Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Starmer chipped in some nonsense about "attacking the gangs" as a solution to the Alf Garnett problem.
Last edited:
Keir Starmer
- Thread starter Delaney
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Starmer chipped in some nonsense about "attacking the gangs" as a solution to the Alf Garnett problem.
ey_tony
Established Member
...and therein lies the problem. The UK doesn't have the housing or infrastructure to house or affordable social policies to service the people already living here plus the costs of dealing with immigrants is several billion pounds annually but you don't see it as a problem? Wow!
Maybe you don't but I suspect many, many millions of ordinary normal thinking British people do see it as big problem and they are sick and tired of it and the people who condone their coming here milking the system.
You also forget one thing. Those who live in the leafy suburbs of towns in the home counties etc are largely unaffected by migration as migrants tend to flock to the areas where the poorest/lowest paid Brits live. Those living in the better off areas will be mostly unaffected by migration as they are unlikely to have to compete for jobs and accommodation or even local social infrastructure.
The same can't be said for the poorest in our society. They are the ones who generally bear the brunt of the influxes of immigrant.
For them it's an absolutely huge problem.
AJB Temple
Finely figured
Also of concern, various well connected and credible people are saying in the serious media that the boats are an excellent way to smuggle extremists and terrorists into the country and that this has happened and continues to. Once boat migrants are in, our tracking of them has proved very ineffective and will continue to be so unless we use either tags or a secure processing centre for those claiming asylum. Taxpayer is funding a lot now.
RobinBHM
Established Member
are you a life long Tory voter?
the lack of social housing started with Thatcher flogging 1.5m council houses and stopping new ones being built
I cant imagine why the Conservatives and the right wing media are so desperate to direct the failings of this country on foreigners............surely its nothing to do with the fact the failings of this country are due to 45+ years of neoliberal ideology transferring wealth from ordinary working people to the wealthy
The fact that he is doing nothing to stem the flow across our open borders having sent out the wrong message when he scrapped any potential detterents. We are now seen as a really soft touch and will pay a massive price for starmers inability to act.
RobinBHM
Established Member
thank you for the reply.
So your response indicates you think it fine Ukrainians are allowed here but not Syrians despite both have been subjected to the brutality of war.
In terms of the good old "safe country" false argument, let me address that once more:
when people get displaced due to war or persecution, the vast majority stay within the region, however the rest disperse over a wide area.
it is not unreasonable for such refugees to spread across a number of countries, just because UK is geographically furthest away does not mean by arbitrary good fortune no Syrian people should come here.
If you believe no refugees should come to UK, the please could you explain which country should take more and why
given that there is a Syrian community established here and people probably wanted to join with family members or friends here in the UK.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Rubbish - unless you can point to an authoritative source for your assertion. AFAIK as a British citizen with normal rights of residency and a current British passport, at no time would I be classified as an illegal immigrant for even the shortest period.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
Really? Looks like nothing's changed to me, apart from scrapping the ridiculous failed Rwanda scheme.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
You are effectively, until you can prove otherwise.
RobinBHM
Established Member
I dont understand where this phrase "open borders comes from
I have been unable to find any real evidence that the Rwanda scheme was ever a deterrent
Boris Johnson even admitted that the idea was only ever a political distraction....its strategy was simple, wait for the courts to deem it illegal, which then allowed the Conservative party to scream "we had a great scheme which wouldve been fantastic but it was thwarted by leftie lawyers"
£800m is one hell of a lot of money just to produce some media propaganda.
are we?
how has Keir Starmer shown an inability to act?
what should he have done that he hasnt in your opinion?
We have people leaving France in small boats and arriving here, the UK has no control over the French side of the border, it cant sink the boats, it cant turn the boats back, it cant return them to France without an agreement.
So what has Starmer not done exactly?
he is doing exactly what is possible: growing the capacity to process the asylum claims, increasing efforts to build international cooperation to stop the gangs and increased investment in intelligence.
Sadly the efforts to collaborate with France and mainland Europe on intelligence and diplomatic means have been severely curtailed due to brexit.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
The normal standard applied in the UK is "innocent until proven guilty". You are making an assumption of "guilt unless proven otherwise".
