To wonder what part of this statement reminded Gary L of Nazi Germany?

[marmaladeo]

This is Suella Braverman's statement Gary Lineker was reacting to when he said "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s" ... twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1633094764865126400

If she was saying she wanted to stop immigration I could understand GL's reaction. But she's not. I don't understand why anyone would not want to "stop the boats" when 1. they're lethal and 2. they're being run by criminal gangs. If GL had made it clear he wanted to stop the boats but thought this policy was the wrong way to do it, then fine. But he didn't - he just made an extremely inflammatory statement. He might be getting lots of love from some quarters, but personally I think he's an egotist who is playing into the hands of the people smugglers.

Interesting thread on how misconceptions can affect polling.

mobile.twitter.com/drjennings/status/1634644663217864707

Lots of people seem to believe that there are legitimate routes for people to come to the UK, so people arriving in small boats must be “not genuine” or “economic migrants”. They don’t realise that for most, there are no safe or legal routes - something that would likely affect their opinion if they did know.

The government has never made it clear that there are no legal routes, outside of Ukraine and Hong Kong (and the small numbers on the Afghan/ACRS route). They have not made it clear that boat crossings have increased due to shutting down lorry/road smuggling routes. They have not made it clear that the numbers of small boat crossing are due to lack of legal routes.

Instead, they incorrectly refer to asylum seekers as “illegal immigrants”, fail to process claims on time creating a huge backlog, overwhelm already struggling communities with large numbers of asylum seekers in hotels, then demonise the asylum seekers by describing them as an “invasion”. Conveniently leaving out the role the government has played in creating the situation.

It’s not honest. It’s not moral. They’re manipulating people to believe lies and failing to take responsibility for the actions that caused this.

Even the noted not v pro-migrant paper the Spectator says the Illegal Migration Bill is a draconian policy and is an indiscriminate approach that will see everyone who arrives illegally kicked out, including genuine refugees.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/our-duty-to-refugees/

Spot on BewareTheLibrarians.

Wokery trumps women's rights, health and wellbeing apparently

Apparently it’s wokery to believe that human rights shouldn’t arbitrarily be removed from certain groups of people at the government’s whim.

Why not let them come, let the work, let them thrive, help us thrive? The only people forcing us to spend millions housing and feeding them are us. Even if they ‘send money home’ they still live in our economy - eat, travel, clothe themselves.

surely this is better than the mythical super rich trickle down which just results in them buying more property and avoiding more tax? Why are we blaming immigration when there are blatant financial abuses and dodges taking place, some originated in govt? What would our country be if we distributed wealth a bit more fairly? Why does Richi Rishi need 9 huge houses? Empty holiday homes killing villages all around the uk coast.

fuck me, they’ve won already. So many convinced our home grown, voted for injuries are caused by others.

Yup.

Instead, they incorrectly refer to asylum seekers as “illegal immigrants”, fail to process claims on time creating a huge backlog, overwhelm already struggling communities with large numbers of asylum seekers in hotels, then demonise the asylum seekers by describing them as an “invasion”. Conveniently leaving out the role the government has played in creating the situation.

Yes, this is it. But try telling this inconvenient truth to the "critical thinker" PP with her fingers in her ears.

Why not let them come, let the work, let them thrive, help us thrive?

If this was possible they would be applying legally for migrant visas .and those visas would be granted. For some reason they are not

@MrsandProud Which of your - as a British woman - human rights do you think lawyers would stop protecting if we don’t demonise asylum seekers?

It's odd that on a website so negative about men in general that so many posters are desperate to fight the good fight for all the young predominantly muslim men that want to come here. The mind boggles.

How do you apply for a “migrant” visa (there is no such thing btw) from, say, Afghanistan? Is the British embassy there still functioning?

How do you apply for a visa from Syria, do you go and tell the government that you’re in a “rebel group” (in that government’s eyes) and you’d quite like to leave, please?

Africa is a continent… 😵‍💫

Honest to fuck can you hear yourself!?

Can't work out if you are genuinely this stupid or a member of the National Front.

Any reason why you emphasised muslim?

Yes, you’ve made it quite clear you don’t see them as human based on their race and religion. Unfortunately that only reflects badly on you.

I have sons. Your attitude sickens me. Sons who are brown and Asian looking. You would demonise them, label them future rapists no doubt.

The fact you think you can say any of this out loud is sickening.

Surely it matters what the nature of the human rights are?? For example are you telling me that someone living in temporary accommodation (and I'm not minimising how difficult that can be) is worse off than a 13 year old about to be recruited as a child soldier and his mother and sister raped if they try to argue it? Or a 12 year old about to be married to a 65 year old man at risk of a pregnancy her body wouldn't be ready for? Or a man who would be stoned in the street for being gay? Because that's the reality for people coming on boats to claim asylum. Do you even know anyone who has had to do this?

Article 25.1

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control

If resources are insufficient for our own people, uncontrolled immigration would obviously infringe on British human rigths

This is just one of the issues. There are many more

Or a man who would be stoned in the street for being gay?

Nobody is being stoned in France, FFS!

@MrsandProud don’t be disingenuous - where and how can they apply for ‘migrant visas’ in their home countries? Amidst war/persecution?! Do they even have passports? If it were as easy as you say, the traffickers wouldn’t have the market!

At least read the posts where some explanations for it being young men is gone through - do they not make sense? Are you going to send your wife/kids/mum on a perilous journey and chance their fate? Or go yourself and try to establish a foothold for your family, try to make a safe place?

contrary to DM, they’re not all rapists/criminals - believing this is definitely racist. Immigrants are net contributors - if they’re allowed to be.

are we struggling in the nhs/schools/public services? Yes. But not because of immigration. Because of systematic destruction by the Tories since 2010. You can’t get a GP appointment because we can’t recruit them. Ditto paramedics, police….ironically some ‘illegal immigrants’ are well qualified professionals and could be a benefit to this country…if permitted to be.

So every single person coming illegaly from the countries you mention would qualify for a UK skilled worker visa and would be granted one if the British embassy were still functioning in these countries you mean? Every single one of them...

@MrsandProud Both uncontrolled immigration and lack of social services, healthcare etc is the fault of years of underfunding by the government. Of course uncontrolled immigration wouldn’t help, but we don’t currently have uncontrolled immigration (despite this government’s best efforts) and no one is endorsing open borders.

But that wasn’t my question was it? I asked at what point you would be denied legal representation. Because people here are quite calmly saying they’d happily see other people’s right to legal representation removed.

The current system of legal representation appears to be uncontrolled and abused as well

I think you clearly know I mean that this happens in their country of origin. But on that let's think about how well housed people are in refugee camps in France shall we. Any reason why they wouldn't want to come here where there are less asylum seeking people (because we take a teeny portion compared to other countries) where they may have family, or at least the chance to live in proper accommodation rather than a tent. How safe would you feel living in a tent in an asylum camp just out of curiosity? Would you really be like yup this is grand why would I bother going somewhere that I might actually find a roof over my head? Often people will try to get to where they know someone- a family member or someone else from their community who got out safely so they have a connection with one other person in a country where they can't speak to anyone else. You talk about human rights but it's strange to me that you seem to think that its an either or type of situation, like you can have your human rights or the asylum seeker down the road can have theirs. Why exactly can't we have both? If the system was better and the tory government stopped chronically underfunding our basic services then we'd all be better off. You're looking in the wrong place for blame.

Can I hire one of these HR lawyers so that my Human Rights are observed? Maybe I should do it

France should be sorting this out. Not the UK.