illegal immigration

[arknor]

So you agree that we're encouraging people to enter the country undocumented?

if by "we" you mean the RNLI and border farce then yes.

No I don't agree this is the only option that they have and it's our fault for not giving them visas/flights like Belarus did.

 

[Murphy]

No, I mean the government being they're the ones who run the country, our borders, and basically everything to do with immigration. The Home Office is responsible for our border force (I assume that's who you meant when you thought you were being funny by using "farce" rather than force).

Who said anything about visas/flights? I asked if you agreed that we're encouraging people to enter the country undocumented.

 

[arknor]

Who said anything about visas/flights? I asked if you agreed that we're encouraging people to enter the country undocumented.

yea and i was wondering if that was a trap so you can come out with
so you agree we should process them in their own countries so they don't have to make the journey.

 

[Murphy]

Saying something may have been a trap implies you consider the consequences of falling into it to be undesirable, i don't see what's undesirable about admitting that people should be going through the correct channels (border control at ports, airports, and channel tunnel train stations), rather than making that so difficult people feel the need to pay criminals to help them 'jump' the fence. And before you say it, no. It won't stop everyone from attempting to 'jump' the fence, but that's not why you do it, you do it because it take inordinately more resources to 'police' thousands of miles of coast than it does a few border crossings.

AFAIK we don't have the legal right to process them on other countries sovereign soil.

EDIT: For the avoidance of doubt as i dare say someone will attempt to mischaracterise what I've said. I'm saying we should be making getting to our border control posts as easy as possible so any undocumented immigrants can detained in one of the eight immigration detention centres that we have in the UK while we asses whether to grant them asylum or deport them. And we should invest enough money and resources so only limited numbers are given immigration bail (if they've got family in this country bail them to their family so their family can support them while their claim is processed if they don't pose a risk) and look to turning around claims/deportation in less than 6 months with a max of a year.

 

[arknor]

ou do it because it take inordinately more resources to 'police' thousands of miles of coast than it does a few border crossings.

dood it's only a small strip of sea they can cross from they dont have the option of the whole coast.
deport them to where? did you actually look at the number who actually get deported rather than have their immigration status declined but then seem to live here on the tax payers expense for over a decade.

we don't have the legal right to cooperate with another government and tell them we are willing to take a bunch of their "desperate people who are trying to escape poverty" and they are going to say what?

no you can't have them we want them to be a burden on our small country instead?

you just wouldn't be able to send them back after saying yes which is pretty much the case now as soon as they get 2 feet on a beech anyway.

why should someone stay here just because they manage to arrive here? and want a better life?

what if I band together with a bunch of guys and we think we would have a much better life if we lived at some nice mansion.

should we have the same right to a better quality of life with a looter mentality? why should these people be rewarded?

how many millions of climate change migrants are you willing to take over the next few decades?

 

[Skunkworks]

why should someone stay here just because they manage to arrive here? and want a better life?

This is the problem. They know that once they're here it's difficult for us to get rid. This is why we need to make getting here non-profitable for them.

I've seen videos of them laughing and joking in the dinghy as they tear up and throw any ID they have in the water.

The abuse will continue for as long as we reward it.

 

[Murphy]

dood it's only a small strip of sea they can cross from they dont have the option of the whole coast.

Oh yea, because it's not like anyone intent to cross a 'small' strip of sea are ever going to just travel a bit further along a coast if it means they'll avoid whatever policing efforts you've put in place.

deport them to where? did you actually look at the number who actually get deported rather than have their immigration status declined but then seem to live here on the tax payers expense for over a decade.

Well that depends on what evidence is gathered on where they're citizens of. IDK what the number who actually get deported rather than have their immigration status declined has to do with anything other than demonstrating how dysfunctional our immigration/asylum system is. The reasons why someone may have been denied a right to remain are undoubtedly highly varied just as would be the reasons why someone can't be deported, why you think these two things are in anyway related, or even relevant, is beyond me.

we don't have the legal right to cooperate with another government and tell them we are willing to take a bunch of their "desperate people who are trying to escape poverty" and they are going to say what?

What? You're not making much sense here. We who? What legal right? For what purpose are we wanting to cooperate with another government? Why would we say we are willing to take a bunch of their "desperate people who are trying to escape poverty"? Do you think we're actually doing this or something?

Honestly the rest of your post just seems like a stream of incoherent ramblings, maybe you should take a few deep breaths.

This is the problem. They know that once they're here it's difficult for us to get rid. This is why we need to make getting here non-profitable for them.