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
Just interrupting this happy and friendly chat about immigration with the lovely news that the next Tory leader will be one of Badenoch or Jenrick; not only two of the worst candidates available, but possibly two of the worst human beings currently available. I'm sure it'll all work out swimmingly... like their other recent leaders.
Yorkieguy
Established Member
It's facile of Labour to claim, as Yvette Cooper, Home Secretary does, that they're going to 'smash the gangs', and There's no prospect whatsoever of Kier Starmer, as a Human Rights Lawyer, ditching the European Court of Human Rights (which some seem to mistakenly believe is the EU, and that it would we could disregard it after Brexit.
https://www.echr.coe.int
Given that currently, 27% of UK processed asylum claims fail, how are Labour going to remove those unsuccessful applicants from the UK as they then have no legal right to stay, given that they can't be returned to an unsafe country (from whence they came)? Labour opposed tooth and nail the Rwanda plan, so what alternative do they propose?
Whichever side of the argument people are on, it's a fact that the forces of anti-immigration politics are upending liberal governments all over Europe - with voters in 21 of 28 EU countries citing immigration as the top issue facing the continent, according to a recent Eurobarometer survey.
Over the next year or two, I can see this getting much worse, eclipsing all other issues.
Two sides of the same coin.
Under the Tories:
The Illegal Migration Act (IMA) 2023 is a UK law introduced by the tory government that aims to deter and prevent illegal migration into the country. The act was enforced on July 20, 2023.
The act's main goals are to:
Remove the incentive for dangerous small boat crossings
Speed up the removal of those without the right to be in the UK
Prevent people from using modern slavery safeguards to block their removal
Support those in genuine need of asylum
The act gives the Secretary of State new powers, including:
Detaining people who are subject to removal
Increasing the search powers of immigration officers
Removing judicial scrutiny of government decision-making
Stripping away safeguards for vulnerable groups
The act also includes a measure to send illegal migrants to their home country or a safe third country. The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill will allow the Secretary of State to remove illegal migrants to Rwanda for the consideration of their asylum or human rights claims.
Illegal Migration Act 2023 - GOV.UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/illegal-migration-bill
Under Labour:
From ‘Right to Remain.org’:
Quote:
'Illegal Migration Act ban on processing asylum claims lifted':
[Under the new Labour Government], on 24 July 2024, the Home Office published regulations to amend provisions of the ‘Illegal’ Migration Act (IMA), which will allow asylum claims to be processed. These regulations will also enable people to be granted settlement and British citizenship.
Regulations are a form of secondary legislation. Acts are a form of primary legislation, which outline general law. Secondary legislation outlines how that law is meant to be enforced in practice.
We welcome these amendments as they will hopefully result in a more efficient decision-making process for asylum claims and will pull many people – who arrived in the UK from March 2023 onwards, and people who claimed asylum from mid-July 2023 onwards – out of immigration limbo.
However, though the regulations outlined below provide relief, they fall short of repealing (this means abolishing) the IMA in its entirety. The IMA is a hugely damaging piece of legislation which was introduced by the previous Conservative government to effectively end the asylum process. It was published in violation of the UK’s human rights obligations, grants high levels of power to the Home Secretary, and has caused so much fear and uncertainty in migrant communities for over a year.
The new Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, published three regulations in total under The Illegal Migration Act 2023 (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Generally, the regulations make the following changes:
Regulation 1: This simply outlines procedural points (like where the regulations apply, and what they are called).
Regulation 2: Asylum claims made from 20 July 2023 onwards will now be processed as normal.
Section 2 of the IMA is the part upon which everything else depends. It creates a duty on the Home Secretary to arrange to remove anyone who meets the 4 removal conditions from the UK. One of those removal conditions was that the person had to have arrived in the UK on or after 20 July 2023. Section 2 of the IMA was never brought into force, however, its impact was tangible: it stopped the processing of asylum claims made on or after 20 July 2023. Even though they were not subject to Section 2 removal, many people’s asylum claims could not progress.
Regulation 2 has now amended Section 2 duty to make arrangements for removal to apply to claims made after the section comes into force, whenever that eventually occurs. It has removed the reference to 20 July 2023, meaning that claims which were made from July of last year can now be processed as normal.
Regulation 3
Parts of the IMA related to the Section 2 duty of removal have been omitted, and the ban on eligibility for immigration status or British citizenship has been lifted for people who entered the UK irregularly on or after 7 March 2023.
