shotshy
Vital Champions League
Ten million increase in twenty years.
Twenty years is about a generation.
Post Brexit (n/g)
- Thread starter PuB
- Start date
Twenty years is about a generation.
mehmets_curlies
Vital Squad Member
Ten million increase on? The UK population?
Jerryattrick
Vital Football Hero
Stupidity of the EU nationals flooding us in the Brexit argument (inc take back control.
At the time only half of immigration was EU nationals (who were obviously legal), the other half were none EU (illegals plus refugees plus other visas).
nothing was being done about this non EU 50ish % and even less is done now. It was all just a brexit smokescreen built on misinformation.
this is not a new or unforeseen situation.
firstly when you interfere in other countries and the bombs reign down you create refugees and therefore you plan for that or you ensure that refugee application can be made outside of the country as requested by the border force. If not then you need large secure holding camps with quick acceptance or 'refusal followed by rapid deportation'.
Still does not explain the high number of non EU visa applicants for which no social planning has been carried out.
We do have supposedly 1.2 million illegals in the country but i am lost as to how this is measured or numbers obtained. if true however then large detention camps should be in place and deportations a common event.
maybe refugee and 'illegals' are hard to predict but what about EU nationals numbers. It was Blair that persuaded the EU to expand to add the recent members and therefore this was predictable and therefore the additional services should have been put in place including reception camps - but they were not.
shock, horror our services are all oversubscribed and in trouble.
irrelevant of individual leanings or thoughts in immigration it would seem that these things were predicted but nobody in power either gives a f (add a level of incompetence) or the situation suites our masters).
At the time only half of immigration was EU nationals (who were obviously legal), the other half were none EU (illegals plus refugees plus other visas).
nothing was being done about this non EU 50ish % and even less is done now. It was all just a brexit smokescreen built on misinformation.
this is not a new or unforeseen situation.
firstly when you interfere in other countries and the bombs reign down you create refugees and therefore you plan for that or you ensure that refugee application can be made outside of the country as requested by the border force. If not then you need large secure holding camps with quick acceptance or 'refusal followed by rapid deportation'.
Still does not explain the high number of non EU visa applicants for which no social planning has been carried out.
We do have supposedly 1.2 million illegals in the country but i am lost as to how this is measured or numbers obtained. if true however then large detention camps should be in place and deportations a common event.
maybe refugee and 'illegals' are hard to predict but what about EU nationals numbers. It was Blair that persuaded the EU to expand to add the recent members and therefore this was predictable and therefore the additional services should have been put in place including reception camps - but they were not.
shock, horror our services are all oversubscribed and in trouble.
irrelevant of individual leanings or thoughts in immigration it would seem that these things were predicted but nobody in power either gives a f (add a level of incompetence) or the situation suites our masters).
Vambogills
Vital Football Hero
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....rnational-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/
For any that may prefer a less emotional approach to UK migration flow?
For any that may prefer a less emotional approach to UK migration flow?
ThreeSixes
Vital Football Hero
Yep, 459,000 more Romanians in the last 10 years
Gilles Lingam
Vital Squad Member
Here are a few interesting & pertinent extracts from Craig Murray's latest upload to his blog - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/11/rampant-deprofessionalisation/ :
« It is not controversial to say that the UK’s immigration system is utterly broken. The reason is very plain but seldom noted – decades of cuts in which the cheapness of the system is crazily prioritised over the system working.
… The plain truth is this: while governments driven by a desire to cut public spending are unwilling to fund the administration of immigration with reasonable levels of professionalism and expertise, it really does not matter what the policy is. The tool to carry the policy into effect was degraded long ago.
It is not that the system has collapsed under the weight of applications. Ever increasing applications are a complete myth. To take asylum applications as an example, do you know in what year asylum applications peaked? 2002. Yes, twenty years ago. 2022 is seeing something of a surge on 2021, but that surge will take 2022 to about 50% of the levels we were seeing twenty years ago.
The problem is not increased volume of applications. The problem is the wanton destruction of the machinery to cope with them.
