Maybe one of the few good things that will come out of the current government's term in office is an agreement that non-white people can in fact be racist. It would be a pleasant shift from the previous orthodoxy that only white people can be guilty of that particular sin.
That has never been previous orthodoxy. Stating that in a white supremacist system of racism, white people perpetrate racism but don't experience it on a systemic level isn't the same as saying *only* white people perpetrate it. People of colour can both experience and perpetrate racism in such a system, and it has been discussed for a long time. Just because you're unaware of this doesn't mean everyone else is. And it's fine to just not come across such discourse, but it's also not difficult to look it up.
The allegation is that Albanian criminals (drug traffickers?) who are already here are persuading needy Albanians to come here in order to exploit them as agents, mules, etc. The immigrants are not necessarily criminals in themselves, but of course by coming here illegally they put themselves on the wrong side of the law, at least in the eyes of the Immigration Department.
At last, a balanced and sensible response
No it isn't, at least not in isolation. There's no indication that this either covers a) the majority of Albanians coming here or that b) Albanians are a significant percentage of those coming here.
There are plenty of indications, but if you ignore the news, you will not get the indications.
GBeebies is not "news", it's propaganda, which you appear to have swallowed whole.
I was on about BBC news actually.
I do not for one second believe the BBC said what you claimed.
I wouldn't expect you to because it doesn't agree with what you believe to be true
The allegation is that Albanian criminals (drug traffickers?) who are already here are persuading needy Albanians to come here in order to exploit them as agents, mules, etc. The immigrants are not necessarily criminals in themselves, but of course by coming here illegally they put themselves on the wrong side of the law, at least in the eyes of the Immigration Department.
At last, a balanced and sensible response
No it isn't, at least not in isolation. There's no indication that this either covers a) the majority of Albanians coming here or that b) Albanians are a significant percentage of those coming here.
There are plenty of indications, but if you ignore the news, you will not get the indications.
GBeebies is not "news", it's propaganda, which you appear to have swallowed whole.
I was on about BBC news actually.
I do not for one second believe the BBC said what you claimed.
I wouldn't expect you to because it doesn't agree with what you believe to be true
The allegation is that Albanian criminals (drug traffickers?) who are already here are persuading needy Albanians to come here in order to exploit them as agents, mules, etc. The immigrants are not necessarily criminals in themselves, but of course by coming here illegally they put themselves on the wrong side of the law, at least in the eyes of the Immigration Department.
At last, a balanced and sensible response
But it contradicts your statement since those Albanians would be the victims of crime, not perpetrators - even if they did arrive illegally, they were trafficked and you legally cannot consent to trafficking.
Are you suggesting that the majority of these economic migrants did not want to come to the UK ?
Firstly, they are not necessarily purely economic migrants - and even if they are, being an economic migrant is not illegal. The issue is that the government is preventing other ways of getting to the UK, so migrants of all kinds are at *more* risk of exploitation. Trafficking does not mean that the victims were necessarily unwilling to travel - the idea that all trafficking is like Taken is incorrect. Often it involves traffickers lying about the jobs lined up for potential victims, or about the legality of the work involved. By far the biggest form of human trafficking is for agricultural and manual labour, where the victims are - guess what - overwhelmingly healthy young men, because they are physically able to do more slave labour (and trafficked people are enslaved). Churches have not helped by making trafficking awareness all about sympathetic young women and girls who are trafficked for sexual exploitation (which does happen but is relatively rare), whereas most trafficking victims are adult men.
We have a huge labour shortage in the UK. Make it easier for people to move here for work, and they will be much less likely to be trafficked.
The allegation is that Albanian criminals (drug traffickers?) who are already here are persuading needy Albanians to come here in order to exploit them as agents, mules, etc. The immigrants are not necessarily criminals in themselves, but of course by coming here illegally they put themselves on the wrong side of the law, at least in the eyes of the Immigration Department.
At last, a balanced and sensible response
But it contradicts your statement since those Albanians would be the victims of crime, not perpetrators - even if they did arrive illegally, they were trafficked and you legally cannot consent to trafficking.
Are you suggesting that the majority of these economic migrants did not want to come to the UK ?
Firstly, they are not necessarily purely economic migrants - and even if they are, being an economic migrant is not illegal. The issue is that the government is preventing other ways of getting to the UK, so migrants of all kinds are at *more* risk of exploitation. Trafficking does not mean that the victims were necessarily unwilling to travel - the idea that all trafficking is like Taken is incorrect. Often it involves traffickers lying about the jobs lined up for potential victims, or about the legality of the work involved. By far the biggest form of human trafficking is for agricultural and manual labour, where the victims are - guess what - overwhelmingly healthy young men, because they are physically able to do more slave labour (and trafficked people are enslaved). Churches have not helped by making trafficking awareness all about sympathetic young women and girls who are trafficked for sexual exploitation (which does happen but is relatively rare), whereas most trafficking victims are adult men.
We have a huge labour shortage in the UK. Make it easier for people to move here for work, and they will be much less likely to be trafficked.
Hardly rocket science, but seemingly above the level of the government's comprehension.
The allegation is that Albanian criminals (drug traffickers?) who are already here are persuading needy Albanians to come here in order to exploit them as agents, mules, etc. The immigrants are not necessarily criminals in themselves, but of course by coming here illegally they put themselves on the wrong side of the law, at least in the eyes of the Immigration Department.
At last, a balanced and sensible response
No it isn't, at least not in isolation. There's no indication that this either covers a) the majority of Albanians coming here or that b) Albanians are a significant percentage of those coming here.
There are plenty of indications, but if you ignore the news, you will not get the indications.
GBeebies is not "news", it's propaganda, which you appear to have swallowed whole.
I was on about BBC news actually.
I do not for one second believe the BBC said what you claimed.
I wouldn't expect you to because it doesn't agree with what you believe to be true
Can you provide a link to what you allege the BBC to have said?
If anything, opening up an official migration route especially for Albanians (and therefore undercutting the traffickers) would be a sensible option - Albanians have high literacy and overall education rates, so helping them to help understaffed UK businesses would surely be a good thing.
According to the link posted earlier in the thread in the summer Patel was alleging that the majority of people crossing the Channel by irregular routes were Albanian on the basis of Home Office figures alleging that on some days ie at least two days the majority of people doing so were Albanian.
The Home Office figures that would clarify what is the case have not been released. It is out of line with Home Office figures for the immediately preceding period that have been released.
I can certainly believe the BBC reported that Patel had said the majority were Albanians without critically examining it.
On two days, the majority arriving might have been Albanians, but on another (perhaps randomly chosen) two days, they might have been Syrians, or Eritreans, or Kurds, or Afghans...as indeed seems to be the case.
There does appear to be some evidence that Albanian criminal gangs have muscled into the people trafficking business and are now organising a large proportion of the crossings of the Channel (mostly in boats, but backs of lorries are still a route used). And, coupled to that that Albanians make up a sizeable proportion of the increased numbers of people crossing the Channel this year. The most recent HO figures I was (I looked it up a few weeks ago) now have Albanians being the largest single group seeking entry to the UK, but a long way short of even a majority, though that's by all routes not just boats across the Channel. Also the vast majority of people seeking entry are claiming asylum - even those from Albania and other so-called "safe" countries (so-called because they're aren't safe for all, with persecution of many minorities still ongoing) with the majority of claims (eventually) accepted.
But, where people are coming from is largely irrelevant to the brokenness of the system, as Cruella attests to. The system is broken because the agencies concerned are chronically under resourced, and they're under pressure to find reasons to reject asylum claims (resulting in far longer periods of time scrutinising small details of a claim to find reasons to reject, and then further work as the rejection is appealed). The system is broken because the official routes to the UK have been systematically closed down, leading to more people turning to criminal gangs running irregular routes - this results in more people arriving without being pre-processed at camps near their nation of origin, more people arriving without paper work, and arrivals at irregular periods, all of which adds yet more work for the staff trying to process their claims. Fundamentally, the system is broken because over the last 12y it's been radically changed from one that seeks to help people in desperate need find a place of safety to one that seeks to prevent people in desperate need finding a place of safety in the UK. This is all a direct consequence of Conservative Party policies.
I see Braverman using the language of the hard right, talking about an "invasion" of migrants. I guess she's fighting for her career. Of course, the irony is that the Tories have been in power for 12 years, and yet she says the system is broken.
If asylum seekers aren't being processed quickly enough, who's fault is it. I would say it's the people paid to do the job of processing
By your second sentence, do you mean the people on the ground? If so, I'd strongly disagree. The people on the desk, ground, floor, whatever you want to call it, simply process the applications which are lodged. There are only so many that such a person can reasonably be expected to process correctly in a working day. They have no say in the development of policies which may directly lead to a reduction or increase in the numbers of applications.
Nor do people on the ground have much say in policies that may result in the time required to complete each application longer, thus reducing the number of applications they can process in a day. Or, for that matter, policies which restrict funds available to employ more people to the task.
I don't entirely follow you Pomona. Unless you are pointing to 1848 in Afghanistan. The situation there was comparatively stable until the Soviet-inspired coup which overhrew the monarchy. And Syria?
It's odd how they've suddenly discovered - after TWELVE YEARS - that their system is *broken*. They can't even blame it on Corbyn...
Are you seriously suggesting that the system has been broken for 12 years. That would mean it was inherited from the last Labour government.
The truth is that the situation has got worse due to problems overseas
No he is not. Immigration systems are always difficult but over those 12 years the Cons have caused more problems. Not just in immigration.
How have the Conservatives caused more problems? Have they been inviting illegal immigrants to come here ?
Short answer - yes, they have caused more problems.
Under the Conservative governments the various official routes for refugees to reach the UK have been closed or greatly curtailed (even the routes for Afghani people who helped British forces and their families and the much hyped help for Ukrainian refugees have been atrociously handled such that many people who should have been able to use those routes to safety haven't managed it). That leaves irregular routes, often paying criminals, as the only alternative. The number of people coming to the UK seeking asylum has halved - but the vast majority of those are coming by irregular routes (small boats across the Channel, back of lorries etc).
Under the Conservative governments the options for employing overseas workers have been slashed. That leaves a lot of employers with the unenviable choice of taking on staff with no right to work here or closing down, and that creates a demand for workers entering illegally (which I know is different from refugees - but it creates pressure on the people who need to decide if someone is a refugee or seeking work).
Under the Conservative governments the high level relationships with our neighbours in the rest of Europe have been wrecked. That makes cooperation on policing to catch and prosecute members of the criminal gangs profiting from human misery harder, and cooperation on addressing the number of people travelling through Europe harder.
The Conservative may not have invited immigration, but they've also not done much to discourage it. The much vaunted scheme of treating refugees as criminals and transporting them to Rwanda is well known in the UK, but the government has done effectively nothing to let people trying to get to the UK know that this is a possibility - and hence, the claim that it's a deterrent is nonsense. The inhumane treatment of people, cramming them into unsuitable and unhealthy temporary accommodation for months could be a deterrent - but again, we only know about it because of inspections of these facilities, there haven't been any advertising campaigns directed to people coming this way to let them know that they'll be sleeping on floors in tents and getting dysentery.
It's odd how they've suddenly discovered - after TWELVE YEARS - that their system is *broken*. They can't even blame it on Corbyn...
Are you seriously suggesting that the system has been broken for 12 years. That would mean it was inherited from the last Labour government.
The truth is that the situation has got worse due to problems overseas
No he is not. Immigration systems are always difficult but over those 12 years the Cons have caused more problems. Not just in immigration.
