EvilC wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 3:57 pm
It doesn’t. But when your whole thing as a party is sticking it to the immigrants, and then you fail to control immigration, then you have failed at the job you said you were going to do.
Any political football match occurring on this topic is one the government are delighted to participate in and will be happy to keep going for as long as they can. They don’t really have much else.
Not sure what a lot of that has to do with my post. Hopefully you feel better with it off your chest lol.
Of course they are happy to participate it's something they don't have a clue how to solve but can rail against. On the other side Copper implies it needs to be gotten a grip on. It will be a bidding war as the election gets closer. None of which will address the problems of pressure on infrastructure and an ageing population.
SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:02 pm
Not sure what a lot of that has to do with my post. Hopefully you feel better with it off your chest lol.
Of course they are happy to participate it's something they don't have a clue how to solve but can rail against. On the other side Copper implies it needs to be gotten a grip on. It will be a bidding war as the election gets closer. None of which will address the problems of pressure on infrastructure and an ageing population.
The thread is discussing the government. The government has made a load of promises to solve immigration without canning the economy. It has basically done neither.
Immigrants do I guess offer a temporary respite to the ageing population and bring you working age people that you don’t have. Still, f*** them, we don’t need them, clearly.
SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 3:27 pm
If, as is stated a few posts up, most immigrants go home how does that help with the ageing population problem?
A huge number were the exact words I used. Not most. If they come here, work and pay taxes, study and pay towards universities and health care, look after the elderly in care homes and then go back to where they came from then that's a net gain for the economy. It means they put a whole lot in and took very little out. Working age people are healthier and pay more tax. The conflation of 'illegal' (which doesn't exist) migrants with people we need and want is a deliberate ploy by the government to whip up hatred. It's all they have left.
Loftyhammer wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 6:10 am
Was wondering the same myself yesterday....and people from HK. Has a number been published that's net of those 2 groups?
Can't find any government numbers from Hong Kong, but some press reports saying around 76,000 - yet the same reports saying 84,000 Ukrainians, yet Gov website says 230k Ukrainian visa issued, so god knows....
Hammer1966 wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 6:00 pm
A huge number were the exact words I used. Not most. If they come here, work and pay taxes, study and pay towards universities and health care, look after the elderly in care homes and then go back to where they came from then that's a net gain for the economy. It means they put a whole lot in and took very little out. Working age people are healthier and pay more tax. The conflation of 'illegal' (which doesn't exist) migrants with people we need and want is a deliberate ploy by the government to whip up hatred. It's all they have left.
Fair enough just a huge number. It doesn't fix the problem but implies more and more short term immigration to fix our issues. This drift of the young and healthy to serve us doesn't harm the countries they are coming from?
Working age people that turn up, don't get I'll, have no kids and leave no impact at all Ihe nation and then leave having poured money into the economy may be the dream but it doesn't feel much like immigration to me. Feels more like exploitation. It also doesn't explain the rising number of 2nd generation people. If we want people to come here we have to plan for the lives they will want to lead.
Illegal migrants don't exist? The conflation is wrong but so is the blurring of economic migrants as being in need of asylum. We need migration and we should offer asylum to anyone in need. It's not wrong to want to check on both before agreeing to their wishes imo. Unless you have totally open borders you will have checks at some level.
SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 7:31 am
It's not wrong to want to check on both before agreeing to their wishes imo. Unless you have totally open borders you will have checks at some level.
I agree. So carry out the checks. What's stopping them? Is it because to have hotels, barges, second hand ferries (or whatever inhumane holding pen they've dreamt up this week) overflowing with migrants suits the "we're being overrun" narrative? Or as was said yesterday 'it works as a deterrent'. Or is because they know that if they process them correctly based on international law that they'd have to let most people in?
-DL- wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 6:06 am
Aren't these immigration figures skewed a bit with the 230,000 odd Ukrainians issued visas?
All of the reporting on them is terrible frankly.
The Ukrainians you mention, the people from Hong Kong on a similar short term scheme, the huge numbers of students & dependents (who virtually all go home). There's a valid conversation about we ensure the country benefits how these short term stays but it's not being had.
Instead we're told to focus on the 1 in 27 people who are coming over on boats.
SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 7:31 am
Fair enough just a huge number. It doesn't fix the problem but implies more and more short term immigration to fix our issues. This drift of the young and healthy to serve us doesn't harm the countries they are coming from?
Working age people that turn up, don't get I'll, have no kids and leave no impact at all Ihe nation and then leave having poured money into the economy may be the dream but it doesn't feel much like immigration to me. Feels more like exploitation. It also doesn't explain the rising number of 2nd generation people. If we want people to come here we have to plan for the lives they will want to lead.
Illegal migrants don't exist? The conflation is wrong but so is the blurring of economic migrants as being in need of asylum. We need migration and we should offer asylum to anyone in need. It's not wrong to want to check on both before agreeing to their wishes imo. Unless you have totally open borders you will have checks at some level.
That's capitalism baby
We spent a long time exploiting their natural resources, now we exploit their birth rate.
Hammer1966 wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 8:42 am
I agree. So carry out the checks. What's stopping them? Is it because to have hotels, barges, second hand ferries (or whatever inhumane holding pen they've dreamt up this week) overflowing with migrants suits the "we're being overrun" narrative? Or as was said yesterday 'it works as a deterrent'. Or is because they know that if they process them correctly based on international law that they'd have to let most people in?
They are letting most in, I thought that was the point of yesterdays numbers - 1m a year.
And if they can't check paperwork? If people can't prove at the point of entry that they are allowed to enter then the checks take time, if they claim asylum the checks take time. While this happens people have to stay somewhere - unless we go back to the old number reduction system of sticking them on a bus, parking at the services and leaving the door open. The legal system takes time, appeals take time etc (I've been 12 months waiting for a ccj hearing).
SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 8:59 am
They are letting most in, I thought that was the point of yesterdays numbers - 1m a year.
And if they can't check paperwork? If people can't prove at the point of entry that they are allowed to enter then the checks take time, if they claim asylum the checks take time. While this happens people have to stay somewhere - unless we go back to the old number reduction system of sticking them on a bus, parking at the services and leaving the door open. The legal system takes time, appeals take time etc (I've been 12 months waiting for a ccj hearing).
It was closer to 600k than a million.
And that number was net migration. Does it include all the people waiting to be 'processed'? It certainly included those from Ukraine and Hong Kong and all the others who were quickly processed. Plus those on work and study visas and those who are entitled to live here due to family ties. So I'd guess none of the 600k+ were what the government like to call illegal (before they've even bothered to speak to them).
The legal system does thake time, way longer than it used to but that's because like every other system in this country it's been run down to the point that the only way to get anything done is to pay for it yourself. And that's beyond most people's budgets.
Hammer1966 wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 3:12 pm
It was closer to 600k than a million.
And that number was net migration. Does it include all the people waiting to be 'processed'? It certainly included those from Ukraine and Hong Kong and all the others who were quickly processed. Plus those on work and study visas and those who are entitled to live here due to family ties. So I'd guess none of the 600k+ were what the government like to call illegal (before they've even bothered to speak to them).
The legal system does thake time, way longer than it used to but that's because like every other system in this country it's been run down to the point that the only way to get anything done is to pay for it yourself. And that's beyond most people's budgets.
1.1m incoming. The 600,000 as you say is net.
Those waiting to be processed, I'd imagine it depends what year they arrived. If they came this year then yes.
Id imagine those crossing the channel this year that apply for leave to remain would be in the numbers.
Either way, they are closing on Labour in the latest polls. If Labour can’t win this next election you’d have to wonder whether they’ll ever get elected again!
