Discussion
Eddie Strohacker said:
Deptford Draylons said:
Again, you are promoting something you know won't work and wouldn't be enforceable or palatable to the public. Simply saying the government has that power and we should ask them why they don't enforce it, is to be rather disingenuous. If you promote it as a power that helps control poor immigration, it doesn't seem unreasonable if people ask you if its workable or you have the first clue about it.
Promoting? It's incomprehension then. I'm promoting nothing & that's the second time this morning I've told you that. On the other hand, you are saying any such system would have the media calling everyone involved Nazis. So if it's disingenuous you want, the easy thing to point out is I'm dealing in the present where you're making dire predictions about the future. I said the enforcement of the rule would have the media and many on here calling Nazi. You only have to look at some single cases of people being kicked out and the reaction to them to see that if enforced, the same would occur. Given the numbers out of 3.2 million EU migrants that likely don't comply, the idea it wouldn't be hugely controversial if enforced is a bit of a joke.
Again, you can't bring yourself to talk on the realities of the rule.
Mario149 said:
Jinx said:
Mario149 said:
I think the point is no-one even bothered to try because the market sorts itself out. As I've said elsewhere, I guarantee that if we implement some sort of border controls while at the same time issuing visas for all the businesses that ask for them in order to ensure our economy functions correctly, we'll end up with as near as makes no practical difference the same levels of immigration, just with the extra cost, complexity and lag of managing the new system.
That's the false premise bit. Under the current system (non-EU) there are some pretty tight rules under the granting of work visa's (I don't think coffee maker at Costa is included). So the argument "it will all be the same anyway so let's not change anything" is based on a false premise.andy_s said:
Deptford Draylons said:
Having an immigration policy where people apply and are assessed is what's needed. The need to deport having this will be much reduced from those having been legally allowed in.
Telling people this rule, of possibly being deported after 3 months , is a check in place and open to the government, is simply and on paper argument where the reality of it is totally different. The rule exists but is quite clearly not workable as it would require detailed information and the willingness to enforce it, both of which don't exist.
Lets speculate and say employers were giving up detailed info on migrant workers and 50k migrants currently didn't comply and were eligible to be asked to leave. Do you send them a letter and ask them, go kick the door in and detain them, allow an appeals process ? Its never going to happen, is it ?
So what do you do with the 50k migrant workers post-Brexit? Telling people this rule, of possibly being deported after 3 months , is a check in place and open to the government, is simply and on paper argument where the reality of it is totally different. The rule exists but is quite clearly not workable as it would require detailed information and the willingness to enforce it, both of which don't exist.
Lets speculate and say employers were giving up detailed info on migrant workers and 50k migrants currently didn't comply and were eligible to be asked to leave. Do you send them a letter and ask them, go kick the door in and detain them, allow an appeals process ? Its never going to happen, is it ?
Deptford Draylons said:
If you cite the rule as being check in place,
Since I have repeatedly stated the law exists & nothing about it being a rule 'check' in place, it's stunningly clear that in order to formulate any kind of response, you can only fall back on twisting what's gone before to perpetuate your own biases and for the sake of not wanting to die of boredom correcting this tedious nonsense all day long. ahmm oot. 
Eddie Strohacker said:
Deptford Draylons said:
If you cite the rule as being check in place,
Since I have repeatedly stated the law exists & nothing about it being a rule 'check' in place, it's stunningly clear that in order to formulate any kind of response, you can only fall back on twisting what's gone before to perpetuate your own biases and for the sake of not wanting to die of boredom correcting this tedious nonsense all day long. ahmm oot. Shame you couldn't stick around and actually chat on if it was utterly meaningless or not or served any purpose , other than to allow you to turn up in such debates and cite the rule. The debate seems to have gone over your capability limit when asked to comment of its worth, or really anything about it at all.
Deptford Draylons said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
Deptford Draylons said:
I like the way you try and pretend the result is somehow undermined by Farage rather obviously saying he's sill campaign to leave. Desperate.
It'd a direct quote, sit down mate.Deptford Draylons said:
andy_s said:
Deptford Draylons said:
Having an immigration policy where people apply and are assessed is what's needed. The need to deport having this will be much reduced from those having been legally allowed in.
Telling people this rule, of possibly being deported after 3 months , is a check in place and open to the government, is simply and on paper argument where the reality of it is totally different. The rule exists but is quite clearly not workable as it would require detailed information and the willingness to enforce it, both of which don't exist.
Lets speculate and say employers were giving up detailed info on migrant workers and 50k migrants currently didn't comply and were eligible to be asked to leave. Do you send them a letter and ask them, go kick the door in and detain them, allow an appeals process ? Its never going to happen, is it ?
So what do you do with the 50k migrant workers post-Brexit? Telling people this rule, of possibly being deported after 3 months , is a check in place and open to the government, is simply and on paper argument where the reality of it is totally different. The rule exists but is quite clearly not workable as it would require detailed information and the willingness to enforce it, both of which don't exist.
Lets speculate and say employers were giving up detailed info on migrant workers and 50k migrants currently didn't comply and were eligible to be asked to leave. Do you send them a letter and ask them, go kick the door in and detain them, allow an appeals process ? Its never going to happen, is it ?
