Immigration

[DanH]

Yes I seen plenty of people walking around with their matchas behaving like outstanding citizens 👍🏻

I’m going to need a new mince picture.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Just ‘going through’ too.

I don’t mind that these people think these places are no go zones - makes it far less likely to encounter a c*nt about.

That's why he had to get onto Youtube to find out what he thought about it first, obviously.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Well if you mean reducing the numbers from astronomical to huge then that is accurate.

A much greater reduction is required along with the deportation of illegals, criminals and spongers.

This year's numbers are roughly in line with early 2000s levels, and pretty middle of the pack internationally.

Clearly you support a greater reduction, fair enough, but it's completely inaccurate to suggest people are being ignored on immigration.

 

[DanH]

That's why he had to get onto Youtube to find out what he thought about it first, obviously.

The man whose brain is half Elon Musk fed rot and half Asda price minced beef?

Colour me shocked.

 

[georgenorman]

I'm addressing the point of principle, which you raised, but I understand why you wouldn't engage with it.

Immigration is down 50% this year, and 75% since it's peak in 2023. Small boat crossings have dropped, asylum claims have dropped, the number of asylum seekers in hotels has dropped, we're issuing way less visas... I don't really understand this narrative that people are being 'ignored' on immigration.

Immigration down from insane levels, now just ridiculously high, that's all right then?

 

[Jordan555x]

And, mate?

I don't see what point you're making.

Does that excuse a 'little rioting'?

That's a terrible comment, mate.

A slight repost but going to resend it because it still applies here.

Sort the cause out. Not the consequences. By sorting the cause out you help eliminate the consequences. Whether you like it or not, every action has a reaction. These riots are a consequence not a cause.

 

[Spiderman]

Although I can't see his posts I imagine it's the usual insulting and attacking people with no real debate.

The leftys were noticably quiet about Nowak and the attempted beheading in belfast and only reared their ugly heads when a little protesting happens, with a few wheely bins thrown or flowers trodden on in epsom.

Yep the self proclaimed defender of Epsom High Street was very quiet on both. But he has now reared his head again, why is that?

 

[Spiderman]

Of course no one condones burning anyone's home, or anything else, but it happens every time, including the grooming gangs.
We've seen it on here after an unknown number of young girls were abused and Tommy Robinson was the main topic.

Were t businesses burnt in Harehills? Didn’t suit a narrative presumably

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Immigration down from insane levels, now just ridiculously high, that's all right then?

How do you define 'ridiculously high'? What's your benchmark?

Also, to reiterate, my point was made in response to a suggestion that people are being 'ignored' on immigration and the government is forcing through immigration policies, which is very evidently untrue.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

A slight repost but going to resend it because it still applies here.

Sort the cause out. Not the consequences. By sorting the cause out you help eliminate the consequences. Whether you like it or not, every action has a reaction. These riots are a consequence not a cause.

This logic could justify anything though right? If you say any consequence is reasonable/acceptable if there's a cause behind it, you can quite literally justify murder.

You can very easily do both; discuss the cause, condemn the consequence.

 

[Spiderman]

I'm addressing the point of principle, which you raised, but I understand why you wouldn't engage with it.

Immigration is down 50% this year, and 75% since it's peak in 2023. Small boat crossings have dropped, asylum claims have dropped, the number of asylum seekers in hotels has dropped, we're issuing way less visas... I don't really understand this narrative that people are being 'ignored' on immigration.

Where are they then? Certainly not been deported, oh yes dispersed into the community, without really knowing anything about them. Personally I don’t believe we are issuing less visa, maybe in some categories but I don’t believe the official figures don’t include visitors, only categories that automatically lead to residence. Unfortunately many visitors don’t leave either

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Where are they then? Certainly not been deported, oh yes dispersed into the community, without really knowing anything about them. Personally I don’t believe we are issuing less visa, maybe in some categories but I don’t believe the official figures don’t include visitors, only categories that automatically lead to residence. Unfortunately many visitors don’t leave either

If there's less claims there's less people going into the system, obviously.

I think once you get to just outright disbelieving official figures, there is little basis for discussion.

