Where to begin? I live in Knowsley and I am a Gay man with a partner.
When Sunak announced his 5 pledges the only one I was really concerned about was Stop the Boats. Since then I have witnessed:
*For the first time living in Knowsley (60 plus years) an Arab man and his wife sitting on the front row at the top of a double decker bus, he on the phone, smiling and chatting animatedly whilst his wife sits obediently at his side wearing a full burqa
*An Iman walking along carrying what looked like a cane
*Whilst me and my partner were walking from the car into a supermarket, we were stared at non-stop by a young male illegal immigrant sitting by the entrance
*Illegal immigrants now use my gym. (How many people on a low wage can afford this?)
*The only barbers near where I live are Turkish. Curiously enough some of them do not speak English and they all only accept cash.
All of the four concerns outlined in the Policy Exchange paper are important; I am especially worried about the fourth.
I recall the appalling terrorism in a Reading park a few years ago where three Gay men were stabbed in the neck, the last words on Earth they heard was Allahu Akbar. In County Sligo ROI last year two Gay men grotesquely killed. They were beheaded.
Both the savages who committed these crimes were either so called refugees or asylum seekers.
I no longer feel safe in my own country.
Nor does my partner. He is an immigrant too but stupidly took the wrong route, the legal one. Foolishly, he qualified as a doctor abroad (no cost to the taxpayer, then); obtained permanent residence here; worked for the NHS for 25 years; was genuinely universally adored for his manner and ability; took one day off sick during that time; worked on the real front line (the ICU) during Covid.
Let me be clear, I do not want these people here. They are not genuine asylum seekers or refugees, they are economic migrants with an outlook which threatens our safety and way of life.
I do not want to pay for them from the tax on my pension which will only increase due to the freezing of the tax free personal allowance. I want this money spent on the poor working people of this country.
The message is simple; below the picture above the following should be written:
"*Are you worried about housing costs? They are not.
*Are you worried about finding somewhere to live if you lose your home?They are not.
*Are you worried about food costs? They are not.
*Are you worried about utility costs? They are not.
*Are you worried about mobile phone and Internet costs? They are not.
*Are you worried about legal costs? They are not.
*Are you worried about prescription costs, dental care, eyesight test costs? They are not."
Lee Anderson visited Calais and said the phrase he kept hearing was "El Dorado". The question is, Lee, what are you and the other Red Wall MPs doing about this?
A heartfelt comment. Most people want to help genuine refugees - the British are kindly on the whole. But most of us are angry and frightened at the enormous influx of people from alien and hostile cultures. As you say, people feel helpless and frustrated at the unwillingness of most of our MPs - of any of the main parties - to grasp this nettle.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majoirty of MPs and probably all Tory MPs would answer, 'No', to every one of your questions. MPs are not representative of voters. Most would have difficulty understanding why anyone would answer, 'Yes', to any of your questions.
Well done, Matt, for delving into this so forensically. You’ve certainly lit the blue touch paper (and probably gone for a walk after posting this!). No longer can we hope it will all go away and that the Government will sort it out (as they should have!). My thought was……if the general public knew this…..
It would make a terrific manifesto!
In the meantime, I hope you can get this information into the MSM?
I must be missing something because I cannot see why the Government does not either stop the boats in mid-Channel and send them back to France when the weather is safe, or arrest the driver for endangering human life at sea and send the illegals back to Albania, France or Rwanda, immediately, allowing them no longer in the UK than 24 hours.
There is nothing in International law to stop the Government doing this as far as I can see. So why can't it? What am I missing? All the necessary law is there in the UN Convention on Refugees, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and even the ECHR Art 5. Australia did it relying only on the first two. Why can't the UK?
Ironically it is the UNCLOS that enables the French to escort the boats to mid-Channel and dump them in UK waters. It can work in reverse, too.
Peter - I sense your frustration, and I genuinely share it.
I struggle to find a word to describe the situation in which the UK has placed itself - "disgraceful" is about the best I can come up with (although "global laughing stock" could also apply).
From my understanding, MoD leadership have consistently, repeatedly and almost completely collectively refused to intervene.
Which poses the question: if the military can't protect the UKs borders, what is the point of having a military?
