Discussion
BikeBikeBIke said:
That is certainly the right thing to do. Stop at the first safe country. Much easier to manage that way.
Seriously, if there was a massive earthquake in Dorking is it better if we all spread ourselves to the four winds as as far as Turkey or Belarus or should we stop in France and Ireland where we can be managed/helped? It's a no brainer.
Most do stay in the first safe country. Look at Syria and its neighbouring countries where hundreds of thousands are in camps waiting for the conflict to end so they can return home.Seriously, if there was a massive earthquake in Dorking is it better if we all spread ourselves to the four winds as as far as Turkey or Belarus or should we stop in France and Ireland where we can be managed/helped? It's a no brainer.
Lebanon and Jordan have taken something like 600k each and can can barely support its own population let alone the newly arrived. Turkey has taken over 3m and the UK has taken approx 12k.
We simply aren’t doing our bit compared to others.
valiant said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
That is certainly the right thing to do. Stop at the first safe country. Much easier to manage that way.
Seriously, if there was a massive earthquake in Dorking is it better if we all spread ourselves to the four winds as as far as Turkey or Belarus or should we stop in France and Ireland where we can be managed/helped? It's a no brainer.
Most do stay in the first safe country. Seriously, if there was a massive earthquake in Dorking is it better if we all spread ourselves to the four winds as as far as Turkey or Belarus or should we stop in France and Ireland where we can be managed/helped? It's a no brainer.
valiant said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
That is certainly the right thing to do. Stop at the first safe country. Much easier to manage that way.
Seriously, if there was a massive earthquake in Dorking is it better if we all spread ourselves to the four winds as as far as Turkey or Belarus or should we stop in France and Ireland where we can be managed/helped? It's a no brainer.
Most do stay in the first safe country. Look at Syria and its neighbouring countries where hundreds of thousands are in camps waiting for the conflict to end so they can return home.Seriously, if there was a massive earthquake in Dorking is it better if we all spread ourselves to the four winds as as far as Turkey or Belarus or should we stop in France and Ireland where we can be managed/helped? It's a no brainer.
Lebanon and Jordan have taken something like 600k each and can can barely support its own population let alone the newly arrived. Turkey has taken over 3m and the UK has taken approx 12k.
We simply aren’t doing our bit compared to others.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:crankedup5 said:
And what obligations are we under regarding our homeless people?
Questions are being asked regarding the migration crisis throughout Europe, time for a complete re-evaluation of policies which were agreed to decades ago. We are in a completely different World now to when the policies were introduced.
The two things aren't mutually exclusive Cranked.Questions are being asked regarding the migration crisis throughout Europe, time for a complete re-evaluation of policies which were agreed to decades ago. We are in a completely different World now to when the policies were introduced.
These people fought alongside us and we told them we would fulfil our obligations and responsibilities to help them.
Personally I consider that means we owe them something but it's not the biggest surprise that it appears that you don't.
S600BSB said:
Exactly. Time for the UK to step up.
Put some numbers on it then. What would stepping up be? It's entirely possible that people who are enthusiastically propopulation increase actually want less people that people who are anti population increase and vice versa.Unless people say what they think the numbers *should* be it's a bit futile debate.
Also what does stepping up mean? You talk as though it's a sacrifice to to take more people in. Why not look at the economic/social advantages and see it as a positive?
S600BSB said:
valiant said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
That is certainly the right thing to do. Stop at the first safe country. Much easier to manage that way.
Seriously, if there was a massive earthquake in Dorking is it better if we all spread ourselves to the four winds as as far as Turkey or Belarus or should we stop in France and Ireland where we can be managed/helped? It's a no brainer.
Most do stay in the first safe country. Look at Syria and its neighbouring countries where hundreds of thousands are in camps waiting for the conflict to end so they can return home.Seriously, if there was a massive earthquake in Dorking is it better if we all spread ourselves to the four winds as as far as Turkey or Belarus or should we stop in France and Ireland where we can be managed/helped? It's a no brainer.
