

Definitely not flawed in a lot of the things they argue.

Definitely didn’t argue leaving the eu would be of massive benefit as it would reduce migration into the country almost completely…

Definitely haven’t had numerous legal challenges as to their claims and neutrality upheld - the National Institute of Economic and Social Research complained to the Press Complaints Commission that articles in the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph about the net amount of tax paid by Eastern European migrants, which were based on MigrationWatch statistics, were inaccurate. Both papers were forced to amend their articles after this was proved.

They claim to be an unbiased research source but in actual fact deny any benefit whatsoever from migration, say that they support genuine asylum seekers but not ones who enter the country illegally (despite it not being possible to do so ‘legally’ by their own definition); questioned the rulings of the Supreme Court in granting asylum to some horrendously persecuted people, and generally bang the drum about immigration and all the negative connotations continuously with zero balance.

So, with the greatest of respect, I’ll treat their statistics with the respect they deserve and completely disregard them.

 

Don't forget banning poppys and christmas aswell..

 

If you can’t see the slight difference in people attempting to get into Australia from hundreds and hundreds of miles away - thousands even, in a small (but comparatively large and solid structured boat), to crossing just over 20 miles of the channel in a rubber dinghy, then there’s an issue for a start. The time to react to such vessels and pick them up on radar etc is much higher.

However - despite that being hugely obvious, the main issue is that trying to mirror the Australian approach would be both barbaric and highly illegal.

Australia's treatment of people in offshore detention has drawn international condemnation - the UN says it amounts to torture.

And the country has also been accused of violating international law by breaking its obligations to refugees and those seeking asylum.

Cruella Braverman, when Home Secretary, conceded her plans push "the boundaries of international law". And Australia's former foreign minister and diplomat Alexander Downer - who advised the Tory UK government on border policy - has admitted the country would have to change its laws and wind back human rights protections to employ the policies.

So no redrum, I don’t think attempting to employ the Australian approach is the way to go.

And as for your last sentence - it might not necessarily be racist to oppose mass immigration.

But there’s a hell of a correlation between those who argue against inward migration so strongly and people that are…

A lot of the people that claim they aren’t racist also quote ‘facts’ and actions taken by other people which turn out to be biased, inaccurate or illegal too.

There is very clearly a migration issue facing the U.K. at the moment. It won’t be fixed by people frothing at the mouth saying ‘send them back’ getting their way.

What we need is a proper system, organised and policed, with a properly established passage into the country, followed by an efficient method to process claims for asylum and visas quickly to get the people fit, able and entitled to stay into the system, into official work, and paying their way. Those that are found to have no right to be here or stay would also be processed quicker - and removed from the country, probably back to their home countries which would probably have been deemed to be safe. Though I imagine the numbers that would have claims denied would be comparatively low and a surprise to many of the pink faced brigade who think everyone is an ‘illegal’ no matter what.

Alongside that, we need to robustly prevent dangerous entry to the country - not to stop migrants per se, but to stop them dying trying to get here. Work with the French and other governments properly to remove the ‘business’ opportunities of the organising gangs. They shouldn’t exist in the first place and the fact they do is an issue made by the previous government.

We didn’t have a huge issue of people entering the country in large numbers on dinghies a decade or so ago. All safe and legal passage into the U.K. was closed down by the Tories (to the fanfare of certain people, I’m sure some on this thread). We then also left the EU to ‘take back control’.

We were then left with what happens now.

 

But the small proportion costs the country about 5billon per year.

 

If we allowed them to work after 6 months like France does that would half the figure to 2.5b directly but would also increase revenue in taxes. Just a thought

 

I think everyone agrees that the small boat crossings are a terrible reality and they must be stopped. The reality however is that the UK needs to take in a fair number of asylum seekers each year, commensurate to population and other first World countries. The way to do this is to create safe and legal routes to come to the UK and ideally vet prospects for asylum before arrival, so when they get to the UK they can hit the ground running, get jobs and contribute to society. Then everyone who enters illegally can be reasonably deported as they did not come through official channels.

At the moment there are no legal ways to claim asylum in the UK, which is a dereliction of our duty to the world and the issues British imperialism created. This is the underlying cause of the issue, it's politics and policy which are used to whip up fear anger amongst the gullible.

It's also important to acknowledge that whist asylum seekers can benefit the country in many ways, they are of course people who have gone through unspeakable hardships. Many have seen war, family members murdered or experienced torture. These incidents in one's life can lead to increased chances of mental health issues and therefore crime. That being said if we can help thousands escape from awful situations, some of which our country has created, is it worth doing so given the risk that a small number may offend?

For me the answer is a huge yes, but I can understand that for people who are struggling and maybe haven't made a success of things, the desire to blame someone else is big.

 

Allow them to work where there unvetted. Not like there crb checked. There's a small proportion of jobs they could do and again why should they come over get accommodation, jobs, wages when there's so many homeless who get nothing.