Gary Lineker

[andymadmak]

Mrr T said:

I totally understand the difference between purely economic migrants and those who seek help under the UNCR who may also gain an economic benefit. I believe having committed to help the latter the UK should keep it promise. It's the honourable thing to do. And I rather hope the UK is an honourable country.

I agree

[E63eeeeee...]

Mrr T said:

Really that's all you have to do? I assume you know that from your long experience working for the HO. Or are you just making stuff up?

It's remarkable anyone gets returned at all considering how easy it is.

[andymadmak]

captain_cynic said:

It's a term that lets them dehumanise all migrants so they don't have to admit they're tts.

Hence he jumped to a conclusion that you were insulting him

No, asylum seekers are not "economic migrants", that's a fantasy developed by the daily mail types to justify that they really just hate foreigners.

In your minds eye. Which says rather more about you sadly.

Economic migrants are not necessarily asylum seekers. They may not be seeing asylum, but they do want to move to a more developed country for their own economic benefit. Of itself, I don't have a fundamental objection to people migrating for economic benefit provided they do it legally, through the normal channels and accept that not everyone will be allowed in on that basis. The receiving country has the right to choose who settles there for economic reasons.

[andymadmak]

HM-2 said:

I think our main contention is that you are in no way, shape or form an arbiter of which is which; although you like to pretend you can tell the difference, you can't.
Even the actual authorities engaged in doing the assessments here struggle to discern economic migrants from legitimate asylum seekers, so I'm not sure why andymadmak thinks he can.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You pompous tit! Have I ever claimed to be an arbiter? No. Authorities do struggle because often those making the claims don't tell the truth, and/or they have already disposed of their documents so making a positive ID and background investigation is practically impossible.
Is your position that there is no such thing as an economic migrant? They are all asylum seekers?

[E63eeeeee...]

andymadmak said:

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You pompous tit! Have I ever claimed to be an arbiter? No. Authorities do struggle because often those making the claims don't tell the truth, and/or they have already disposed of their documents so making a positive ID and background investigation is practically impossible.
Is your position that there is no such thing as an economic migrant? They are all asylum seekers?

Why do I feel like I've explained this to you before?

Economic migrants are people who have come here to study or work, form the significant majority of medium/ long term migrants to the UK, and have been propping up the NHS, UK universities and the UK economy for the last 7 decades.

The group I think you're trying to describe, people who enter the UK without permission and don't claim asylum, are illegal immigrants.

People who claim asylum but get rejected because they don't meet the criteria, are failed asylum seekers.

Getting the terminology right may help you express whatever point you're trying to make in a less confusing way.

[Vanden Saab]

Gweeds said:

Ayahuasca said:

Of course it can. If someone is in fear of their life and wants a safe haven, Rwanda is that. A blessing.

If they are just economic migrants looking to take advantage of the UK, Rwanda is a deterrent.

Make sense?

Excellent - now let's talk about how they get here. The safe routes.....

Ask the half a million who came here legally last year alone may be?

[heebeegeetee]

crankedup5 said:

And yet the reality is our Government is set to ‘stop the small boats’. That’s the reality.

I'm staggered that anyone still thinks like this.

After the debacle of the past 13 years, which imo has seen the country ground down to a point where I can no longer see a GP or get an ambulance when I really need one, I'm staggered that people still have such faith.

How much failure does a political party have to generate to get the message of utter failure across?

I do feel though than no Labour Party will get the chance to generate so much failure for so long a time.

[Mrr T]

E63eeeeee... said:

Mrr T said:

Really that's all you have to do? I assume you know that from your long experience working for the HO. Or are you just making stuff up?

It's remarkable anyone gets returned at all considering how easy it is.

It does seem odd the HO has large considerable budget and workforce to assess the claims of asylum seekers. But it seems all you need to do is lose your papers and claim you come from Syria etc.

How does it take the HO so long to process claims.

[andymadmak]

Mrr T said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Mrr T said:

Really that's all you have to do? I assume you know that from your long experience working for the HO. Or are you just making stuff up?

It's remarkable anyone gets returned at all considering how easy it is.

