illegal immigration

Caporegime
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
41,864
Location
Newcastle Upon Tyne
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.
didn't the romans wait months and months before trying to cross, then still lost a ton of ships.

it's not as simple as moving up the coast to even rougher waters.

There's a small window where they can cross, then they still need to wait for better weather.

apparently the smugglers started sending people no matter how choppy the water is though
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
37,545
Location
block 16, cell 12
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.

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


Good for whom?
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Posts
8,396
apparently the smugglers started sending people no matter how choppy the water is though
That's kind of what I'm saying, even with the best will in the world you're not going to stop everyone from risking the crossing, there's always going to be someone willing to risk it no matter how far or rough it is. We should be aiming (IMO) to make the correct way of doing things easy so the majority of people don't want to risk whatever the consequences are (loosing their lives) of doing it the wrong way.

How and what we (as a country) do with undocumented immigrants once they're being channelled through the correct route (border controls) is a whole other question, from my understanding we do a pretty awful job of that from start to finish. You only have to look at some of the charts from a link i posted earlier to get a picture of how dysfunctional the entire system is. Sure we're in the middle of a global pandemic but that's no excuse for some of the things going on IMO. I mean going on what the Migration Observatory claims "Around half of those entering immigration detention have previously claimed asylum in the UK", why are we even detaining people in immigration centres if they've previously tried to claim asylum in the UK and one would assume had their claim denied. I can understand detaining a few while you basically go through the same process as you did when their claim was denied last time (arranging for them to be deported again), but half?

And the amount of compensation we've apparently been paying for unlawful detention has skyrocketed from around 50 people totalling around £1m in 2014-15 to around 300 people and £9m in 2020-21.

Figure 7 also shows "there has been a long-term fall in the share of people leaving immigration detention to be returned to their country of nationality or habitual residence. In 2010, 64% of people leaving detention directly left the UK – either voluntarily or under Home Office enforcement. In 2020, this had fallen to a record low of 26%", that's a fall of 38% in just ten years. To me it seems like the Conservatives talk tough on immigration but are making a right pigs ear of it.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
37,545
Location
block 16, cell 12
The reason they are undocumented is because they refuse to accept the rules and refuse to have biometric identificaton taken.

Even if we followed all the right rules, you can be sure that a lot of the refused immigrants won't do. Especially if their case gets denied. Instead of justleaving they will try to flee illegally. Or simply murder people.

It's not acceptable, despite your attempts to frame it as such.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Posts
9,920
The reason they are undocumented is because they refuse to accept the rules and refuse to have biometric identificaton taken.

Even if we followed all the right rules, you can be sure that a lot of the refused immigrants won't do. Especially if their case gets denied. Instead of justleaving they will try to flee illegally. Or simply murder people.

It's not acceptable, despite your attempts to frame it as such.

I'm nor suggesting that there haven't been incidents of failed asylum seekers doing bad things, but claiming that "a lot" of them will "murder people" seems a tad hysterical.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Posts
8,396
I'm nor suggesting that there haven't been incidents of failed asylum seekers doing bad things, but claiming that "a lot" of them will "murder people" seems a tad hysterical.
I've only got two people on my ignore list and i suspect, despite how annoying dowie can be, that he's not a race-baiter, culture 'war'rior, type of person so I'll just say that claims of "a lot" of them will "murder people" would be pretty standard fair from TRM.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
37,545
Location
block 16, cell 12
I'm nor suggesting that there haven't been incidents of failed asylum seekers doing bad things, but claiming that "a lot" of them will "murder people" seems a tad hysterical.

It is proven than a number of (failed) asylum seekers have committed acts of murder or terrorism on our shores.

Acts they are claiming to be fleeing from.

We see the same pattern across Europe too. These are not isolated incidents.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Mar 2008
Posts
8,424
I'm nor suggesting that there haven't been incidents of failed asylum seekers doing bad things, but claiming that "a lot" of them will "murder people" seems a tad hysterical.
Quite. The Murdoch/Rothermere/Desmond decades-long nurturing of ignorant xenophobia - the real Project Fear.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Oct 2002
Posts
11,620
As opposed to project replacement as sponsored by the bbc.

Do you think if France wanted to further increase their diversity and wealth they would pass so many migrants through?

WTF??? The 'replacement theory' is stock far right wing CT BS. France is not passing migrants through, they are going through by choice whether France likes it or not.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Mar 2008
Posts
8,424
Quite. The Murdoch/Rothermere/Desmond decades-long nurturing of ignorant xenophobia - the real Project Fear.
As opposed to project replacement as sponsored by the bbc.

Do you think if France wanted to further increase their diversity and wealth they would pass so many migrants through?
I love it. Countering a claim that we've suffered decades of our most ignorant xenophobes having their fears cajoled, by citing a white nationalist conspiracy theory. Brilliant. Just brilliant, brilliant stuff. The OCUK usual suspects not failing to deliver.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Mar 2008
Posts
8,424
It is proven than a number of (failed) asylum seekers have committed acts of murder or terrorism on our shores.
It is proven that a percentage of Tory MPs are rapists.

One group gets castigated by the OCUK "I'm not racist but..." crew, and the other gets their vote for they want to be ruled by.