 

[Jordan555x]

This logic could justify anything though right? If you say any consequence is reasonable/acceptable if there's a cause behind it, you can quite literally justify murder.

You can very easily do both; discuss the cause, condemn the consequence.

I never said it was reasonable or acceptable just that it is a consequence which is a fact. Jailing rioters isn't going to deal with the cause. I am a pragmatist, deal with the cause and you help to eliminate the consequence. Do you believe the riots would've happened if the cause itself wasn't there? Obviously not.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

This year's numbers are roughly in line with early 2000s levels, and pretty middle of the pack internationally.

Clearly you support a greater reduction, fair enough, but it's completely inaccurate to suggest people are being ignored on immigration.

The numbers have been too high for decades, but they hit an unprecedented vast number under the last government. They need to be reduced to pre 1960s levels and, like I said, we need deportations of those who have a serious negative impact on our society. I'm not talking about people who get a parking ticket.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

The numbers have been too high for decades, but they hit an unprecedented vast number under the last government. They need to be reduced to pre 1960s levels and, like I said, we need deportations of those who have a serious negative impact on our society. I'm not talking about people who get a parking ticket.

I think that's an unrealistic ambition, and I don't think it would even come close to stacking up economically.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

I think that's an unrealistic ambition, and I don't think it would even come close to stacking up economically.

Where is your evidence for that? Starmer himself admitted that immigration is not financially advantageous. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could figure out that the cost of an increasing population will ultimately be greater than the benefit unless you continue to flood the country with ever greater numbers. That is a finite and therefore unworkable policy for obvious reasons.

The whole process has been about short term solutions for the election cycle.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I never said it was reasonable or acceptable just that it is a consequence which is a fact. Jailing rioters isn't going to deal with the cause. I am a pragmatist, deal with the cause and you help to eliminate the consequence. Do you believe the riots would've happened if the cause itself wasn't there? Obviously not.

Yes, but you're seeking to remove or reduce blame aimed at the consequence, which doesn't make sense.

If unemployment leads to violent crime, we don't start arguing that violent crime is ok/understandable until unemployment drops.

You can very easily do both; address the underlying causations and hold people accountable for how they respond to them.

Otherwise you're effectively saying people have no agency and outcomes are inevitable once a cause exists... which clearly isn't true.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Yes, but you're seeking to remove or reduce blame aimed at the consequence, which doesn't make sense.

If unemployment leads to violent crime, we don't start arguing that violent crime is ok/understandable until unemployment drops.

You can very easily do both; address the underlying causations and hold people accountable for how they respond to them.

Otherwise you're effectively saying people have no agency and outcomes are inevitable once a cause exists... which clearly isn't true.

The argument is not about the merits of rioting. The question is about where the blame lies. Who is ultimately responsible.

You and I both know the answer whether you admit it or not.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Where is your evidence for that? Starmer himself admitted that immigration is not financially advantageous. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could figure out that the cost of an increasing population will ultimately be greater than the benefit unless you continue to flood the country with ever greater numbers. That is a finite and therefore unworkable policy for obvious reasons.

The whole process has been about short term solutions for the election cycle.

I didn't say immigration is always economically beneficial or that numbers can rise forever. I said reducing immigration to pre-1960s levels feels unrealistic and would likely come with major economic consequences.

The UK today isn't the UK of 1960 - we have an older population, lower birth rates, and entire sectors that are structurally reliant on migrant labour and migrant taxpayers. You can absolutely argue those sectors should adapt, but adaptation isn't free, and it certainly isn't quick. We already have failing public services and public sector vacancies in just about every area.

Even if net migration at very high levels has diminishing returns, that doesn't mean nearly eliminating it improves outcomes.

By the same logic, because unlimited taxation is unsustainable, we shouldn't bother taxing anyone.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

The argument is not about the merits of rioting. The question is about where the blame lies. Who is ultimately responsible.

You and I both know the answer whether you admit it or not.

The people rioting absolutely deserve blame for their actions - I can't believe you're seriously suggesting otherwise.

If we accept a reality where if you feel wronged by something, you are not to blame if you go and engage in violent, criminal disorder against innocent individuals... that's utter madness.