To think it's time to leave the ECHR?

[Sausagenbacon]

www.thejc.com/news/uk/gazan-family-refugee-status-asylum-rejection-gwsq2c8b

Multiculturalism has damaged the UK. People should integrate and accept British culture. You can have the food by just looking up the recipe online.

Weird that, I was 9 in 1999, and we were in real poverty.

I wonder why if there were no immigrants to take our money/jobs/etc etc.

And these are all due to immigration?

I'd love to see your working on women's retirement ages, vape shops, litter and fly tipping.

Vapes weren't invented in 1999 for a start...

it is a factor however much you pretend it isn’t

You are going to close a lot of restaurants and cafes then.

And what is 'British culture'? What has disappeared?

Wait, I will correct myself.

Women can no longer retire at 60 because there are more pensioners living far longer, largely thanks to our NHS, where 1 in 5 people who work there are immigrants. Damn them for helping my grandma stay alive til she was 96!

No I want to hear what a good amount is for you. Just a ballpark. Perhaps the electorate will think ok. It’s too unknown otherwise.

Where would you feel comfortable in terms of numbers?

I online using a computer whose components are made by……?

I haven’t heard anyone say that immigrants are to blame for everything that’s wrong with the Uk 🤷‍♀️

The difference is, in the last decade or so, the rise of right wing populism

It's not right wing that rose first ... look at the numbers, they explain a lot

It took 50y for the number of foreigners to double between 1951 to 2001, starting from very low, barely registering.

It only took 10y after 2001 to double again, with 10m ppl, which makes a big, noticeable impact for a country of 60 millions.

Source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_immigration_to_Great_Britain

I don’t have a number. Why would I? I mean, I know that the “18” mentioned in this case isn’t a problem, but if the number had been eleventy million it would be.

This is a question asked as some kind of gotcha, as if without a number, a person wants unfettered immigration with no checks and balances. It’s a strawman.

The “right” number will vary based on economic conditions present in the country at any given time. For example, right now we have a massive shortage of labour in the construction industry. This has remained persistently high for more than a decade but right now we need 400,000 more people in construction and for some reason U.K. citizens don’t want these jobs. As a result, one of our economy’s biggest contributors is facing a downturn which could precipitate a recession. Construction costs are eye-wateringly high and these costs are being passed on to consumers. Universities, local authorities, government etc can’t afford to replace aging properties and are spending ridiculous amounts maintaining existing buildings, or services are being cut as there is nowhere to provide them. If someone was to ask me if we should allow 300,000 tradies and labourers in to this country to help fill that gap, I’d give it a resounding yes. The result would be Immediate both for the economy and the government coffers.

So, what’s your number?

It’s really not. Sell in the outcome of what you’re after. Which is presumably not open borders nor no asylum arrivals.

I want to understand what you’re aiming for in terms of numbers and how you’d achieve that?

I’m referring to the asylum process not work visas, at what number do you feel comfortable, how many people seeking asylum should we take?

That is the problem the lazy bastard politicians didn't bother to do the work on negotiating the aftermath they just agreed with everything. Teresa May and Boris were pathetic.
Equality employment laws, maternity pay, holidays are all covered by Westminster legislation. That was why the Trans stuff stopped at our Supreme Court. It could not go further like to Strasbourg or Geneva.
Denmark has changed many laws on migrants they managed it.

Case by case should be does this immigration benefit the UK. If there's a cost to the public purse, should be a no.

What are the chances!

You don’t think that change might have also been driven by the number of people who travel out of the U.K. for work? I have several cousins who are “foreign born” living in the U.K. because three of my uncles worked in the Middle East for long periods in the 80s. Of course the number who work temporarily abroad got bigger after 2004. That’s just counting.

None of that suggests we have an immigration problem. Our GDP in 1951 was 40 billion. It is now 4.26 trillion, the biggest rise was between 1998 and 2005. You think immigrants might have had something to do with that?

That we live in a more global world than we did in 1951 isn’t exactly news.

Like, for example, coming here, having children on the NHS, sending children to state schools, using public services etc? That kind of cost to the public purse?

What gives you hope that this government (or any other) would do differently if they pulled out of ECHR?

Great when it's those contributors. Are they the norm?

Of course they’ll be complexities. There always are with this kind of thing. That’s not a good enough reason not to do it.

Oops, they aren't contributing at all

How is this relevant?

The GFA was a huge achievement, you are willing to risk that to stop people from claiming asylum?