It's a headscratcher, isn't it?

are you named after alf garnett? @garnett
Nah.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
37,545
Location
block 16, cell 12
WTF??? The 'replacement theory' is stock far right wing CT BS. France is not passing migrants through, they are going through by choice whether France likes it or not.


So the UN is now hosting papers and research on Right Wing bs is it?

Maybe you should explain this to them.

See last sentance:


Screenshot-20211210-174022-Samsung-Notes.jpg


https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/ageing/replacement-migration.asp
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Posts
8,396
I remember when grooming gangs were a far-right conspiracy theory.
That's because it is...

Citations from the actual Home Office report (PDF).
A number of high-profile cases - including the offending in Rotherham investigated by Professor Alexis Jay, the Rochdale group convicted as a result of Operation Span, and convictions in Telford – have mainly involved men of Pakistani ethnicity. Beyond specific high-profile cases, the academic literature highlights significant limitations to what can be said about links between ethnicity and this form of offending. Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White. Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations. However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending. This is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected. During our conversations with police forces, we have found that in the operations reflected, offender groups come from diverse backgrounds, with each group being broadly ethnically homogenous. However, there are cases where offenders within groups come from different backgrounds.
It's not just the Home Office that debunked that right-wing trope, research by Ella Cockbain and Waqas Tufail
Ella Cockbain is an associate professor at university College London in the Department of Security and Crime Science and a visiting research fellow at Leiden university. Her research focuses on human trafficking, child sexual exploitation and labour exploitation. In seeking evidence-informed responses to complex issues, she has worked closely with organisations across the public, private and third sectors. Her book Offender and Victim Networks in Human Trafficking was published by Routledge in 2018.

Waqas Tufail is a senior lecturer in Criminology at Leeds beckett university. His research interests concern the policing, racialisation and criminalisation of marginalised and minority communities and the lived experiences of Muslim minorities. He is a board member of the International Sociological Association Research Committee on Racism, Nationalism, Indigeneity and Ethnicity, serves on the editorial board of Sociology of Race and Ethnicity and is co-editor of Media, Crime, Racism (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).
published in Race & Class citing more than 200 references in support of their findings (PDF)...
The central argument of the ‘grooming gangs’ narrative is, in short, that a ‘disproportionate’ number of Asian/Muslim/Pakistani-heritage men are involved in grooming (mostly) white British girls for organised sexual abuse. These claims are often substantiated with reference to a spate of high-profile prosecutions of so-called ‘grooming gangs’ in towns and cities such as Rotherham, Rochdale, Derby, Telford, Oxford, Huddersfield and Newcastle. The offenders in question – and undoubtedly many more – have absolutely committed horrific crimes; this article is categorically not about denying their existence, belittling their harms or otherwise excusing the inexcusable. The term ‘grooming gangs’, however, is itself a spurious media construct and one that has been heavily racialised from the very start. ‘Grooming gangs’ simply do not correspond to established legal or social scientific categories and the various weak definitions offered up by proponents of this racialised narrative fail to delineate these offenders meaningfully from other groups of child sex offenders. Contrary to stereotypes, there is no ‘grooming’ offence5 – let alone a ‘grooming gangs’ offence; consequently, ‘grooming gang offenders’ cannot be sensibly disentangled from police recorded crime data or prosecution data. Moreover, and as will be shown later, a relatively small number of high-profile ‘grooming gangs’ cases have been used to claim an ‘epidemic’ of abuse. Despite routinely (and wrongly) being depicted as a ‘specific’ crime type, ‘grooming gangs’ are better understood as a vaguely and inconsistently defined subset of child sexual exploitation (CSE) offenders.6 Complicating matters further, however, CSE is itself a poorly delineated subset of child sexual abuse (CSA) that spans diverse criminal offences (e.g. rape, sexual activity with a child) – most of which are also used in instances that would not normally be considered CSE. Existing data simply do not enable reliable assessments of the prevalence or correlates of CSE, let alone those of ‘grooming gangs’ – so claims of ethnic or religious disproportionality in ‘grooming gangs’ are just not testable in any meaningful sense.
Apologise for the large block quotes it's just i strongly suspect certain people won't bother reading any of the report as their confirmation bias will probably kick in.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
37,545
Location
block 16, cell 12
Waqas Tufail is a senior lecturer in Criminology at Leeds beckett university. His research interests concern the policing, racialisation and criminalisation of marginalised and minority communities and the lived experiences of Muslim minorities. He is a board member of the International Sociological Association Research Committee on Racism, Nationalism, Indigeneity and Ethnicity, serves on the editorial board of Sociology of Race and Ethnicity and is co-editor of Media, Crime, Racism (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).

Sounds like a completely unbiased source.

I sure hope he read all the evidence and has some cast iron reposte's to the below. I hope he recognises the racism displayed between the rapists and the victims:


Screenshot-20211124-143531-Chrome.jpg



Good to see how remorseful these guys are:

Screenshot-20211128-125154-Chrome.jpg
 
Associate
Joined
15 Jun 2007
Posts
891
Location
Manchester
So you really are arguing with a dictionary? That dictionary is incorrect to include ethnicity in a definition of race?

Special stuff.

I'm arguing with one, you're arguing with multiple others. Special stuff indeed. Religions are not races, being against a religion is not racism. It couldn't be more of a simple concept, really. Unsure whether staggering intellectual dishonesty or completely missing the point, but would bet on the former.
 
Top