"50k migrants currently didn't comply and were eligible to be asked to leave. Do you send them a letter and ask them, go kick the door in and detain them, allow an appeals process ? Its never going to happen, is it ? "
andy_s said:
Deptford Draylons said:
andy_s said:
Deptford Draylons said:
Having an immigration policy where people apply and are assessed is what's needed. The need to deport having this will be much reduced from those having been legally allowed in.
Telling people this rule, of possibly being deported after 3 months , is a check in place and open to the government, is simply and on paper argument where the reality of it is totally different. The rule exists but is quite clearly not workable as it would require detailed information and the willingness to enforce it, both of which don't exist.
Lets speculate and say employers were giving up detailed info on migrant workers and 50k migrants currently didn't comply and were eligible to be asked to leave. Do you send them a letter and ask them, go kick the door in and detain them, allow an appeals process ? Its never going to happen, is it ?
So what do you do with the 50k migrant workers post-Brexit? Telling people this rule, of possibly being deported after 3 months , is a check in place and open to the government, is simply and on paper argument where the reality of it is totally different. The rule exists but is quite clearly not workable as it would require detailed information and the willingness to enforce it, both of which don't exist.
Lets speculate and say employers were giving up detailed info on migrant workers and 50k migrants currently didn't comply and were eligible to be asked to leave. Do you send them a letter and ask them, go kick the door in and detain them, allow an appeals process ? Its never going to happen, is it ?
"50k migrants currently didn't comply and were eligible to be asked to leave. Do you send them a letter and ask them, go kick the door in and detain them, allow an appeals process ? Its never going to happen, is it ? "
Deptford Draylons said:
andy_s said:
Deptford Draylons said:
andy_s said:
Deptford Draylons said:
Having an immigration policy where people apply and are assessed is what's needed. The need to deport having this will be much reduced from those having been legally allowed in.
Telling people this rule, of possibly being deported after 3 months , is a check in place and open to the government, is simply and on paper argument where the reality of it is totally different. The rule exists but is quite clearly not workable as it would require detailed information and the willingness to enforce it, both of which don't exist.
Lets speculate and say employers were giving up detailed info on migrant workers and 50k migrants currently didn't comply and were eligible to be asked to leave. Do you send them a letter and ask them, go kick the door in and detain them, allow an appeals process ? Its never going to happen, is it ?
So what do you do with the 50k migrant workers post-Brexit? Telling people this rule, of possibly being deported after 3 months , is a check in place and open to the government, is simply and on paper argument where the reality of it is totally different. The rule exists but is quite clearly not workable as it would require detailed information and the willingness to enforce it, both of which don't exist.
Lets speculate and say employers were giving up detailed info on migrant workers and 50k migrants currently didn't comply and were eligible to be asked to leave. Do you send them a letter and ask them, go kick the door in and detain them, allow an appeals process ? Its never going to happen, is it ?
"50k migrants currently didn't comply and were eligible to be asked to leave. Do you send them a letter and ask them, go kick the door in and detain them, allow an appeals process ? Its never going to happen, is it ? "
Edited by p1stonhead on Thursday 22 June 13:36
Deptford Draylons said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The debate was trying to be on why in the particular the rule cited is complete meaningless drivel , but often trotted out by the stupid as being something of use. You also think someone Brexit is going to make the government (who wrote the current rule dont forget) write a useful/less incompetent rule. At the moment we dont even technically HAVE a government!
And you call others stupid - 'the current law is rubbish, brexit will make better ones! We have theresa may (not quite) in charge!'
jjlynn27 said:
Deptford Draylons said:
The debate was trying to be on why in the particular the rule cited is complete meaningless drivel , but often trotted out by the stupid as being something of use.
It's actually entertaining to see you calling someone, anyone, stupid. anonymous said:
[redacted]
Again, the debate was on if it was in any way enforceable, and if it were and enforced , would it be politically palatable to possibly round up mass numbers of EU migrants and kick them out. It's quite obvious that while the government has the on-paper power of this rule, its never going to use it. To do I would suggest would mean having a huge database from employers on the details of migrants and teams of immigration officers enforcing it. I simply don't believe there is any will to enforce it. Do you ?
Eddie Strohacker said:
crankedup said:
Falls back onto the same old same old, having lost the argument with sensible discussion! It's not simply a matter of immmigrant workers issues that the UK decided to leave the EU is it.
No but it is the matter under discussion. No idea why you would try to take a diversionary position by lobbing in a drive by two word 'Human rights' bomb, unless of course you realise belatedly that some of us aren't just making this up as we go along.
As for Human Rights, you do realise that this represents a significant factor, or perhaps you don't. It's easy to be snotty and arrogant so give it a rest mate and so will I.
p1stonhead said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
Jinx said:
So how does that work then? And with free movement how do you stop them turning around the next day and coming back? It's one of those pointless nods to sovereignty that the EU makes when in practice the EU remains supreme.
Ummm....It's the existing freedom of movement rules. The point being made is the UK Government chooses not to enforce them. The question you should be asking is why not?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff