Immigration

[Rudi Hedman]

I'm not one for giving illegal immigrants an easy time, but putting them in close proximity to Wisbelch seems a bit harsh.

There’s no problem having a liberal or (secret) leftie on here. But only if they add anything worthwhile, honest and true.

 

[Eagleman13]

Every culture apart from one. Home Counties Anglo-Saxon. You may get some English Northerners......them having been run out of Blackpool or West Yorkshire. But not so many from the Home Counties. That latter group having decamped yonks ago to Essex , Kent, or Creepy Crawley. And if you want to hear Cockney ? best getting a plane to Benidorm.

Immigration.
Denmark has some fantastic visionary new Laws to prevent ghettos. Ghettos that are aloof from the native culture. Lefty travelogue journalist Simon thingy made a fool of himself with his reaction to these.

Denmark’s migration reset sets stage for EU-wide rethink

Denmark has reframed the debate on migration by adopting highly restrictive rules presented through the lens of progressive politics. #EuropeNews

www.euronews.com

Trouble with your assertion, is that Benni is not full of cockneys, Scottish, Mancs, Geordies, West country & Yorkshire

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

have you had many stabbings, shootings & Rape gangs there in Cornwall ? nope, i didnt think so.

What on earth has that comment got to do with the percentage of asylum applications that succeed?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Or increase in burglaries, street crime, drug dealing and workers who are paid in a way which avoids Income Tax and NI contributions ? Crimes where the police will not discuss ethnicity of the suspects ?
White Flight: in action

The claim was that the number of successful asylum applications was very low. My response was to show that is untrue.

What direct connection has the above to do with the subject? It’s just another rhetorical dig.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

The claim was that the number of successful asylum applications was very low. My response was to show that is untrue.

What direct connection has the above to do with the subject? It’s just another rhetorical dig.

Your response was a crock of sh1t. Half are rejected at first attempt but half of those rejected are granted asylum on appeal.

You obviously don’t see the flaw here. If they were genuine they’d be granted asylum at first attempt. They grant them asylum on appeal because it’s easier than deporting. We don’t deport people is the clue. We should.

If they aren’t rejected because they don’t qualify, it’s because they threw their papers into the sea, so where are they from? And actually this is what loads of them do, which makes you wonder if those accepted did it too, but had some heart wrenching story about being gay or whatever, because that is what they heard gets them through and accepted asylum.

When all this illegal immigration started your liberal friends claimed they were ‘all refugees fleeing war’. Which wars? Where from? It wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now.

How many shall we allow in per year, legal and illegal? Why don’t we make it 5 million per year? It’s a better life here so why not? Truro and Cornwall has space. Labour want the farmland after all.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

I would DNA swab everyone claiming asylum. The benefits would be :

1. You would get an idea of where they are from
2. You can cross-reference DNA on international criminal and healthcare databases
3. You then have them on your database in case they are suspects of further crime in the UK
4. You can check for contagious diseases

The downside is that you might hurt their feelings and infringe their Rights to gain illegal entry to a country

 

[Badger11]

Labour are to overhaul the Asylum process to make it quicker to approve oops I meant process claims.

There are some fundamentals which if they don't address means just another re-branding exercise.

1. Stop these multiple endless appeals by one person.
2. Remove the benefit of the doubt. I don't know the law here but from the newspapers it appears that the government has to prove someone is not an asylum seeker rather than the AS proving they are. It's just wrong. The other day there was a Nigerian who had multiple failed appeals and at the last had decided he was gay. The evidence for this was non existent and the judge summing up even indicated he didn't quite believe it but decided to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Why? It should be up to the AS to prove their claim not the other way around.

3. Grounds for applying for asylum need to be tightened. Over the last few decades the courts have broadened the rules making it easier for someone to claim. The rules around asylum were originally created to protect people from political persecution by their government. The people who drew them up were thinking about high profile political activists under threat of imprisonment or death buy the authorities e.g. Solzhenitsyn in Russia.

The courts have now broadened this to include people who may not have a happy life because of their circumstances e.g. a gay person in Jamaica (the government does not persecute gays) or a gangster in Albania who may be targetted by other gangsters. This is not asylum as most people understand it.

4. Undesirables. Some people we just don't want e.g. criminals, sex offenders, gangsters etc. Their behaviour should be a factor in granting asylum and if they break the law here they should be deported.

Other European countries who are also members of the ECHR do not seem to have a problem denying or deporting. As the French keep telling us we are a soft touch.

I doubt any of the above will happen under Labour.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

I would DNA swab everyone claiming asylum. The benefits would be :

1. You would get an idea of where they are from
2. You can cross-reference DNA on international criminal and healthcare databases
3. You then have them on your database in case they are suspects of further crime in the UK
4. You can check for contagious diseases

The downside is that you might hurt their feelings and infringe their Rights to gain illegal entry to a country

Human rights lawyers like Keir Starmer would be all over it. These people are also the problem.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

Labour are to overhaul the Asylum process to make it quicker to approve oops I meant process claims.