I'm unaware of the MoD's refusal. But it would surely be an operational decision by CDS rather than the MoD? I suspect the objection is to avoid a confrontation at sea with the French Navy. The French certainly, being less sensitive to international opinion, would be more robust. Bad publicity if it turned ugly. I suspect also the CDS or MoD could not be sure of the Government's backing so decided to stay out of of it.
Certainly for my tactics to work the government have to be prepared to face down critics and to stand up to the French. Bit of a stretch for a government formed by this Conservative Party.
Consistent, repeated and "almost" complete collective refusal by the MoD to intervene is what I understand to be the situation. Definitely an MoD decision!
Agree with you comments about the current government.
It is against international law to turn an unseaworthy vessel away - which of course is why the boats are invariably flimsy and overcrowded. The traffickers know all the tricks. Escorting the boat back to French waters and leaving it there would create more problems than it solves - we need the co-operation of the French as far as possible. I don't think tit for tat dumping would help. Arrest the pilot? - if only! But what then? Where does the replacement pilot take the boat? And any replacement would certainly be in danger from some of the migrants. The Rwandan scheme has been declared illegal because the country is considered unsafe. It can't be beyond human ingenuity to find a way around this problem, but we aren't doing too well so far.
If being a boat driver in unsafe conditions means arrest and imprisonment there would be no drivers. If conditions are safe turn them round. This can be done in the Contiguous zone up to 12 nm beyond territorial waters. There is nothing the French could do about it. Start shooting?
You will never get co-operation from the French. They don't want the illegals any more than the UK.
I understood (possibly incorrectly) that the UK Contiguous Zone is 12nm - 22.2km, applying in UK and British Crown waters since (I think) 1987, including IoM, Jersey and Guernsey. Separate agreements cover other dependent Crown territories, such as Gib, for example.
I'm not aware of any UK claims of changes to the UK Contiguous Zone. But I am prepared to accept that I've possibly missed something - I am not a specialist in maritime law, nor do I wish to present myself as such.
I am not an expert either but I am going simply by UNCLOS Art 33, which came into effect in 1982 and has not been superceded. States can depart from UNCLOS by negotiation in respect of territorial waters but I am not aware of the UK having done so. Art 16 of UNCLOS requires baselines and territorial limits to be shown on charts. I am not aware of a requirement for the contiguous zone to be shown. Art 33 defines it in terms of the baseline, which is shown or available in published data.
So it may extend up to '24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.'
My correction was not correct! Because I mistakenly added 24nm to the edge of the territorial sea. My apologies. But it does extend to the French beaches.
We shouldn’t be planning to “disperse” the risk of Islamic or any other cohort of potential terrorism around the country Matt. We should be stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those we already have. Withdrawal from the ECHR should be a first step - it is largely redundant today. Then legal steps should be take to achieve the outcomes I’ve outlined. This “invasion” has to be stopped.
I can think of only one response - utterly gob smacked. These figures should appear on bill boards in letters a foot high so everyone can see them - without the accusations of inciting hatred please.
The notion of asking our 'progressive, liberal supporters' to house these illegal entrants is very interesting. Time for them to prove the virtue they love to signal? I would be highly surprised if any of them volunteer to share their comfy, middle-class homes with a strapping young man from Albania, of unknown history and motive. But, I would go further and say that the illegal entrant must be deported (either back home or to a third country) if they cannot find a 'sponsor' to house and support them whilst their claim is decided. This would impose a natural 'limit' on the generousity of the British people. What could be more democratic?
I was thinking exactly the same thing! Housing Ukrainian refugees is one thing: we have a fellow feeling for them because (not to put too fine a point on it) they look like us; and they come from a similar culture, including a history of Christian principles - however secular we now are; and of course they are mainly women and children. The strapping young single man from Albania, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Sudan would feel like a very different kettle of fish. I don't blame anyone who feels anxious about giving him shelter; but it pushes my irony button if they have been gazing down at the rest of us from the moral heights.
Personally, I have no problem with strapping young lads from Albania - but I suspect they wouldn't want to stay in my home.
If I recall correctly, and I may be wrong, I think DeSantis did a similar thing in Florida last year and was flying US "illegals" into Boston.
On landing in Boston, they handed out flyers to the "illegals" as they got off the plane telling them exactly where to go: address, telephone number and exact details of what they were able to claim under Massachusetts law and Boston local law.
Went down like a bucket of vomit in Martha's Vineyard!
Surprise! Suddenly, more Federal funding (taxpayer money) to Florida to help deal with illegal immigration.
Send all illegals in the UK to Hampstead...and then watch the newspaper headlines and BBC coverage change!
A new Ipsos poll suggest that 57% think the Conservative party cannot competently run the country, and Matt's article shows just one reason (albeit a big reason) why voters feel that way. I'm an avid reader and follower of politics yet cannot tell you what the Labour opposition stands for, but, more worryingly, as a Conservative voter I do not recognise what the Tories now stand for. Slogans are not enough. Since, by definition, they have nothing to lose I think Conservatives must grasp this issue and at least follow the recommendations in this piece. A big red bus got a Brexit vote. If the wider population better understood the financial costs to the country, especially during a cost-of-living crisis, surely the Tories would gain more votes than they're already destined to lose.
You could start with Richmond which has a Lib Dem MP and a very loud pro Remain, pro Refugee constituency. Except when travellers rocked up on Kew Green recently, there was a campaign to remove them.
2. Change the system so that it's faster and more efficient with penalties for councils with more than 6 months waiting list.
3. Allow employers to recruit directly for jobs that have been unfilled for over 3months...with incentives and tax breaks for training people into paid emplyment.
4. Which leaves housing...not sure the volunteer scheme would work, when the cultures differ widely.
Some can, no doubt. But for those, legal or illegal, who can't, learning English should be compulsory. Learning the language of the adopted country is a requirement of being allowed to stay in much of Europe.
1-How many of the illegal immigrants in small boats arriving on UK shores have a passport and or identity papers?
2-Into Which country did each illegal immigrant enter the EU?
3-Who does Rishi Sunak speak to in the EU parliament (France is part of a supra national organisation}?
4-Once an illegal immigrant has entered the EU -can they then roam freely without checks)?
5-What is EU doing about illegal immigration entering its constituent countries?
6-How many illegal Immigrants are allowed to remain in the UK and under what terms.
7-Information on those rejected claims - returned to which countries
Whilst the national discussion revolves around qualitative statements instead of quantitative numbers
the long grass will continue to be populated along with all the other unresolved issues
Thank you Matt for starting the quantitative examination - it can't go on like this
What is Migration watch watching
That which is not granularly measured does not stand a chance of being managed
To date it would appear there are few third countries willing to take these people
In former times there were countries desperate for immigrants USA Canada Austrailia New Zealand - no longer the case -
Super broad brush-The de-industrialised West has a residual Urban/suburban population formerly farmers who came to the city for a better life
All subject to climate changes, wars, financial crises (self inflicted) pandemics ...
Now we are a so called "Rich" Country who can't afford to repair potholes and worn out roads
and waste money - failed IT projects or massive cost overruns
The country has to find a way of finding out what it wants and not just what it is against
Illegal immigration has to be stopped and diverted to legal routes
EU (Sovereign?) and UK Sovereign have to talk one to one - thats the Politicians job for which they are paid (commercially when a job is done then you get paid - sorry for slight distortion) -
True: especially about the identity papers, which the traffickers tell the migrants to throw overboard; about the vast mismanagement of money - to which add the crazy cost of accommodating ever more unwieldy numbers of illegal entrants; about the fact that fewer and fewer countries want large influxes of people. A huge problem. We don't want to be unkind, we do want to be fair, but in today's world - so many millions of people - we HAVE to be firm about prioritising our own population. We have resources to spare, but these must be defined and sensibly managed. At present they are terribly overstretched.
A legitimate question for the lawyers who defend these people. How have you managed to satisfy the Law Society's 'customer due diligence' regs if they have destroyed their passports?
While 99% of asylum-seekers in Scotland are supported by Glasgow Council, only 0.16% are receiving support in neighbouring Edinburgh. And the number of people receiving support from Cardiff and Swansea comfortably exceeds the number receiving support across all of south-eastern England.
This really shocked me. Edinburgh is the epicentre of virtue signalling nationalists and Lib Dem’s,but also Scottish Labour Tories who want to up immigration in response to a demographic crisis which is overblown. I live a comfortable life in a comfortable suburb of Glasgow as a semi retired professional who does consultancy work when woke tyranny allows. I am also working class by birth with family who though mosty SNP/Labour socialists increasingly think that socialism is for the favoured victims of the elite not them. The elite wish we would all die off and leave them to control our society, safe in the knowledge that cowed and grateful immigrants and their descendants would be easier to control. Generally, the products of the illegal immigration racket are receiving a an outsize share of the citizen rent (taxes net of employment/ benefits ), they will ever produce. The true social cost of illegal immigration funded by gangs and facilitated by woke functionaries will erupt like wildfire in a dry brush in places like Scotland and Wales when labour allow them to take an even greater share of these illegal flows. . Finally as our gay colleague from Merseyside shows, their fit to our culture of acceptance and tolerance makes an utter mockery of the diversity dogma trotted out by what I call the bought left, I used to belong to.
When the “elite” winge on about our “rich cultural mix that has brought so much benefit to this country” they should be made to live in these areas and provide evidence of integration.
These elite need to be to told to expand their reading in order to understand the culture of Islam,
They should read,
“The bookseller of Kabul” by Anne Seirstadt
“A thousand splendid suns” by Khaleed Husseini
Help with reading and understanding these books will be provided by me as they were kind enough to offer me help with my education when I voted for Brexit.
An asylum quota is ok as far as it goes, but far better to spend money keeping migrants in the vicinity of the country they are fleeing. It allows them to return home when the disaster (whatever it was that made them flee) is over. Money well spent I think, and it avoids the thorny issue of which needy cases do we turn our backs on when our quota is full.
I get the suggestion of our new liberal elite opening their homes to refugees, but is this not the heart ruling the head, when aside from the dangers of placing potentially unknown persons in private houses, and the cost and difficulty of having to monitor each home, is it not in the long run accommodating, and in so doing facilitating, the illegal human trafficking trade, and easing the pressure on the government to address this situation?
Where to begin? I live in Knowsley and I am a Gay man with a partner.
When Sunak announced his 5 pledges the only one I was really concerned about was Stop the Boats. Since then I have witnessed:
*For the first time living in Knowsley (60 plus years) an Arab man and his wife sitting on the front row at the top of a double decker bus, he on the phone, smiling and chatting animatedly whilst his wife sits obediently at his side wearing a full burqa
*An Iman walking along carrying what looked like a cane
*Whilst me and my partner were walking from the car into a supermarket, we were stared at non-stop by a young male illegal immigrant sitting by the entrance
*Illegal immigrants now use my gym. (How many people on a low wage can afford this?)
*The only barbers near where I live are Turkish. Curiously enough some of them do not speak English and they all only accept cash.
All of the four concerns outlined in the Policy Exchange paper are important; I am especially worried about the fourth.
I recall the appalling terrorism in a Reading park a few years ago where three Gay men were stabbed in the neck, the last words on Earth they heard was Allahu Akbar. In County Sligo ROI last year two Gay men grotesquely killed. They were beheaded.
Both the savages who committed these crimes were either so called refugees or asylum seekers.
I no longer feel safe in my own country.
Nor does my partner. He is an immigrant too but stupidly took the wrong route, the legal one. Foolishly, he qualified as a doctor abroad (no cost to the taxpayer, then); obtained permanent residence here; worked for the NHS for 25 years; was genuinely universally adored for his manner and ability; took one day off sick during that time; worked on the real front line (the ICU) during Covid.
Let me be clear, I do not want these people here. They are not genuine asylum seekers or refugees, they are economic migrants with an outlook which threatens our safety and way of life.
I do not want to pay for them from the tax on my pension which will only increase due to the freezing of the tax free personal allowance. I want this money spent on the poor working people of this country.
The message is simple; below the picture above the following should be written:
"*Are you worried about housing costs? They are not.
*Are you worried about finding somewhere to live if you lose your home?They are not.
*Are you worried about food costs? They are not.
*Are you worried about utility costs? They are not.
*Are you worried about mobile phone and Internet costs? They are not.
*Are you worried about legal costs? They are not.
*Are you worried about prescription costs, dental care, eyesight test costs? They are not."
Lee Anderson visited Calais and said the phrase he kept hearing was "El Dorado". The question is, Lee, what are you and the other Red Wall MPs doing about this?
A heartfelt comment. Most people want to help genuine refugees - the British are kindly on the whole. But most of us are angry and frightened at the enormous influx of people from alien and hostile cultures. As you say, people feel helpless and frustrated at the unwillingness of most of our MPs - of any of the main parties - to grasp this nettle.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majoirty of MPs and probably all Tory MPs would answer, 'No', to every one of your questions. MPs are not representative of voters. Most would have difficulty understanding why anyone would answer, 'Yes', to any of your questions.
Well done, Matt, for delving into this so forensically. You’ve certainly lit the blue touch paper (and probably gone for a walk after posting this!). No longer can we hope it will all go away and that the Government will sort it out (as they should have!). My thought was……if the general public knew this…..
It would make a terrific manifesto!
In the meantime, I hope you can get this information into the MSM?
I must be missing something because I cannot see why the Government does not either stop the boats in mid-Channel and send them back to France when the weather is safe, or arrest the driver for endangering human life at sea and send the illegals back to Albania, France or Rwanda, immediately, allowing them no longer in the UK than 24 hours.
There is nothing in International law to stop the Government doing this as far as I can see. So why can't it? What am I missing? All the necessary law is there in the UN Convention on Refugees, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and even the ECHR Art 5. Australia did it relying only on the first two. Why can't the UK?
Ironically it is the UNCLOS that enables the French to escort the boats to mid-Channel and dump them in UK waters. It can work in reverse, too.
Peter - I sense your frustration, and I genuinely share it.
I struggle to find a word to describe the situation in which the UK has placed itself - "disgraceful" is about the best I can come up with (although "global laughing stock" could also apply).
From my understanding, MoD leadership have consistently, repeatedly and almost completely collectively refused to intervene.
Which poses the question: if the military can't protect the UKs borders, what is the point of having a military?
I'm unaware of the MoD's refusal. But it would surely be an operational decision by CDS rather than the MoD? I suspect the objection is to avoid a confrontation at sea with the French Navy. The French certainly, being less sensitive to international opinion, would be more robust. Bad publicity if it turned ugly. I suspect also the CDS or MoD could not be sure of the Government's backing so decided to stay out of of it.
Certainly for my tactics to work the government have to be prepared to face down critics and to stand up to the French. Bit of a stretch for a government formed by this Conservative Party.
Consistent, repeated and "almost" complete collective refusal by the MoD to intervene is what I understand to be the situation. Definitely an MoD decision!
Agree with you comments about the current government.
It is against international law to turn an unseaworthy vessel away - which of course is why the boats are invariably flimsy and overcrowded. The traffickers know all the tricks. Escorting the boat back to French waters and leaving it there would create more problems than it solves - we need the co-operation of the French as far as possible. I don't think tit for tat dumping would help. Arrest the pilot? - if only! But what then? Where does the replacement pilot take the boat? And any replacement would certainly be in danger from some of the migrants. The Rwandan scheme has been declared illegal because the country is considered unsafe. It can't be beyond human ingenuity to find a way around this problem, but we aren't doing too well so far.
If being a boat driver in unsafe conditions means arrest and imprisonment there would be no drivers. If conditions are safe turn them round. This can be done in the Contiguous zone up to 12 nm beyond territorial waters. There is nothing the French could do about it. Start shooting?
You will never get co-operation from the French. They don't want the illegals any more than the UK.
PPS. My mistake. The Contiguous Zone extends to 24nm, 36nm from UK.. That's all the way up to the French beaches.
When did this change?
I understood (possibly incorrectly) that the UK Contiguous Zone is 12nm - 22.2km, applying in UK and British Crown waters since (I think) 1987, including IoM, Jersey and Guernsey. Separate agreements cover other dependent Crown territories, such as Gib, for example.
I'm not aware of any UK claims of changes to the UK Contiguous Zone. But I am prepared to accept that I've possibly missed something - I am not a specialist in maritime law, nor do I wish to present myself as such.
Could you expand a little bit, please.
I am not an expert either but I am going simply by UNCLOS Art 33, which came into effect in 1982 and has not been superceded. States can depart from UNCLOS by negotiation in respect of territorial waters but I am not aware of the UK having done so. Art 16 of UNCLOS requires baselines and territorial limits to be shown on charts. I am not aware of a requirement for the contiguous zone to be shown. Art 33 defines it in terms of the baseline, which is shown or available in published data.
So it may extend up to '24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.'
My correction was not correct! Because I mistakenly added 24nm to the edge of the territorial sea. My apologies. But it does extend to the French beaches.
PS. The illegals tried all the tricks with the Australians like throwing children overboard. There are ways to stop them.
We shouldn’t be planning to “disperse” the risk of Islamic or any other cohort of potential terrorism around the country Matt. We should be stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those we already have. Withdrawal from the ECHR should be a first step - it is largely redundant today. Then legal steps should be take to achieve the outcomes I’ve outlined. This “invasion” has to be stopped.
I can think of only one response - utterly gob smacked. These figures should appear on bill boards in letters a foot high so everyone can see them - without the accusations of inciting hatred please.
The notion of asking our 'progressive, liberal supporters' to house these illegal entrants is very interesting. Time for them to prove the virtue they love to signal? I would be highly surprised if any of them volunteer to share their comfy, middle-class homes with a strapping young man from Albania, of unknown history and motive. But, I would go further and say that the illegal entrant must be deported (either back home or to a third country) if they cannot find a 'sponsor' to house and support them whilst their claim is decided. This would impose a natural 'limit' on the generousity of the British people. What could be more democratic?
I was thinking exactly the same thing! Housing Ukrainian refugees is one thing: we have a fellow feeling for them because (not to put too fine a point on it) they look like us; and they come from a similar culture, including a history of Christian principles - however secular we now are; and of course they are mainly women and children. The strapping young single man from Albania, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Sudan would feel like a very different kettle of fish. I don't blame anyone who feels anxious about giving him shelter; but it pushes my irony button if they have been gazing down at the rest of us from the moral heights.
Personally, I have no problem with strapping young lads from Albania - but I suspect they wouldn't want to stay in my home.
If I recall correctly, and I may be wrong, I think DeSantis did a similar thing in Florida last year and was flying US "illegals" into Boston.
On landing in Boston, they handed out flyers to the "illegals" as they got off the plane telling them exactly where to go: address, telephone number and exact details of what they were able to claim under Massachusetts law and Boston local law.
Went down like a bucket of vomit in Martha's Vineyard!
Surprise! Suddenly, more Federal funding (taxpayer money) to Florida to help deal with illegal immigration.
Send all illegals in the UK to Hampstead...and then watch the newspaper headlines and BBC coverage change!
I don't understand why the UK's acceptance rates are so high. Even for those who come from war-torn countries, they have not come directly, but via one or more safe countries. Among other countries, there are strange anomalies: 5% initially allowed from India, but 34% from Albania (83% of women), a European country at peace. "Modern slavery" loopholes? https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2023/how-many-people-do-we-grant-protection-to#outcomes-of-asylum-applications
A new Ipsos poll suggest that 57% think the Conservative party cannot competently run the country, and Matt's article shows just one reason (albeit a big reason) why voters feel that way. I'm an avid reader and follower of politics yet cannot tell you what the Labour opposition stands for, but, more worryingly, as a Conservative voter I do not recognise what the Tories now stand for. Slogans are not enough. Since, by definition, they have nothing to lose I think Conservatives must grasp this issue and at least follow the recommendations in this piece. A big red bus got a Brexit vote. If the wider population better understood the financial costs to the country, especially during a cost-of-living crisis, surely the Tories would gain more votes than they're already destined to lose.
You could start with Richmond which has a Lib Dem MP and a very loud pro Remain, pro Refugee constituency. Except when travellers rocked up on Kew Green recently, there was a campaign to remove them.
...and for the asylum seekers here now...
1. Offer free ESOL.
2. Change the system so that it's faster and more efficient with penalties for councils with more than 6 months waiting list.
3. Allow employers to recruit directly for jobs that have been unfilled for over 3months...with incentives and tax breaks for training people into paid emplyment.
4. Which leaves housing...not sure the volunteer scheme would work, when the cultures differ widely.
I'd say ESOL (free) should be a condition of staying.
I'd go further. In Norway and Denmark, anyone not attending language classes doesn't get benefits.
This simply seems like common sense.
erm aren't they coming to the UK, and not staying in France, because they can already speak English?
Some can, no doubt. But for those, legal or illegal, who can't, learning English should be compulsory. Learning the language of the adopted country is a requirement of being allowed to stay in much of Europe.
Some questions for Policy exchange
1-How many of the illegal immigrants in small boats arriving on UK shores have a passport and or identity papers?
2-Into Which country did each illegal immigrant enter the EU?
3-Who does Rishi Sunak speak to in the EU parliament (France is part of a supra national organisation}?
4-Once an illegal immigrant has entered the EU -can they then roam freely without checks)?
5-What is EU doing about illegal immigration entering its constituent countries?
