More fun and games in Calais

[Register1]

jshell said:

I don't think monamimate has realised that the main reason for fighting UK ID cards was the plan behind them. Had they simply been a driving licence style card with a picture and basic details, then no-one would have cared too much.

But, they were so-called biometric ID cards and were intended to be linked to central databases of NHS, DHSS and more. They would have been a 'key' to swathes of data on teh individual and for that reason right-minded people said: feck orf!

Well I am very strongly in agreement for ID cards.
They should be produced when booking a train ticket, a plane ticket, hotel rooms, when they "sign on" etc.

The sooner UK brings in full on ID cards the better, as it will rod out many of the illegal overstays.
Just a drain on the DHSS when certain race's of people have more than 1 identity, and a big mansion some where.

Bring ID on.

[Register1]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

poo at Paul's said:

irocfan said:

untakenname said:

RT has quite an interesting article about the Calais situation, probably why our government is now trying to shut RT down https://www.rt.com/op-edge/363803-uks-immigration-...

a sad day when RT has a better and more honest assessment of the current (appalling) state of affairs

That's very difficult to argue against and spells out what is so riling about this to the vast majority of rational UK residents.

My trust in the BBC to provide unbiased reporting died and was buried without honour during the Libyan conflict.
It was clear they had become nothing more (or less) than the mouthpiece of government policy. Shame on you.
I would much more likely believe Al Jazeera, and perhaps now even RT, to provide accurate (and certainly in the case of Al Jazeera more unbiased) reporting than our mainstream media.

I haven't seen it posted here so far, the 'other Hitchens brother' has also had something to say about it.

Yes, he has his moments also.

BBC NEWS,
Don't get me started.
Just so biased and one sided, they are a joke, and laughing stock.
Just can not be trusted for a level view of events.

R.T., AL JAZEERA, and China news all seem to give a differing view on events, views that BBC seem to overlook.

[irocfan]

Register1 said:

Well I am very strongly in agreement for ID cards.
They should be produced when booking a train ticket, a plane ticket, hotel rooms, when they "sign on" etc.

The sooner UK brings in full on ID cards the better, as it will rod out many of the illegal overstays.
Just a drain on the DHSS when certain race's of people have more than 1 identity, and a big mansion some where.

Bring ID on.

TBH in principle I don't really have much of a problem with ID cards. That being said having 'your whole life' linked to them (as seemed to be the proposal a decade or so back) makes me a little uneasy, a driving licence/passport still ID card though seems reasonable.

[Cobnapint]

Register1 said:

BBC NEWS,
Don't get me started.
Just so biased and one sided, they are a joke, and laughing stock.
Just can not be trusted for a level view of events.

R.T., AL JAZEERA, and China news all seem to give a differing view on events, views that BBC seem to overlook.

Mainly agree although RT can be very anti west (for obvious reasons).

Caught a bit of Al Jaz the other day and it was a bit of an eye opener. It made the BBC News Channel look like Newsround. They had stuff you just wouldn't get to hear about on the BBC.

Trouble with the Beeb these days is its lost the plot. The news channel is cluttered with crap that shouldn't be there.
There's an hour of Victoria Derbyshire in the morning concentrating on eff-all,
Then there's Meet the Author, Click, Hardtalk, The Film Review, The Travel Show, and then late evening we have Outside Source where the chap has to touch the screen behind him to show the news stories. WTF is that all about?

It's supposed to be a 'News Channel' ffs. Not Blue Peter.

[heebeegeetee]

monamimate said:

I'm sure you think you're quite the lad. For my part, it depresses me to think that the country I cherish harbours ill-informed self-righteous xenophobes trying to justify their selfish desire to refuse asylum to those less fortunate.

Maybe the country you cherish doesn't exist? Or maybe the country was good for you but not for the majority of voters, as Brexit showed, but was ok for you Jack?

How long will your cherished country exist if we just open the doors to migrants?

If our country is so bad, how come so many clamour to leave so many other free, modern developed states to get here?

This isn't about asylum, it's about migration. The fact is, due to our geographical location, a lot of people are migrating from France and not from Syria, Libya, Africa etc.

[audidoody]

I've concluded that the hand-wringers who accuse those of us concerned about uncontrolled immigration of being "racist xenophobes" are rather simple and not well-travelled.

Otherwise they would realise that the UK is probably the most liberal country in the world compared with the attempts at preserving ethnic purity and making immigration nigh-on impossible in Japan, Thailand, China, India, every Arab country you can think of and most of Africa.