There are some fundamentals which if they don't address means just another re-branding exercise.

1. Stop these multiple endless appeals by one person.
2. Remove the benefit of the doubt. I don't know the law here but from the newspapers it appears that the government has to prove someone is not an asylum seeker rather than the AS proving they are. It's just wrong. The other day there was a Nigerian who had multiple failed appeals and at the last had decided he was gay. The evidence for this was non existent and the judge summing up even indicated he didn't quite believe it but decided to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Why? It should be up to the AS to prove their claim not the other way around.

3. Grounds for applying for asylum need to be tightened. Over the last few decades the courts have broadened the rules making it easier for someone to claim. The rules around asylum were originally created to protect people from political persecution by their government. The people who drew them up were thinking about high profile political activists under threat of imprisonment or death buy the authorities e.g. Solzhenitsyn in Russia.

The courts have now broadened this to include people who may not have a happy life because of their circumstances e.g. a gay person in Jamaica (the government does not persecute gays) or a gangster in Albania who may be targetted by other gangsters. This is not asylum as most people understand it.

4. Undesirables. Some people we just don't want e.g. criminals, sex offenders, gangsters etc. Their behaviour should be a factor in granting asylum and if they break the law here they should be deported.

Other European countries who are also members of the ECHR do not seem to have a problem denying or deporting. As the French keep telling us we are a soft touch.

I doubt any of the above will happen under Labour.

FFS. This is what these liberals are arguing to keep.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Your response was a crock of sh1t. Half are rejected at first attempt but half of those rejected are granted asylum on appeal.

You obviously don’t see the flaw here. If they were genuine they’d be granted asylum at first attempt. They grant them asylum on appeal because it’s easier than deporting. We don’t deport people is the clue. We should.

If they aren’t rejected because they don’t qualify, it’s because they threw their papers into the sea, so where are they from? And actually this is what loads of them do, which makes you wonder if those accepted did it too, but had some heart wrenching story about being gay or whatever, because that is what they heard gets them through and accepted asylum.

When all this illegal immigration started your liberal friends claimed they were ‘all refugees fleeing war’. Which wars? Where from? It wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now.

How many shall we allow in per year, legal and illegal? Why don’t we make it 5 million per year? It’s a better life here so why not? Truro and Cornwall has space. Labour want the farmland after all.

Once again you are completely missing the point!

You can rant about the illegals who become asylum seekers and everything that follows until the cows come home. We all know it’s a big problem.

However, until it’s solved we have to deal with the consequences and face reality. There are no magic solutions. These people need to be accommodated somehow. In ways that meet our obligations, reduce any risks and at the minimum cost.

At least you now acknowledge that the “very few” are successful claim was a “crock of s***”!

The real question is what can be done practically to alleviate the problems? Protesting outside hotels and getting them rejected as places to be used as housing does nothing but move the problem somewhere else. When the policy has been to try to spread the load across the whole country this is just nimbyism in other clothes. It’s not facing realty.

At least the government is attempting to do something practical with its announcement this morning of a new system of hearing appeals which will be outside the court system and thus avoid the consequent backlogs. Whether this will actually help, or be tripped up by lawyers with habeas corpus claims after an application is rejected, remains to be seen.

 

[Spiderman]

The claim was that the number of successful asylum applications was very low. My response was to show that is untrue.

What direct connection has the above to do with the subject? It’s just another rhetorical dig.

Because their claims are successful, it doesn’t mean they are genuine 😉

 

[Rudi Hedman]

Once again you are completely missing the point!

You can rant about the illegals who become asylum seekers and everything that follows until the cows come home. We all know it’s a big problem.

However, until it’s solved we have to deal with the consequences and face reality. There are no magic solutions. These people need to be accommodated somehow. In ways that meet our obligations, reduce any risks and at the minimum cost.

At least you now acknowledge that the “very few” are successful claim was a “crock of s***”!

The real question is what can be done practically to alleviate the problems? Protesting outside hotels and getting them rejected as places to be used as housing does nothing but move the problem somewhere else. When the policy has been to try to spread the load across the whole country this is just nimbyism in other clothes. It’s not facing realty.

At least the government is attempting to do something practical with its announcement this morning of a new system of hearing appeals which will be outside the court system and thus avoid the consequent backlogs. Whether this will actually help, or be tripped up by lawyers with habeas corpus claims after an application is rejected, remains to be seen.

Accommodated in large units with a mattress. No more. Stop encouraging them.

If they are successful many of them shouldn’t be. It’s a farce.

