Raynor's plan

[Mungler]

43 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Put yourself in the shoes of your average refugee,

Referring to economic migrants as refugees skews any discussion from the start, and which is why we have constant reference to refugees (fleeing unsafe France?!?)

The primary duty and obligation of any government is to its own populace.

Our state benefits, housing and healthcare is now a disruptive magnetic force across the world. However, providing infinite ‘free stuff’ to the whole world doesn’t and can’t work - resources have to be stringently rationed.

The economics are of course that nothing but nothing is free and everything has to be paid for.

Adam Smith created the invisible hand about how a free market sorts itself out - if you subscribe to the whole ‘we’re all global travellers and ought to be able to go anywhere and work anywhere’ then that’s pure invisible hand stuff but the insertion of ‘free stuff’ breaks the system.

In short, if we’re going to let as many people in as want to come then we have to turn off all benefits - that is the only way to let the economics fix the problem. 

 

 

[12gauge82]

22 minutes ago, B686 said:

I did vote, but what ever government is in seems to take the **** out of the people who work and pay taxes . I’m not going to put my self in their shoes to be honest I couldn’t care what their lives are like . I care for the future of my kids and future grandkids    This country is already skint and has more than enough of its own problems without thousands more coming over here in boats taking housing  putting more strain on nhs etc. . People putting themselves in their shoes and feeling sorry for them is half the problem with this country. Think of me what you want but that’s my view. 
 

I'm not being critical of you, your points are very valid, I just hate seeing decent people loose their humanity, I believe we need to oppose them coming for a multitude of reasons too long to go into here, but remember they're still human beings who's 'crime' is being born in the wrong country. Our politicians haven't got that excuse. 

For the record I oppose what's going on probably as much as you and also voted Reform. 

[Mungler]

1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm not being critical of you, your points are very valid, I just hate seeing decent people loose their humanity, I believe we need to oppose them coming for a multitude of reasons too long to go into here, but remember they're still human beings who's 'crime' is being born in the wrong country. Our politicians haven't got that excuse. 

For the record I oppose what's going on probably as much as you and also voted Reform. 

Leaving the economic migrants in France / on the continent is not inhuman.

[B686]

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t asylum ment to be the 1st safe country you come to? It frustrates me as I know a couple with 3 young kids who are hard working tax payers who lived in a rented property for a good few years always paid rent good tenants . 3 years ago they were given a section 21 and had to get out. Long story short they are now in a 2 bed flat (housing association) 5 of them . They have been told it’s probably going to be 5 or more years before anything bigger becomes available. What ****** me off is that these asylum spongers will probably get priority over decent hard working people like them . Don’t get me wrong they are grateful of a roof over their heads , but when you hear all this lot already here are going to be housed it really boils my ****. 
Anyway we’re getting ready to go to Cotswolds today and game fair tomorrow. End of rant.

[12gauge82]

16 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Referring to economic migrants as refugees skews any discussion from the start, and which is why we have constant reference to refugees (fleeing unsafe France?!?)

The primary duty and obligation of any government is to its own populace.

Our state benefits, housing and healthcare is now a disruptive magnetic force across the world. However, providing infinite ‘free stuff’ to the whole world doesn’t and can’t work - resources have to be stringently rationed.

The economics are of course that nothing but nothing is free and everything has to be paid for.

Adam Smith created the invisible hand about how a free market sorts itself out - if you subscribe to the whole ‘we’re all global travellers and ought to be able to go anywhere and work anywhere’ then that’s pure invisible hand stuff but the insertion of ‘free stuff’ breaks the system.

In short, if we’re going to let as many people in as want to come then we have to turn off all benefits - that is the only way to let the economics fix the problem. 

 

 

I referred to them in exactly the way the sitting governments refer to them quiet intentionally, as that is what our government appears to now class a refugee, which I agree is very dangerous as it leaves refugees escaping war and genocide in a very vulnerable position, which is why I was very careful to describe what's classed as the average refugee in my reply. 

Your second paragraph, agreed entirely, I think alluded to the same and why I blame our successive governments for the mess today. 

Your third paragraph, agreed I think I made the same point. 

And reading though the rest of your post I think our thoughts are aligned, my point is the fault lies with our own government and the people who vote for it, although voting in line with how people think is of course their perogative and how democracy works. 

22 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Leaving the economic migrants in France / on the continent is not inhuman.

I didn't say it was, I believe I said we should be sending them straight back. 

[12gauge82]

19 minutes ago, B686 said:

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t asylum ment to be the 1st safe country you come to? It frustrates me as I know a couple with 3 young kids who are hard working tax payers who lived in a rented property for a good few years always paid rent good tenants . 3 years ago they were given a section 21 and had to get out. Long story short they are now in a 2 bed flat (housing association) 5 of them . They have been told it’s probably going to be 5 or more years before anything bigger becomes available. What ****** me off is that these asylum spongers will probably get priority over decent hard working people like them . Don’t get me wrong they are grateful of a roof over their heads , but when you hear all this lot already here are going to be housed it really boils my ****. 
Anyway we’re getting ready to go to Cotswolds today and game fair tomorrow. End of rant.

Yes they should, I can't be bothered to find which article it's under, but your right. 

I also agree with the rest of your post, the government would have us believe that to not accept migrants is cruel, I say what's being done to our hard working and suffering population is cruel and since the government doesn't have its own money, spending ours to increase that suffering on our own people is beyond the pale. 

My point is, I don't blame the migrants for coming. 

Edited July 25 by 12gauge82

[JohnfromUK]

10 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I don't blame the migrants for coming. 

Indeed, and there are many reasons;

• They are led to believe that they will get free housing, free healthcare, cash allowance, easy job availability, good job conditions.  Much of this is true.
• They are made uncomfortable in France - no state funded hotels there - camps which are dirty, muddy, crowded and crime riddled.  They are told they will be MUCH better treated in the UK.  Pretty much true.
• They are told they will get legal representation which will guide them to a permanent residence status if they claim they are 'seeking escape from political, religious, ethnic or cultural' persecution in their own country.  They will be coached in filling in the forms, attending interviews etc.  This also seems to be true.

The smugglers, taking several £K from each make it sound very attractive and largely risk free.  They are absolutely right in most cases, and though there are risks, in truth the number who do get into trouble is a very small proportion.  Overall, they have every reason to come.

[janner]

2 hours ago, Mungler said:

Leaving the economic migrants in France / on the continent is not inhuman.

 when the wetbacks get here not letting them work is perverse,

 

Edited July 25 by janner

[ditchman]

1 hour ago, janner said:

 when the wetbacks get here not letting them work is perverse,

 

wetbacks are Mexicans........frost backs are canadians

[Gordon R]

Quote

when the wetbacks get here not letting them work is perverse,

Aside from the disgraceful term "wetbacks", there are only so many jobs. If illegals stayed and took them all, the unemployment amongst existing UK residents will increase. That will increase benefits, which will increase taxation. We all get poorer.

[Mungler]

2 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Aside from the disgraceful term "wetbacks", there are only so many jobs. If illegals stayed and took them all, the unemployment amongst existing UK residents will increase. That will increase benefits, which will increase taxation. We all get poorer.

We have been mis sold a Ponzi scheme / a lie that there is an economic advantage. Emerging data which factors in housing, education, health and welfare state costs together with the fact that the 1,000,000+ net extra bodies will themselves grow old and burden the system means there is no advantage. I’ll fish out the report.

 

[JohnfromUK]

5 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

the unemployment amongst existing UK residents will increase. That will increase benefits, which will increase taxation. We all get poorer.

The present Gov't talk of "growth" which would be good - but actually better "productivity" would be better still.

However, whilst talking of growth, they are actually reported to be considering

• handing out inflation beating pay rises (initially Doctors, Train Drivers and others will then follow) 
• making it easier to strike without notice.

Both of the above will reduce growth and productivity, increase inflation and increase unemployment.  But thejn thats what Labour always do.  This lot are just making a rapid start.

[12gauge82]

3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

The present Gov't talk of "growth" which would be good - but actually better "productivity" would be better still.

However, whilst talking of growth, they are actually reported to be considering

• handing out inflation beating pay rises (initially Doctors, Train Drivers and others will then follow) 
• making it easier to strike without notice.

Both of the above will reduce growth and productivity, increase inflation and increase unemployment.  But thejn thats what Labour always do.  This lot are just making a rapid start.

I agree with some of the stronger employment rights, like stopping zero hour contracts. But more rights to strike by large unionised body's is not what's needed. They already have good employment protection, decent wages, pensions and sick pay. 

I dispare with the current state of politics. 

[janner]

31 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Aside from the disgraceful term "wetbacks", there are only so many jobs. If illegals stayed and took them all, the unemployment amongst existing UK residents will increase. That will increase benefits, which will increase taxation. We all get poorer.

Well i find the term 'illegal' when referring to a human being as a whole lot more offensive than wetback which is not derogatory if used outside of the united states and not referring to a Mexican economic migrant.

I apologise to any mexican economic migrant that may have taken the wrong turn and ended up in the u.k via the straits of Dover and read my post, I didnt mean you, i meant other people.

My use was simply to hold a mirror up to those that use derogatory names when referring to human beings doing what comes naturally to human beings trying to better themselves and the life chances of their children and future generations,

They dont leave a broken country and  make their way across two seas and a continent to come here and sit on their butt,

We have enough homies here doing that.

Edited July 25 by janner
Didn realise that it was wrong to use the word,

[JohnfromUK]

6 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I agree with some of the stronger employment rights, like stopping zero hour contracts. But more rights to strike by large unionised body's is not what's needed. They already have good employment protection, decent wages, pensions and sick pay. 

I dispare with the current state of politics. 

Yes, zero hours contracts are a problem for many and probably need attention - but to get growth we need flexibility in work practices and we MUST improve productivity where currently the UK is very poor. 

"Growth" from simply employing more people to produce the same 'output' will only give inflation.

What the UK needs is a high productivity, flexible (adaptable) and skilled workforce - not more unskilled immigrants with poor language (communication).  The former can produce far more per person, whereas the latter need close supervision and are rarely actually as 'cheap' as they seem because productivity is low and overheads high.

[Gordon R]

janner - A couple of points. Wetback is a derogatory term. Illegals is a factual term.

These are not people leaving a war zone or broken country, they are mainly economic migrants with little regard for the law.

[janner]

11 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

janner - A couple of points. Wetback is a derogatory term. Illegals is a factual term.

These are not people leaving a war zone or broken country, they are mainly economic migrants with little regard for the law.

No human being is illegal

 

 saying it is a factual term is absolute rubbish and its use amongst once decent people shows just how low our country has become.

It is not illegal to be any type of person.

 

[Gordon R]

janner - I find it hard to argue with you as your knowledge of the English language seems sparse. When the economic migrants cross the channel, entering the country illegally, they become illegals.

Your use of the term "wetbacks" and then claiming it wasn't derogatory shows your the level of your thinking.

 

Quote

 

What is the meaning of wetback?

 

 

wet·back ˈwet-ˌbak. offensive. used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a Mexican who enters the U.S. illegally.

 

 

[janner]

1 minute ago, Gordon R said:

janner - I find it hard to argue with you as your knowledge of the English language seems sparse. When the economic migrants cross the channel, entering the country illegally, they become illegals.

Your use of the term "wetbacks" and then claiming it wasn't derogatory shows your the level of your thinking.

 

 

You are so of the mark when trying to justify the use of the tetm 'illegals' when referring to human beings,

I suggest that you find an article proving your use of the derogatory and stigmatising term and post it, as you will not be able to find one i suggest you instead search instead 'why no human is illegal' and then perhaps you will understand a bit more about the meaning of the term 'humanity"

Atb 

[Raja Clavata]

Unclear to me why illegals might not logically include anyone engaged in illegal activities, normalise the term to its pure definition not to discriminate a subset of criminals.

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, janner said:

You are so of the mark when trying to justify the use of the tetm 'illegals' when referring to human beings

Try entering the US without a visa or passport, and YOU will be be referred to as an illegal, along with many other countries, and your stay will be very short.
Im not sure why you find the term so offensive ?

If you prefer the term 'refugee' thats fine , use it yourself, but to be a refugee, you need to be a refugee from somewhere unsafe, and France doesnt qualify for that.
Simplistic I know, but cherry picking the best country for your 'refuge' kind of negates the idea that you just need to find safety from your own country, especially when youve crossed 5 or 6 safe countries to get there.

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Unclear to me why illegals might not logically include anyone engaged in illegal activities, normalise the term to its pure definition not to discriminate a subset of criminals.

Entering a country without using proper channels or documentation is illegal, even if they apply for asylum, until asylum is granted, they are an illegal immigrant.
Thats the same in pretty much any country in the world.

[oldypigeonpopper]

5 hours ago, B686 said:

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t asylum ment to be the 1st safe country you come to? It frustrates me as I know a couple with 3 young kids who are hard working tax payers who lived in a rented property for a good few years always paid rent good tenants . 3 years ago they were given a section 21 and had to get out. Long story short they are now in a 2 bed flat (housing association) 5 of them . They have been told it’s probably going to be 5 or more years before anything bigger becomes available. What ****** me off is that these asylum spongers will probably get priority over decent hard working people like them . Don’t get me wrong they are grateful of a roof over their heads , but when you hear all this lot already here are going to be housed it really boils my ****. 
Anyway we’re getting ready to go to Cotswolds today and game fair tomorrow. End of rant.

Hello, Rant or no Rant i am sure there are many in Uk who would agree like me, Good luck at the Fair

[Pushandpull]

The government website which chronicles small boat landings uses the term irregular migrants rather than illegal,

[Mungler]

31 minutes ago, janner said:

You are so of the mark when trying to justify the use of the tetm 'illegals' when referring to human beings,

I suggest that you find an article proving your use of the derogatory and stigmatising term and post it, as you will not be able to find one i suggest you instead search instead 'why no human is illegal' and then perhaps you will understand a bit more about the meaning of the term 'humanity"

Atb 

 

"Section 3(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 states that, persons who are not British citizens shall not enter the UK unless given leave in accordance with provisions in the Immigration Act 1971 or made under that act.

Entry without leave is a breach of section 3(1)(a) and therefore constitutes illegal entry as defined by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended by the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act)"

These are direct quote from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6650731b8f4cb8fef9f64fad/Irregular+or+unlawful+entry+and+arrival.pdf

Further "The Illegal Migration Act 2023 changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country." Again, another direct quote, this time from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/illegal-migration-bill

So, your own determined objection to the use of the word "illegal" is not actually reflective of the legislation.

Shall we call them "illegal entrants", "illegal immigrants" or "illegal migrants". You will however recognise the consistent and factual use of the word "illegal".

 

6 minutes ago, Pushandpull said:

The government website which chronicles small boat landings uses the term irregular migrants rather than illegal,

Really? It's not a term reflected in The Illegal Migration Act 2023.

[Rewulf]