…. The UK does not receive disproportionate numbers of asylum applications. Asylum applications per head of UK population are just half the level of the EU average. This from a UK parliamentary library briefing:
In 2020, there were around 6 asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU27 there were 11 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. When compared with EU countries, the UK ranked 14th out of the individual countries in terms of the number of asylum applications per capita.
In 2020, 72% of all asylum applications were accepted as genuine at first decision by the Home Office. About one third of the remaining 28% were accepted on appeal. So 81% of all asylum applications are ultimately judged genuine. The Patel/Braverman line that most are “economic migrants” is a plain lie.
The mass arrival of Albanian citizens by boat is a relatively new phenomenon. I am sceptical that the numbers are as large as being put out. It seems to me wildly improbable that 2% of the adult male population of Albania is crossing the Channel in small boats. But it is worth noting that over 40% of Albanian asylum applications are accepted as genuine at first decision by the Home Office. The shameful painting of all Albanians as criminal is plain wrong.
…..It is now illegal in UK domestic law to arrive in the UK for the purpose of claiming asylum – contrary to international law and the UK government’s obligations under the Refugee Convention. At the same time, there is no provision to claim asylum outside the UK. In effect, the Conservative government has made it impossible to claim asylum other than by the desperate measure of pitching up in a small boat.
They then claim astonishment that people pitch up in small boats.
There is nothing in either the 1951 Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol that stipulates that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. That is a peculiar right wing canard. There is an obligation to treat refugees humanely, assist with housing and allow to find employment. The UK is failing in all of these duties.
the Tories have destroyed the system meant to implement their flailing policies. The policy levers have no viable implementation mechanism at the end of them. It could be fixed, by substantial investment, reversing privatisation, and re-establishing a worldwide expert immigration service again.
If you add that to a genuine and effective legal mechanism for accepting and processing the European average of refugee applications and a sensible policy to admit the workers the UK economy desperately needs, the benefits would far outweigh the cost. But in a mad universe where all public spending bar defence is effectively viewed by the Tories as loss, it will not happen. »
« It is not controversial to say that the UK’s immigration system is utterly broken. The reason is very plain but seldom noted – decades of cuts in which the cheapness of the system is crazily prioritised over the system working.
… The plain truth is this: while governments driven by a desire to cut public spending are unwilling to fund the administration of immigration with reasonable levels of professionalism and expertise, it really does not matter what the policy is. The tool to carry the policy into effect was degraded long ago.
It is not that the system has collapsed under the weight of applications. Ever increasing applications are a complete myth. To take asylum applications as an example, do you know in what year asylum applications peaked? 2002. Yes, twenty years ago. 2022 is seeing something of a surge on 2021, but that surge will take 2022 to about 50% of the levels we were seeing twenty years ago.
The problem is not increased volume of applications. The problem is the wanton destruction of the machinery to cope with them.
…. The UK does not receive disproportionate numbers of asylum applications. Asylum applications per head of UK population are just half the level of the EU average. This from a UK parliamentary library briefing:
In 2020, there were around 6 asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU27 there were 11 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. When compared with EU countries, the UK ranked 14th out of the individual countries in terms of the number of asylum applications per capita.
In 2020, 72% of all asylum applications were accepted as genuine at first decision by the Home Office. About one third of the remaining 28% were accepted on appeal. So 81% of all asylum applications are ultimately judged genuine. The Patel/Braverman line that most are “economic migrants” is a plain lie.
The mass arrival of Albanian citizens by boat is a relatively new phenomenon. I am sceptical that the numbers are as large as being put out. It seems to me wildly improbable that 2% of the adult male population of Albania is crossing the Channel in small boats. But it is worth noting that over 40% of Albanian asylum applications are accepted as genuine at first decision by the Home Office. The shameful painting of all Albanians as criminal is plain wrong.
…..It is now illegal in UK domestic law to arrive in the UK for the purpose of claiming asylum – contrary to international law and the UK government’s obligations under the Refugee Convention. At the same time, there is no provision to claim asylum outside the UK. In effect, the Conservative government has made it impossible to claim asylum other than by the desperate measure of pitching up in a small boat.
They then claim astonishment that people pitch up in small boats.