How have the Conservatives caused more problems? Have they been inviting illegal immigrants to come here ?
There is no such thing as an 'illegal immigrant'
You really need to join the real world
Oh dear.
You BS won't wash here.
I presume you are meaning to imply that I am being naive and assuming that people do not enter the UK by an irregular route for nefarious or even perhaps mildly dishonest purposes.
If only the world was as simple as you seem to believe.
So, for the hard of thinking, here's a simple guide;
1. There is no such thing as an 'illegal immigrant.' This is a fact. It is not simple semantics, it matters because words matter. This is shown repeatedly by the fact that the horrendous treatment of 'illegal immigrants' is tolerated and cheered by the public. This is only possible because by using such a term, real human beings are dehumanised.
2. There is no such thing as an 'illegal immigrant.' This is wrong under both international law.
3. There are asylum seekers, refugees and failed asylum seekers.
4. It is specifically not a crime to enter the UK by irregular means in order to claim asylum. Indeed it is not possible to claim asylum in the UK unless you enter by irregular means.
5. If you bothered to look at the evidence rather than tabloid headlines you would discover some things:
a) 98% of those who cross the channel in small boats claim asylum*
b) 80% are ultimately successful*
c) Our system has a very distinct bias against believing claims. Previously the Red Cross had an excellent piece of what happened to failed claimants. They won't all be true refugees, of course but if you read the stories, you face the brutal reality that many people desperately in need and deserving of our help are turned away by our horrific system.
You see my friend, it's not me who doesn't live in the real world. I know about real torture, real suffering and real threats to people's lives that lead them to flee to this country. Where pathetic politicians use them for cheap political point scoring and to win votes.**
It is difficult to describe how evil that is.
So, please, kindly fuck off with your bullshit. Every time you use the phrase "illegal immigrant," I will call you on it.
AFZ
*Home Office figures that are not up to date but they're veru slow to publish them at the moment.
**I've met a few professionally but more importantly I've bothered to educate myself about the reality.
I would provide links but seeing as you're going to ignore me anyway, why should I bother?
It's odd how they've suddenly discovered - after TWELVE YEARS - that their system is *broken*. They can't even blame it on Corbyn...
Are you seriously suggesting that the system has been broken for 12 years. That would mean it was inherited from the last Labour government.
The truth is that the situation has got worse due to problems overseas
No he is not. Immigration systems are always difficult but over those 12 years the Cons have caused more problems. Not just in immigration.
How have the Conservatives caused more problems? Have they been inviting illegal immigrants to come here ?
There is no such thing as an 'illegal immigrant'
You really need to join the real world
Oh dear.
You BS won't wash here.
I presume you are meaning to imply that I am being naive and assuming that people do not enter the UK by an irregular route for nefarious or even perhaps mildly dishonest purposes.
If only the world was as simple as you seem to believe.
So, for the hard of thinking, here's a simple guide;
1. There is no such thing as an 'illegal immigrant.' This is a fact. It is not simple semantics, it matters because words matter. This is shown repeatedly by the fact that the horrendous treatment of 'illegal immigrants' is tolerated and cheered by the public. This is only possible because by using such a term, real human beings are dehumanised.
2. There is no such thing as an 'illegal immigrant.' This is wrong under both international law.
3. There are asylum seekers, refugees and failed asylum seekers.
4. It is specifically not a crime to enter the UK by irregular means in order to claim asylum. Indeed it is not possible to claim asylum in the UK unless you enter by irregular means.
5. If you bothered to look at the evidence rather than tabloid headlines you would discover some things:
a) 98% of those who cross the channel in small boats claim asylum*
b) 80% are ultimately successful*
c) Our system has a very distinct bias against believing claims. Previously the Red Cross had an excellent piece of what happened to failed claimants. They won't all be true refugees, of course but if you read the stories, you face the brutal reality that many people desperately in need and deserving of our help are turned away by our horrific system.