So rather than blame your own government who've long history of incompetence and penny pinching you blame the victims.

Want to buy a bridge?

 

[Skunkworks]

So rather than blame your own government who've long history of incompetence and penny pinching you blame the victims.

Or course I'm blaming the government. The vast majority of politicians are self-serving cowards, which is why we need more direct democracy on big issues like this.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Or course I'm blaming the government. The vast majority of politicians are self-serving cowards, which is why we need more direct democracy on big issues like this.

We have just had the stupidity of Brexit and you want more decisions given to the same people?

 

[Murphy]

Or course I'm blaming the government. The vast majority of politicians are self-serving cowards, which is why we need more direct democracy on big issues like this.

Well in that case i apologise as from all our conversations so far you've come across to me as someone who's very much blaming the people trying to get to, and into, the UK.

I mean i wouldn't say we need more direct democracy, we just need a competent government that does what they're meant to be doing. It's not only people waiting years for a decision on their immigration status, it's NHS waiting lists, it's public housing list, it's almost every service that government should be providing they're simply not.

 

[Tefal]

Oh yea, because it's not like anyone intent to cross a 'small' strip of sea are ever going to just travel a bit further along a coast if it means they'll avoid whatever policing efforts you've put in place.

They can "just travel a bit further along" all they want but then the journey does from 20-30 miles of calmish water to to hundreds of miles of hellish north sea that they just won't be able to cross.

 

[garnett]

why should someone stay here just because they manage to arrive here? and want a better life?

Against the odds, this thread might be about to turn from the usual OCUK "roll call of the racists" into something with a bit more value.

That's a great question, you've asked. Would it be simplistic to answer, "Base it on their expected contribution"?

Immigrants as a group are net contributors (while, if we look at a group of indigenous residents - say, Brexiteers -the stats suggest they are net takers from the system).

Is there an aspect of cultural contribution we should consider in determining the question? Lots of people who get agitated over the topic of immigrants talk about "British Culture" but usually can't identify a contribution to British culture that they have made, let alone one that they consider under threat from immigrants.

 

[Skunkworks]

Lots of people who get agitated over the topic of immigrants talk about "British Culture" but usually can't identify a contribution to British culture that they have made, let alone one that they consider under threat from immigrants.

What contributions to British culture have you made?

 

[Murphy]

They can "just travel a bit further along" all they want but then the journey does from 20-30 miles of calmish water to to hundreds of miles of hellish north sea that they just won't be able to cross.

Yea, 2-3 years ago people were saying the same about people crossing the English Channel.

Like with most behaviours in life you want to make what you consider good behaviour easy and bad behaviour hard, instead we've spent years trying to make the right way of doing things increasingly more difficult until such a point where it's easier to do the wrong thing than it is the right thing.

What contributions to British culture have you made?

That's nothing more than a setup for a no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[garnett]

What contributions to British culture have you made?

The guys using it as a cover for xenophobia can answer that one first.

 

[Skunkworks]

The guys using it as a cover for xenophobia can answer that one first.

No, you answer your own question. Should be easy for you.

 

[garnett]

No, you answer your own question. Should be easy for you.

Honestly, where did you learn your critical thinking?

Are you really unable to recognise why it's for the people referring to "contribution to British culture" as a cover for their racism to answer that question, and not the people pointing out their racism?

It's the racists who build their rickety worldview on the fallacious idea they contribute more, and it's their worldview that collapses when their contribution is found to be non-existent.

Whether non-racists make a contribution or not is irrelevant to this part of the discussion.

Amazing you weren't able to grasp that.

 

[Skunkworks]

Honestly, where did you learn your critical thinking?

Are you really unable to recognise why it's for the people referring to "contribution to British culture" as a cover for their racism to answer that question, and not the people pointing out their racism?

It's the racists who build their rickety worldview on the fallacious idea they contribute more, and it's their worldview that collapses when their contribution is found to be non-existent.

Whether non-racists make a contribution or not is irrelevant to this part of the discussion.

Amazing you weren't able to grasp that.

Sounds like an excuse not to answer a deliberately disingenuous question.

 

[RossGReds]

Shoot the dingy's mid-crossing. If there are any kids there then we can fish them out and give them a new life. It might take a few sinking to get the message across, but eventually it'll work.

 

[garnett]

Sounds like an excuse not to answer a deliberately disingenuous question.

You just cannot engage with the reasoning, can you?

Ah well. If you can't do that, can you explain how it's disingenuous?