There is nothing in either the 1951 Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol that stipulates that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. That is a peculiar right wing canard. There is an obligation to treat refugees humanely, assist with housing and allow to find employment. The UK is failing in all of these duties.
the Tories have destroyed the system meant to implement their flailing policies. The policy levers have no viable implementation mechanism at the end of them. It could be fixed, by substantial investment, reversing privatisation, and re-establishing a worldwide expert immigration service again.
If you add that to a genuine and effective legal mechanism for accepting and processing the European average of refugee applications and a sensible policy to admit the workers the UK economy desperately needs, the benefits would far outweigh the cost. But in a mad universe where all public spending bar defence is effectively viewed by the Tories as loss, it will not happen. »
jogills
Vital Football Hero
We can't force anyone to work at a job they don't want to do and it wouldn't be worth our while to try. Across the developed world there are jobs largely filled by new immigrants, who move on once established. Virtually no one, once established sees such jobs as their future. You can say that situation is unsustainable but no one has found any solution though new technology keeps chipping away. We have been carrying on this way since long before I was born.
The central point made in Gilles Lingham's post, that of the underfundeng migration services and the degrading of their performance, precludes any rational solution. If we began to administer the problem properly we could start to make decions and begin to make them work. Special visas for certain sectors, temporary work permits, agreements to return failed asylum seekers and illegals to countrries of origin and much more could be up for consideration. As it is we have chaos that benefits no one but those with bad intentions both in politics and in the trafficking business.
The central point made in Gilles Lingham's post, that of the underfundeng migration services and the degrading of their performance, precludes any rational solution. If we began to administer the problem properly we could start to make decions and begin to make them work. Special visas for certain sectors, temporary work permits, agreements to return failed asylum seekers and illegals to countrries of origin and much more could be up for consideration. As it is we have chaos that benefits no one but those with bad intentions both in politics and in the trafficking business.
shotshy
Vital Champions League
It wasn’t Gilles post.
It was a copy and paste. Someone else’s opinions.
It was however totally correct.
I’m sure I don’t have solutions and I doubt anyone else does either.
Maybe just dissolve the asylum system altogether and let anyone in who fancies it ?
Jerryattrick
Vital Football Hero
the answer in the first place is simply to have an agreed plan and then resource and enforce it.
whether we individually agree with the subsequent efficient system it must surely be better than the current mess.
it would cost a lot in monetary terms but i do not believe that is the stopper. I believe, as with handling homelessness it comes under the 'my brain hurts' or 'that would take effort' category which most politicians cannot handle, they mainly can only just about produce rhetoric (on both sides).
Why is this quoted as if authoritative ?
Any application for asylum is going to include judgement.
One of the factors considered includes whether the applicant has a relative in the UK.
With so-called "asylum-seekers" apparently desperate to escape France, surely one has to question the motives of the Home Office officials in allowing such a large % through?
Are the officials pre-disposed to approve ?
Do they accept claims of a UK relative with minimal investigation ?
A few years ago, someone on secondment to the Home Office from the Treasury told me that the H.O. management saw its role as facilitating immigration not impeding it.
So it is perfectly possible for some observers to see "economic migrants" while others are inclined to "benefit of the doubt" in favour of asylum.
Plenty of people think that it should be unlawful to claim asylum having crossed the Channel in a boat.
i.e. without going through passport control.
More to the point, it is unlawful to enter a country without registering with Border Force / Passport Control - so these people are, prima facie, criminals.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/immigration-annex-1-tables-immigration-offences
e.g.
Entering the UK without Leave - s24(B1) Immigration Act 1971
Arriving Without Entry Clearance - s24(D1) Immigration Act 1971
What bemuses many is that opponents of this Government - and opponents of immigration control appear to want no limits.
Why ?
Why a "plain lie" ?
Any application for asylum is going to include judgement.
One of the factors considered includes whether the applicant has a relative in the UK.
With so-called "asylum-seekers" apparently desperate to escape France, surely one has to question the motives of the Home Office officials in allowing such a large % through?
Are the officials pre-disposed to approve ?
Do they accept claims of a UK relative with minimal investigation ?
