Chemical attack in London...

silvagti said:
I’ll tell you what I believe. My own two eyes.

Down the road from me there’s a hotel full of exclusively 20/30 year old male economic migrants. You can see them all hanging about the city centre through the day clearly working a variety of “cash in hand” jobs.

Now, it could be that the women, children and elderly are in a different hotel. But to me it suggests that the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers and refugees are in fact young men here looking to escape poverty in search of a better life and are primarily here for economic reasons.

I suspect many will have seen the same thing happening in towns around them and will be asking the same questions I am. This is why it’s such a contentious issue as the media and most politicians are very clearly and deliberately trying to downplay the demographic make up of these “refugees”.

Doubly so when we’re seeing events like this where young men who’ve illegally entered the country without the usual background/visa checks are committing criminal acts yet somehow are being allowed to remain.
Click to expand...


As explained so many times, the reason more asylum seekers are male is purely due to geography. If you want a more equal ratio it would be possible to set up asylum schemes with processing centers at the UK embassies in places like Syria and Afghanistan that can pre-check women and children and then fly them to the UK to complete their processing.


If the asylum seekers are economic migrants then they are deported. If you don't want to pay hotels bills then you can vote for a part that will invest in home office staffing so the applicants can be processed faster and the economic migrants deported sooner, saving costs.
 
Malevolence said:
Anyone with half a brain can see what's going on, except those in charge of all this who just seem to blatantly ignore it don't do a damn thing because a.) they're too scared of being labelled as some sort *ist or *phobe by the usual suspects or b.) they're willingly complicit in the rape and ruin of this country.
Click to expand...
Just seems the CoE has far too much power
 
D.P. said:
As explained so many times, the reason more asylum seekers are male is purely due to geography. If you want a more equal ratio it would be possible to set up asylum schemes with processing centers at the UK embassies in places like Syria and Afghanistan that can pre-check women and children and then fly them to the UK to complete their processing.
Click to expand...

Due to geography? How does that impact the demographics of asylum seekers? Presumably these countries have equal numbers of each gender?

If anything wouldn’t you assume the vast majority of those fleeing war torn countries world be female, young and elderly given the men are generally the ones fighting and dying in the wars?
 
silvagti said:
Due to geography? How does that impact the demographics of asylum seekers? Presumably these countries have equal numbers of each gender?

If anything wouldn’t you assume the vast majority of those fleeing war torn countries world be female, young and elderly given the men are generally the ones fighting and dying in the wars?
Click to expand...
I should think they are actually the majority of refugees however the predisposition of a mother is generally to avoid further risking the lives of their children by continuing to journey with dangerous smugglers, though some of course do opt for it presumably due to not feeling much safer at whatever refugee camp they've stumbled into.

That said there will plenty of young(ish) men not wanting to fight for their despot leader or fanatical rebels and naturally much more likely to opt for the promises of verdant horizons that smugglers sell them due to male tendencies, so not surprising they make up a fair chunk of the input the further away they get from their hopeless country.
 
silvagti said:
Due to geography? How does that impact the demographics of asylum seekers?
Click to expand...
Because like it or not since the dawn of time men have been more physically capable of making long, often dangerous, journeys than women and children.

Added to the geographic reason is men are more likely to become refugees overall because they're more likely to be coerced into a fighting force or killed to prevent them fighting for the other side.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
If the asylum seekers are economic migrants then they are deported. If you don't want to pay hotels bills then you can vote for a part that will invest in home office staffing so the applicants can be processed faster and the economic migrants deported sooner, saving costs.
Click to expand...

Frankly I’d rather vote for a party that will actually enforce border controls in the first place and put an end to the concept that we inherently have some kind of responsibility to offer food, shelter and citizenship to any random stranger who tries to smuggle themselves into the country.

If people want to come to the country legally to work, contribute to society and have the skills to do so (having passed vetting ) that’s fantastic.

If they’re coming here because they don’t want to fight in their own country and are running away for their own self-interest what makes you think they’ll be a benefit to our society? Those seem like exactly the type of individuals we don’t want here ?

The recent headlines and topic of this thread highlights that fact.
 
Last edited:
silvagti said:
Frankly I’d rather vote for a party that will actually put an end to the concept that we inherently have some kind of responsibility to offer food, shelter and citizenship to any random stranger who tries to smuggle themselves into the country.
Click to expand...

And as long as you do you will continue to be mugged off by them.
 
Malevolence said:
Anyone with half a brain can see what's going on, except those in charge of all this who just seem to blatantly ignore it don't do a damn thing because a.) they're too scared of being labelled as some sort *ist or *phobe by the usual suspects or b.) they're willingly complicit in the rape and ruin of this country.
Click to expand...

The answer is b)
 
silvagti said:
Frankly I’d rather vote for a party that will actually enforce border controls in the first place and put an end to the concept that we inherently have some kind of responsibility to offer food, shelter and citizenship to any random stranger who tries to smuggle themselves into the country.

If people want to come to the country legally to work, contribute to society and have the skills to do so (having passed vetting ) that’s fantastic.

If they’re coming here because they don’t want to fight in their own country and are running away for their own self-interest what makes you think they’ll be a benefit to our society? Those seem like exactly the type of individuals we don’t want here ?

The recent headlines and topic of this thread highlights that fact.
Click to expand...
The problem with such a party is that how do they keep you voting for them if they get rid of the reason you've voted for them for?

They'll keep it going as a racket.
 
silvagti said:
Frankly I’d rather vote for a party that will actually enforce border controls in the first place and put an end to the concept that we inherently have some kind of responsibility to offer food, shelter and citizenship to any random stranger who tries to smuggle themselves into the country.

If people want to come to the country legally to work, contribute to society and have the skills to do so (having passed vetting ) that’s fantastic.
Click to expand...
I suspect, despite the mischaracterisation by some people, that's all most people want.

For our government to have half decent border controls in place, unfortunately that seems beyond their capabilities.
 
silvagti said:
Frankly I’d rather vote for a party that will actually enforce border controls in the first place and put an end to the concept that we inherently have some kind of responsibility to offer food, shelter and citizenship to any random stranger who tries to smuggle themselves into the country.

If people want to come to the country legally to work, contribute to society and have the skills to do so (having passed vetting ) that’s fantastic.

If they’re coming here because they don’t want to fight in their own country and are running away for their own self-interest what makes you think they’ll be a benefit to our society? Those seem like exactly the type of individuals we don’t want here ?

The recent headlines and topic of this thread highlights that fact.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the ultimate criteria as to whether someone is 'our sort', being willing to shoot at people and be shot at.
 
silvagti said:
Due to geography? How does that impact the demographics of asylum seekers?
Click to expand...

Survivorship bias.

In any physically arduous task there will be more men left at the end.

The women, kids, elderly just can't make or survive the trip as easily. Many just won't try, the men will go on ahead and try to bring them once settled.

Same reason it isn't the women and elderly fighting in wars.
 
silvagti said:
Due to geography? How does that impact the demographics of asylum seekers? Presumably these countries have equal numbers of each gender?

If anything wouldn’t you assume the vast majority of those fleeing war torn countries world be female, young and elderly given the men are generally the ones fighting and dying in the wars?
Click to expand...

A majority of refugees globally are women and children, but mother's with young children don't travel so far due and are thus less likely to arrive in the UK precisely due to geography. If the UK neighbored Syria for example then there would be a majority of women and children seeking asylum.
 
This thread has drifted so far off topic its barely recognisable.

We have threads in Speakers Corner to discuss immigration, if you want to continue the debate then please take it there.

Any ongoing derailment will see the thread closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom