Channel Migrants

[oowee]

It would be a useful figure to know. It looks like the ONS proposed a method to calculate the figure in 2019 but it does not look like they got the go ahead to do the work.

The claim in the Pew paper is simple: there may have been between 800,000 and 1.2 million unauthorised migrants living in the UK in 2017.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50420307

Migration watch puts the figure at 1.1m https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/190/the-illegal-migrant-population-in-the-uk

Whatever the number its high. We need identity cards. 

 

 

[Gordon R]

I have to laugh at Migrationwatch et al. How do they know how many there are? It's frankly pathetic.

I suspect no-one will be rushing to get an accurate figure - even if that were possible. 🙂

 

[Mice!]

8 hours ago, oowee said:

wouldn't in connection with refugees. Ask why they come in the way that they do. Then look for solutions based on solving the problem. 

 

8 hours ago, oowee said:

Why do you think they come by boat and lorry?

They come the way they do because they couldn't get in the legal way, when everyone getting out the boats is a young male with barely a kid or woman among them then they are economic illegal migrants coming here because many more before them already have and have passed on the message that they'll be housed fed and can find work.

At what point will you say enough is enough,  these illegals put more pressure on poor areas, take housing and benefits, add more people looking for the low skilled, low paid work, add more crime and pressure to the police and NHS, 

We aren't talking here about people displaced by war or famine,  just young males looking for a better life, in a far nicer and easier place to live.

If the number of illegals is 5m or 6m and there are a constant stream of more coming every day, when is enough enough?

11 hours ago, Stuarta said:

How did we ever manage to keep Germany from invading us in WW2?

We didn't stand on the beaches with blankets and hot drinks.

[scouser]

It would be awfully expensive to send that lot to RAWANDA, but a price worth paying.

[Vince Green]

11 hours ago, oowee said:

Simple they are refugees (or claim to be) until proven otherwise. We get back what we put in. 

No most definitely they are not refugees. If they come in a rubber dinghy wearing a lifejacket they are illegal immigrants.

By definition, and should be treated as such by giving them a free holiday in Rwanda 

[oowee]

2 hours ago, Mice! said:

 

They come the way they do because they couldn't get in the legal way, when everyone getting out the boats is a young male with barely a kid or woman among them then they are economic illegal migrants coming here because many more before them already have and have passed on the message that they'll be housed fed and can find work.

At what point will you say enough is enough,  these illegals put more pressure on poor areas, take housing and benefits, add more people looking for the low skilled, low paid work, add more crime and pressure to the police and NHS, 

We aren't talking here about people displaced by war or famine,  just young males looking for a better life, in a far nicer and easier place to live.

If the number of illegals is 5m or 6m and there are a constant stream of more coming every day, when is enough enough?

We didn't stand on the beaches with blankets and hot drinks.

And so what are we going to do. Wringing our hands and saying we need to do something is clearly not working.

As a starter for ten.

We need a larger border force.

We need reception facilities in Europe and a clear statement of who can come in and under what circumstances (dissuade the boats and encourage evidence based applications). 

Every asylum seeker arriving illegally has to have a time frame to determine there request to stay. Initially held in a detention centre pending processing. We need purpose built / modified holding facilities. If they cannot evidence their claim (through corroboration or paper work) then its imprisonment indefinitely. At any point they can have a return ticket to a country of their choice.

Identity cards for all adults in UK. 

 

[Dave-G]

15 minutes ago, oowee said:

And so what are we going to do. Wringing our hands and saying we need to do something is clearly not working.

Every asylum seeker arriving illegally has to have a time frame to determine there request to stay. Initially held in a detention centre pending processing. We need purpose built / modified holding facilities. If they cannot evidence their claim (through corroboration or paper work) then its imprisonment indefinitely. At any point they can have a return ticket to a country of their choice.

Identity cards for all adults in UK. 

 

I've edited the above so the parts I refer to hopefully show at first glance without having to expand the quote.

(1) Nothing we've done has worked - and won't while France escorts them to our boundary. I'm beginning to think much of the attraction is our human rights laws being too tolerant. I caught a headline but no more about addressing that on last nights news.

(2) We've tried holding facilities pending processing - but they get burned down after claim's they weren't fit - but were probably better than they had at home.

[oowee]

8 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

I've edited the above so the parts I refer to hopefully show at first glance without having to expand the quote.

(1) Nothing we've done has worked - and won't while France escorts them to our boundary. I'm beginning to think much of the attraction is our human rights laws being too tolerant. I caught a headline but no more about addressing that on last nights news.

(2) We've tried holding facilities pending processing - but they get burned down after claim's they weren't fit - but were probably better than they had at home.

Would you seriously like to water down our human rights laws?

We have tried holding but alone this will not work. We need stick and carrot.