Lebanon and Jordan have taken something like 600k each and can can barely support its own population let alone the newly arrived. Turkey has taken over 3m and the UK has taken approx 12k.
We simply aren’t doing our bit compared to others.
crankedup5 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:crankedup5 said:
And what obligations are we under regarding our homeless people?
Questions are being asked regarding the migration crisis throughout Europe, time for a complete re-evaluation of policies which were agreed to decades ago. We are in a completely different World now to when the policies were introduced.
The two things aren't mutually exclusive Cranked.Questions are being asked regarding the migration crisis throughout Europe, time for a complete re-evaluation of policies which were agreed to decades ago. We are in a completely different World now to when the policies were introduced.
These people fought alongside us and we told them we would fulfil our obligations and responsibilities to help them.
Personally I consider that means we owe them something but it's not the biggest surprise that it appears that you don't.
There are currently nearly 5 million UK citizens living abroad. Do we want all of them them back?
Without putting a number on the population we *want* to aim for, any debate is utterly futile. (And needlessly emotive.)
pablo said:
Not sure why claim uses inverted commas, when ex-Afghan forces personnel are having to use small boats as a means of claiming asylum, something is fundamentally wrong.
Also based on this, the number of flights out of Scampton to Rwanda will be remarkably low...
FWIW Scampton is better than hotels but there are still many better options
What the chart really notes, and what many have been saying/agreeing with is that govt needs to be quicker in processing claims...Also based on this, the number of flights out of Scampton to Rwanda will be remarkably low...
FWIW Scampton is better than hotels but there are still many better options
But as electro notes, if a lot of people are coming over with zero paperwork, how does a govt (any, not just ours) validate who someone is and their eligibility to stay?
Are those ~7k who had their application processed the "easy" ones, ie ones with documentation? And as such, are they also likely to be the ones more likely to be eligible?
One of the exRAF bases being cited is very close to me. I have no issue with it being used for this... It makes a degree of sense. BUT only if it's supported by a swifter means of processing applications, that proper distribution of applicants happens on success or deportation on failure etc etc. None of which I trust this or any other govt of any hue to do.
More likely is that processing remains slow, people in the centres start to complain and we end up with more tearing ourselves apart on what "the right thing" to do is (which primarily above anything else should be safe shelter while applicants are processed, coupled with trying to eradicate people trafficking).
Murph7355 said:
But as electro notes, if a lot of people are coming over with zero paperwork, how does a govt (any, not just ours) validate who someone is and their eligibility to stay?
Are those ~7k who had their application processed the "easy" ones, ie ones with documentation?
I think this is the crux. There are more people handling the cases but the cases have likely become detective work instead of a 20 minute document checking exercise.Are those ~7k who had their application processed the "easy" ones, ie ones with documentation?
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Thursday 30th March 14:31
valiant said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
That is certainly the right thing to do. Stop at the first safe country. Much easier to manage that way.
Seriously, if there was a massive earthquake in Dorking is it better if we all spread ourselves to the four winds as as far as Turkey or Belarus or should we stop in France and Ireland where we can be managed/helped? It's a no brainer.
Most do stay in the first safe country. Look at Syria and its neighbouring countries where hundreds of thousands are in camps waiting for the conflict to end so they can return home.Seriously, if there was a massive earthquake in Dorking is it better if we all spread ourselves to the four winds as as far as Turkey or Belarus or should we stop in France and Ireland where we can be managed/helped? It's a no brainer.
Lebanon and Jordan have taken something like 600k each and can can barely support its own population let alone the newly arrived. Turkey has taken over 3m and the UK has taken approx 12k.
We simply aren’t doing our bit compared to others.
In total, there are between 594,000 and 745,000 illegal migrants in the UK, so I don't know where you het your 12,000 figure from.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2023/02/09/d...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_...
andyA700 said:
valiant said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
That is certainly the right thing to do. Stop at the first safe country. Much easier to manage that way.
Seriously, if there was a massive earthquake in Dorking is it better if we all spread ourselves to the four winds as as far as Turkey or Belarus or should we stop in France and Ireland where we can be managed/helped? It's a no brainer.
Most do stay in the first safe country. Look at Syria and its neighbouring countries where hundreds of thousands are in camps waiting for the conflict to end so they can return home.Seriously, if there was a massive earthquake in Dorking is it better if we all spread ourselves to the four winds as as far as Turkey or Belarus or should we stop in France and Ireland where we can be managed/helped? It's a no brainer.
Lebanon and Jordan have taken something like 600k each and can can barely support its own population let alone the newly arrived. Turkey has taken over 3m and the UK has taken approx 12k.
We simply aren’t doing our bit compared to others.
In total, there are between 594,000 and 745,000 illegal migrants in the UK, so I don't know where you het your 12,000 figure from.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2023/02/09/d...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/740233/major-s...
BikeBikeBIke said:
Murph7355 said:
But as electro notes, if a lot of people are coming over with zero paperwork, how does a govt (any, not just ours) validate who someone is and their eligibility to stay?
Are those ~7k who had their application processed the "easy" ones, ie ones with documentation?
I think this is the crux. There are more people handling the cases but the cases have likely become detective work instead of a 20 minute document checking exercise.Are those ~7k who had their application processed the "easy" ones, ie ones with documentation?
So what do you do to check that the individual is eligible or not?
Not a single proposal, from any quarter, seems to deal with this.
Have the numbers without paperwork increased significantly? I can't find any evidence to back this up.
I can find evidence that changes to the way claimants are assessed, changes to the organisational structure of the civil servants who do the assessments and subsequent low morale have slowed things down. These are all things the government has control over.
I can find evidence that changes to the way claimants are assessed, changes to the organisational structure of the civil servants who do the assessments and subsequent low morale have slowed things down. These are all things the government has control over.
Murph7355 said:
Question is, how do you solve for it?
Maybe we already have? If you offset illegal immigration against the reduction in legal immigration in recent years we might have actually significantly reduced population increase already.Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Thursday 30th March 17:59
Frik said:
Have the numbers without paperwork increased significantly? I can't find any evidence to back this up.
I can find evidence that changes to the way claimants are assessed, changes to the organisational structure of the civil servants who do the assessments and subsequent low morale have slowed things down. These are all things the government has control over.
No idea whether it's increased or not. Only figures I could find were for Ireland - ~40% allegedly have no papers there. Can't see it being much different here. Logically you could argue it would likely be higher for those coming over by small boat.I can find evidence that changes to the way claimants are assessed, changes to the organisational structure of the civil servants who do the assessments and subsequent low morale have slowed things down. These are all things the government has control over.
It's just another area where the stats are murky/non-existent.
Migration Observatory has some interesting figures. There'll certainly be no one silver bullet.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/br...
Murph7355 said:
Frik said:
Have the numbers without paperwork increased significantly? I can't find any evidence to back this up.
I can find evidence that changes to the way claimants are assessed, changes to the organisational structure of the civil servants who do the assessments and subsequent low morale have slowed things down. These are all things the government has control over.
No idea whether it's increased or not. Only figures I could find were for Ireland - ~40% allegedly have no papers there. Can't see it being much different here. Logically you could argue it would likely be higher for those coming over by small boat.I can find evidence that changes to the way claimants are assessed, changes to the organisational structure of the civil servants who do the assessments and subsequent low morale have slowed things down. These are all things the government has control over.
It's just another area where the stats are murky/non-existent.
Migration Observatory has some interesting figures. There'll certainly be no one silver bullet.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/br...
Can anyone suggest other Military/RAF facilities which can be adapted to provide short, or long term, accommodation for the migrant/asylum seekers?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff