International News Immigration

MustardYellow said:
What do backbones have to do with this?

I worked with released prisoners for a couple of years, a number of which were in gangs. Arrest one gang member and another just takes their place - it doesn't reduce criminality.

You aren't going to stop the boats by arresting small groups of members of smuggling gangs, and it's completely unrealistic to say 'well let's just arrest all of them then' like some people who have zero idea on how these gangs work do.

These gangs are there because there's the market for them, and for as long as that market exists and people are making money from it you will always have a never ending cycle of participants. It's the same concept with any criminal gang.

Cut off the market, cut off the gangs.
Click to expand...
But you think this is the right way to stop the boats eh? 🤔💷💷💷💷💷

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782741839151296728
 
QR said:
View attachment 19128
Click to expand...
Sometimes I don't know if you're serious or trolling.

Do left-wing people actually think they are living in a fascist state, or approaching a fascist state? Or is it some kind of cultish in-joke I don't understand.

Firstly, your political 'enemies' could use this argument against you. When your core right wingers complain about: Illegal immigration, cultural issues, pronouns, knife crime, sexualised culture, gender and trans issues, they are always told they are "overreacting" as well.

I honestly think constant cries of "fascism" is disrespectful to people who have genuinely lived in fascist regimes.

As for treatment of refugees, I would wager refugees in the UK are treated far, far better than refugees in most of the world, and even in Europe. Why don't you criticise the French who wash their hands with it and let them live in "the jungle"

You have a very UK-centric view on things. Globally, this country is not an extreme or fascist country at all.
 
Wandering Yellow said:
Sometimes I don't know if you're serious or trolling.

Do left-wing people actually think they are living in a fascist state, or approaching a fascist state? Or is it some kind of cultish in-joke I don't understand.

Firstly, your political 'enemies' could use this argument against you. When your core right wingers complain about: Illegal immigration, cultural issues, pronouns, knife crime, sexualised culture, gender and trans issues, they are always told they are "overreacting" as well.

I honestly think constant cries of "fascism" is disrespectful to people who have genuinely lived in fascist regimes.

As for treatment of refugees, I would wager refugees in the UK are treated far, far better than refugees in most of the world, and even in Europe. Why don't you criticise the French who wash their hands with it and let them live in "the jungle"

You have a very UK-centric view on things. Globally, this country is not an extreme or fascist country at all.
Click to expand...
You claim I have a uk-centric view while your say France wash their hands of refugees.

France took 47,440 refugees in 2022, the UK took 38,761.

You're not stupid so why are you falling hook, line, and sinker for this performative Rwanda crap? Even James Cleverly called it batshit crazy and Sunak didn't support it until he became PM and saw it as his only hope to claw back a few votes.
 
bazzer9461 said:
Labour will rip up the Rwanda plan but then a question I put out a couple of times in the last couple of years “ where will the migrants be housed?”
Click to expand...

Well everyone we've sent to Rwanda so far is very welcome to sleep on my sofa.
 
QR said:
You claim I have a uk-centric view while your say France wash their hands of refugees.

France took 47,440 refugees in 2022, the UK took 38,761.

You're not stupid so why are you falling hook, line, and sinker for this performative Rwanda crap? Even James Cleverly called it batshit crazy and Sunak didn't support it until he became PM and saw it as his only hope to claw back a few votes.
Click to expand...
If we kept migrants on the shores of Kent, letting them live in a jungle, you would be the first to call out the UK government.

France taking 47,440 and UK 38,761 sounds about right, given they have a bigger livable land mass than the UK has by some distance. The "official" figure for the UK is 38,761, but you'd have to be naive not to think many don't slip through the net.

I'm stunned you think I've fallen "hook, line and sinker" for the Rwanda plan which I have not mentioned once. Up until recently most western countries agreed having borders was a necessary thing.

A lot on the left make the argument that the land in Palestine, "belongs" to Palestinians because they were the original inhabitants, but then with the UK make the argument that it's nobodies land and everybody is welcome, an inconsistent argument.

I know nothing of the Rwanda plan but of course I don't think it will be a success. No part for the last 25 years has got a grip of a demographic change which is unprecedented in British history. Most people not worried about that fact will not have to live with the potential consequences because they will be long gone, but at least they got to have the moral high-ground in their lifetime.

Immgiration is a complex issue that most countries in Europe and America are getting horribly and dangerously wrong. The current situation is only good for the people smugging gangs, it's bad for the passengers who may be killed, and people living in this country when potentially dangerous people arrive en-masse. I do not understand how you can be a 'refugee' if you are fleeing a perfectly safe country in France.

Accepting immigrants from countries they are in political danger is a different story, Ukraine for example. The system is broken, for example people can meet criteria by saying they are a gay christian, both of which are impossible things to disprove.

I trust neither party to make anything but a mess of immigration, neither side will care either when most MPs are wealthy and will live in areas largely unaffected by the negative impact of mass immigration.

All Labour and the Conservatives "stand" for, is getting into power. That is literally it. Nothing more, nothing less. The whole system is a con.
 
bashamwonderland said:
BBC reporting about the boat which sank earlier:

"The French police had struggled to stop the migrants as they’d charged from the dark sand dunes towards the sea.

Several young men turned round to face the police, brandishing long sticks, and throwing flares or firecrackers."

