Sick of the lie 'It's just illegal immigrants people don't like.'

[Slightyamusedandsilly]

This is just not true.

Reform, the flag flyers and protesters are racists. All of this 'It's just the illegals we want gone.' is a lie to excuse their racism.

No, I quite love the UK.

People don't really understand what these treaties are. You've oversimplified an incredibly complicated process of what happens after we exit.

You both strike me as very well read and I appreciate the respectful conversation.

But we fundamentally disagree about staying in an agreement that treats all humans equally. You'd be ok with laws that give different people different fundamental rights.

Rolling back human rights is slippery slope. It never affects just who you think it will. But I do hope, if that's where we end up, it works out as you imagine.

I just don't think we need an international convention to ensure that we act morally. So many international institutions such as the UN have been corrupted. We should be able to decide what is in the interests of our own population first. We don't need to keep someone in this country because his son doesn't like the chicken nuggets in his own country. His human rights do not trump our national interest.

The UK should prioritise it's citizens first. Simple as. Illegal migrants are a lower priority.

Well... the spend on this is about 1% of the total budget... To me that suggests we do put our citizens first.

There is no zero spend case as patrolling our borders and deporting also has high costs. Some people would just prefer spending the funds in that way. Others would prefer the same costs and a humanitarian approach

Saudi ... do provide hundreds of millions in aid

According to these statistics, the UK has provided over £4.3 billion in aid to assist the Syrian Crisis (February 2012 to March 2024;

In response to the crisis the UK has provided over £4.3 billion in aid to over 30 implementing partners including United Nations agencies, international non-governmental organisations and the Red Cross. This support has reached millions of Syrians across Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and Egypt – helping to meet the urgent needs of those in Syria and of Syrian refugees across the region.

Including:
Lebanon (£879 million), Turkey (£846 million), and Jordan (£694 million) ...

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-humanitarian-aid-and-spend-in-syria-factsheet/pre-release-announcement-uks-humanitarian-aid-and-spend-in-syria

Great find.

I found this link which says Saudi has actually taken in 2.5 million refugees as well as provided hundreds of millions.

www.saudiembassy.net/press-release/saudi-arabia-received-25-million-syrians-beginning-conflict

They could actually prioritize work visas for fellow MENA groups. Saudi is only 30% native, everyone else is temp workers on visas. They should hire fewer East and South Asians and more MENA, I’m sure this is already underway (although iirc Palestinians are on some separate visa program)

What is the point of citizenship if it doesn’t give you special rights and privileges?

Honestly as the West retreats in power and prestige, things like human rights, which is based on Western principles, will be increasingly ignored. It was never ever universal in the first place. Only asserted as such in a Western-dominated world. Nobody else really cares and it shows.

Citizenship does give you special rights? I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this tbh. I've got a little infographic someone shared with me I'll copy below.

Foreign nationals can't vote or stand for parliament. Every working group pays the same taxes as a citizens but without recourse to public funds and a surcharge for NHS useage. Many groups have no pathway to staying once their visa is expired.

Asylum seekers and refugees are a unique class and the subject of this thread. The spend on them is about 1% of our total welfare budget but have become the issue of the election.

Yes, asylum seekers are given support while being processed. Then once approved they are called refugees and are given 5 year limited leave to stay. The idea being, these are legitimate claims and we are providing santuary. As we should have done for Jews in World War II...

My point on this thread has been as follows.

Asylum seekers will turn up at our border no matter what we do. War exists and people will flee it. Smugglers will take advantage of this.

We can spend public funds on detaining and returning them. We can take a stand, as a nation, that we will not provide sanctuary for anyone no matter who they are and how genuine their claim. People want an Australian system but we don't have the relationships - Australia had return agreements before embarking on this path. Brexit killed our return agreements.

We can spend the same amount of money, process people with humanity and deport those who don't. Politically easier to get return agreements when we process people fairly. The world is on fire - resources are scarce everywhere. You can pay the same amount for deterrent and additional in "foreign aid" in exchange for return agreements. But there is no zero cost scenario.

I read that foreign nationals can vote in some elections.

We can just refuse to house them here. They pass through so many safe countries to get here. It's not just the spending from the budget, it's the social cohesion issues

No there is a better way. You stop the trafficking, risk and deaths by deterrent and offer humanitarian routes.

The country who has done this successfully is Australia.

Except we are not Australia - we have a totally different geography and location, as such, different access to our borders, smugglers are bringing different asylum seekers to our border than the smugglers operating in Australia.

We don't have any return agreements or large detention centres. Australia put them in place before embarking on their scheme.

The Australian system was extremely expensive.

I am all for stopping trafficking and offering humanitarian routes. But many countries (the UK and the US) only allow a claim once you're on British soil. Countries like Canada allows you to apply from abroad.

I haven't heard of any political discussion about offering regular routes?

You can turn the boats back. They will turn back around. Eventually you have the Chanel littered with bodies. Neither France nor England wants to deal with the asylum seekers.

Social cohesion is an issue - I agree.

My point, this entire thread, has been that their is no magic and quick solution here. And I'm annoyed with Reform for suggesting their is. It's populist and pandering and frustrating.

It’s not impossible. It’s difficult yes but doable. There’s no way Australia can sort this out and the UK can’t.

It takes the public wanting it as Aus citizens do on a bipartisan level. We’re still far off that going by mn.

If numbers keep going up then we’ll get closer to doing similar.

We need detention centers and return agreements. That's how Australia did it.

They paid to detain and process people and if they were genuine cases, they were settled elsewhere. The Australian taxpayer paid for their settlement.

It was extremely expensive.

They did not need return agreements with many countries (as we do) due to their geographical location and the asylum seekers are arriving at their borders.

We only have 12 return agreements - most of countries we receive asylum seekers from refuse to take them back. Without ID they could be from anywhere. I think we'd be the same if someone was saying they were British but didn't have proof.

What options do we have? Send them back on a boat to France? They just come back again. Or die.

Should we house them indefinitely in detention centres? That was the Rwanda idea... We'd be supporting them indefinitely there.

I'm genuinely curious how you'd solve this problem. You can't return someone who has nowhere to go.

There’s still a sizeable amount of people saying we can’t do the same, it’s impossible, there are other ways eg safe routes, it’s racist to have border control etc

Those are the barriers, but if numbers crossing increase those reasons not to change will decrease.

No - it's not impossible. Nothing is! But it's not simple or easy like reform is making it out.

It requires a lot of intentional cooperation alongside the will of the British public to fund a solution that will be more costly than the current system (and may still fail)... As we saw with the recent returns to France.

The guy literally just got back on a boat. What did people think would happen?

You have to stop people coming. And you do this by stopping smugglers, providing aid to those in war zones so they don't feel the need to flee, and foreign aid after to rebuild their countries.

If you don't do those things you end up where we are...people have compassion fatigue and don't even care if the people are genuinely in need. They want to close our borders. Fair enough.

But there is no zero cost scenario to do so.

Of course the one in one out is an absolute farce I agree with you there.

But yes if people finally realise that it’s possible as it was for Aus and vote for similar, it can happen.

The return agreement is the cheapest option.

If we have no return agreement, what do we do with the people?

Permanent detention in Rwanda? You'd be happy to fund that?

I think the best way to stop the problem is by making Britain an unappealing destination for migrants.

This includes altering expectations in society and in our institutions ensure the protection of our British culture.

Eg mass produced halal meat has very serious animal welfare concerns so we ban its production and sale and use in commercial or educational settings

Schools should be either secular or Christian focused. All kids should learn popular hymns etc.

Fireworks are becoming an increasing menace, we should ban their sale and stick to public displays around Nov 5 and new year..

Being granted asylum should be conditional upon the issues remaining. Eg if a war ends. Return home, if you claim asylum because you claim you will be persecuted because you’re gay then end up in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex- sent home.

No relatives to automatically be allowed to join you in UK.

Should have a plan on how to integrate - if not -sent back home.

detention centres away from public places..

limitation on areas you can work and wages you earn. No funds to be sent overseas.,

visiting country from which you claim asylum should result in an immediate rescinding of your asylum status

Look at the numbers for Aus, they are near zero. Yes if I lived there I’d be happy to fund it, all of the citizens are, it won’t be changed by any gov.

Similarly if we ever do the same no one would vote it out.

I agree with a lot of that actually.

However the halal thing is populist crap. Animal welfare is a joke across the meat industry. All animals slaughtered in the UK have their necks alit as having blood drained is essential for all animals. 72% of halal animals are actually stunned same as regular slaughter process.

Most of halal is unrecognisable from the scriptural meaning which is that the animals should have had a good life and a calm death. It's clever marketing and exploitation of certain market. Playing a prayer while you slaughter animals on a conveyor belt is the utmost joke. Makes me laugh more than upset. But people want cheap meat...

Kosher is the only religious slaughter that is 100% non stun.

My only 2 issues. Halal meat is majority stunned as well? Animal welfare my arse. Like if you care about animal welfare be vegan. Even dairy causes the animal significant distress.

Why ban fireworks and only allow on bonfire day/New year's? Can people (including myself) not celebrate Diwali. 🎆 Don't bother me one bit. Idc about "oh but my dog is scared". If firework sounds are giving people heart attacks they maybe yeah. But otherwise they are fun.

Just saw the news the in Uxbridge today.

Thanks, I am vegan (having been vegetarian for over 30 years). The RSPCA states the following about exemptions from stunning animals
Evidence presented by the RSPCA makes the case for removing the religious exemption on the basis that animals that are not stunned prior to being slaughter suffer

“very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes”.

That is because the neck, cut, sends a stream of sensory information to the brain in the conscious animal, causing intense temporary pain and distress. Only after prolonged blood loss does the animal become unconscious and thus insensitive to the incision. That process can take up to 20 seconds in sheep, 2 minutes in cattle and 2.5 minutes in poultry. As a result, those concerned about animal welfare are calling on the Government to end slaughter without pre-stunning and to ensure that any free trade agreement that the UK signs with other countries excludes the export of non-stunned meat.

Yet we keep hearing things like This.

And limiting fireworks to bonfire night and New Year’s Eve, long established British traditions (although ideally I would like these to be silent) everyone knows that these couple of nights are going to have fireworks, again should be only official events, not peoples back gardens. But they get set off for random religious events that have no connection and no interest to the majority of people in Britain, or every night for a week long wedding in someone’s back garden.

its very clear you don’t like animals, you don’t care animals are getting highly stressed because you want to have some fun about some random mythology? That is disgusting. Britain is supposed to be a nation of animal lovers yet you would rather sparky twinkly lights and loud ass bangs in preference of an animals safety

Move along now nothing to see