Burnham unopposed & likely to be PM by mid July

The narrative is very much 'low skilled' immigrants are here to take your jobs and 'high skilled' immigrants contribute.

If your grammar school had been a comp in a town with 'low skilled' immigrants, the reaction would have been completely different.

Low skilled immigrants work hard too and contribute to the UK economy.

Uber Eat and vape shops etc should be tackled, that can be done without blaming immigration.

Recent OBR analysis suggests low-wage migrants are net fiscal recipients over their lifetimes once healthcare, education, pensions, and housing benefit are counted.

The composition of recent inflows — heavily weighted toward dependants and lower-paid care and student visa routes rather than high earners — means the average new arrival likely costs the exchequer more than they contribute.

It’s really that simple.

@hedgeknight - it’s not a narrative. It’s completely normal for a country to only want migrants who benefit the country financially or in another very tangible way (eg NHS, care work etc). If it costs hundreds of thousands to subsidise unskilled migrants long term it’s just not affordable.
Equally, I do also think the Boris wave was like Windrush and many came to kickstart the economy again and save the NHS/care and other shortage industries. I don’t want to deter those people, it’s wrong. But the uber eats barber shops illegal vapes car washes etc need to go. We all know deep down what the difference is.
And it’s not just about this generation it’s also about their kids and if they are likely to be workers and contributors. My DC‘s grammar school is full of migrants children who are an asset to the country and their parents are working hard and contributing.

It’ll be Labour and Mahmood who are concerned over the high court ruling cited below. It will be a spanner in the one in one out scheme if it doesn’t go their way.

There is a narrative that high skilled immigrants are good and low skilled are bad.

(often promoted by people residing in another country)

I do think people are easily manipulated when it feeds into their perceived grievances.

No, I do not think people are that manipulated.

Migrants on high skilled visas and contributing with well brought up kids who are pushed educationally are good for the country. Migrants contributing to shortage sectors like care and NHS are also good and we need them.

The rest throwing away their passports to come here etc unskilled but not refugee status are a burden on society. If you enter illegally your mindset is already criminal if you threw away your passport, as far as I am concerned.

We need to be very careful because we need the former group and the population here is upset about the latter group not being addressed properly or managed.

An example how easy it is to manipulate people

https://fullfact.org/immigration/ai-generated-video-small-boat-machete/

The majority of migrants and asylum seekers are not crimials, but they make an easy target.

And the UK already deports foreign criminals.

Maybe there could be an exchange scheme? One foreign criminal for a British one?

Without real evidence it’s very difficult to tell who is lying and many have been briefed on what to say or have read about what to say. I don’t think there is a short cut to getting to the bottom of their individual stories. Personally no matter how bad their backstory I don’t think we should allow violent criminals to stay. I think there needs to be a threshold and Parliament needs to legislate for the judges and magistrates to follow it.

In a post below. They’ll do that as it’s not about five people but the precedent set.

I read somewhere that the Home office was appealing for people to volunteer like magistrates to move migrants out more swiftly. Perhaps @Bullandbear can sign up and apply the law and hear the individual cases. In fact, I suggest all educated Reform voters get involved to address the bottlenecks in the system that they are so concerned about.
The migrants with translators each have individual stories. A lot claim to be gay/persecuted/victims of trafficking and our laws demand their individual stories are given an airing.

Did you mean to attach something, I can't see anything below?

It is her right to appeal ofcourse.

Obviously it’s not that otherwise Mahmood wouldn’t appeal straight away and issue the statement below.

If an article is quoted, there is nothing to stop the source being acknowledged.

In fact the poster in question often puts FT or DT at the end of their cut and paste jobs. They seemed shy about putting DM at the end of this one.

Especially when the article isn't behind paywall

Bull is getting upset over 5 people.

Firewalls don’t mean sources shouldn’t be identified or links provided.

I suspect you know why.

On here so much press is now behind pay walls it's the only way to attach articles.

Here is another outlet, I have highlighted a few phrases

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/10/home-office-policy-protections-trafficking-victims-ruled-unlawful

The home secretary’s decision to reduce protections for potential trafficking victims being considered for removal under the “one in, one out” asylum deal was unlawful, a high court judge has ruled.

Other elements relating to individual decisions taken by the home secretary concerning the five cases were found to be lawful.

Was talking to someone in London. They've started taking the kids to women's football games. The whole family are enjoying football so much. The atmosphere is completely different to mens football. He recommends it to everyone.

"The outlet" is the Daily Mail. Why are you so shy about naming it? 🤔

It is pp's MO to cut and paste snippets of articles, deliberately leaving out important details/context.

I merely cut and paste the media concerned - there was nothing wilful about it.

Heres another piece from same outlet:

The incoming Prime Minister is said by allies to understand the importance of the issue and to remain committed to the Home Secretary’s tough stance.
He is already under pressure to abandon Shabana Mahmood’s proposal to make migrants wait twice as long before they can settle permanently in Britain, after nearly 80 backbenchers sent him a letter demanding he change course.
And he will witness another show of strength from the rebels on Monday when dozens are expected to refuse to vote for her Immigration Bill.
It has echoes of the revolt a year ago that forced Sir Keir Starmer into abandoning proposed welfare cuts, fatally damaging his authority.

It must still be an issue for the home office though as Mahmood immediately said she’d be appealing the decision.

Confirming the appeal, a Home Office spokesman said: “Last-minute modern slavery claims must not be used to frustrate the removal of illegal migrants.

“We are reforming our laws to stop dubious last-minute claims, while strengthening protections for those who need them. The Home Secretary will fight this in the courts and appeal this judgment.”

By omitting the fact the ruling applied to a subset of those selected for 'one in one out' and allowing the inference it applied to all.

Why is the post you’re quoting missing the point?