Channel Migrants (Admin advisory. Contains disturbing image and repulsive views)

[BoroFur]

We used to be able to have sensible discussions about immigration. People right across the political spectrum had different views and it was fine. One of the most divisive things about brexit is that now anyone that thinks immigration should be controlled is suddenly labelled a racist and anyone that voted remain says we should open our borders to all 7bn people of the world even though they know that there has to be a limit somewhere. When it starts affecting them then I'm confident that their opinions will change.

"We used to be able to have sensible discussions about immigration. People right across the political spectrum had different views and it was fine."

Yes it was 'fine' until UKIP, egged on by the ERG, became part of the 'political spectrum' and engaged in blatant attempts to incite racial hatred.

For UKIP, include the BNP; the EDL; the National Front; The Football Lads Alliance etc. because they're all one and the same.



"One of the most divisive things about brexit is that now anyone that thinks immigration should be controlled is suddenly labelled a racist and anyone that voted remain says we should open our borders to all 7bn people of the world even though they know that there has to be a limit somewhere. When it starts affecting them then I'm confident that their opinions will change."

This is a very poor attempt at passing off your opinions as being objective. On closer inspection, as a 'leaver', you are actually complaining about being labelled a racist whilst at the same time accusing all 'remainers' of not being able acknowledge the negative impact of immigration because they all live in 'middle class suburbia'.

Out of curiosity, where do you think we're going to house the 3m from Hong Kong with a BN(O) visa?

 

[The_Tiler]

This is a very touchy subject. Having read through all the replies, seems if you don't agree with what is happening in the Channel at the moment, you get called a racist or a brexiteer. I fear it will stop people joining in this thread in case they labelled the same or get banned. What ever happened to civilised debate?
Both sides of the argument have their opinions, why don't we listen to them instead accusing them of their mask slipping or worse? Does not make you right just because you strongly believe in one side or the other.

 

[ForssAwakens]

This is a very touchy subject. Having read through all the replies, seems if you don't agree with what is happening in the Channel at the moment, you get called a racist or a brexiteer. I fear it will stop people joining in this thread in case they labelled the same or get banned. What ever happened to civilised debate?
Both sides of the argument have their opinions, why don't we listen to them instead accusing them of their mask slipping or worse? Does not make you right just because you strongly believe in one side or the other.

Not every one who is argue to sending them back has been racist, but a few a shown racist views

just cos the person doesn’t recognise themselves as being racist doesn’t means they aren’t

also I have seen those on that side be challenged around it in a civilised way but when it gets to hard to answer without being racist they don’t want any part of it.

 

[boromike85]

"We used to be able to have sensible discussions about immigration. People right across the political spectrum had different views and it was fine."

Yes it was 'fine' until UKIP, egged on by the ERG, became part of the 'political spectrum' and engaged in blatant attempts to incite racial hatred.

For UKIP, include the BNP; the EDL; the National Front; The Football Lads Alliance etc. because they're all one and the same.

View attachment 5489

"One of the most divisive things about brexit is that now anyone that thinks immigration should be controlled is suddenly labelled a racist and anyone that voted remain says we should open our borders to all 7bn people of the world even though they know that there has to be a limit somewhere. When it starts affecting them then I'm confident that their opinions will change."

This is a very poor attempt at passing off your opinions as being objective. On closer inspection, as a 'leaver', you are actually complaining about being labelled a racist whilst at the same time accusing all 'remainers' of not being able acknowledge the negative impact of immigration because they all live in 'middle class suburbia'.

Out of curiosity, where do you think we're going to house the 3m from Hong Kong with a BN(O) visa?

This is all just nonsense. If you're too afraid to have an adult conversation then why bother? You are contributing nothing other than freely admitting that you think that anyone that mentions immigration is a racist. It is childish and divisive.

Where does the number on immigration end for you? If its 7bn that's fine (and good luck with that), if its somewhere between 0 and 7bn then you're in favour of controlled immigration. Personally my number is the number that our infrastructure supports. Growth should be the same amount as infrastructure grows. There is nothing racist about being sensible.

I can tell from your post that the only reason you now think immigration at all costs is good is fear of being labelled by others like yourself. You talk about masks slipping but the evidence points the other way. You are too afraid to express any real views and so hide behind a mask.

3m from Hong Kong won't come here. They will be free to but they won't. A small percentage will. They won't be housed, they will pay their own way.

 

[ForssAwakens]

This is all just nonsense. If you're too afraid to have an adult conversation then why bother? You are contributing nothing other than freely admitting that you think that anyone that mentions immigration is a racist. It is childish and divisive.