It does seem odd the HO has large considerable budget and workforce to assess the claims of asylum seekers. But it seems all you need to do is lose your papers and claim you come from Syria etc.

How does it take the HO so long to process claims.

It's a (crap) system. People game the system. The odds are in their favour if they keep trying since the majority find a way to stay, despite entering illegally. That encourages more people to try and game the system.... and so it goes on.
I'm thankful to the poster for clarifying the differences between Economic migrants, Asylum seekers and failed Asylum seekers. Presumably there is also a category of failed economic migrant?
Anyway, I'm not sure if breaking it down into different categories like that doesn't automatically make you a figure of hate for some on here.. After all are these terms not just intended to dehumanise all migrants so you don't have to admit they're tts.?

[HM-2]

andymadmak said:

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You pompous tit!

A great way to start a response if you want to be taken seriously, eh?

andymadmak said:

Have I ever claimed to be an arbiter?

It's very clear that everyone you consider to be an economic migrant is an economic migrant for the sake of your arguments, regardless of whether they are, yes. All the whinging about "the left" won't change that fact.

andymadmak said:

Authorities do struggle because often those making the claims don't tell the truth

How often is "often"? What's the frequency of wilful lying here? What's the frequency of people actively destroying documents to prevent identification, versus having them seized by human traffickers or leaving them in war zones?

If the answer is "I don't know", why are you seemingly asserting you do?

andymadmak said:

Is your position that there is no such thing as an economic migrant?

What on earth would make you think that? Your ability to accurately parse views from comments remains woeful.

[E63eeeeee...]

Mrr T said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Mrr T said:

Really that's all you have to do? I assume you know that from your long experience working for the HO. Or are you just making stuff up?

It's remarkable anyone gets returned at all considering how easy it is.

It does seem odd the HO has large considerable budget and workforce to assess the claims of asylum seekers. But it seems all you need to do is lose your papers and claim you come from Syria etc.

How does it take the HO so long to process claims.

You know the HO does quite a lot of other things as well as asylum seekers, right? It handles something like 3 million immigration transactions per year, and 6 million passport applications. 45k people on boats are relatively small beer. Most of the asylum budget is spent on accommodation rather than staff. The whole system has been systematically underfunded for years, but the asylum system is further hobbled by the political requirement for performative nastiness, and money and energy wasted on designed to fail nonsense like Rwanda.

[E63eeeeee...]

Vanden Saab said:

Gweeds said:

Ayahuasca said:

Of course it can. If someone is in fear of their life and wants a safe haven, Rwanda is that. A blessing.

If they are just economic migrants looking to take advantage of the UK, Rwanda is a deterrent.

Make sense?

Excellent - now let's talk about how they get here. The safe routes.....

Ask the half a million who came here legally last year alone may be?

Get a university place, get a job, marry a UK resident. Not generally options easily available to people fleeing wars or unable to approach their state for a passport.

[Gweeds]

Vanden Saab said:

Ask the half a million who came here legally last year alone may be?

And where did they come from.......

[crankedup5]

heebeegeetee said:

crankedup5 said:

And yet the reality is our Government is set to ‘stop the small boats’. That’s the reality.

I'm staggered that anyone still thinks like this.

After the debacle of the past 13 years, which imo has seen the country ground down to a point where I can no longer see a GP or get an ambulance when I really need one, I'm staggered that people still have such faith.

How much failure does a political party have to generate to get the message of utter failure across?

I do feel though than no Labour Party will get the chance to generate so much failure for so long a time.

2008 - Global financial crash
2019 - Brexit
2020 - Global pandemic
2022 - Russia invades Ukraine
Fair bit there requiring Government attention and I thank God we weren’t stuffed with a Labour Government through all this.

Government have hung their hat on the illegal small boat crossing debacle. They know that failure equals a wipe out in the next G.E.
Will Labour be the answer to your prayers, whatever they may be?

[HM-2]

crankedup5 said:

They know that failure equals a wipe out in the next G.E.

They're going to get wiped out next GE anyway, regardless of whether their small boats policy works (which it won't).

[captain_cynic]

HM-2 said:

crankedup5 said:

They know that failure equals a wipe out in the next G.E.