You see my friend, it's not me who doesn't live in the real world. I know about real torture, real suffering and real threats to people's lives that lead them to flee to this country. Where pathetic politicians use them for cheap political point scoring and to win votes.**
It is difficult to describe how evil that is.
So, please, kindly fuck off with your bullshit. Every time you use the phrase "illegal immigrant," I will call you on it.
AFZ
*Home Office figures that are not up to date but they're veru slow to publish them at the moment.
**I've met a few professionally but more importantly I've bothered to educate myself about the reality.
I would provide links but seeing as you're going to ignore me anyway, why should I bother?
I am not going to ignore you and I am going to respond without using foul language . You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant
You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant
I'm going to save AFZ the trouble of writing. What you clearly meant is "You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and a fictional creation of right wing media"
@Telford no, read AFZ's post again. You are misunderstanding the difference between refugees and asylum seekers. Neither of whom can be 'illegal immigrants' because it is not illegal to claim asylum or refugee status even if you made it to the UK in an irregular way. Some asylum claims may fail but those people still did not commit a crime in applying for asylum.
Another one here saying there is no such thing as illegal immigrants. My church in London was heavily involved in ending modern slavery. Illegal immigrants is not a term used in any legal sense.
You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant
I'm going to save AFZ the trouble of writing. What you clearly meant is "You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and a fictional creation of right wing media"
@Telford no, read AFZ's post again. You are misunderstanding the difference between refugees and asylum seekers. Neither of whom can be 'illegal immigrants' because it is not illegal to claim asylum or refugee status even if you made it to the UK in an irregular way. Some asylum claims may fail but those people still did not commit a crime in applying for asylum.
I was not on about Asylum seekers. I was on about illegal immigrants.
You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant
I'm going to save AFZ the trouble of writing. What you clearly meant is "You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and a fictional creation of right wing media"
@Telford no, read AFZ's post again. You are misunderstanding the difference between refugees and asylum seekers. Neither of whom can be 'illegal immigrants' because it is not illegal to claim asylum or refugee status even if you made it to the UK in an irregular way. Some asylum claims may fail but those people still did not commit a crime in applying for asylum.
I was not on about Asylum seekers. I was on about illegal immigrants.
You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant
I'm going to save AFZ the trouble of writing. What you clearly meant is "You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and a fictional creation of right wing media"
@Telford no, read AFZ's post again. You are misunderstanding the difference between refugees and asylum seekers. Neither of whom can be 'illegal immigrants' because it is not illegal to claim asylum or refugee status even if you made it to the UK in an irregular way. Some asylum claims may fail but those people still did not commit a crime in applying for asylum.
I was not on about Asylum seekers. I was on about illegal immigrants.
There's still no such thing.
Cross-posted with AFZ, but I have asked @Telford for his definition of the term *illegal immigrant*.
That's not a snarky question, or daft, or stupid, or ridiculous, but a seeking for clarification.
Illegal immigrants is a term used by many even though it is not a term used in any official way. I agree it us important to use the right words.
Using a lighter example to illustrated my point. The term margarine got such a bad rep that it is now officially called a sped.
You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant
I'm going to save AFZ the trouble of writing. What you clearly meant is "You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and a fictional creation of right wing media"
@Telford no, read AFZ's post again. You are misunderstanding the difference between refugees and asylum seekers. Neither of whom can be 'illegal immigrants' because it is not illegal to claim asylum or refugee status even if you made it to the UK in an irregular way. Some asylum claims may fail but those people still did not commit a crime in applying for asylum.
I was not on about Asylum seekers. I was on about illegal immigrants.
There's still no such thing.
Why are you posting the same ridiculous response ?
You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant
I'm going to save AFZ the trouble of writing. What you clearly meant is "You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and a fictional creation of right wing media"
@Telford no, read AFZ's post again. You are misunderstanding the difference between refugees and asylum seekers. Neither of whom can be 'illegal immigrants' because it is not illegal to claim asylum or refugee status even if you made it to the UK in an irregular way. Some asylum claims may fail but those people still did not commit a crime in applying for asylum.