Excellent. Can't wait to welcome these peace loving, law abiding citizens into our inner city ghettos. ❤️
Click to expand...
You do not live in an innercity ghetto, how will it affectyou?
 
m said:
Well everyone we've sent to Rwanda so far is very welcome to sleep on my sofa.
Click to expand...
But if they do and today it was mentioned as many as 52,000 are illegal could be sent to Rwanda but of course all legal bids making a fortune out of legal aid representing the illegals get them stay of execution so to speak would you put them up on your sofa well at least 1?
 
bazzer9461 said:
You mean 52,000 as was reported by the BBC
Click to expand...
52,000. Baring in mind these facts, talk me though it.

UK area: 94,000 sq miles
Rwanda area: 10,000 sq miles

UK population density: 722 per sq mile
Rwanda popn density: 1,217 per sq mile

UK GDP per capita: $58,880
Rwanda GDP per capita: $3,136

Convince me this would do anything other than line the pockets of those in power.
 
Wandering Yellow said:
A lot on the left make the argument that the land in Palestine, "belongs" to Palestinians because they were the original inhabitants, but then with the UK make the argument that it's nobodies land and everybody is welcome, an inconsistent argument.
Click to expand...
Honestly think this is the Funniest thing you’ve ever posted on here.

I think most on the left would be delighted if the Israelis and the Palestinians could live in peace side by side. There’s your consistent argument.
 
QR said:
52,000. Baring in mind these facts, talk me though it.

UK area: 94,000 sq miles
Rwanda area: 10,000 sq miles

UK population density: 722 per sq mile
Rwanda popn density: 1,217 per sq mile

UK GDP per capita: $58,880
Rwanda GDP per capita: $3,136

Convince me this would do anything other than line the pockets of those in power.
Click to expand...
We better start building a lot more houses to accommodate these illegal immigrants that will get their deportations squashed but make a law to say that opposition to these house builds especially when it’s made known that immigrants legal or illegal are going to live in these houses, so in other words where are we going to house them?
 
Marston Road yellow said:
Honestly think this is the Funniest thing you’ve ever posted on here.

I think most on the left would be delighted if the Israelis and the Palestinians could live in peace side by side. There’s your consistent argument.
Click to expand...
That single post I made has more logic and reason than the entirety of posts you have ever made on here 😘
 
bazzer9461 said:
We better start building a lot more houses to accommodate these illegal immigrants that will get their deportations squashed but make a law to say that opposition to these house builds especially when it’s made known that immigrants legal or illegal are going to live in these houses, so in other words where are we going to house them?
Click to expand...
m's sofa is available
 
Sheik djibouti said:
Yep... it's a well known fact that most drug addicts LOVE being drug addicts and wouldn't have made different choices, given a second chance.🙄

Cut down the supply and tackle the problem at source and the problem is then easier to contain. Works for both drugs AND people trafficking.

Tackling the victims as your first line of defence against the problem achieves absolutely nothing, because there will always be a fresh supply of victims be it willing ones or otherwise.

Simply saying tackling and disrupting the source is "too difficult" is a weak and nonsensical approach

Same for the Rwanda "solution" It will achieve very little and cost the earth in the process.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of drug users aren't drug addicts.

The point here is without drug users, drug gang's wouldn't have the space to exist. It's simple supply and demand - the supply exists because the demand exists.

You aren't 'disrupting the source' by arresting a handful of members of a trafficking gang. That isn't how gangs work. Even when you arrest the top dogs of a gang, it very rarely has any significant impact long term. Quotes from an NBC article with experts in the DEA after the arrest of El Chapo: 'The arrest of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the brutal leader of the Sinaloa Mexican cartel, is unlikely to put a dent in drug trafficking — and may even fuel more violence as power struggles erupt — experts say.' 'Gregory D. Lee, a retired supervisory special agent for the DEA and now criminal justice consultant based in Pebble Beach, Calif., told NBC News that Guzman’s arrest will have “no impact whatsoever” on the flow of drugs from Mexico. “As long as there’s a demand for drugs, people like El Chapo and his cohorts are going to continue to fill that demand,” Lee said.'

The concept is exactly the same for every illicit gang - including human trafficking.

That isn't to say we shouldn't arrest them given the opportunity, but the point is that won't be the solution.
 
ZeroTheHero said:
There is no practical, short term way of making conditions in countries completely stable - war, flood, famine, sea level rise and other climate change will potentially cause migration as well as poor financial outlook for a population. Stop all those and you'd stop migration. But...

There are lots of things people might want (or be tempted to want). But if you make the item or service more difficult to obtain or more problematic to use then use of that service drops.
Click to expand...
The top 3 detected nationalities arriving in the UK on boats between March 2018 and March 2023 were Iranian (20.7%) Albanian (14.9%) and Iraqi (14.7%). The majority of those arriving in small boats are men (male, 18 or over, excluding those of unknown age or sex) – 76%

Iran - No war (unless you count Israel as a 'war', which seems silly), no flood, no famine
Albania - No war, no flood, no famine
Iraq - No war, no flood, no famine

Those 3 nations accounted for over half of all arrivals during that period. They aren't fleeing war, or famine, or the effects of climate change.

The truth is most of them are economic migrants who have chosen to not do things the right way. Remove the economic incentive from arriving on boats and you'll stop most of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom