[Politics] Small boats, smashing the criminal gangs and the UK job market

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

So after years of you constantly campaigning and voting to increase immigration, and forcing people into people smugglers and channel crossings directly resulting in

Boat Crossings
(Numbers weren't recorded prior to 2018 as the government thought them inconsequential).
2018 - 299
2019 - 1,890
2020 - 8,466
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755
2023 - 29,437
2024 - 36,816

You've now decided it's not sufficient to force these poor sods into the channel, and you want to straight out murder them in the channel ?

It's lucky I just think you're a c*** because if I'm sure if I called you a c*** that would break NSC rules

I see you received an infraction for abuse but, frankly, it is hard to know how else to explain to these former tories, cum reformers, that this, all of it, has emerged grown year after year during successive Tory governments. Governments that have grown increasingly right wing and stridently anti-foreigner in their rhetoric.

It is almost as if they never ever cared about 'the boats' and just used the issue as a weapon as part of their increasingly 'populist' lurch to the right. Heading in only one direction - towards a final solution.

And the ***** love it.

 

[Greenbag50]

I ask this in entirely good faith: what have the current government done to open safe asylum application routes that don't rely on taking huge risks in small boats?

Because, surely that should be a big part of solving the problem.

Opening safe routes was not in manifesto, but smash the gangs was.
Neither it appears is happening and they just keep on coming at a cost to UK taxpayer of 1bn a month.
This is not a party political issue anymore, it’s a national security, economic and cultural priority to stop these people coming over. It is not sustainable

 

[Zeberdi]

Opening safe routes was not in manifesto, but smash the gangs was.
Neither it appears is happening and they just keep on coming at a cost to UK taxpayer of 1bn a month.
This is not a party political issue anymore, it’s a national security, economic and cultural priority to stop these people coming over. It is not sustainable

Just to get some clarity - When you say ‘national security’ issue, is that based on a notion these desperate people risking their lives crossing the channel are probably terrorists? And is the ‘cultural priority’ due to a fear that our Country is being taken over by brown people?

 

[Chicken Run]

I ask this in entirely good faith: what has the current government done to open safe asylum application routes that don't rely on taking huge risks in small boats?

Because, surely that should be a big part of solving the problem.

At some point they are going to have to break from blaming the last Government and own the problem, until then this country will be continue being invaded by fighting age males who will slip in and claim asylum.

 

[beorhthelm]

All this because your previous government thought this was a better idea than giving people proper routes to claim asylum and processing them.

using hotels is a just a consquence of high numbers of people that need housing. where else can we house asylum seekers while processing? other options seem to get shut down. i'd go for housing in the community, they can stay with anyone offering up their spare rooms, be a great help for many to have a little income and some to help around the house.

 

[A1X]

At some point they are going to have to break from blaming the last Government and own the problem, until then this country will be continue being invaded by fighting age males who will slip in and claim asylum.

What’s this supposed to mean, exactly? Who are you expecting them to fight?

 

[Randy McNob]

using hotels is a just a consquence of high numbers of people that need housing. where else can we house asylum seekers while processing? other options seem to get shut down. i'd go for housing in the community, they can stay with anyone offering up their spare rooms, be a great help for many to have a little income and some to help around the house.

What I never understood is why certain people got angry about the cost of hotels but not the cost of Rwanda even after pointing out it was cheaper to put them up in the Ritz?

 

[Zeberdi]

What’s this supposed to mean, exactly? Who are you expecting them to fight?

See my post above.

I think the idea is that the men arriving by boats are terrorists.

”Invaded” is a heavily laden choice of wording too.

Its all very Trumpian isn’t it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I ask this in entirely good faith: what have the current government done to open safe asylum application routes that don't rely on taking huge risks in small boats?

Because, surely that should be a big part of solving the problem.

I suspect they would like do this. It will cost money and time to arrange (see below). And It will be loudly and violently attacked by Farage, Badenough, the Sun, Mail, Telegraph etc., as a betrayal of Brexit and a betrayal of The Nation.

So.....how would this look exactly? Where would the asylum applications be made? Dover? If do how do the people get here?

Meanwhile the legal framework that defines a successful asylum claim would need to change.
This is because the reason people take to small boats now is presumably because they know their asylum application will fail.
So whatever it is we and the French are doing to stop 'qualified' asylum seekers paying for a ferry crossing (much cheaper than a small boat ticket) needs to change.
I assume this means the definition of a 'qualified' asylum seeker will need to change.
Are they not presently all defined as 'illegal' by the last government?
Let's see how reclassifying them as not illegal will go down in the media.....

Another issue, your suggestion to open safe asylum application routes will not work if Farage and Badenough are correct in that people crossing in small boats are doing so because they are not, and know that they are not going to be accepted in the UK because they are not 'genuine' asylum seekers and are simply illegal immigrants.

Finally nobody will seek a legal route into the UK if Farage gets in because he wants all immigration stopped, including legal, and including anyone who may clearly be a legitimate asylum seeker.

No, on thinking about this, it is going to take a massive lot of work to untangle the current landscape, with new laws and definitions, before any progress is made. And every step of the way Labour will be shot at by Farage and Badenough.

 

[Greenbag50]

Just to get some clarity - When you say ‘national security’ issue, is that based on a notion these desperate people risking their lives crossing the channel are probably terrorists? And is the ‘cultural priority’ due to a fear that our Country is being taken over by brown people?

If an individual who lands on our shores, does not have an identity document, we have no official way of knowing who they are, or where they are from. That is a security threat.
On the cultural issues, don’t be so naive to assume its to do with individuals skin colour. More that they bring their own cultures with them. Which will in turn, over time, will change the culture of our country. I rather like our culture the way it is.
Demographics is our future

 

[Chicken Run]

What I never understood is why certain people got angry about the cost of hotels but not the cost of Rwanda even after pointing out it was cheaper to put them up in the Ritz?

I think your missing the point of Rwanda which was if every person arriving by boat or other unauthorised means where sent to Rwanda, I wonder how many boat people might not pay the gangs £1000’s for the privilege of their assistance into the shipping lanes in a shit dingy knowing they would be sent to Africa for a few years

 

[GT49er]

So you’re saying we should have as cavalier an attitude to innocent lives as a country as people smuggling gangs do?

What a load of bollocks. Try reading my post again, properly this time. How is advocating health and safety a casual attitude to innocent - or in some cases less than innocent - lives?

 

[A1X]

What a load of bollocks. Try reading my post again, properly this time. How is advocating health and safety a casual attitude to innocent - or in some cases less than innocent - lives?

Because you clearly failed to notice the context of my post which was in response to someone advocating for a solution which will ultimately lead to deaths. I don’t know quite how or why you ended up then talking about the actions of the people smugglers when we were talking about the options (legal or otherwise) of the British Government, but in that context it’s hardly surprising your comment was taken as being a comparison of the two.

Maybe you quoted my post by accident, I don’t know. It would explain yours, because otherwise it would seem to be a glib comment which deserved the response it got.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

What I never understood is why certain people got angry about the cost of hotels but not the cost of Rwanda even after pointing out it was cheaper to put them up in the Ritz?

I have a hypothesis.
Racists want rid of brown people at any cost.

 

[GT49er]

Because you clearly failed to notice the context of my post which was in response to someone advocating for a solution which will ultimately lead to deaths. I don’t know quite how or why you ended up then talking about the actions of the people smugglers when we were talking about the options (legal or otherwise) of the British Government, but in that context it’s hardly surprising your comment was taken as being a comparison of the two.

Maybe you quoted my post by accident, I don’t know. It would explain yours, because otherwise it would seem to be a glib comment which deserved the response it got.

Bollocks again. I was clearly not advocating indiscriminately killing innocent people. Health and safety would protect them - regardless of what your post says, and without you assuming nuances that aren't there.

 

[beorhthelm]

I suspect they would like do this. It will cost money and time to arrange (see below). And It will be loudly and violently attacked by Farage, Badenough, the Sun, Mail, Telegraph etc., as a betrayal of Brexit and a betrayal of The Nation.

So.....how would this look exactly? Where would the asylum applications be made? Dover? If do how do the people get here?

Meanwhile the legal framework that defines a successful asylum claim would need to change.
This is because the reason people take to small boats now is presumably because they know their asylum application will fail.
So whatever it is we and the French are doing to stop 'qualified' asylum seekers paying for a ferry crossing (much cheaper than a small boat ticket) needs to change.
I assume this means the definition of a 'qualified' asylum seeker will need to change.
Are they not presently all defined as 'illegal' by the last government?
Let's see how reclassifying them as not illegal will go down in the media.....

Another issue, your suggestion to open safe asylum application routes will not work if Farage and Badenough are correct in that people crossing in small boats are doing so because they are not, and know that they are not going to be accepted in the UK because they are not 'genuine' asylum seekers and are simply illegal immigrants.

Finally nobody will seek a legal route into the UK if Farage gets in because he wants all immigration stopped, including legal, and including anyone who may clearly be a legitimate asylum seeker.

No, on thinking about this, it is going to take a massive lot of work to untangle the current landscape, with new laws and definitions, before any progress is made. And every step of the way Labour will be shot at by Farage and Badenough.

you're saying it's hard to do safe routes, some say we use to have them so we can simply return to those systems and protocols.

accepting there are challenges, seems it's a matter of willingness to change then make the changes. open up claims at oversees embassies and consulates, placing one in Calais for the purpose. this would solve undocumented claimants because it's easier to claim with documents than without.

 

[BadFish]

I ask this in entirely good faith: what has the current government done to open safe asylum application routes that don't rely on taking huge risks in small boats?

Because, surely that should be a big part of solving the problem.

Yes I agree, they should be doing this.

I understand they are trying to process the backlog, so I had kind of assumed that part of this would be that process.

good question, though, I don't know if they are

 

[BadFish]

using hotels is a just a consquence of high numbers of people that need housing. where else can we house asylum seekers while processing? other options seem to get shut down. i'd go for housing in the community, they can stay with anyone offering up their spare rooms, be a great help for many to have a little income and some to help around the house.

The high number of people who need housing was a consequence of the government's choice to slow down the processing to a snail's pace.

 

[Peteinblack]

At some point they are going to have to break from blaming the last Government and own the problem, until then this country will be continue being invaded by fighting age males who will slip in and claim asylum.

The usual sly/emotive use of 'loaded' terms - the Right do love dog-whistling to whip-up fear and prejudice.

 

[darkwolf666]

At some point they are going to have to break from blaming the last Government and own the problem, until then this country will be continue being invaded by fighting age males who will slip in and claim asylum.

I'm sure if you had tried hard enough you could have got a few more lazy right-wing bingo phrases in...

This gives a more balanced view on asylum seekers in the UK and Europe, if you care to read it...

How many people claim asylum in the UK?

www.gov.uk