They're going to get wiped out next GE anyway, regardless of whether their small boats policy works (which it won't).

I cant believe I'm saying this... But Cranked is right, failure does mean a wipe out at the next GE... the problem he doesn't get is that the Tories have been nothing but a series of failures since Brexit (possibly before). They've already used every second chance the electorate has given them.

The Boats/Rwanda failure will just be another to add to that list.

[Randy Winkman]

crankedup5 said:

heebeegeetee said:

crankedup5 said:

And yet the reality is our Government is set to ‘stop the small boats’. That’s the reality.

I'm staggered that anyone still thinks like this.

After the debacle of the past 13 years, which imo has seen the country ground down to a point where I can no longer see a GP or get an ambulance when I really need one, I'm staggered that people still have such faith.

How much failure does a political party have to generate to get the message of utter failure across?

I do feel though than no Labour Party will get the chance to generate so much failure for so long a time.

2008 - Global financial crash
2019 - Brexit
2020 - Global pandemic
2022 - Russia invades Ukraine
Fair bit there requiring Government attention and I thank God we weren’t stuffed with a Labour Government through all this.

Government have hung their hat on the illegal small boat crossing debacle. They know that failure equals a wipe out in the next G.E.
Will Labour be the answer to your prayers, whatever they may be?

Of those, Covid is the only one for me where they get sympathy. And they genuinely do. 2008 was just one of those things that happens occasionally, Brexit was largely their doing and Ukraine, like 2008 is just one of those things that governments have to deal with like the Falklands or Iraq.

[Rivenink]

captain_cynic said:

HM-2 said:

crankedup5 said:

They know that failure equals a wipe out in the next G.E.

They're going to get wiped out next GE anyway, regardless of whether their small boats policy works (which it won't).

I cant believe I'm saying this... But Cranked is right, failure does mean a wipe out at the next GE... the problem he doesn't get is that the Tories have been nothing but a series of failures since Brexit (possibly before). They've already used every second chance the electorate has given them.

The Boats/Rwanda failure will just be another to add to that list.

It was always destined to fail as a policy to stop illegal migration. The point of it all has been to try to ignite a culture war. Hence why they're throwing trans people under the bus too.

Does anyone with more than a braincell think that any migrant, despeate enough to pay everything they have, and more to put their lives at the mercy and care of criminals, is going to be put off at the off chance they get caught and sent to Rwanda?

If the Government wanted to sort it out, they'd put some actually effective solutions into place.

[crankedup5]

captain_cynic said:

HM-2 said:

crankedup5 said:

They know that failure equals a wipe out in the next G.E.

They're going to get wiped out next GE anyway, regardless of whether their small boats policy works (which it won't).

I cant believe I'm saying this... But Cranked is right, failure does mean a wipe out at the next GE... the problem he doesn't get is that the Tories have been nothing but a series of failures since Brexit (possibly before). They've already used every second chance the electorate has given them.

The Boats/Rwanda failure will just be another to add to that list.

The thing is this, what is the alternative at the voting booth next year. I couldn’t contemplate voting for Starmer and his bunch of cretins to form Government. Better the cretins we know than jump into an even deeper pond.

[crankedup5]

Rivenink said:

captain_cynic said:

HM-2 said:

crankedup5 said:

They know that failure equals a wipe out in the next G.E.

They're going to get wiped out next GE anyway, regardless of whether their small boats policy works (which it won't).

I cant believe I'm saying this... But Cranked is right, failure does mean a wipe out at the next GE... the problem he doesn't get is that the Tories have been nothing but a series of failures since Brexit (possibly before). They've already used every second chance the electorate has given them.

The Boats/Rwanda failure will just be another to add to that list.

It was always destined to fail as a policy to stop illegal migration. The point of it all has been to try to ignite a culture war. Hence why they're throwing trans people under the bus too.

Does anyone with more than a braincell think that any migrant, despeate enough to pay everything they have, and more to put their lives at the mercy and care of criminals, is going to be put off at the off chance they get caught and sent to Rwanda?

If the Government wanted to sort it out, they'd put some actually effective solutions into place.

The question has to be asked, what are these effective solutions that can be put into place?