You’re right about the problem being moved from one hotel to somewhere else, probably loads of HMO’s spread around. But locals don’t want this and who are you to demand they should? Back to put them in large units.

The ‘operation scatter’ policy you mention nobody voted for. Are you getting this yet? Go on, accommodate them yourself.

 

[Spiderman]

Once again you are completely missing the point!

You can rant about the illegals who become asylum seekers and everything that follows until the cows come home. We all know it’s a big problem.

However, until it’s solved we have to deal with the consequences and face reality. There are no magic solutions. These people need to be accommodated somehow. In ways that meet our obligations, reduce any risks and at the minimum cost.

At least you now acknowledge that the “very few” are successful claim was a “crock of s***”!

The real question is what can be done practically to alleviate the problems? Protesting outside hotels and getting them rejected as places to be used as housing does nothing but move the problem somewhere else. When the policy has been to try to spread the load across the whole country this is just nimbyism in other clothes. It’s not facing realty.

At least the government is attempting to do something practical with its announcement this morning of a new system of hearing appeals which will be outside the court system and thus avoid the consequent backlogs. Whether this will actually help, or be tripped up by lawyers with habeas corpus claims after an application is rejected, remains to be seen.

Another nonsense scheme by the Government to make out they are getting on top of the problem. Of course it won’t help, your last sentence nailed it oh and you forgot the ECHR

 

[georgenorman]

Once again you are completely missing the point!

You can rant about the illegals who become asylum seekers and everything that follows until the cows come home. We all know it’s a big problem.

However, until it’s solved we have to deal with the consequences and face reality. There are no magic solutions. These people need to be accommodated somehow. In ways that meet our obligations, reduce any risks and at the minimum cost.

At least you now acknowledge that the “very few” are successful claim was a “crock of s***”!

The real question is what can be done practically to alleviate the problems? Protesting outside hotels and getting them rejected as places to be used as housing does nothing but move the problem somewhere else. When the policy has been to try to spread the load across the whole country this is just nimbyism in other clothes. It’s not facing realty.

At least the government is attempting to do something practical with its announcement this morning of a new system of hearing appeals which will be outside the court system and thus avoid the consequent backlogs. Whether this will actually help, or be tripped up by lawyers with habeas corpus claims after an application is rejected, remains to be seen.

No they don't. Stop all forms of support and they would stop coming within a couple of weeks.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

Labour are to overhaul the Asylum process to make it quicker to approve oops I meant process claims.

There are some fundamentals which if they don't address means just another re-branding exercise.

1. Stop these multiple endless appeals by one person.
2. Remove the benefit of the doubt. I don't know the law here but from the newspapers it appears that the government has to prove someone is not an asylum seeker rather than the AS proving they are. It's just wrong. The other day there was a Nigerian who had multiple failed appeals and at the last had decided he was gay. The evidence for this was non existent and the judge summing up even indicated he didn't quite believe it but decided to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Why? It should be up to the AS to prove their claim not the other way around.

3. Grounds for applying for asylum need to be tightened. Over the last few decades the courts have broadened the rules making it easier for someone to claim. The rules around asylum were originally created to protect people from political persecution by their government. The people who drew them up were thinking about high profile political activists under threat of imprisonment or death buy the authorities e.g. Solzhenitsyn in Russia.

The courts have now broadened this to include people who may not have a happy life because of their circumstances e.g. a gay person in Jamaica (the government does not persecute gays) or a gangster in Albania who may be targetted by other gangsters. This is not asylum as most people understand it.

4. Undesirables. Some people we just don't want e.g. criminals, sex offenders, gangsters etc. Their behaviour should be a factor in granting asylum and if they break the law here they should be deported.

Other European countries who are also members of the ECHR do not seem to have a problem denying or deporting. As the French keep telling us we are a soft touch.

I doubt any of the above will happen under Labour.

your thoughts are reasoned, reasonable, sensible and fair. Unfortunately, its moving around the deckchairs on the Titanic. Anything short of drastic action will still allow this ship to sink. Cos sinking it already is.
If 'Third World man' immigration stopped today, there would still be an enormous challenge to integrate and assimilate all the previously-entered group. Ideologically, culturally, religiously ..... an enormous challenge.
And then apart from 'third world man' arriving on dinghies, there is another challenge.

'Arranged marriage brides' again arriving in large numbers. Failing to learn English or adopt british culture. Failing to make British friends, to ever get a job, nor to even watch British TV. And these ladies contribution toward the fertility of the nation is enormous. Raising a new generation of kids who will never support our Cricket team, never wear a poppy in November, never do all that stuff we formerly took for granted. And statistically i cannot comment on longterm welfare dependency in certain Postcodes.....cos 2 Tier Kier would crucify me.

And all the Nigels & Sharons ? it strikes me that middle class British women are now encouraged to have a career, to defer parenthood until age 40 ( One baby if they are lucky), to pay into the inland revenue, and all of that. There shows an absence of planning in seeing where that takes the nation longterm.