Edited by audidoody on Thursday 27th October 11:16

[Pan Pan Pan]

audidoody said:

I've concluded that the hand-wringers who accuse those of us concerned about uncontrolled immigration of being "racist xenophobes" are rather simple and not well-travelled.

Otherwise they would realise that the UK is probably the most liberal country in the world compared with the attempts at preserving ethnic purity and making immigration nigh-on impossible in Japan, Thailand, China, India, every Arab country you can think of and most of Africa.

Edited by audidoody on Thursday 27th October 11:16

Perhaps the problem is that modern immigration is not the same as the immigration seen after the recent world wars, where it could be said that most immigrants were genuinely in fear for their lives, and fleeing from conflicts.
A large proportion of todays immigrants are economic migrants, who understandably want to leave countries which have poor prospects, and todays relative abundance, and ease of motorized transport of any kind, make make attempting to move to another country in search of better prospects much more of a viable possibility, and this encourages greater numbers to abandon their own countries to migrate to those with real, or perceived advantages.
In those days around WW1 and WW2, the general public of the UK did not have life styles markedly better than those of the countries the migrants were fleeing from. Now the difference between first, and second and third world countries is now quite stark which increases the draw factor, hence the increase in global migrant numbers, but that increase is a problem in itself. As an analogy the UK could be likened to a life boat from a sinking ship (the 2nd and 3rd worlds) designed and provisioned to take 80 people. It could at a pinch take a 120 people (with markedly reduced conditions) but try to put 200 in it, and it will then just sink with loss of ALL lives. Immigration must happen, but overall survival of the host nation must be based on the requirement to control the numbers, and importantly `who' is allowed to come in, (having a lifeboat full of slackers or killers will save the slackers and killers for a while,but is not likely to end well) The odd thing is that some seem to say nothing about the entry requirements that other countries impose on their borders, but think the UK should take all who want to come to the UK. I would quite like to go live in the Bahamas, but I don't suppose for a second they would let me immigrate there.

[number 46]

Interesting that when ever there is coverage on TV of these so called refugee children,that the children cover their faces and try to get out of shot of the camera. That seems an odd thing for innocent children fleeing war zones to do doesn't it???!!!!

[audidoody]

That's because the innocent children are all still huddled in the bombed out ruins of their towns and villages.

They were unable to get the money to pay the traffickers to get them on the rubber boats and across borders.

Any who did make it to The Jungle were doubtless trampled in the rush for the buses by the 'bigger boys'.

[irocfan]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Perhaps the problem is that modern immigration is not the same as the immigration seen after the recent world wars, where it could be said that most immigrants were genuinely in fear for their lives, and fleeing from conflicts.
A large proportion of todays immigrants are economic migrants, who understandably want to leave countries which have poor prospects, and todays relative abundance, and ease of motorized transport of any kind, make make attempting to move to another country in search of better prospects much more of a viable possibility, and this encourages greater numbers to abandon their own countries to migrate to those with real, or perceived advantages.
In those days around WW1 and WW2, the general public of the UK did not have life styles markedly better than those of the countries the migrants were fleeing from. Now the difference between first, and second and third world countries is now quite stark which increases the draw factor, hence the increase in global migrant numbers, but that increase is a problem in itself. As an analogy the UK could be likened to a life boat from a sinking ship (the 2nd and 3rd worlds) designed and provisioned to take 80 people. It could at a pinch take a 120 people (with markedly reduced conditions) but try to put 200 in it, and it will then just sink with loss of ALL lives. Immigration must happen, but overall survival of the host nation must be based on the requirement to control the numbers, and importantly `who' is allowed to come in, (having a lifeboat full of slackers or killers will save the slackers and killers for a while,but is not likely to end well) The odd thing is that some seem to say nothing about the entry requirements that other countries impose on their borders, but think the UK should take all who want to come to the UK. I would quite like to go live in the Bahamas, but I don't suppose for a second they would let me immigrate there.

Well put old boy - it does bring to mind an issue I hadn't considered before: namely the apologists like to (correctly) inform us that the world has changed over the last 60 years... but then refuse to accept that migration, infustry, 'needs' have also changed

[Digga]

The challenges we in the West face today are, as Pan Pan Pan says, very different from those in the mid part of last century, let alone the early part. Communications and mobility, for the average third world inhabitant have improved hugely, along with the perceived wealth gap between developed and developing nations.

We need to adapt to these changes quickly or face serious issues.

