Changes to immigration rules announced by Starmer

@GlutesthatSalute And in conscience you have a moral duty to do something.

That's pants.

Why am I responsible for decisions taken by politicians that I did not agree to?

I campaigned against the war in Irag, wrote letters to my MP etc etc all to no avail but Tony Blair wanted to be Bush's 'poodle' so away we went.

I never understood the dislike of the asylum seekers. It seems to me that when you take an active part in wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan etc etc, and had a Prime Minister who took credit for dissuading Zelensky from accepting a peace deal etc etc, then you have to expect movement of peoplea from those warzones. And in conscience you have a moral duty to do something.

Anyway, soon won't be my circus or my monkeys anymore.

Well it must be someone's fault?

Who are you going to blame?

Wonko the Wonder Dog?

The Tories?

I'm surprised no-one has tried to blame the Jews (satire)

Continue to blame asylum seekers if that makes you feel better It's easy.

As is apparent on this thread, one size of immigration does not fit all.

I might start another thread when there is more clarity. Right now, the island of strangers is swathed in deep fog.

@OneAmberFinch Sorry, I’ll freely admit I haven’t read all 550+ posts to gain a nuanced view of your position. But if you don’t think Settled Immigrants should be turfed out, it may not be the wisest move to suggest the only reason why it shouldn’t happen is because it’s illegal. The fact that it would strip the British economy of highly valuable, contributing workers and community members is the actual reason why that shouldn’t happen, and we need to keep repeating that until the half-asleep people who think legal immigrants are here to live off crappy British benefits is put firmly to bed.

Interestingly, one day after the program was aired the Gendamerie closed the camp that was shown.

So it seems GN news are doing more to stop migrants than the French !

It always becomes the point under discussion when it is about immigration.

@DuncinToffee Under investment in the health service caused the problems, not asylum seekers

So are you saying that the UK taxpayer now has to fund the "International health Service"

No-one let me know about the change in direction 🙄

GB news, yeah that says it all indeed.

Obviously you didn't see GB News special program on the camps at Calais.

The migrants (those who were interviewed and could speak some English) want to come to UK because they think they will get a house and a job for nix.

That says it all.

That you say 'hoards of young men are not genuine asylum seekers' means you really do.

As does your 'I don't do semantics'

Under investment in the health service caused the problems, not asylum seekers

I don't need to read up on it.

In one Lincolnshire seaside town I personally know about 5 hotels were being used for these people ( I don't know if they were illegal immigrants/asylum seekers/refugees - I'm not getting into semantics)
They were give bed, board, free dental treatment, medical treatment and money to spend, while the locals had to queue around the block to register with a dentist when one was available
The doctors in the area were oversubscribed - you had to ring at 8.am if you needed an emergency appointment. I have heard people tell me that they were kept on line with a recorded message saying "you are No 34 in the queue".

The world is full of people in unfortunate situations but we cannot help them all and we cannot bring them all here.

You need a reality check IMO

What would be the point of stripping people of Settled status (ILR doesn’t seem to exist anymore - it changed when the new e-visas rolled out)? Do we just not need the tax revenue or skills anymore, all to mollify people who think the illegal boats ARE the British immigration system?

The capacity of the British public to cut their noses off to spite their faces never fails to amaze me.

Thanks, @HouseofGirth. It's not really hasty to be honest. I wrote and deleted a detailed post describing my disenchantment, but I genuinely never want to be someone who bitches about the country they are living in. As in a relationship, when you get "the ick"-- then it is time to get out. Britons must be quite happy with the prevailing winds because they are sailing right along on them

An asylum seeker has no obligation to stay in the nearest safe country. But most do.

Because they are, as would you if you were to find yourself in that unfortunate situation.

Maybe read up on it

OK so all the hoards of young men coming over to UK on boats are not genuine asylum seekers, just economic migrants

Almost all refugees do stay in neighboring countries.

Why are they allowed to pick and choose ?

If they are asylum seekers genuinely "fleeing war and persecution" surely the first friendly country that is willing to accommodate them is OK ?

https://www.charlesrussellspeechlys.com/en/insights/quick-reads/102kbau-retrospectively-changing-indefinite-leave-to-remain-rules-for-those-currently-on/