Arise Sir Mo..

[vetran]

Answered before, but ignored for some reason...

It wasn't ignored it was laughed at for its naivitie.

Its not an alternative to dissauding them crossing illegally and endangering themselves.

It is just a fluffy aspiration to encourage more illegal immigration allowing employers to squeeze wages. Which is now becoming obvious is their business plan because they are now squealing they can no longer get cheap labour. We don't have anywhere near enough houses, schools and doctors or the tax to pay for them, just for the migrants who have arrived here already.

Do try harder.

[SueEllen]

It wasn't ignored it was laughed at for its naivitie.

Its not an alternative to dissauding them crossing illegally and endangering themselves.

Thing is you just quote Fail headlines without understanding the full issue.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...glish-channel/

International law does not require asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country they enter. This principle has been recognised in UK case law, and Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 also provides a defence against prosecuting refugees for entering the UK illegally.

‘Refugee status’ is granted to asylum seekers who are found to meet the Refugee Convention’s definition of a ‘refugee’ (i.e. the person is outside their country of origin and has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group). If granted asylum, applicants and their dependants may be given five years leave to remain in the UK, which can subsequently lead to settlement.

Those who do not claim asylum may be subject to the UK’s laws on illegal entry and may face prosecution and/or removal. Failed asylum seekers (those who the Government determine not be to refugees and who exhaust any available appeals) may also be liable for removal from the UK. The Dublin III Regulation also allows for asylum seekers to be sent back to another EU27 State if they have registered there, or if there are familial ties to another EU State.

It is just a fluffy aspiration to encourage more illegal immigration allowing employers to squeeze wages. Which is now becoming obvious is their business plan because they are now squealing they can no longer get cheap labour. We don't have anywhere near enough houses, schools and doctors or the tax to pay for them, just for the migrants who have arrived here already.

The cheap labour were EU citizens who came here under freedom of movement. The UK failure to register people who came here under that directive partly because it cost money to do it properly.

When I worked in EU countries I had to register that I was there or I would be fined. How did they know I was in the country? The organisations that employed or that I contracted for had to inform immigration I was in the country, any accommodation provider I used had to tell the authorities who was in their accommodation, and the country used passport control to know who entered and left.

When it was pointed out to you on numerous threads there are other ways to do things and they worked, you decided the posters were talking nonsense.

Do try harder.

You should read around more thoroughly and talked to people who don't just live in Slough, though I realise that due to characteristics that aren't your fault some people just won't open up to you.

[WTFH]

Do try harder.

There's no point in trying at all when any practical idea is ruled out by the far right as not being inhumane enough, and you'll always find someone else to blame.

[vetran]

A load of tulip and ad hominem attacks

And the UK has decided that if an "asylum seeker" has passed through multiple safe countries thye may not meet our understanding of an Asylum seeker. Removing them to a safe country for processing is a reasonable step and is likely to reduce the pull factor. This is UK law.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61808120

If you oppose it you could be accused of encouraging deaths on the crossing.

[vetran]

There's no point in trying at all when any practical idea is ruled out by the far right as not being inhumane enough, and you'll always find someone else to blame.

Who exactly do you think will be affected by large migration? It won't be us with our "white privilege".

[Whorty]

I didn't dodge the question I just pointed out if you are talking about morals doing nothing is not an answer.

I have asked you for an alternative multiple times. No answer.

As I have stated many times I see the policy of disauding migrants massing in France then boarding dangerous dinghys (or lorries to suffocate or freeze in) to cross illegally to the UK as a sensible & moral approach.

You and others seem to disagree but have added nothing to the conversation but insults so we can conclude you have lost the argument again.

How about this as an approach ... we go to countries that these people come from originally, explain that we need x and y skills that in the UK are in short supply. And we fly them over and they can start work here and live here?

Cuts out the smuggling. They have safe passage. Fills the holes in our workforce. Win-win?

[Whorty]

There's no point in trying at all when any practical idea is ruled out by the far right as not being inhumane enough, and you'll always find someone else to blame.

Vetty is blinkered in his views. He's ill educated, but because he's read a couple of books, and reads the right wing press, he thinks he has all the answers and anyone to the left of him (which to be fair is most people) is wrong.

I actually feel sorry for him (and not just because of his looks) as he'll never be truly happy. He really is the Male Online character from Viz. Very sad.

[SueEllen]

And the UK has decided that if an "asylum seeker" has passed through multiple safe countries thye may not meet our understanding of an Asylum seeker. Removing them to a safe country for processing is a reasonable step and is likely to reduce the pull factor. This is UK law.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61808120

You call what I quoted from the Houses of Parliament a load of tulip, yet it is the law in England as it currently stands. The Fail and the BBC have their own biases.

If you oppose it you could be accused of encouraging deaths on the crossing.

Incidentally Sir Mo's story reminded me of all the people I met (well I was educated with them) from aged 5 onwards who were child refugees - a few of them did escape to a safe country on a boat.

[vetran]

How about this as an approach ... we go to countries that these people come from originally, explain that we need x and y skills that in the UK are in short supply. And we fly them over and they can start work here and live here?

Cuts out the smuggling. They have safe passage. Fills the holes in our workforce. Win-win?

We already do that why do you think the Philippine government complained formally that we were stealing their nurses then decided what the hell and trained a surplus.

We steal from lots of developing countries in this way its embarrassing and unfair.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-b1864069.html

what we should do is train people in the UK and encourage foreign workers to do an exchange so both countries can benefit.

It is entirely possible to apply to move to the UK using the points based system.

Despite all the bull put out these migrants in the boats aren't all brain surgeons they are economic migrants who cannot get here legally so pretend to be asylum seekers.

[vetran]

You call what I quoted from the Houses of Parliament a load of tulip, yet it is the law in England as it currently stands. The Fail and the BBC have their own biases.


Incidentally Sir Mo's story reminded me of all the people I met (well I was educated with them) from aged 5 onwards who were child refugees - a few of them did escape to a safe country on a boat.

You wouldn't have met Sir Mo he was trafficked into modern Slavery.

I'm glad you know the background of all the child refugees you met, many experts disagree they are either children or refugees.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...s-not-children

Obviously its all a lie and we British are a bunch of racists

When Norway insisted on a dental examination of arriving refugee children, they discovered nine out of ten were, in fact, over 18.

of course allowing them in is adding to our rich society

A worker in a residential home in Kent for children in care said that half of the children there are unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. In her estimation, more than half the migrants are not children at all, but in their twenties.
‘They can be quite frightening at times,’ she said. ‘They are aggressive and have an attitude problem. Many have no respect for women because of their culture. No one is giving consideration to the risks they pose, not just to staff but to the other children in the home. Because they are older, they have a lot of influence on the youngsters, who are very vulnerable. They introduce the children to alcohol and get them into crime like street robberies. It is a serious problem, which those in authority are not tackling.’