[ditchman]

42 pages 3500 views.........and no answer that everyone agrees on

how on earth are the govt' going to sort this ?

[Gordon R]

Quote

Would you seriously like to water down our human rights laws?

Absolutely. I suspect most people would, although we shall see as the thread progresses. 

The Human Rights Act has a lot to answer for and has been brought into ridicule. Terrorists, rapists, murderers hide behind it claiming that they would be under risk if they were sent home. Excuses range from their right to a family life - consisting of a cat - to the prison conditions in their home country aren't as nice as the UK.

The same numpties who fight to keep them here are quite prepared for the public to be exposed to a high risk. 

[Penelope]

I hear that polio is on the rise in London, thought have been brought in from overseas.

[Rem260]

Expert on the news stated probably from Pakistanis. Looking at our immigration rate its no wonder all these diseases are making a come back. Thier not being inoculated in their own countries.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Rem260

[Dave-G]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

Would you seriously like to water down our human rights laws?

We have tried holding but alone this will not work. We need stick and carrot.

Dang right I would - it seems designed to benefit the EU by hamstringing the UK as much as possible, and yes, much of it was made by UK eurocrats on behalf of helping the EU subjugate the UK.

[Westward]

17 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

Expert on the news stated probably from Pakistanis. Looking at our immigration rate its no wonder all these diseases are making a come back. Thier not being inoculated in their own countries.

Nothing new about that. Back in 1972 when immigration from the Indian sub continent was ramping up in earnest, doctors started to find themselves confronting TB, something many of them had never seen before as it had been eradicated in this country. And of course it's still around to this day!

[Mice!]

2 hours ago, oowee said:

And so what are we going to do. Wringing our hands and saying we need to do something is clearly not working.

As a starter for ten.

We need a larger border force.

We have a great border, it's the English channel .

I'd start by saying if people don't have any ID then they get sent straight back to France. 

A big part of Brexit was that people wanted an end to the constant stream of illegal immigrants turning up on the beaches, which leads to ..

1 hour ago, oowee said:

Would you seriously like to water down our human rights laws?

100% we have been told for far too long by Europe and lawyers how we must treat criminals, how we can't deport people because of how they'll be treated, so they shouldn't have broken the law then, it's that simple.

[oowee]

8 minutes ago, Mice! said:

We have a great border, it's the English channel .

I'd start by saying if people don't have any ID then they get sent straight back to France. 

A big part of Brexit was that people wanted an end to the constant stream of illegal immigrants turning up on the beaches, which leads to ..

100% we have been told for far too long by Europe and lawyers how we must treat criminals, how we can't deport people because of how they'll be treated, so they shouldn't have broken the law then, it's that simple.

Human rights legislation is independent of the EU. Always worrying start when the Govt that created the laws wants to change them to suit a new agenda.

1 hour ago, Penelope said:

I hear that polio is on the rise in London, thought have been brought in from overseas.

We voted Brexit to increase immigration from outside of the EU in particular the Indian sub continent.

 

[Gordon R]

Quote

Human rights legislation is independent of the EU. Always worrying start when the Govt that created the laws wants to change them to suit a new agenda.

At the time, it might well have been a good thing, with only positives. However, the legal profession has made a complete industry from it.

Why is it worrying? It has been abused and isn't fit for purpose. It's the shield that criminals hide behind.

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, oowee said:

We need a larger border force. Yes , but they need more powers to stop illegals entering , not just be a reception committee .

We need reception facilities in Europe and a clear statement of who can come in and under what circumstances (dissuade the boats and encourage evidence based applications). Cant see it working, but whatever.
If they know they wont qualify for a visa, why would they bother using the legal route.

Every asylum seeker arriving illegally has to have a time frame to determine there request to stay. Initially held in a detention centre pending processing. We need purpose built / modified holding facilities. If they cannot evidence their claim (through corroboration or paper work) then its imprisonment indefinitely. At any point they can have a return ticket to a country of their choice. Yes in principle , but again , cost to the taxpayer for imprisonment, human rights issues (no conviction) and 'country of choice' ? What if the country wont take them ?

Identity cards for all adults in UK. Yes , definitely , only problem with that , is the lefties have been blocking it for years, why ?
Because illegals/asylum seekers end up being lefty voters in the vast majority of cases,

 

3 hours ago, oowee said:

Would you seriously like to water down our human rights laws?

Water down is not whats needed , a revamp , close the loopholes that allow systemic abuse of them.

35 minutes ago, Mice! said:

I'd start by saying if people don't have any ID then they get sent straight back to France. 

France wouldnt take them, citing HR/asylum  laws, as much as it sounds great, its a non starter.

23 minutes ago, oowee said:

Human rights legislation is independent of the EU. Always worrying start when the Govt that created the laws wants to change them to suit a new agenda.

