[Politics] Stop the boats

[sydney]

I will type this very slowly for yours @Seagull58 and @carlzeiss's benefit, although I don't hold out a lot of hope

If you stop allowing asylum claims from people whilst abroad as this Government did in 2011 then you will force people to actually come to the UK in order to claim, which in turn, opens up great opportunities for criminals to hide amongst them and then disappear on arrival.

If you then shut down all legal channels of claiming asylum and force people to cross the channel in small boats, this happens

2018 - 299
2019 - 1,890
2020 - 8,466
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755

Giving even more opportunity to smuggle criminals in.

If you then withdraw resources in order to increase processing times for asylum seekers then this is what you will do to the backlog

2012 - 9,800
2018 - 27,000
2022 - 161,000

Increasing the opportunities hugely for Albanian (obviously your favourites, but also other foreign) criminals to smuggle more criminals into the UK amongst these tens of thousands being forced into boats and the hundreds of thousands awaiting processing, and get them to 'disappear'.

You have had this pointed out to you numerous times over the years that all of these things increase the opportunity to smuggle criminals into Britain. Why would the Government create and exacerbate the situation ? To ensure racists, bigots, and the stupid, together with the misguided and naïve, get angry enough about immigration/asylum to vote for more of the same ? Or maybe you have another suggestion as to why they have done it ?

But here you are, voting time and again for more of the same whilst getting angrier and angrier about the results of what you're voting for

Even you must see the amusing aspect of this



Or maybe you two could join @carlzeiss in posting on his favourite immigration/asylum thread where you could all be angry ever after

View attachment 165069

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/threads/welcoming-refugees-well-done-brits.383170/

Sorry to leave you out @sydney, but I know that you are either beyond help or a spoof account and I'm favouring the latter

20 years worth of spoof...?? ok petal

 

[WATFORD zero]

Thankyou for the analysis but, once again, I want to point out that you have misinterpreted my posts.
The reason I mentioned Albanians is because they represented 28% of asylum seekers in the year ending 6th March 2023. I also mentioned Afghanis who represented 20%. Those two nationalities were by far the highest percentages.
I have NEVER voted Tory in my life. I have not voted in the UK for 20 years or so.
I don't find any aspects of this amusing but I am slightly annoyed that you are so insistent on pigeonholing me as some sort of anti-immigrant fascist. All I have done on this thread is ask reasonable, imo, questions and suggesting, admittedly several times, an alternative process for asylum seekers than climbing into small boats and risking death by drowning. Please back off now.

The reason I gave that breakdown was to explain how the current situation has been reached by the current Government making policy changes over the last 10 years, all of which could easily be reversed.

The alternative process you keep on suggesting is for the whole world to re-write international law. Maybe you can see why I think my suggestion is more likely to resolve the situation in a reasonable timespan, saving lives

The voting thing was referring to the person I was quoting who has campaigned constantly on NSC for this cabal for a number of years, I should have made that clearer

 

[Mo Gosfield]

I will type this very slowly for yours @Seagull58 and @carlzeiss's benefit, although I don't hold out a lot of hope

If you stop allowing asylum claims from people whilst abroad as this Government did in 2011 then you will force people to actually come to the UK in order to claim, which in turn, opens up great opportunities for criminals to hide amongst them and then disappear on arrival.

If you then shut down all legal channels of claiming asylum and force people to cross the channel in small boats, this happens

2018 - 299
2019 - 1,890
2020 - 8,466
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755

Giving even more opportunity to smuggle criminals in.

If you then withdraw resources in order to increase processing times for asylum seekers then this is what you will do to the backlog

2012 - 9,800
2018 - 27,000
2022 - 161,000

Increasing the opportunities hugely for Albanian (obviously your favourites, but also other foreign) criminals to smuggle more criminals into the UK amongst these tens of thousands being forced into boats and the hundreds of thousands awaiting processing, and get them to 'disappear'.