I was not on about Asylum seekers. I was on about illegal immigrants.
There's still no such thing.
Why are you posting the same ridiculous response ?
Because it's the truth. The fact that you cannot cope with that is not my problem. Oh and also because it's not ridiculous.
If, because of poverty and unemployment, someone pays a man in Turkey for a small boat trip across the channel and intends to work in the black market for a while how can that person be categorised?
There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.
It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum.
You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant
I'm going to save AFZ the trouble of writing. What you clearly meant is "You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and a fictional creation of right wing media"
@Telford no, read AFZ's post again. You are misunderstanding the difference between refugees and asylum seekers. Neither of whom can be 'illegal immigrants' because it is not illegal to claim asylum or refugee status even if you made it to the UK in an irregular way. Some asylum claims may fail but those people still did not commit a crime in applying for asylum.
I was not on about Asylum seekers. I was on about illegal immigrants.
There's still no such thing.
Why are you posting the same ridiculous response ?
Because it's the truth. The fact that you cannot cope with that is not my problem. Oh and also because it's not ridiculous.
So, @Telford, what is your understanding of the term *illegal immigrant*?
Someone who enters the UK illegally who is not an asylum seeker.
<snip>
How do you know whether or not someone entering the country is an asylum seeker until you ask them? [/b] How do you ask them when they land at run off ?
Just turning back their overcrowded little boat isn't going to help, is it?
If, because of poverty and unemployment, someone pays a man in Turkey for a small boat trip across the channel and intends to work in the black market for a while how can that person be categorised?
There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.
It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum.
My italics.
What has all that got to do with immigrants, here illegally, who are not claiming asylum ?
You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant
I'm going to save AFZ the trouble of writing. What you clearly meant is "You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and a fictional creation of right wing media"
@Telford no, read AFZ's post again. You are misunderstanding the difference between refugees and asylum seekers. Neither of whom can be 'illegal immigrants' because it is not illegal to claim asylum or refugee status even if you made it to the UK in an irregular way. Some asylum claims may fail but those people still did not commit a crime in applying for asylum.
I was not on about Asylum seekers. I was on about illegal immigrants.
There's still no such thing.
Why are you posting the same ridiculous response ?
Because it's the truth. The fact that you cannot cope with that is not my problem. Oh and also because it's not ridiculous.
So, @Telford, what is your understanding of the term *illegal immigrant*?
Someone who enters the UK illegally who is not an asylum seeker.
<snip>
How do you know whether or not someone entering the country is an asylum seeker until you ask them? [/b] How do you ask them when they land at run off ?
Just turning back their overcrowded little boat isn't going to help, is it?
If, because of poverty and unemployment, someone pays a man in Turkey for a small boat trip across the channel and intends to work in the black market for a while how can that person be categorised?
There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.
It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum.
My italics.
What has all that got to do with immigrants, here illegally, who are not claiming asylum ?
Comments
That has never been previous orthodoxy. Stating that in a white supremacist system of racism, white people perpetrate racism but don't experience it on a systemic level isn't the same as saying *only* white people perpetrate it. People of colour can both experience and perpetrate racism in such a system, and it has been discussed for a long time. Just because you're unaware of this doesn't mean everyone else is. And it's fine to just not come across such discourse, but it's also not difficult to look it up.
I wouldn't expect you to because it doesn't agree with what you believe to be true
The irony is crippling.
Firstly, they are not necessarily purely economic migrants - and even if they are, being an economic migrant is not illegal. The issue is that the government is preventing other ways of getting to the UK, so migrants of all kinds are at *more* risk of exploitation. Trafficking does not mean that the victims were necessarily unwilling to travel - the idea that all trafficking is like Taken is incorrect. Often it involves traffickers lying about the jobs lined up for potential victims, or about the legality of the work involved. By far the biggest form of human trafficking is for agricultural and manual labour, where the victims are - guess what - overwhelmingly healthy young men, because they are physically able to do more slave labour (and trafficked people are enslaved). Churches have not helped by making trafficking awareness all about sympathetic young women and girls who are trafficked for sexual exploitation (which does happen but is relatively rare), whereas most trafficking victims are adult men.
We have a huge labour shortage in the UK. Make it easier for people to move here for work, and they will be much less likely to be trafficked.
Hardly rocket science, but seemingly above the level of the government's comprehension.
Can you provide a link to what you allege the BBC to have said?
The Home Office figures that would clarify what is the case have not been released. It is out of line with Home Office figures for the immediately preceding period that have been released.
I can certainly believe the BBC reported that Patel had said the majority were Albanians without critically examining it.
On two days, the majority arriving might have been Albanians, but on another (perhaps randomly chosen) two days, they might have been Syrians, or Eritreans, or Kurds, or Afghans...as indeed seems to be the case.
But, where people are coming from is largely irrelevant to the brokenness of the system, as Cruella attests to. The system is broken because the agencies concerned are chronically under resourced, and they're under pressure to find reasons to reject asylum claims (resulting in far longer periods of time scrutinising small details of a claim to find reasons to reject, and then further work as the rejection is appealed). The system is broken because the official routes to the UK have been systematically closed down, leading to more people turning to criminal gangs running irregular routes - this results in more people arriving without being pre-processed at camps near their nation of origin, more people arriving without paper work, and arrivals at irregular periods, all of which adds yet more work for the staff trying to process their claims. Fundamentally, the system is broken because over the last 12y it's been radically changed from one that seeks to help people in desperate need find a place of safety to one that seeks to prevent people in desperate need finding a place of safety in the UK. This is all a direct consequence of Conservative Party policies.
It's odd how they've suddenly discovered - after TWELVE YEARS - that their system is *broken*. They can't even blame it on Corbyn...
Are you seriously suggesting that the system has been broken for 12 years. That would mean it was inherited from the last Labour government.
The truth is that the situation has got worse due to problems overseas
Which we have mostly funded via arms etc if not actual personnel. Eg selling arms to Saudi Arabia.
No he is not. Immigration systems are always difficult but over those 12 years the Cons have caused more problems. Not just in immigration.
By your second sentence, do you mean the people on the ground? If so, I'd strongly disagree. The people on the desk, ground, floor, whatever you want to call it, simply process the applications which are lodged. There are only so many that such a person can reasonably be expected to process correctly in a working day. They have no say in the development of policies which may directly lead to a reduction or increase in the numbers of applications.
You think Britain has nothing to do with the situations in Afghanistan and Syria?
Yes, that's what I meant.
Obviously, I should have said *Twelve years in office*, which, as you say, was plenty of time in which to break the system down.
How have the Conservatives caused more problems? Have they been inviting illegal immigrants to come here ?
There is no such thing as an 'illegal immigrant'
Under the Conservative governments the various official routes for refugees to reach the UK have been closed or greatly curtailed (even the routes for Afghani people who helped British forces and their families and the much hyped help for Ukrainian refugees have been atrociously handled such that many people who should have been able to use those routes to safety haven't managed it). That leaves irregular routes, often paying criminals, as the only alternative. The number of people coming to the UK seeking asylum has halved - but the vast majority of those are coming by irregular routes (small boats across the Channel, back of lorries etc).
Under the Conservative governments the options for employing overseas workers have been slashed. That leaves a lot of employers with the unenviable choice of taking on staff with no right to work here or closing down, and that creates a demand for workers entering illegally (which I know is different from refugees - but it creates pressure on the people who need to decide if someone is a refugee or seeking work).
Under the Conservative governments the high level relationships with our neighbours in the rest of Europe have been wrecked. That makes cooperation on policing to catch and prosecute members of the criminal gangs profiting from human misery harder, and cooperation on addressing the number of people travelling through Europe harder.