Where does the number on immigration end for you? If its 7bn that's fine (and good luck with that), if its somewhere between 0 and 7bn then you're in favour of controlled immigration. Personally my number is the number that our infrastructure supports. Growth should be the same amount as infrastructure grows. There is nothing racist about being sensible.

I can tell from your post that the only reason you now think immigration at all costs is good is fear of being labelled by others like yourself. You talk about masks slipping but the evidence points the other way. You are too afraid to express any real views and so hide behind a mask.

3m from Hong Kong won't come here. They will be free to but they won't. A small percentage will. They won't be housed, they will pay their own way.

How are they going to pay their own way when our unemployment level will Be at 7-10% shortly

 

[Ziggy]

Someone who works for and with immigrants of all types.

 

[LaPennaBianca]

This is all just nonsense. If you're too afraid to have an adult conversation then why bother? You are contributing nothing other than freely admitting that you think that anyone that mentions immigration is a racist. It is childish and divisive.

Where does the number on immigration end for you? If its 7bn that's fine (and good luck with that), if its somewhere between 0 and 7bn then you're in favour of controlled immigration. Personally my number is the number that our infrastructure supports. Growth should be the same amount as infrastructure grows. There is nothing racist about being sensible.

I can tell from your post that the only reason you now think immigration at all costs is good is fear of being labelled by others like yourself. You talk about masks slipping but the evidence points the other way. You are too af

3m from Hong Kong won't come here. They will be free to but they won't. A small percentage will. They won't be housed, they will pay their own way.

This is all just nonsense. If you're too afraid to have an adult conversation then why bother? You are contributing nothing other than freely admitting that you think that anyone that mentions immigration is a racist. It is childish and divisive.

Where does the number on immigration end for you? If its 7bn that's fine (and good luck with that), if its somewhere between 0 and 7bn then you're in favour of controlled immigration. Personally my number is the number that our infrastructure supports. Growth should be the same amount as infrastructure grows. There is nothing racist about being sensible.

I can tell from your post that the only reason you now think immigration at all costs is good is fear of being labelled by others like yourself. You talk about masks slipping but the evidence points the other way. You are too afraid to express any real views and so hide behind a mask.

3m from Hong Kong won't come here. They will be free to but they won't. A small percentage will. They won't be housed, they will pay their own way.

With the last paragraph you've completely undermined your entire stance.

If all 3m won't come, then 7bn wont come either, will they? The EU has roughly 500m people and not all of them came to the UK when we were member, did they? In fact, those that did come enriched this country culturally and economically.

As has been argued by many people, including myself, without any label of being called 'racist' - this country could easily accommodate immigrants and its own population. We have a government that chooses not to.

So your entire argument is based on a false understanding of the situation. Nobody is arguing that 7bn people will come to the UK as that, by your own admission, would never happen. They are arguing this:

The fifth biggest economy in the world, the 21st in the world for GDP per capita, should be able to accommodate people fleeing war and looking for a better life for themselves and their families.

 

[BoroFur]

This is all just nonsense. If you're too afraid to have an adult conversation then why bother? You are contributing nothing other than freely admitting that you think that anyone that mentions immigration is a racist. It is childish and divisive.

Where does the number on immigration end for you? If its 7bn that's fine (and good luck with that), if its somewhere between 0 and 7bn then you're in favour of controlled immigration. Personally my number is the number that our infrastructure supports. Growth should be the same amount as infrastructure grows. There is nothing racist about being sensible.

I can tell from your post that the only reason you now think immigration at all costs is good is fear of being labelled by others like yourself. You talk about masks slipping but the evidence points the other way. You are too afraid to express any real views and so hide behind a mask.

3m from Hong Kong won't come here. They will be free to but they won't. A small percentage will. They won't be housed, they will pay their own way.

'Nonsense', 'afraid', 'childish', 'divisive'. Any other insults you want to throw my way? You can't 'tell' anything about me from my post other than I don't share the same views as you do. You certainly can't 'tell' from my post that I think 'immigration at all costs is good' because I don't and neither did I say that. So if you wish to have an 'adult conversation' then stop making things up.

Adult conversations don't contemplate a figure of 7 billion as a starting point for a debate because you know full well that could and would never happen. Neither do adult conversations centre around wooly and subjective statements like 'my number is the number that our infrastructure supports. Growth should be the same amount as infrastructure grows' because what on earth does that mean exactly? Do we end up with a population law like they do in China?

Unfortunately we live in an age where there are too many self serving, entitled xenophobic populists distorting and ignoring facts to further their own ends with their delusional supporters hanging onto every word.

 

[Second Mate]

Not practical

"I can’t see why people wouldn’t want Controlled immigration and the end of illegal immigration. There 2 different things aren’t they? "
This is exactly what people want. But how can you tell someone is an illegal immigrant without processing them first? You cannot process them in a dinghy in the middle of the sea so they must be allowed to land so that they CAN be processed.

Not practical at all Trugg, once they are in we will not get them out even if they don't meet asylum requirements. An army of expensive lawyers will see to that at the tax payers expense.

 

[boromike85]

Adult conversations don't contemplate a figure of 7 billion as a starting point for a debate because you know full well that could and would never happen.

I'm a mathematician and we identify a range (0-7bn) and then anything in between we can explain why it starts/ends there (in this case it is immigration control).

because what on earth does that mean exactly?

It's quite simple if you had ever thought about why we have immigration control in the first place. Primarily, we bring people in to plug gaps in our labour supply. There are other benefits to them being here but that is the principal reason. Once those gaps are full then we don't need to keep expanding the labour supply because an over supply is bad for the people that are already here because it causes wage deflation. On top of that we only have a finite infrastructure to house, educate and keep healthy. We don't have an unlimited supply of money so we can't keep building (that's not the same as we can't build more, we certainly can and should be). That leads to an over-demand for infrastructure. An over-supply of labour and an under-supply of infrastructure is a bad situation. One way we can alleviate this is to limit the number of people coming in until we are back in balance, hence immigration control. You can get away with an over-supply of labour if there is an over supply of infrastructure because it still allows people to live and work without too many issues, just not optimally. The two together though is a downward spiral.

Which bit of that is either illogical, racist or xenophobic?

 

[LaPennaBianca]

I'm a mathematician and we identify a range (0-7bn) and then anything in between we can explain why it starts/ends there (in this case it is immigration control).



It's quite simple if you had ever thought about why we have immigration control in the first place. Primarily, we bring people in to plug gaps in our labour supply. There are other benefits to them being here but that is the principal reason. Once those gaps are full then we don't need to keep expanding the labour supply because an over supply is bad for the people that are already here because it causes wage deflation. On top of that we only have a finite infrastructure to house, educate and keep healthy. We don't have an unlimited supply of money so we can't keep building (that's not the same as we can't build more, we certainly can and should be). That leads to an over-demand for infrastructure. An over-supply of labour and an under-supply of infrastructure is a bad situation. One way we can alleviate this is to limit the number of people coming in until we are back in balance, hence immigration control. You can get away with an over-supply of labour if there is an over supply of infrastructure because it still allows people to live and work without too many issues, just not optimally. The two together though is a downward spiral.

Which bit of that is either illogical, racist or xenophobic?

It appears we all agree that the health service, schools and the housing market are under pressure.

None of your above understanding is racist - but you're guilty of omitting some pertinent facts such as:

1) The number of buy to let landlords hoarding property and pushing up rents.

2) The number of vacant properties in the UK.

3) The lack of investment in housing, particularly affordable and social housing, that we have seen in this country since ~1979

4) The underfunding of public services, predominantly in low income areas that you previously referred to as slums in this thread, that we have seen in this country since 2010.

You believe that by stemming the very small number of asylum seekers/refugees to this country, or by limiting the larger number of economic migrants (who have been proven to contribute positively to public services https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent-releases/8747673d-3b26-439b-9693-0e250df6dbba) we will be able to overcome the strains that the health service, schools and the housing market are experiencing.

The counter argument is that the strains on these services are the result of some combination of the above factors and that these strains can all be solved by government policy. In addition, pivoting the conversation on public services to be about migrants of any stripe is an ugly, nativist deflection by those with the power to take these decisions.

Nobody is a racist. The simple fact is that some believe that this isnt a zero sum game. I, for one, think there's a moral duty to help people in distress and this country can afford to help.

 

[ForssAwakens]

I'm a mathematician and we identify a range (0-7bn) and then anything in between we can explain why it starts/ends there (in this case it is immigration control).

maybe you should apply some common sense and a human touch instead of applying mathematics. You are using data which implausible

 

[r00fie1]

I'm a mathematician and we identify a range (0-7bn) and then anything in between we can explain why it starts/ends there (in this case it is immigration control).



It's quite simple if you had ever thought about why we have immigration control in the first place. Primarily, we bring people in to plug gaps in our labour supply. There are other benefits to them being here but that is the principal reason. Once those gaps are full then we don't need to keep expanding the labour supply because an over supply is bad for the people that are already here because it causes wage deflation. On top of that we only have a finite infrastructure to house, educate and keep healthy. We don't have an unlimited supply of money so we can't keep building (that's not the same as we can't build more, we certainly can and should be). That leads to an over-demand for infrastructure. An over-supply of labour and an under-supply of infrastructure is a bad situation. One way we can alleviate this is to limit the number of people coming in until we are back in balance, hence immigration control. You can get away with an over-supply of labour if there is an over supply of infrastructure because it still allows people to live and work without too many issues, just not optimally. The two together though is a downward spiral.

Which bit of that is either illogical, racist or xenophobic?

ALL OF IT because your main premise is based on immigration being focused soley around a human being`s value as a commodity.

• 
  is the constant capital of materials used in a period plus the depreciated portion of tools and plant used in the process. (A period is typically a day, week, year, or a single turnover: meaning the time required to complete one batch of coffee, for example.)
• 
  is the quantity of labor time (average skill and productivity) performed in producing the finished commodities during the period
• 
  is the value (or think "worth") of the product of the period

 

[r00fie1]

It appears we all agree that the health service, schools and the housing market are under pressure.

None of your above understanding is racist - but you're guilty of omitting some pertinent facts such as:

1) The number of buy to let landlords hoarding property and pushing up rents.

2) The number of vacant properties in the UK.

3) The lack of investment in housing, particularly affordable and social housing, that we have seen in this country since ~1979

4) The underfunding of public services, predominantly in low income areas that you previously referred to as slums in this thread, that we have seen in this country since 2010.

You believe that by stemming the very small number of asylum seekers/refugees to this country, or by limiting the larger number of economic migrants (who have been proven to contribute positively to public services https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent-releases/8747673d-3b26-439b-9693-0e250df6dbba) we will be able to overcome the strains that the health service, schools and the housing market are experiencing.

The counter argument is that the strains on these services are the result of some combination of the above factors and that these strains can all be solved by government policy. In addition, pivoting the conversation on public services to be about migrants of any stripe is an ugly, nativist deflection by those with the power to take these decisions.

Nobody is a racist. The simple fact is that some believe that this isnt a zero sum game. I, for one, think there's a moral duty to help people in distress and this country can afford to help.

Spot On!

 

[Facefuzz]

This is all just nonsense. If you're too afraid to have an adult conversation then why bother? You are contributing nothing other than freely admitting that you think that anyone that mentions immigration is a racist. It is childish and divisive.

Where does the number on immigration end for you? If its 7bn that's fine (and good luck with that), if its somewhere between 0 and 7bn then you're in favour of controlled immigration. Personally my number is the number that our infrastructure supports. Growth should be the same amount as infrastructure grows. There is nothing racist about being sensible.

I can tell from your post that the only reason you now think immigration at all costs is good is fear of being labelled by others like yourself. You talk about masks slipping but the evidence points the other way. You are too afraid to express any real views and so hide behind a mask.

3m from Hong Kong won't come here. They will be free to but they won't. A small percentage will. They won't be housed, they will pay their own way.

There is nothing racist about being sensible
Boro Mike nails it.

 

[BoroFur]

I'm a mathematician..........

Congratulations on that.

Have a go at showing some common sense and compassion.

 

[borolad259]

A few more in the dinghy, headed for who knows where.

 

[deganya]

The people we should be standing up against arrive in Britain by private jet, not dinghies.

 

[boromike85]

@LaPennaBianca Your post is an emotional one, not a factual one. Also, you are confusing immigration and asylum. I am not against asylum in any way other than their mode of transport. There should be a system where they log in at the first safe haven and the international community decides where its best that they end up.

Congratulations on that.

Have a go at showing some common sense and compassion.

I am being compassionate but for the millions of people already living here who don't want to share the scraps they are fed around even more mouths. I also fully agree that it is the government's fault for so few scraps to share and that also goes back further than the current government.

 

[bear66]

@LaPennaBianca Your post is an emotional one, not a factual one. Also, you are confusing immigration and asylum. I am not against asylum in any way other than their mode of transport. There should be a system where they log in at the first safe haven and the international community decides where its best that they end up.


I am being compassionate but for the millions of people already living here who don't want to share the scraps they are fed around even more mouths. I also fully agree that it is the government's fault for so few scraps to share and that also goes back further than the current government.

Blame the government that's been in power for 10 years. Just today we find out about the lost decade for social care. Their 'friends' aren't living off scraps for sure.


Link