You have had this pointed out to you numerous times over the years that all of these things increase the opportunity to smuggle criminals into Britain. Why would the Government create and exacerbate the situation ? To ensure racists, bigots, and the stupid, together with the misguided and naïve, get angry enough about immigration/asylum to vote for more of the same ? Or maybe you have another suggestion as to why they have done it ?

But here you are, voting time and again for more of the same whilst getting angrier and angrier about the results of what you're voting for

Even you must see the amusing aspect of this



Or maybe you two could join @carlzeiss in posting on his favourite immigration/asylum thread where you could all be angry ever after

View attachment 165069

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/threads/welcoming-refugees-well-done-brits.383170/

Sorry to leave you out @sydney, but I know that you are either beyond help or a spoof account and I'm favouring the latter

....and there you go, assuming that I am some middle-class, thick, bigotted, racist right winger.
Sorry to disappoint you but I have never voted Tory in my life. I happen to have a bit more intelligence than those who rabidly adhere to the Left or Right and can see no good in any other argument than their own. I worked it out a long time ago. My father had connections in ' high places ' and although he had to be discreet he gave my enough pointers as to where the real power and decision making goes on. The corruption and the bias. The maintenance of the status quo. But I don't need to tell you this. You know all this already. Your intelligence is far superior to mine and you make no secret of your disdain for those inferior to yourself.
I was an angry young man, detested the two main parties and could see through both of them. Me and my mates used to desecrate Tory placards. Although we probably leaned slightly more to the Left than Right, none of us could find it in our hearts to give support to either party. We read a lot, talked a lot and realised that whatever they promised, they would never deliver. So, apart from voting Liberal twice, when I was younger ( tactical, to stop a Tory candidate ) thats it...... havent voted since in a GE.
So good luck to those who believe that change is coming. Don't hold yer breath. Its one asylum and the inmates are all in there for the same reason.

 

[Jackthelad]

We have the technology to stop this quite quickly but we don't. It's corruption. The Swedish floating ship is as stupid as the planes to Rwanda.

 

[WATFORD zero]

....and there you go, assuming that I am some middle-class, thick, bigotted, racist right winger.
Sorry to disappoint you but I have never voted Tory in my life. I happen to have a bit more intelligence than those who rabidly adhere to the Left or Right and can see no good in any other argument than their own. I worked it out a long time ago. My father had connections in ' high places ' and although he had to be discreet he gave my enough pointers as to where the real power and decision making goes on. The corruption and the bias. The maintenance of the status quo. But I don't need to tell you this. You know all this already. Your intelligence is far superior to mine and you make no secret of your disdain for those inferior to yourself.
I was an angry young man, detested the two main parties and could see through both of them. Me and my mates used to desecrate Tory placards. Although we probably leaned slightly more to the Left than Right, none of us could find it in our hearts to give support to either party. We read a lot, talked a lot and realised that whatever they promised, they would never deliver. So, apart from voting Liberal twice, when I was younger ( tactical, to stop a Tory candidate ) thats it...... havent voted since in a GE.
So good luck to those who believe that change is coming. Don't hold yer breath. Its one asylum and the inmates are all in there for the same reason.

Here you are with your immigration rant about the Labour party on the 2019 election thread (that you now claim you didn't vote in)

Ah....yes.......that party. The one that believed in an open door policy, whether it be immigrants or mass murderers. Never mind about keeping any records or control. Everyone is welcome, particularly some of the worst criminal scumbags in Europe. Let them set up their child trafficking, abuse and paedophiliac rings in this country. Let them set up their drug cartels, their prostitution, their stealing, their begging, their fraud and their scams. Let them deal in guns and knives and let them embark on a massive programme of vehicle theft, to export or simply to resell here, in this country. They have been allowed to settle and flourish here, like vermin, uncontrolled and unconcerned. Well done. Damage well and truly inflicted. Cannot be repaired.
Ah....yes....that party. The one that rattled on about ' education, education, education ' What they should have been saying was ' results, results, results ' They cynically and systematically dumbed down educational standards ( proven ) to create, on paper, generations of brilliant kids, full of A Stars, all heading for university. It was a strategy to take as many of the younger population out of the employment statistics as possible. It worked.
They used the youth of this country for their own tactical purposes and that is unforgiveable. For years, they were responsible for misleading students into believing they were high achievers ( they were on paper!! ) They should hang their heads in shame for deceiving the future of this country.
Ah....yes....that party. I could go on about illegal wars, gold reserves and notes saying....' there is no more money ' but enough is enough. Their legacy will linger for years and years.