Law need updating and changing when a situation requires it, there is an issue with illegal immigration, the law needs looking at to help combat it.

23 minutes ago, oowee said:

We voted Brexit to increase immigration from outside of the EU in particular the Indian sub continent.

We did not.
We voted Brexit to get away from the EU meddling in our immigration policy, among other things.
This allowed us to pick and choose candidates for employment from all areas, not end up with millions of benefit claiming EU citizens that claimed their free movement rights, that destroyed the NHS , ruined the housing market, and took up school places.

[oowee]

26 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

At the time, it might well have been a good thing, with only positives. However, the legal profession has made a complete industry from it.

Why is it worrying? It has been abused and isn't fit for purpose. It's the shield that criminals hide behind.

Its worrying because the proposal is for the Govt to be the final arbiter. If you have a problem with a govt decision it will go to the Govt for arbitration. Don't get me wrong its as frustrating as can be when these crims are using every trick in the book but it's there for a reason.

6 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

 

Water down is not whats needed , a revamp , close the loopholes that allow systemic abuse of them.

 

Law need updating and changing when a situation requires it, there is an issue with illegal immigration, the law needs looking at to help combat it.

We did not.
We voted Brexit to get away from the EU meddling in our immigration policy, among other things.
This allowed us to pick and choose candidates for employment from all areas, not end up with millions of benefit claiming EU citizens that claimed their free movement rights, that destroyed the NHS , ruined the housing market, and took up school places.

I would agree with the first two points but the starting point must be the protection of the individual against the state.

When we voted not to allow free movement of labour from the EU we accepted that necessary labour would come from elsewhere in addition to what might come from the EU. We also set out a desire for trade deals from around the world. Part of those trade deals is loosening of visa restrictions particularly with India. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by oowee

[Gordon R]

Quote

but the starting point must be the protection of the individual against the state.

That isn't the current situation is it? The state is failing to protect individuals against serious criminals.

[Boybrit]

18 hours ago, oowee said:

It would be a useful figure to know. It looks like the ONS proposed a method to calculate the figure in 2019 but it does not look like they got the go ahead to do the work.

The claim in the Pew paper is simple: there may have been between 800,000 and 1.2 million unauthorised migrants living in the UK in 2017.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50420307

Migration watch puts the figure at 1.1m https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/190/the-illegal-migrant-population-in-the-uk

Whatever the number its high. We need identity cards. 

 

 

I had read somewhere that the major supermarkets did a secretish meeting to compare sales and by checking their bread/milk etc sales they came to the "confusion" that there were 2 million more people in the UK than were claimed by the government, I agree to bringing in identity cards they prove you are legal and get you all the benefits plus all estate agents, banks etc now insist on you proving your ID which that would, no card = no treatments, a simple hard message to the boat people imo.

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, Boybrit said:

they came to the "confusion" that there were 2 million more people in the UK than were claimed by the government

Nothing to do with boat migrants or undocumented migrants, but..

In 2019, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimated that there were around 3.7 million EU citizens living in the UK.

 

The settlement scheme for EU nationals tells a different story.

Of the 6.1 million applications received, approximately 8% were repeat from applicants (472,220). This indicates that an estimated 5,548,440 people have applied to the scheme with over 4.9 million (4,908,760) obtaining a grant of status

So , if we arent too sure of who is here when they are documented, how on earth can we figure out who is here undocumented ?

 

[oowee]

5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Nothing to do with boat migrants or undocumented migrants, but..

In 2019, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimated that there were around 3.7 million EU citizens living in the UK.

 

The settlement scheme for EU nationals tells a different story.

Of the 6.1 million applications received, approximately 8% were repeat from applicants (472,220). This indicates that an estimated 5,548,440 people have applied to the scheme with over 4.9 million (4,908,760) obtaining a grant of status

So , if we arent too sure of who is here when they are documented, how on earth can we figure out who is here undocumented ?

 

Not following. There are 5.5m documented. The 3.7m was a guesstimate. The guesstimate is not certain and not documented. Where does the uncertainty arise?

[Vince Green]

8 hours ago, oowee said:

Would you seriously like to water down our human rights laws?

We have tried holding but alone this will not work. We need stick and carrot.

This whole issue is a massive abuse of the principles for which we have human rights legislation and does a huge amount of damage to people's perception of whether its worth keeping it.

[oowee]

46 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

This whole issue is a massive abuse of the principles for which we have human rights legislation and does a huge amount of damage to people's perception of whether its worth keeping it.

That damage brings the whole thing into disrepute. Unfortunately pegging it back will have down sides for everyone and they will only be recognised when its too late. I reckon a complete redraw is in order but I doubt we will do that. When legislation is made in haste it's usually a dogs dinner.