Immigration and migrants

Dinahmo

Did anyone see the BBC News at 6? There was an item about the little girl who died last week when trying to cross the channel. Apparently she was trodden on by other immigrants trying to get onto the boat. She was 7, the youngest of 3 and had lived in Europe all her life.

An unintended consequence of the UK govt's intransigence in dealing with asylum seekers.

This is not the U.K. government’s fault the family have been refused asylum in Sweden and Belgium.

If you want to blame anyone try the traffickers or the Somalians who trampled on a 7 yr old little girl.

Yes, It was alluded to on the other thread, but the interpretation was given as an example of how nasty immigrants (all?) are.

Did anyone see the BBC News at 6? There was an item about the little girl who died last week when trying to cross the channel. Apparently she was trodden on by other immigrants trying to get onto the boat. She was 7, the youngest of 3 and had lived in Europe all her life.

An unintended consequence of the UK govt's intransigence in dealing with asylum seekers.

No, I didn't miss it, GSM, but how do we know it won't reduce boats/lorries if we don't try?

If people can access centres they won't be forced to destroy documents as a condition of the people smugglers.

Wyllow3

I think you like the adversarial approach GSM as do some others (not me)

It makes it hard to have a conversation that tries to give references and detailed information and points especially where there are truths on both sides of a coin to be acknowledged.

I respect GSM, her education, her plain speaking, even her opinions, BUT I quite often don’t agree with her, and I think we both respects each other’s right to express our own views.

We stand at different ends of the political spectrum.

Whilst I understand her concerns, I don’t blame the “boat people”.

MaizieD

^I think it's really important to remember that asylum seekers arriving in small boats only became illegal in July 2023, prior to that they were seen as legal until they had had their claim refused.^

It is still 'legal' under international law, though, is it not, foxie? Another incidence of the UK making itself an international pariah...

Good point MaizieD.

I think it's really important to remember that asylum seekers arriving in small boats only became illegal in July 2023, prior to that they were seen as legal until they had had their claim refused.

It is still 'legal' under international law, though, is it not, foxie? Another incidence of the UK making itself an international pariah...

Wyllow3

On page 2 for example I tried to address concerns raised on numbers coming boat/lorry wise I felt could help the flow but answers came there none.....

to repeat

*1. We need to give migrants a chance for legal routes.
Ie processing centres before they reach the UK. Without that, few have little choice..... end result, boats or lorries only option.

2. Re smugglers and numbers coming in: We need to involve ourselves in European wide discussions on migration patterns and solutions/policing particularly better investing in policing and information sharing. Like Europol.

For example we no longer have access to under the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) post Brexit.

Did readers here actually know that in terms of operations and information on people smuggling*

I completely agree with all your points

Germanshepherdsmum

Many feel hostile towards this never-ending uncontrolled of people. And we are all entitled to express our opinions.

Wyllow, setting up legal routes is pointless. Those refused entry, or unwilling to wait for their application to be processed, will come here on boats.

Perhaps you missed my second paragraph Wyllow.

On page 2 for example I tried to address concerns raised on numbers coming boat/lorry wise I felt could help the flow but answers came there none.....

to repeat

*1. We need to give migrants a chance for legal routes.
Ie processing centres before they reach the UK. Without that, few have little choice..... end result, boats or lorries only option.

2. Re smugglers and numbers coming in: We need to involve ourselves in European wide discussions on migration patterns and solutions/policing particularly better investing in policing and information sharing. Like Europol.

For example we no longer have access to under the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) post Brexit.

Did readers here actually know that in terms of operations and information on people smuggling*

It makes it hard to have a conversation that tries to give references and detailed information and points especially where there are truths on both sides of a coin to be acknowledged.

Agreed Wyllow. On several occasions, when I have provided references, evidence etc to support my viewpoint, I have been lambasted, ridiculed and patronised. I would much prefer, and would be willing to read, evidence supporting the counter viewpoint rather than snide, immature comments.

"I want the boats to stop, the traffickers to be caught and prosecuted and for all asylum seekers to be quickly and efficiently processed and those not entitled to stay safely escorted to a safe place (not necessarily Rwanda). Those who are given leave to remain helped into employment. In fact when both the Afghans and Ukrainians were brought here the govt had links with employers willing to take these people into paid work."
I totally agree with this. I doubt anyone thinks it's good for people to risk their lives like this whilst lining the pockets of traffickers. We should take our share of refugees, there needs to be proper channels for them to apply and we should process their claims efficiently and fairly. We are not doing any of that currently.

I think you like the adversarial approach GSM as do some others (not me)

It makes it hard to have a conversation that tries to give references and detailed information and points especially where there are truths on both sides of a coin to be acknowledged.

LizzieDrip

“Maybe my original post did come across as “preachy” and “antagonistic” but that was never my intention.”

“Cossy it’s my opinion that your original post was not preachy or antagonist. If you feel you need to apologise, of course, that’s up to you, but please don’t be ‘bullied’ into it. It’s my opinion, to which I am entitled, that there are some seriously nasty people on these threads about immigration!”

Thanks LizzieDrip. This is not an apology, simply an explanation of my intention. I won’t allow myself to be bullied into saying sorry, as, imo, I haven’t done anything wrong.

I expressed an honest opinion of how I see things, sometimes comments here come across as bigoted and lacking empathy. That’s how it is.

I guess we all see things differently.

Germanshepherdsmum

‘Some seriously nasty people’ presumably those of us who are not happy with the numbers of people coming here in boats and being fed and housed at our expense? People who know that the UK allows far more to stay here than do other countries? People who may have destroyed their papers and may speak little or no English? These people have passed through several safe countries before coming here. We are a soft touch, not least because so many appeals are allowed. Yes, I am a ‘seriously nasty’ person and I am not alone.

I don’t think you’re “seriously nasty”, I do think you appear to no empathy with any asylum seekers.

It’s almost impossible now to seek asylum here using the correct channels as the govt fully knows as it is they who’ve made it that way.

I want the boats to stop, the traffickers to be caught and prosecuted and for all asylum seekers to be quickly and efficiently processed and those not entitled to stay safely escorted to a safe place (not necessarily Rwanda). Those who are given leave to remain helped into employment. In fact when both the Afghans and Ukrainians were brought here the govt had links with employers willing to take these people into paid work.

‘Some seriously nasty people’ presumably those of us who are not happy with the numbers of people coming here in boats and being fed and housed at our expense? People who know that the UK allows far more to stay here than do other countries? People who may have destroyed their papers and may speak little or no English? These people have passed through several safe countries before coming here. We are a soft touch, not least because so many appeals are allowed. Yes, I am a ‘seriously nasty’ person and I am not alone.

Maybe my original post did come across as “preachy” and “antagonistic” but that was never my intention.

Cossy it’s my opinion that your original post was not preachy or antagonist. If you feel you need to apologise, of course, that’s up to you, but please don’t be ‘bullied’ into it. It’s my opinion, to which I am entitled, that there are some seriously nasty people on these threads about immigration!

Exactly Namsnanny.

MaizieD

Germanshepherdsmum

Germanshepherdsmum

I tar all lawyers acting for asylum seekers with the same brush. And remember they are paid by the taxpayer to make up fairy stories and advise their clients to get baptised. They are laughing all the way to the bank. Despicable people.

This is what I said, HPQ. You have decided that I ‘proudly’ (really?) condemned ‘all human rights lawyers’. We have some very eminent human rights lawyers in this country who do not undertake work for illegal immigrants.

Oh. Is 'tarring with the same brush' different from 'condemning', then?

I'm not trying to speak for GSM but of course the two (well, phrase compared with a word) are very similar.

But I think the difference is GSM separated all human rights lawyers, from lawyers who only represent asylum seekers.

"The Illegal Migration Bill was first proposed in March 2023 with the stated aim to stop people crossing the channel in small boats. It then became law in July 2023, making it the Illegal Migration Act."

I think it's really important to remember that asylum seekers arriving in small boats only became illegal in July 2023, prior to that they were seen as legal until they had had their claim refused. It is also relevant that until that time, the overseas aid budget was being used to pay for accommodation etc rather than being used to support developing countries overseas so it was not coming from our homeland budget. However, since July 2023 the government cannot use the overseas aid budget as they have declared those arriving by boat as "illegal"! Many of the people who are already here came here quite legally but have just not been efficiently processed.

Cossy

“One thing I hope we can all agree on is total condemnation of the people traffickers and their vile trade in misery. Where our opinions differ is on what we call the victims of this trade.”

Sorry, pressed enter in error.

Just to say I completely agree HPQ

“One thing I hope we can all agree on is total condemnation of the people traffickers and their vile trade in misery. Where our opinions differ is on what we call the victims of this trade.”

Germanshepherdsmum

Germanshepherdsmum

I tar all lawyers acting for asylum seekers with the same brush. And remember they are paid by the taxpayer to make up fairy stories and advise their clients to get baptised. They are laughing all the way to the bank. Despicable people.

This is what I said, HPQ. You have decided that I ‘proudly’ (really?) condemned ‘all human rights lawyers’. We have some very eminent human rights lawyers in this country who do not undertake work for illegal immigrants.

Oh. Is 'tarring with the same brush' different from 'condemning', then?

Germanshepherdsmum

I tar all lawyers acting for asylum seekers with the same brush. And remember they are paid by the taxpayer to make up fairy stories and advise their clients to get baptised. They are laughing all the way to the bank. Despicable people.

This is what I said, HPQ. You have decided that I ‘proudly’ (really?) condemned ‘all human rights lawyers’. We have some very eminent human rights lawyers in this country who do not undertake work for illegal immigrants.

Namsnanny

HousePlantQueen

Ref GSM proudly announcing that she classifies all human rights lawyers the same ie she condemns them. I have had some awful experiences and service from conveyancing and property lawyers, as has my husband (an architect working part of his career for big developers). Luckily we do not condemn the entire profession based on our experience, let alone on the nonsense churned out by the right wing press. Condemnation of any group, whether it be lawyers or people seeking asylum, based on pure prejudice, is unfair.

condemnation of any group, whether it be lawyers or people seeking asylum based on pure prejudice is unfair.

Let alone on the nonsense churned out by the right wing press

Is condemnation of The Right Wing Press acceptable by the above standards then?

Are all contributors to the Right Wing Press the same in thought word and deed?

I honestly don't think most of us can see when prejudice is applied.

Ok, I agree that my condemnation of 'The Right Wing Press' could be interpreted as prejudice, but I think most of us can agree that it is certain newspapers, or more accurately, certain newspaper owners who churn out the articles which are designed to inflame opinion.

One thing I hope we can all agree on is total condemnation of the people traffickers and their vile trade in misery. Where our opinions differ is on what we call the victims of this trade.