Statistically, of 100 live births, what percentage are descended from a bloke with a job who pays into the system and stays to raise the kids ? 5% of births ? or more ?
If you fail to plan, then you plan to fail.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Labour are to overhaul the Asylum process to make it quicker to approve oops I meant process claims.

There are some fundamentals which if they don't address means just another re-branding exercise.

1. Stop these multiple endless appeals by one person.
2. Remove the benefit of the doubt. I don't know the law here but from the newspapers it appears that the government has to prove someone is not an asylum seeker rather than the AS proving they are. It's just wrong. The other day there was a Nigerian who had multiple failed appeals and at the last had decided he was gay. The evidence for this was non existent and the judge summing up even indicated he didn't quite believe it but decided to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Why? It should be up to the AS to prove their claim not the other way around.

3. Grounds for applying for asylum need to be tightened. Over the last few decades the courts have broadened the rules making it easier for someone to claim. The rules around asylum were originally created to protect people from political persecution by their government. The people who drew them up were thinking about high profile political activists under threat of imprisonment or death buy the authorities e.g. Solzhenitsyn in Russia.

The courts have now broadened this to include people who may not have a happy life because of their circumstances e.g. a gay person in Jamaica (the government does not persecute gays) or a gangster in Albania who may be targetted by other gangsters. This is not asylum as most people understand it.

4. Undesirables. Some people we just don't want e.g. criminals, sex offenders, gangsters etc. Their behaviour should be a factor in granting asylum and if they break the law here they should be deported.

Other European countries who are also members of the ECHR do not seem to have a problem denying or deporting. As the French keep telling us we are a soft touch.

I doubt any of the above will happen under Labour.

It actually demands international action rather than piecemeal efforts by individual states, us included. The issue then becomes the time that such action takes.

What is meant by asylum needs redefinition. It needs to reflect the reality of the mid 21st century and not that of the mid 20th, being born as a consequence of the holocaust.

Article 14(1) of the UNCR needs to be scrapped and rewritten. Until then our own court system, and not that of France or anywhere else, will determine how it’s interpreted and moaning about that won’t change anything.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Accommodated in large units with a mattress. No more. Stop encouraging them.

If they are successful many of them shouldn’t be. It’s a farce.

You’re right about the problem being moved from one hotel to somewhere else, probably loads of HMO’s spread around. But locals don’t want this and who are you to demand they should? Back to put them in large units.

The ‘operation scatter’ policy you mention nobody voted for. Are you getting this yet? Go on, accommodate them yourself.

I would expect that the “mattress in a warehouse” idea has already been considered and rejected as resulting in more problems than it solves. Without wishing to seem disrespectful it’s a pretty obvious idea!

 

[georgenorman]

Once again you are completely missing the point!

You can rant about the illegals who become asylum seekers and everything that follows until the cows come home. We all know it’s a big problem.

However, until it’s solved we have to deal with the consequences and face reality. There are no magic solutions.

Well you don't do you.
You have said that immigration "expands and enhances us" and that it is "more to enjoy".

 

[Spindle]

I wonder if Wisbech, Saturn, Steeley and Dan would like to comment

I think he's bang on.

 

[ASCPFC]

Labour are to overhaul the Asylum process to make it quicker to approve oops I meant process claims.

There are some fundamentals which if they don't address means just another re-branding exercise.

1. Stop these multiple endless appeals by one person.
2. Remove the benefit of the doubt. I don't know the law here but from the newspapers it appears that the government has to prove someone is not an asylum seeker rather than the AS proving they are. It's just wrong. The other day there was a Nigerian who had multiple failed appeals and at the last had decided he was gay. The evidence for this was non existent and the judge summing up even indicated he didn't quite believe it but decided to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Why? It should be up to the AS to prove their claim not the other way around.

3. Grounds for applying for asylum need to be tightened. Over the last few decades the courts have broadened the rules making it easier for someone to claim. The rules around asylum were originally created to protect people from political persecution by their government. The people who drew them up were thinking about high profile political activists under threat of imprisonment or death buy the authorities e.g. Solzhenitsyn in Russia.

The courts have now broadened this to include people who may not have a happy life because of their circumstances e.g. a gay person in Jamaica (the government does not persecute gays) or a gangster in Albania who may be targetted by other gangsters. This is not asylum as most people understand it.

4. Undesirables. Some people we just don't want e.g. criminals, sex offenders, gangsters etc. Their behaviour should be a factor in granting asylum and if they break the law here they should be deported.

Other European countries who are also members of the ECHR do not seem to have a problem denying or deporting. As the French keep telling us we are a soft touch.

I doubt any of the above will happen under Labour.

If I can ask one thing; please don't call them AS.