Regulation 3 amends all the other sections of the IMA which stemmed from the Section 2 duty of removal to also come into force on “the day on which this section came into force in relation to the person”.
Regulation 3 amends Sections 30-31 to apply to claims made after these sections come into force, whenever that eventually occurs. Section 30 of the IMA originally barred anyone who fulfilled the four requirements of (the unenforced) Section 2 from ever securing leave to remain in the UK. This amendment means that people who claimed asylum on or after 20 July 2023 will be able to have their asylum claims processed.
Section 31 of the IMA originally barred anyone who entered the UK ‘unlawfully’ – on or after 7 March 2023 – from obtaining British citizenship, British overseas territories citizenship, British overseas citizenship and British subject status. This ban has now been lifted as a result of Regulation 3.
So, the regulations allow the asylum system to revert back to ‘normal’: people who claimed asylum last year will have their claims considered, and will be able to obtain refugee status, and later citizenship if their claims are accepted.
The IMA caused unnecessary delay and fear in our communities and prevented thousands of people from regularising their status in the UK – perpetuating the very situation the previous government was so staunchly against. We know that some people will have been forced to go underground as a result of this law.
We repeat that though this is a welcome change, the IMA is a dangerous piece of legislation (even if it is now dormant) and should be repealed in its entirety.
As always:
No one is illegal.
These walls must fall.
Migration is life.
End quote.
https://righttoremain.org.uk/illegal-migration-act-ban-on-processing-asylum-claims-lifted/
https://www.echr.coe.int
Given that currently, 27% of UK processed asylum claims fail, how are Labour going to remove those unsuccessful applicants from the UK as they then have no legal right to stay, given that they can't be returned to an unsafe country (from whence they came)? Labour opposed tooth and nail the Rwanda plan, so what alternative do they propose?
Whichever side of the argument people are on, it's a fact that the forces of anti-immigration politics are upending liberal governments all over Europe - with voters in 21 of 28 EU countries citing immigration as the top issue facing the continent, according to a recent Eurobarometer survey.
Over the next year or two, I can see this getting much worse, eclipsing all other issues.
Two sides of the same coin.
Under the Tories:
The Illegal Migration Act (IMA) 2023 is a UK law introduced by the tory government that aims to deter and prevent illegal migration into the country. The act was enforced on July 20, 2023.
The act's main goals are to:
Remove the incentive for dangerous small boat crossings
Speed up the removal of those without the right to be in the UK
Prevent people from using modern slavery safeguards to block their removal
Support those in genuine need of asylum
The act gives the Secretary of State new powers, including:
Detaining people who are subject to removal
Increasing the search powers of immigration officers
Removing judicial scrutiny of government decision-making
Stripping away safeguards for vulnerable groups
The act also includes a measure to send illegal migrants to their home country or a safe third country. The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill will allow the Secretary of State to remove illegal migrants to Rwanda for the consideration of their asylum or human rights claims.
Illegal Migration Act 2023 - GOV.UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/illegal-migration-bill
Under Labour:
From ‘Right to Remain.org’:
Quote:
'Illegal Migration Act ban on processing asylum claims lifted':
[Under the new Labour Government], on 24 July 2024, the Home Office published regulations to amend provisions of the ‘Illegal’ Migration Act (IMA), which will allow asylum claims to be processed. These regulations will also enable people to be granted settlement and British citizenship.
Regulations are a form of secondary legislation. Acts are a form of primary legislation, which outline general law. Secondary legislation outlines how that law is meant to be enforced in practice.
We welcome these amendments as they will hopefully result in a more efficient decision-making process for asylum claims and will pull many people – who arrived in the UK from March 2023 onwards, and people who claimed asylum from mid-July 2023 onwards – out of immigration limbo.
However, though the regulations outlined below provide relief, they fall short of repealing (this means abolishing) the IMA in its entirety. The IMA is a hugely damaging piece of legislation which was introduced by the previous Conservative government to effectively end the asylum process. It was published in violation of the UK’s human rights obligations, grants high levels of power to the Home Secretary, and has caused so much fear and uncertainty in migrant communities for over a year.
The new Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, published three regulations in total under The Illegal Migration Act 2023 (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Generally, the regulations make the following changes:
Regulation 1: This simply outlines procedural points (like where the regulations apply, and what they are called).