[Guybrush]

I like to imagine how loudly the left would be whining if the camp was located in the UK and it was the current government clearing it away.

[monamimate]

heebeegeetee said:

Maybe the country you cherish doesn't exist? Or maybe the country was good for you but not for the majority of voters, as Brexit showed, but was ok for you Jack?

How long will your cherished country exist if we just open the doors to migrants?

If our country is so bad, how come so many clamour to leave so many other free, modern developed states to get here?

This isn't about asylum, it's about migration. The fact is, due to our geographical location, a lot of people are migrating from France and not from Syria, Libya, Africa etc.

Percentage of foreign citizens residing in:

UK: 7.6%
Latvia: 16.3%
Estonia: 15.7%
Spain: 12.0%
Austria: 11.2%
Belgium: 11%
Ireland 10.6%
Germany: 9.1%
Greece: 8.6%
Italy: 7.9%
Source eurostat 2012 (i.e. pre-Syria)

Don't let facts get in the way, they might interfere with your bias.

And who's Jack, Dick?

[JagLover]

monamimate said:

Percentage of foreign citizens residing in:

UK: 7.6%
Latvia: 16.3%
Estonia: 15.7%
Spain: 12.0%
Austria: 11.2%
Belgium: 11%
Ireland 10.6%
Germany: 9.1%
Greece: 8.6%
Italy: 7.9%
Source eurostat 2012 (i.e. pre-Syria)

Don't let facts get in the way, they might interfere with your bias.

And who's Jack, Dick?

The Foreign born population of the UK is 8 million (or around 12.5% of the population). The 7.6% to which you refer is those that have not yet gained citizenship.

[monamimate]

JagLover said:

The Foreign born population of the UK is 8 million (or around 12.5% of the population). The 7.6% to which you refer is those that have not yet gained citizenship.

Possibly, but these statistics are comparing like for like, so the same nuance would apply to other countries.

[SKP555]

Aren't employers and agencies required to make sure people have the right to work here anyway? Besides, they all had passports or ID cards and burned/lost them. Many losing 20 years in the process.

If we don't have the political will to enforce our borders and our immigration laws then ID cards won't help.

[CrutyRammers]

Register1 said:

Well I am very strongly in agreement for ID cards.
They should be produced when booking a train ticket, a plane ticket, hotel rooms, when they "sign on" etc.

The sooner UK brings in full on ID cards the better, as it will rod out many of the illegal overstays.
Just a drain on the DHSS when certain race's of people have more than 1 identity, and a big mansion some where.

Bring ID on.

Fortunately, people like you lost the argument and there's little chance of it being resurrected for some time.

[monamimate]

SKP555 said:

Aren't employers and agencies required to make sure people have the right to work here anyway? Besides, they all had passports or ID cards and burned/lost them. Many losing 20 years in the process.

If we don't have the political will to enforce our borders and our immigration laws then ID cards won't help.

From an official 2015 report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration:

"The Home Office acknowledges, and there is broad acceptance, that the actual and perceived ease of finding [illegal] paid work is a significant ‘pull factor’ for migrants looking to enter the UK illegally or to remain here without the legal right to do so."

And

"There have been attempts to estimate the numbers of illegal migrants and overstayers in the UK, of which a proportion will be working illegally. These estimates vary considerably. In 2009, the London School of Economics (LSE) produced an estimate for the Greater London Authority of ‘irregular migrants’ in the UK (which included overstayers who had entered the UK legally, but excluded children born in the UK) in the UK as at the end of 2007. The LSE estimated the number was in the range 373,000 to 719,000.4 Migration Watch (an independent body) disagreed and in 2010 estimated the figure was 1.1 million, including children born in the UK."

Seems employers are pretty relaxed about their responsibility.

[SKP555]

They could also be lax about checking ID cards.

[Potatoes]

JagLover said:

monamimate said:

Percentage of foreign citizens residing in:

UK: 7.6%
Latvia: 16.3%
Estonia: 15.7%
Spain: 12.0%
Austria: 11.2%
Belgium: 11%
Ireland 10.6%
Germany: 9.1%
Greece: 8.6%
Italy: 7.9%
Source eurostat 2012 (i.e. pre-Syria)

Don't let facts get in the way, they might interfere with your bias.

And who's Jack, Dick?

The Foreign born population of the UK is 8 million (or around 12.5% of the population). The 7.6% to which you refer is those that have not yet gained citizenship.

I'm one of those 12.5% - I consider myself English though... well actually I consider myself to be from 2 countries. The one I am from and the one I am now a citizen of.