To all those that welcome/encourage the small boat migrants.

More diversion and waffle.

Why did you never criticise the Tories for letting so many in ?

It's a show that needs stopping but it's a hell of a mess to sort out

I don't think many people realised just how bad the previous lot had let things become
I did critique their strategy. Remote processing works, pushback and take back works. Quotas, foreign funding and fake collaboration doesn't.
 
Do you think Labour will stop them from doing it then?

Reduce their desperation to come here?
Despite the tories' best efforts - by fugging the country up, royally - they still wanted to come. In record numbers.
(Probably encouraged more chancers too, seeing even those "in charge" filling their sandbags with a gay abandon for the rule of law ;-) )
But by closing down any way in, the only option that the desperate had at hand was in a boat, via a smuggling gang.

Snow stops all of the trains, buses, and blocks the roads.
People trudge along though, ill-prepared.
People will attempt to get to where they want to get, come hell or Channel water ...........
 
Labour will welcome them and their criminal mates, build more prisons to house them and wonder why crime goes up and the illegals keep coming. Week 2 and the sh*tshow is well on track.
The government of any persuasion should process them, speedily, not incarcerate them, regardless of the validity of their claim.
They shouldn't leave them in a political/ legal indefinite limbo either.

The issue of asylum seekers/migrants needs a joined-up, international approach, identifying and dealing with the causes. The current isolatory, inter-ideology blame and arguments exacerbates the problem of and the suffering for the refugees.
In addition it hands a potential weapon to those who seek disruption and turmoil.
 
Do you think Labour will stop them from doing it then?
No, I don't. For every people smuggler arrested (if any are) will merely create a vacancy for another to take over.
Where there's a market, criminals will seek to exploit the lucrative opportunities.
 
No, I don't. For every people smuggler arrested (if any are) will merely create a vacancy for another to take over.
Where there's a market, criminals will seek to exploit the lucrative opportunities.
So feck all to do with the last government then. The French could stop them if they really wanted to.
 
Its odd that its mostly young men who are refugees and fleeing persecution.
 
More diversion and waffle.

Why did you never criticise the Tories for letting so many in ?

It's a show that needs stopping but it's a hell of a mess to sort out

I don't think many people realised just how bad the previous lot had let things become
It's also a false argument to focus on those arriving by small boat.
700,000 immigrants via legal, bona fide visas.
30,000 boat people.
And where is all the attention focused?

If a government really wants to address the net migration, (temporarily ignoring the validity of the arguments for net migration reduction) they're looking at the wrong end of the stick.

I notice a similar thread started in 2019, 5 years ago, and the supposed solutions has not affected the situation in any way. In fact it's increased the dangers and risks.
Can you imagine a worse death ? In the dark, no escape and freezing and knowing your freezing to death ? Tragic and terrible.

Taking to the chanel in an inflatable ? Imagine the risk.

These tragic deaths are easily avoidable

The risks and the deaths are easily avoidable by creating safe and legal routes, or remote applications for potential asylum seekers.
 
So feck all to do with the last government then. The French could stop them if they really wanted to.
The blame game again.
The blame games causes isolationism and adds nothing to potential solutions.
In addition, gullible voters will internalise the antagonism towards their neighbours.

The blame games does not address the risks and dangers faced by boat people, which you claim was your real concern.
 
I did critique their strategy. Remote processing works, pushback and take back works. Quotas, foreign funding and fake collaboration doesn't.
Push back is illegal.

Take back requires agreements with other countries. Isolationism is not conducive to having agreements with other countries.

Remote processing does work, and the systems exist. But why is it restricted to so few categories of asylum seekers? (Other than the obvious reason - to limit the number of applicants and successful applications.)

Foreign Aid can work to improve the lives of the potential economic migrants and reduce the need to migrate for food, safety, shelter, etc.

Fake collaboration obviously won't wok if it's 'fake'. :rolleyes:
 
Seriously? You have to ask that? Take yer blinkers off.
What? Someone can make a claim, and should not be expected to explain their reasoning?

OK, if that applies, here goes:
Mottie is a ******* . And no, I won't explain how I know. (fill in the blanks of your own choice.)
 
Its odd that its mostly young men who are refugees and fleeing persecution.

I’ve said before but I’ll say it again. If I and my family were fleeing genuine persecution, I’d be happy to stop in the first safe country I got to. I would one hundred percent NOT, I repeat, NOT, risk their lives crossing the world’s busiest shipping lane in a rubber dinghy. End of.
But what if you had friends and family in another country, people that could accommodate you and feed you, and you already speak the language?
But in the first safe country, you had no family infrastructure, and you couldn't speak the language?

Would you follow the same pattern of the "mostly young men":
One reason for the higher share of men among asylum seekers, in general, is the danger associated with irregular migration journeys. In many cases, female and minor family members join later through family reunification routes.

If there were safe and legal routes, we would see a different set of data.
 
Back
Top