6-How many illegal Immigrants are allowed to remain in the UK and under what terms.
7-Information on those rejected claims - returned to which countries
Whilst the national discussion revolves around qualitative statements instead of quantitative numbers
the long grass will continue to be populated along with all the other unresolved issues
Thank you Matt for starting the quantitative examination - it can't go on like this
What is Migration watch watching
That which is not granularly measured does not stand a chance of being managed
To date it would appear there are few third countries willing to take these people
In former times there were countries desperate for immigrants USA Canada Austrailia New Zealand - no longer the case -
Super broad brush-The de-industrialised West has a residual Urban/suburban population formerly farmers who came to the city for a better life
All subject to climate changes, wars, financial crises (self inflicted) pandemics ...
Now we are a so called "Rich" Country who can't afford to repair potholes and worn out roads
and waste money - failed IT projects or massive cost overruns
The country has to find a way of finding out what it wants and not just what it is against
Illegal immigration has to be stopped and diverted to legal routes
EU (Sovereign?) and UK Sovereign have to talk one to one - thats the Politicians job for which they are paid (commercially when a job is done then you get paid - sorry for slight distortion) -
its difficult - we are running out of grass!
True: especially about the identity papers, which the traffickers tell the migrants to throw overboard; about the vast mismanagement of money - to which add the crazy cost of accommodating ever more unwieldy numbers of illegal entrants; about the fact that fewer and fewer countries want large influxes of people. A huge problem. We don't want to be unkind, we do want to be fair, but in today's world - so many millions of people - we HAVE to be firm about prioritising our own population. We have resources to spare, but these must be defined and sensibly managed. At present they are terribly overstretched.
A legitimate question for the lawyers who defend these people. How have you managed to satisfy the Law Society's 'customer due diligence' regs if they have destroyed their passports?
Interesting...
While 99% of asylum-seekers in Scotland are supported by Glasgow Council, only 0.16% are receiving support in neighbouring Edinburgh. And the number of people receiving support from Cardiff and Swansea comfortably exceeds the number receiving support across all of south-eastern England.
This really shocked me. Edinburgh is the epicentre of virtue signalling nationalists and Lib Dem’s,but also Scottish Labour Tories who want to up immigration in response to a demographic crisis which is overblown. I live a comfortable life in a comfortable suburb of Glasgow as a semi retired professional who does consultancy work when woke tyranny allows. I am also working class by birth with family who though mosty SNP/Labour socialists increasingly think that socialism is for the favoured victims of the elite not them. The elite wish we would all die off and leave them to control our society, safe in the knowledge that cowed and grateful immigrants and their descendants would be easier to control. Generally, the products of the illegal immigration racket are receiving a an outsize share of the citizen rent (taxes net of employment/ benefits ), they will ever produce. The true social cost of illegal immigration funded by gangs and facilitated by woke functionaries will erupt like wildfire in a dry brush in places like Scotland and Wales when labour allow them to take an even greater share of these illegal flows. . Finally as our gay colleague from Merseyside shows, their fit to our culture of acceptance and tolerance makes an utter mockery of the diversity dogma trotted out by what I call the bought left, I used to belong to.
yep 'wildfires' I am surprised the UK has not yet had a Rostock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostock-Lichtenhagen_riots
I am a paid supporter….
When the “elite” winge on about our “rich cultural mix that has brought so much benefit to this country” they should be made to live in these areas and provide evidence of integration.
These elite need to be to told to expand their reading in order to understand the culture of Islam,
They should read,
“The bookseller of Kabul” by Anne Seirstadt
“A thousand splendid suns” by Khaleed Husseini
Help with reading and understanding these books will be provided by me as they were kind enough to offer me help with my education when I voted for Brexit.
An asylum quota is ok as far as it goes, but far better to spend money keeping migrants in the vicinity of the country they are fleeing. It allows them to return home when the disaster (whatever it was that made them flee) is over. Money well spent I think, and it avoids the thorny issue of which needy cases do we turn our backs on when our quota is full.
I get the suggestion of our new liberal elite opening their homes to refugees, but is this not the heart ruling the head, when aside from the dangers of placing potentially unknown persons in private houses, and the cost and difficulty of having to monitor each home, is it not in the long run accommodating, and in so doing facilitating, the illegal human trafficking trade, and easing the pressure on the government to address this situation?