AIBU to be deeply concerned about the sheer number of unchecked undocumented unknown men coming into the UK?

Why would OP start a thread about poor women getting sunburnt - people get sunburnt all of the time, it’s not enough to start a thread over it.

Yes she did. With slightly different punctuation because I didn’t remember it quite as accurately as this C&P ”Those poor women. Burned on the boat.”

I’m glad you are showing concern for the poor people in the boats. It’s heartening. However, the crossings have to stop because, as you say, they are chaotic and dangerous for the vulnerable people on them. It’s unrealistic that they would stop overnight, so the first step is to reduce numbers and make it more difficult. It is regrettable that the criminals involved in trafficking are so careless of safety, but still - fewer people are at risk which surely you see as a good thing?

If that’s how you interpret it it’s your call. The op didn’t use the line you did.

Agreed. Both the post and the headline imply it. I wonder what the purpose of that was, in both cases?

It’s still more dangerous for the reasons said. Ik this thread isn’t liked by Labour supporters who prefer not to see anything, but it will get harder and more chaotic for the people on those boats.

I didn’t lie about you. I said you implied they’d been set alight. Which you did. Several posters responded thinking that. Your phrasing was either intended to create that impression or was very, very clumsy. Either way your words implied that.

Doctors and engineers take the carrots, but they come to the country the legal way. We don't mind those sort of carrots.

There are ways to deal with this. The USA deals with it very well. Till the time we sort out the deportations detain them and don't let them into the community.

No she didn’t. Not more than the headline states.

Fewer people are coming not just fewer boats, so fewer people are in danger. If the same number were coming from the same places you wouldn’t like that either.

Labour’s policies are making it more dangerous. More people per dinghy, crammed on and traveling from sites that are further away.

Capped, vetted routes will only happen if the current international law doesn’t apply.

I didn’t say you had. I said you implied it. Which you did. ‘Those poor women, burned on a boat’. There’s no plausible deniability there.
Edit: calling me a liar is a personal attack. You might want to rethink that.

Yes, I know that. And I challenge you to find anything from Labour which doesn’t recognise that’s the case either. It’s why NOBODY is in favour of the boat crossings. Not Labour, not ‘lefties’ not anyone. Those on the left also want to stop the boats, but not by declaring every asylum seeking man a violent rapist and suggesting we don’t take any because we aren’t the first safe country. Safe routes, proper vetting, international agreements about who takes how many. That’s the only way. And it needs doing soon before climate change massively 8ncrease the displaced people in the world.

They aren't being smuggled into the country are they? Zero relevance, except for whataboutery purposes.

Surely if we’re discussing the dangers on men, then domestic violence is very much relevant.

Women and young people are dying on that crossing. You’d have to be looking at very limited sanitised Labour led press to not know that.

Not really. Many of the men shouting at asylum seeker hotels etc. have been found to have DV convictions. So there is a clear link.

The number of asylum seekers is decreasing. The amount of other immigration is decreasing. Emigration is also decreasing. You are getting stick because you implied that women had been set alight on a boat when that wasn’t true. You’ve yet to show evidence of the Stabbings too - it wasn’t in the original report. You aren’t discussing issues you are trying to stir up bad feelings