A few years ago, someone on secondment to the Home Office from the Treasury told me that the H.O. management saw its role as facilitating immigration not impeding it.
So it is perfectly possible for some observers to see "economic migrants" while others are inclined to "benefit of the doubt" in favour of asylum.
This quote seems so absurd, that the author should be required to back it up.
Plenty of people think that it should be unlawful to claim asylum having crossed the Channel in a boat.
i.e. without going through passport control.
More to the point, it is unlawful to enter a country without registering with Border Force / Passport Control - so these people are, prima facie, criminals.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/immigration-annex-1-tables-immigration-offences
e.g.
Entering the UK without Leave - s24(B1) Immigration Act 1971
Arriving Without Entry Clearance - s24(D1) Immigration Act 1971
What bemuses many is that opponents of this Government - and opponents of immigration control appear to want no limits.
Why ?
Gilles Lingam
Vital Squad Member
The percentage of asylum applicants refused at initial decision reached its highest point at 88% in 2004. Since then, the refusal rate has been falling overall and was at 28%, its lowest point since 1990.
In the period from 2004 to 2020, around three-quarters of applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and almost one third of those appeals were allowed.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
Gilles Lingam
Vital Squad Member
..
jogills
Vital Football Hero
I understood that GL didn't originate the post I just found it easier to refer to his posting it.
Outright solutions have we none but plenty of things could be done better IF we funded and ran the service with easily nunderstood and agreed aims.
LancsGordoRoad
Vital Champions League
JoGills: "The central point made in Gilles Lingham's post, that of the underfundeng migration services and the degrading of their performance, precludes any rational solution."
Tarian: "Are the officials pre-disposed to approve ?
Do they accept claims of a UK relative with minimal investigation ?"
I believe that the answer to both Tarian`s questions is Yes, mainly as a result of the point made by JoGills, which hits the nail absolutely on the head.
Until such time as Immigration and other relevant UK agencies are resourced appropriately, irrationality will prevail.
Tarian: "Are the officials pre-disposed to approve ?
Do they accept claims of a UK relative with minimal investigation ?"
I believe that the answer to both Tarian`s questions is Yes, mainly as a result of the point made by JoGills, which hits the nail absolutely on the head.
Until such time as Immigration and other relevant UK agencies are resourced appropriately, irrationality will prevail.
Rob_b100
Vital 1st Team Regular
Pleased to see Krish back on C4 tonight.
Shame Steve Baker wasn’t available for a follow up interview though.
shotshy
Vital Champions League
Baker did admit that he was a bit of an arse in that interview because C4 changed the agreed deal when he arrived.
He was told it was to be a recorded interview and when he got there they told him it was going out live so he got the hump and made it as difficult as possible for Krishnan.
I personally love it when they give a bit back to the interviewer.
I remember Truss totally blanking the Sky lady Beth Rigby.
Her face was a picture.
I think it was Mick Lynch who riduculed Beth Rigby (iirc) when she tried to role out the "intimidating pickets threatening innocent strike breakers" bs. He laughed at her, turned round to the pickets and said "this is what they are doing" to a scene of pickets and various others having a nice chat.
Last edited:
I think Truss might have been trying to think of an answer. Long pauses are part of her 'technique'.Baker did admit that he was a bit of an arse in that interview because C4 changed the agreed deal when he arrived.
He was told it was to be a recorded interview and when he got there they told him it was going out live so he got the hump and made it as difficult as possible for Krishnan.
I personally love it when they give a bit back to the interviewer.
I remember Truss totally blanking the Sky lady Beth Rigby.
Her face was a picture.
Steve Baker is a dangerous nutter driven by his so called faith in god. Scary.
Jerryattrick
Vital Football Hero
London no longer number 1 stock exchange.
Anything to do with brexit?
Anything to do with brexit?
jogills
Vital Football Hero
And now George Eustice admits that the Australia trade deal is crap for the UK. Brexit or Remain it's increasingly obvious that we have made a complete Horlicks of leaving the EU. It won't get better until ideology gives way to practicality. I expect us to be in another and higher division before that comes to pass.