The Conservative may not have invited immigration, but they've also not done much to discourage it. The much vaunted scheme of treating refugees as criminals and transporting them to Rwanda is well known in the UK, but the government has done effectively nothing to let people trying to get to the UK know that this is a possibility - and hence, the claim that it's a deterrent is nonsense. The inhumane treatment of people, cramming them into unsuitable and unhealthy temporary accommodation for months could be a deterrent - but again, we only know about it because of inspections of these facilities, there haven't been any advertising campaigns directed to people coming this way to let them know that they'll be sleeping on floors in tents and getting dysentery.
Look at how many lovely Food Banks they've provided for the idle poor, for example! Labour never gave us any...
(IRONY - if quoting this post, please do not omit this bit).
You really need to join the real world
Ah, the eternal cry of the ignorant when they haven't a leg to stand on.
Oh dear.
You BS won't wash here.
I presume you are meaning to imply that I am being naive and assuming that people do not enter the UK by an irregular route for nefarious or even perhaps mildly dishonest purposes.
If only the world was as simple as you seem to believe.
So, for the hard of thinking, here's a simple guide;
1. There is no such thing as an 'illegal immigrant.' This is a fact. It is not simple semantics, it matters because words matter. This is shown repeatedly by the fact that the horrendous treatment of 'illegal immigrants' is tolerated and cheered by the public. This is only possible because by using such a term, real human beings are dehumanised.
2. There is no such thing as an 'illegal immigrant.' This is wrong under both international law.
3. There are asylum seekers, refugees and failed asylum seekers.
4. It is specifically not a crime to enter the UK by irregular means in order to claim asylum. Indeed it is not possible to claim asylum in the UK unless you enter by irregular means.
5. If you bothered to look at the evidence rather than tabloid headlines you would discover some things:
a) 98% of those who cross the channel in small boats claim asylum*
b) 80% are ultimately successful*
c) Our system has a very distinct bias against believing claims. Previously the Red Cross had an excellent piece of what happened to failed claimants. They won't all be true refugees, of course but if you read the stories, you face the brutal reality that many people desperately in need and deserving of our help are turned away by our horrific system.
You see my friend, it's not me who doesn't live in the real world. I know about real torture, real suffering and real threats to people's lives that lead them to flee to this country. Where pathetic politicians use them for cheap political point scoring and to win votes.**
It is difficult to describe how evil that is.
So, please, kindly fuck off with your bullshit. Every time you use the phrase "illegal immigrant," I will call you on it.
AFZ
*Home Office figures that are not up to date but they're veru slow to publish them at the moment.
**I've met a few professionally but more importantly I've bothered to educate myself about the reality.
I would provide links but seeing as you're going to ignore me anyway, why should I bother?
I am not going to ignore you and I am going to respond without using foul language . You appear to be incapable of seeing the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant
I still have one real leg to stand on.
That's not what I meant at all.
I was not on about Asylum seekers. I was on about illegal immigrants.
There's still no such thing.
Cross-posted with AFZ, but I have asked @Telford for his definition of the term *illegal immigrant*.
That's not a snarky question, or daft, or stupid, or ridiculous, but a seeking for clarification.
Using a lighter example to illustrated my point. The term margarine got such a bad rep that it is now officially called a sped.
Why are you posting the same ridiculous response ?
Because it's the truth. The fact that you cannot cope with that is not my problem. Oh and also because it's not ridiculous.
How do you know whether or not someone entering the country is an asylum seeker until you ask them?
Just turning back their overcrowded little boat isn't going to help, is it?
However, the vast majority of people crossing the channel in small boats are intending to claim asylum and are therefore not breaking the law.
(And anyone breaking the law is not an illegal person, migrant or otherwise, they are a person who has committed an illegal act.)
Thank you.
@Telford - would you agree with what @Doublethink has said?
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/
From that article:
There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.
It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum.
My italics.
It might be your truth, but it's not The Truth.
Why do you persist in celebrating your ignorance?