.

Here you are claiming to have voted Remain at the referendum.

I didn't vote Leave. There, that answers a simple question.
Unlike many on here, I can maintain a balanced view on both sides of the argument. I come from a generation that learnt how to accept other opinions and decisions, even if you didn't agree with them. I have a view that the EU doesn't have a long term future.

Here you are claiming to have voted Brexit at the same referendum

Sadly, you cannot fix the EU from the inside.
Farage was right and I can back him up ( with experience ) The organisation is rotten to the core. With power comes corruption and it is rife within the EU. The level of waste is staggeringly huge and there is no accountability. No internal fiscal control. They cannot sign off any set of accounts, therefore they are operating illegally. It is the most corrupt body on the face of the Earth and yet millions in this country glibly choose to ignore this and pursue some sort of Utopian dream.
My vote on Thursday was a vote for honesty, visibility, transparency and self-control. Its another matter if our own politicians waste money. We vote them in and we can vote them out again. We have some sort of control unlike this runaway black hole.
The EU is out of control. Eventually, it will eat itself and the dream will be over. All the member states will revert back to independency and all will continue to trade happily with each other. After all, business is business.

Somewhat understandably, after all that bolleaux, I don't believe anything you post about voting, as it seems you will quite happily lie blatantly about anything to suit the point you're trying to make at any given moment

 

[Seagull58]

Here you with your immigration rant about the Labour party on the 2019 election thread (that you now claim you didn't vote in)

.

Here you are claiming to have voted Remain at the referendum.

Here you are claiming to have voted Brexit at the same referendum

Somewhat understandably, after all that bolleaux, I don't believe anything you post about voting, as it seems you will quite happily lie blatantly about anything to suit the point you're trying to make at any given moment

There's no indication in any of those quotes that he has voted Tory or Labour in any election.

 

[WATFORD zero]

There's no indication in any of those quotes that he has voted Tory or Labour in any election.

Completely correct, but they are absolute proof that he lies on NSC about what he has voted for

 

[worthingseagull123]

Time surely for the government to arrange for a daily ferry service so that brexit loving migrants can safely travel to the land of the free from France .

The average ferry should be able to transport approx 1000 people at a time which should be sufficient for now

Good idea. We can also make it mandatory for people to take in asylum seekers and refugees into their spare rooms.

We did it in the war with children being evacuated from London.

 

[Randy McNob]

Thankyou for the analysis but, once again, I want to point out that you have misinterpreted my posts.
The reason I mentioned Albanians is because they represented 28% of asylum seekers in the year ending 6th March 2023. I also mentioned Afghanis who represented 20%. Those two nationalities were by far the highest percentages.
I have NEVER voted Tory in my life. I have not voted in the UK for 20 years or so.
I don't find any aspects of this amusing but I am slightly annoyed that you are so insistent on pigeonholing me as some sort of anti-immigrant fascist. All I have done on this thread is ask reasonable, imo, questions and suggesting, admittedly several times, an alternative process for asylum seekers than climbing into small boats and risking death by drowning. Please back off now.

But your angle on the issue is typically to treat these people with deep suspicion or dishonest intentions, this is despite the fact the majority have their claims approved. You don't even live in the UK but are adamant they should not apply for asylum despite having every right to do so but instead apply to reside in a country they have no connection to and no intention of residing in, don't place any blame on the government who leave these people no choice but enter the country by this (legal) yet dangerous method or the fact they are far too slow to process the claims. They simply want to stoke resentment and anger among the public for political gain and you seem to buy into that theory

 

[Randy McNob]

no , not at all ...he is a very left orientated type of guy , his opinions on global issues are overwhelmingly depressing, unfortunately for me they match my own , environmentally aware he is but he loves to grind it into the viewer , almost screaming " this is partly your fault" one can only wonder if he will go across to ireland and report on the utter clusterfuck that is going on over there.....you need to wake the f*** up mate , you'll be over run within 5 yrs , virtually guaranteed.

