illegal immigration

Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
You make some great arguments as to why we should not accept any asylum seekers onto our shore.

We don't know where they are from
We don't know their intentions
We don't even know their age

1000s of them are lying about one or more of the above each year.

Therefore it is unsafe and ill-advised to let any stay in the UK.

Really? I don't have that kind of data, about the people I pass by on the street, or in the shops any time I leave home.

What is it about cultural background and ethnic origin that allows us enhanced mind reading skills in regard to one particular culture group but not others?

Generally as people look pretty much the same and dress in the same way, should tourists from abroad by obliged to wear some special high visibility clothing so we can determine that they are not actually British and our normal risk assessment super powers will fail here?

Or do you have a particular method already for determining who these people may be, a distinctive feature that alerts you to the potential threat or risk?
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
37,545
Location
block 16, cell 12
Really? I don't have that kind of data, about the people I pass by on the street, or in the shops any time I leave home.

What is it about cultural background and ethnic origin that allows us enhanced mind reading skills in regard to one particular culture group but not others?

Generally as people look pretty much the same and dress in the same way, should tourists from abroad by obliged to wear some special high visibility clothing so we can determine that they are not actually British and our normal risk assessment super powers will fail here?

Or do you have a particular method already for determining who these people may be, a distinctive feature that alerts you to the potential threat or risk?


Tourists will enter with a passport.

Therefore if they are known criminals, on watch lists etc they can be identified.

Someone entering your country from a terrorist hotbed with no ID at all but determined to enter your country at any cost?

Yikes.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
Tourists will enter with a passport.

Therefore if they are known criminals, on watch lists etc they can be identified.

Someone entering your country from a terrorist hotbed with no ID at all but determined to enter your country at any cost?

Yikes.

Ah. Sorry, I was confused as just reading an article from today's U.K. new about a British taxi driver stuck in Afghanistan (dangerous place). His wife is not a British passport holder, they were at first granted a visa waiver but could not get a flight now stuck, U.K gov. has a resettlement programme, which measures risk, targetting those who are particularity at risk, but its shut down at the moment, no details of when the scheme will function again and without that no visa's.

So already restrictions in place 'in a terrorist hot spot', that would appear to stop even U.K. passport holders and their families already identified as 'at risk' from fleeing 'a terrorist hotspot.'

Issue of implementing poor policy, in response to public outrage, just make things far worse.

Issue here, people pretend the solutions here are simple, they are not and public outcry has lead U.K.gov, to issue restrictions that block U.K. passport holders and encourage those at risk to flee without the required paper work or indeed the risk assessment.

Pretence, but pressure is just leading to poor decision making and bad policy that hinders rather than helps and you get cases like this.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
37,545
Location
block 16, cell 12
Ah. Sorry, I was confused as just reading an article from today's U.K. new about a British taxi driver stuck in Afghanistan (dangerous place). His wife is not a British passport holder, they were at first granted a visa waiver but could not get a flight now stuck, U.K gov. has a resettlement programme, which measures risk, targetting those who are particularity at risk, but its shut down at the moment, no details of when the scheme will function again and without that no visa's.

So already restrictions in place 'in a terrorist hot spot', that would appear to stop even U.K. passport holders and their families already identified as 'at risk' from fleeing 'a terrorist hotspot.'

Issue of implementing poor policy, in response to public outrage, just make things far worse.

Issue here, people pretend the solutions here are simple, they are not and public outcry has lead U.K.gov, to issue restrictions that block U.K. passport holders and encourage those at risk to flee without the required paper work or indeed the risk assessment.

Pretence, but pressure is just leading to poor decision making and bad policy that hinders rather than helps and you get cases like this.

And the ones who appear on a boat with no papers? No covid vaccine proof?

No need to do antigen/pcr testing?

No citizenship. Just lies about their age etc.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
And the ones who appear on a boat with no papers? No covid vaccine proof?

No need to do antigen/pcr testing?

No citizenship. Just lies about their age etc.

If people with every right to enter the country and are actually at risk, can't get the required documentation. The thought has not crossed you're mind that you will get more people turning up with out documentation rather than less?
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2009
Posts
2,970
Why not take all the money spent on immigration have low immigration and use that money to encourage the citizens already here to have more children.

Given the situation with housing and education, we've pretty much done everything we could to disincentivise people from having children. Importing workers is cheaper than raising and educating children.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
37,545
Location
block 16, cell 12
And that is an argument for potentially adding more rather than less is it?

It won't.

We just need to hire some specialists in the area from japan to do some coaching to our staff.

The Japanese have a fantastic track record of denying false claims. We could learn alot.

Of course processing in Ghana or Rwanda would be great starting point.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Posts
8,375
It isnt and never has been a requirement to stay/stop in the first "safe" country. Its a bit of nonsense dreamed up by someone as "common sense"
IMO that's being generous as common sense would leave you scratching your head wondering where they came from and even if you managed to work that out you then have to convince where you think they came from to trust your proof and take them back without them just telling you to go whistle or refuting your claim.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2005
Posts
15,146
Location
Here and There...
Given the situation with housing and education, we've pretty much done everything we could to disincentivise people from having children. Importing workers is cheaper than raising and educating children.
The single biggest thing stopping people from having more children in this country is house prices, people like to be settled and stable in a nice area before starting families which means they are having children later and as a result of high property prices they are less well off so have fewer children than they want as they don't feel it is affordable. As with so many problems in this country fix the property market and you increase the birthrate.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2005
Posts
15,146
Location
Here and There...
It won't.

We just need to hire some specialists in the area from japan to do some coaching to our staff.

The Japanese have a fantastic track record of denying false claims. We could learn alot.

Of course processing in Ghana or Rwanda would be great starting point.
The Japanese also have an incredibly high rate of criminal conviction but I would really rather our judiciary didn't take any pointers from them :)
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2009
Posts
2,970
The single biggest thing stopping people from having more children in this country is house prices, people like to be settled and stable in a nice area before starting families which means they are having children later and as a result of high property prices they are less well off so have fewer children than they want as they don't feel it is affordable. As with so many problems in this country fix the property market and you increase the birthrate.

That's the plan for every young couple that I know, they've been together for years and want children, but are holding off because they can't secure their housing. That happens when people need to save upwards of 10 years for a deposit and even after that 40-45% of their post-tax income has to pay for the mortgage. Very little room for the costs of raising children, which is also extortionate. By the time they get reasonably comfortable they are in late 30s or early 40s, so no time to have more than one child, if that.

Between bringing children into a life of poverty, instability and insecurity, most young people are decent and sane enough to decide that it's better to just delay/avoid having children.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Aug 2006
Posts
3,772
Location
In a world of my own
That's the plan for every young couple that I know, they've been together for years and want children, but are holding off because they can't secure their housing. That happens when people need to save upwards of 10 years for a deposit and even after that 40-45% of their post-tax income has to pay for the mortgage. Very little room for the costs of raising children, which is also extortionate. By the time they get reasonably comfortable they are in late 30s or early 40s, so no time to have more than one child, if that.

Between bringing children into a life of poverty, instability and insecurity, most young people are decent and sane enough to decide that it's better to just delay/avoid having children.


I think you are spot on here to be honest and the ever increasing cost of a roof over your head is largely a function of supply and demand in the housing sector. The biggest problem is, imho, right-to-buy - which was a fantastic innovation when introduced and certainly is responsible for my whole family (born and raised on council estates) and others becoming more socially mobile but it's clear now, decades after the event that the implementation was wrong and caused local councils to stop building housing estates like they did in the 60's 70's and 80's because they never get their investment back. As a Conservative and Thatcher supporter it might seem out of character for me to say this, but right-to-buy has had it's time and it should be either widely reformed or just outright cancelled. It's not right for the times we are living in.
 
Joined
4 Aug 2007
Posts
14,165
Location
Wilds of suffolk
I think you are spot on here to be honest and the ever increasing cost of a roof over your head is largely a function of supply and demand in the housing sector. The biggest problem is, imho, right-to-buy - which was a fantastic innovation when introduced and certainly is responsible for my whole family (born and raised on council estates) and others becoming more socially mobile but it's clear now, decades after the event that the implementation was wrong and caused local councils to stop building housing estates like they did in the 60's 70's and 80's because they never get their investment back. As a Conservative and Thatcher supporter it might seem out of character for me to say this, but right-to-buy has had it's time and it should be either widely reformed or just outright cancelled. It's not right for the times we are living in.

Its worse than you say, they were not allowed to build more housing, should that have even wanted to
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Posts
8,375
The biggest problem is, imho, right-to-buy - which was a fantastic innovation when introduced and...
It would've been better if they used the money from selling off council housing to build more houses but (iirc) they didn't, at least not entirely. They got half the value and even then they had to use that to pay off debt (owned by the government) before anything else.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Oct 2002
Posts
11,611
Its worse than you say, they were not allowed to build more housing, should that have even wanted to

That effectively took a lot of players out of the house building market. The resultant chaos was predictable. It was always ideological rather than practical. Why would Councils want to build anyway when a few years down the road they were forced to sell their asset cheaply.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
It won't.

It won't what? How is hiring experts from Japan going to help when the issue is no one on the ground in the first place assessing claims at point of orgin even for U.K. nationals with families.

I also don't see the government going to that expense when its shifting to companies like Serco employing people in call centres on minimum wage to processes applications.

Pay peanuts get monkey approach, also no one wants to take on these roles, low pay no training, dire management structure with staff all looking for a way out.

More 'I have a dream' rather than the reality of life in the U.K. for both the workforce, those in the immigration process and policy and spending.

High on scary people in boats, low on anything else.
 
Top