Regulation 2: Asylum claims made from 20 July 2023 onwards will now be processed as normal.
Section 2 of the IMA is the part upon which everything else depends. It creates a duty on the Home Secretary to arrange to remove anyone who meets the 4 removal conditions from the UK. One of those removal conditions was that the person had to have arrived in the UK on or after 20 July 2023. Section 2 of the IMA was never brought into force, however, its impact was tangible: it stopped the processing of asylum claims made on or after 20 July 2023. Even though they were not subject to Section 2 removal, many people’s asylum claims could not progress.
Regulation 2 has now amended Section 2 duty to make arrangements for removal to apply to claims made after the section comes into force, whenever that eventually occurs. It has removed the reference to 20 July 2023, meaning that claims which were made from July of last year can now be processed as normal.
Regulation 3
Parts of the IMA related to the Section 2 duty of removal have been omitted, and the ban on eligibility for immigration status or British citizenship has been lifted for people who entered the UK irregularly on or after 7 March 2023.
Regulation 3 amends all the other sections of the IMA which stemmed from the Section 2 duty of removal to also come into force on “the day on which this section came into force in relation to the person”.
Regulation 3 amends Sections 30-31 to apply to claims made after these sections come into force, whenever that eventually occurs. Section 30 of the IMA originally barred anyone who fulfilled the four requirements of (the unenforced) Section 2 from ever securing leave to remain in the UK. This amendment means that people who claimed asylum on or after 20 July 2023 will be able to have their asylum claims processed.
Section 31 of the IMA originally barred anyone who entered the UK ‘unlawfully’ – on or after 7 March 2023 – from obtaining British citizenship, British overseas territories citizenship, British overseas citizenship and British subject status. This ban has now been lifted as a result of Regulation 3.
So, the regulations allow the asylum system to revert back to ‘normal’: people who claimed asylum last year will have their claims considered, and will be able to obtain refugee status, and later citizenship if their claims are accepted.
The IMA caused unnecessary delay and fear in our communities and prevented thousands of people from regularising their status in the UK – perpetuating the very situation the previous government was so staunchly against. We know that some people will have been forced to go underground as a result of this law.
We repeat that though this is a welcome change, the IMA is a dangerous piece of legislation (even if it is now dormant) and should be repealed in its entirety.
As always:
No one is illegal.
These walls must fall.
Migration is life.
End quote.
https://righttoremain.org.uk/illegal-migration-act-ban-on-processing-asylum-claims-lifted/
RobinBHM
Established Member
oh well, it will be interesting to see how flipping mad they will get in their desperation to outgun Reform
like or loathe Farage, he is a very polished politician who will trounce Jenrick or Badenoch
Is it fair to say that a large part of that money goes straight back into the UK economy? Accommodation, food, salaries of those processing applications and so on?
RobinBHM
Established Member
the reality is all the act has done has meant anybody arriving in a small boat since July 20 2023 is not able to apply for asylum in UK and since the Tories never created a workable offshore scheme, these people are effectively here forever.
Yup the Illegal Migration Act actually prevents the UK govt from removing anybody ever. They are here forever.
utter madness
not entirely true, there are soe that can be returned, I know a guy who works for a deportation centre and he escorts people back to Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, parts of Africa
but I agree it is virtually impossible to return people to Syria, Eritrea , Yemen etc
RobinBHM
Established Member
I chunk of it goes into the pockets of mates of Tories
there is always money to be made out of misery
Starmer chipped in some nonsense about "attacking the gangs" as a solution to the Alf Garnet problem.
I remember seeing an interview with Warren Mitchell. He was talking about the number of people who would congratulate him on the Alf Garnet character and his racist views. They were too stupid to realise that it was actually a caricature of themselves.
The blood donor sketch is one of the best examples.
ey_tony
Established Member
A Tory voter...NO!
I never agreed with the social housing sell offs and since it started no government has seen fit to replace them so as far as I'm concerned they're all a load of whotsit.
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
It's bizarre isn't it; the Tories lurched towards the nutjob-attracting far right (but obviously couldn't do it as well as Farage) and ultimately lost an election heavily. So the solution to that is... to put another nutjob-attracting leader in charge. I suppose Boris purged the party of just about any remotely competent MPs, so the options list was pretty bad.
- Status