There seems to be a trend where those who challenge the narrative and try to educate and scotch many of the misconceptions and mistruths on divisive issues are then branded a lefty, because they don't follow the narrative so the establishment brand such people as left or woke to hang them out to dry in an attempt to distort their message when really they have no politiical axe and just tell it like it is. I don't find Reeve in the slightest bit politicially motivated, he has never mentioned politics, he just tells it like it is

 

[Seagull58]

But your angle on the issue is typically to treat these people with deep suspicion or dishonest intentions, this is despite the fact the majority have their claims approved. You don't even live in the UK but are adamant they should not apply for asylum despite having every right to do so but instead apply to reside in a country they have no connection to and no intention of residing in, don't place any blame on the government who leave these people no choice but enter the country by this (legal) yet dangerous method or the fact they are far too slow to process the claims. They simply want to stoke resentment and anger among the public for political gain and you seem to buy into that theory

None of what you say about me is true.
I do not treat them with suspicion or attribute dishonest intentions. I simply want them to stop drowning.
I am not "adamant they should not apply for asylum". I have simply suggested they would be safer applying in a country that is easier to get to and then, after their claim has been processed, apply to emigrate to the UK if they have a good reason for doing so e.g family, language, job opportunities. This is allowed by international law despite what was said in an earlier post.
I didn't absolve the government from responsibility. I simply questioned the current situation and process.
I am not persuaded that they are deliberately stoking resentment and anger but I am also not convinced that they are not.
You, like Watford Zero, are keen to attribute anti-immigrant, pseudo-fascist beliefs to me, none of which are true or evident in my posts on this thread.
My first two posts on this thread asked, firstly, are they not supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country and, secondly, are the majority not economic migrants. Two questions which were answered in the negative and which I took on board in all my subsequent comments.

 

[Randy McNob]

None of what you say about me is true.
I do not treat them with suspicion or attribute dishonest intentions. I simply want them to stop drowning.
I am not "adamant they should not apply for asylum". I have simply suggested they would be safer applying in a country that is easier to get to and then, after their claim has been processed, apply to emigrate to the UK if they have a good reason for doing so e.g family, language, job opportunities. This is allowed by international law despite what was said in an earlier post.
I didn't absolve the government from responsibility. I simply questioned the current situation and process.
I am not persuaded that they are deliberately stoking resentment and anger but I am also not convinced that they are not.
You, like Watford Zero, are keen to attribute anti-immigrant, pseudo-fascist beliefs to me, none of which are true or evident in my posts on this thread.
My first two posts on this thread asked, firstly, are they not supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country and, secondly, are the majority not economic migrants. Two questions which were answered in the negative and which I took on board in all my subsequent comments.

Your questions have been answered several times over yet you still regurgitate the same questions. Asylum seekers do not have to apply in the first safe country. It doesn't make sense anyway. Take Ukraine as an example, if there is a war it doesn't therefore become Poland's problem, we share the burden because all civilised countries have an asylum policy. They have specific resasons why they choose the UK and that is their right. Why can't you accept that? It is the governemnt who is trying everything possible to block them, if they helped them instead, which is their moral and legal duty, they wouldn't attempt dangerous channel crossings. Why not just simply set up a processing centre in Calais and offer them safe passage? They don't because they want the public to be anti immigration and stop them at all costs, as a result people die, so I put the blame squarely on the governemnt

 

[Is it PotG?]

Your questions have been answered several times over yet you still regurgitate the same questions. Asylum seekers do not have to apply in the first safe country. It doesn't make sense anyway. Take Ukraine as an example, if there is a war it doesn't therefore become Poland's problem, we share the burden because all civilised countries have an asylum policy. They have specific resasons why they choose the UK and that is their right. Why can't you accept that? It is the governemnt who is trying everything possible to block them, if they helped them instead, which is their moral and legal duty, they wouldn't attempt dangerous channel crossings. Why not just simply set up a processing centre in Calais and offer them safe passage? They don't because they want the public to be anti immigration and stop them at all costs, as a result people die, so I put the blame squarely on the governemnt

So long as traffickers offer, for large sums, a route then failed applicants for whatever reasons shall forever try and enter illegally. It's known commonly as supply and demand.

 

[Seagull58]

Your questions have been answered several times over yet you still regurgitate the same questions. Asylum seekers do not have to apply in the first safe country. It doesn't make sense anyway. Take Ukraine as an example, if there is a war it doesn't therefore become Poland's problem, we share the burden because all civilised countries have an asylum policy. They have specific resasons why they choose the UK and that is their right. Why can't you accept that? It is the governemnt who is trying everything possible to block them, if they helped them instead, which is their moral and legal duty, they wouldn't attempt dangerous channel crossings. Why not just simply set up a processing centre in Calais and offer them safe passage? They don't because they want the public to be anti immigration and stop them at all costs, as a result people die, so I put the blame squarely on the governemnt

I didn't regurgitate the questions. I asked them once.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I didn't regurgitate the questions. I asked them once.

Repeatedly. I really can't imagine why

I'm sure this has been discussed many times but aren't asylum seekers supposed to claim asylum in the first country they arrive at e.g. Italy, Greece, France etc.? If, on the other hand, they are economic migrants then they have the right to apply legally for residence but, as is the case when UK citizens apply in France, Spain, Portugal etc , they will be rejected if they don't have the financial means to support themselves.

Wouldn't the vast majority of applicants be rejected because they are economic migrants without the financial means to support themselves?

If they are asylum seekers, and not economic migrants, they should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. I'm not aware of Italy Greece and France being unsafe countries.

Why should they travel through multiple safe countries in order to claim asylum?

What I want is irrelevant. Why should they travel through several safe countries before claiming asylum? If they are in fear of persecution wouldn't it be sensible to claim asylum as soon as possible in the first safe country? If they are economic migrants they might make a different decision.

But isn't it illegal immigration from non-EU countries that has gone through the roof? Would you prefer if it was legal immigration that has gone through the roof or would you prefer if the illegal immigrants were apprehended and deported?

How many of the people on the boats have worked for Britain or have family ties here? Wouldn't it be easier for them to get a visa legally in those circumstances?

I thought most of them were not claiming asylum on arrival but were effectively disappearing znd, therefore, here illegally. Maybe I am wrong?

So are they migrants, not refugees seeking asylum?

It was said on this thread that they all claim asylum and so they profess to be asylum seekers, not economic migrants If that is true I don't see why they don't claim asylum in the first country where they are safe from persecution.

What I suspect is that they are actually economic migrants who want to settle in the UK and feel that entering illegally and claiming asylum is their best option.

And that's just from the first few pages of the thread before I lost interest

 

[Seagull58]

Repeatedly. I really can't imagine why























And that's just from the first few pages of the thread before I lost interest

Different questions and a number of statements. Not the initial questions repeated but, never mind, you have your beliefs and nothing will dissuade you.
Edit; Sorry, that is poorly expressed. I'm not saying you shouldn't have your beliefs. My issue is your insistence that I must be diametrically opposed to them rather than asking questions about the issues and seeking clarification on some of the points. For example, I was under the impression that the majority were classed as economic migrants and I asked for clarification, whereupon data was provided showing that only 26%of claims were rejected. I acknowledged that fact in subsequent posts. I also acknowledged that it is not legally required to seek asylum in the first safe country, and I reflected that in subsequent posts.
So, I ask questions, read and acknowledge the answers, and take account of that information in subsequent posts where i made suggestions ax to how the situation could be improved.. I do not, and did not, continue to pound " facts" when they are established to be wrong.
You strongly disagree with the suggestions I made. That's your prerogative and I'm not going to call you a moron, a twat or a troll for doing so.
The only person I "insulted" was the person who told me I must not post on the thread because I don't live in the UK.
Final edit: Whether you reply or not is fine. If you do I won't be replying any further. I think we've done it to death.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Different questions and a number of statements. Not the initial questions repeated but, never mind, you have your beliefs and nothing will dissuade you.
Edit; Sorry, that is poorly expressed. I'm not saying you shouldn't have your beliefs. My issue is your insistence that I must be diametrically opposed to them rather than asking questions about the issues and seeking clarification on some of the points. For example, I was under the impression that the majority were classed as economic migrants and I asked for clarification, whereupon data was provided showing that only 26%of claims were rejected. I acknowledged that fact in subsequent posts. I also acknowledged that it is not legally required to seek asylum in the first safe country, and I reflected that in subsequent posts.
So, I ask questions, read and acknowledge the answers, and take account of that information in subsequent posts where i made suggestions ax to how the situation could be improved.. I do not, and did not, continue to pound " facts" when they are established to be wrong.
You strongly disagree with the suggestions I made. That's your prerogative and I'm not going to call you a moron, a twat or a troll for doing so.
The only person I "insulted" was the person who told me I must not post on the thread because I don't live in the UK.
Final edit: Whether you reply or not is fine. If you do I won't be replying any further. I think we've done it to death.

And despite being factually corrected much earlier in the thread, you are still quoting 26% of asylum claims as being rejected rather than the actual less than 18%

Rejected claims are 26% of total claims.

Over 30% of which are overturned on appeal

It's almost as if you have no idea what you are talking about whatsoever

If you actually stop contradicting simple facts that you have already been informed of, then I agree we're done

 

[Wokeworrier]

Different questions and a number of statements. Not the initial questions repeated but, never mind, you have your beliefs and nothing will dissuade you.
Edit; Sorry, that is poorly expressed. I'm not saying you shouldn't have your beliefs. My issue is your insistence that I must be diametrically opposed to them rather than asking questions about the issues and seeking clarification on some of the points. For example, I was under the impression that the majority were classed as economic migrants and I asked for clarification, whereupon data was provided showing that only 26%of claims were rejected. I acknowledged that fact in subsequent posts. I also acknowledged that it is not legally required to seek asylum in the first safe country, and I reflected that in subsequent posts.
So, I ask questions, read and acknowledge the answers, and take account of that information in subsequent posts where i made suggestions ax to how the situation could be improved.. I do not, and did not, continue to pound " facts" when they are established to be wrong.
You strongly disagree with the suggestions I made. That's your prerogative and I'm not going to call you a moron, a twat or a troll for doing so.
The only person I "insulted" was the person who told me I must not post on the thread because I don't live in the UK.
Final edit: Whether you reply or not is fine. If you do I won't be replying any further. I think we've done it to death.

@WATFORD zero has been correctly identified by an ex mod on this board for being a **** and a serial troll worthy of a permanent ban ( not my words) ... also a proven liar on multiple occasions.

The OP is clearly a conspiracy theory radicalised muppet believing the government failing to deal with boat crossings and deaths occurring in french territorial waters is a deliberate policy and their fault .. really not worth engaging with.

 

[Seagull58]

And despite being factually corrected much earlier in the thread, you are still quoting 26% of asylum claims as being rejected rather than the actual less than 18%


If you actually stop contradicting simple facts that you have already been informed of, then I agree we're done

26% rejected, 30% of which were overturned on appeal. Well done. Gold star.
Yes, I replied. I felt the need to congratulate you.

 

[Seagull58]

@WATFORD zero has been correctly identified by an ex mod on this board for being a **** and a serial troll worthy of a permanent ban ( not my words) ... also a proven liar on multiple occasions.

The OP is clearly a conspiracy theory radicalised muppet believing the government failing to deal with boat crossings and deaths occurring in french territorial waters is a deliberate policy and their fault .. really not worth engaging with.

Too late in my case but never mind, at least it didn't get nasty and abusive, unlike two others I engaged with on this thread.