What kind of question is that? From the journalist in question.
Talk about a skewed press trying to be clever
1st point, you are probably right. I can’t disagree.
2nd point, I don’t feel they can sort it out. I feel it is an issue that will never be sorted irrelevant of Government. But it definitely needs to be better managed.
3rd point, there are people out there who want to shoot the Dinghy’s, burn down she hotels which house the asylum seekers. But they are a minority, just look at the small turn outs at the protests.
Not everyone with concern’s want to build walls? And their concerns aren’t just limited to Labour shortage. Also, addressing Labour shortage with unskilled, non/limited English speaking individuals is not the answer.
I am a Site Manager, in construction, so have had exposure to a foreign labour workforce. Some of my best contractors are foreign, Ukrainian, Polish, Moldovan but they are predominantly skilled and speak/understand broken English. On the flip side some of my worst contractors are skilled British, who understand English (although sometimes questionable) but want to talk back, do their own thing.
However, in my industry and I would assume many others, skills and communication is important and the answer is not to just replace it with a young labour force, it does not solve the problem. When I, or another contractor shouts ‘Stop’, ‘watch out’, ‘Fire’ and they turn around bemused, smile, nod their head and say yes sir it is of no help to anyone.
Really…. I may not agree with some of your points, likewise you may not agree with mine but let’s keep it relatively and not speculatively.
But to try and humour your point.
Would you agree that industrial, Urban countries, and the demand from their population for Cars, Air travel, Deliveroo’s, IPads, cheap clothes, plastic bottles of water, food production, emissions from construction, the reduction of natural land and therefore increasing the issues such as water run off, are a major issue and contribute to Climate Change???
I am going to assume from your posts that you would agree. So, would you agree that by accepting anyone and everyone and increasing the demand for these products/services it may actually accelerate these issues? This is without taking into consideration that as a Country, we can’t even provide, shelter, warmth, food for the current population?
1 Like
Thank you for enlightening me about the 1951 convention. I hold my hands up and accept my point was factually incorrect.
That being said, reading the documentation (and trying to understand its terminology) it only relates to Refugees and not asylum seekers. Further more my understanding is that they are deemed as ‘undocumented’ or ‘illegal’ if they have entered a country out of line with the countries policy.
As I say, I am happy to accept that my point was not 100% factually correct, but neither are yours. The problem is that the wording is very ambiguous and how do you define/determine a persons situation.
I think we, and the majority on this forum want a better system. It’s just doing it in a measured manner.
So aside from bashing the Tories you agree with my point?
Im guessing you’ve never needed a GP appointment, or tried to register as an NHS dental patient?
And you’re obviously not a younger person looking for local authority council housing?
As I have said before, there is more than enough money kicking around for all of that.
We just choose to deny ourselves nice things.
Much better to finance an inbred family who ride around cosplaying in a golden carriage, and to fund yachts in exchange for unusable PPE.
4 Likes
So that’ll be a no then 
This is similar to point I’ve been trying to formulate but have failed so have held off.
Basically, what is the ratio between investment in overseas development and internal investments. If Europe cared about real protectionism of its future “purity” you could argue that anything up to 50% of the budget should be going towards development of poorer areas.
Until non-log scale parity is reached there will always be a rationale to come to Europe.
Edit - was supposed to be a response to Mascot
Ive never bought that argument as if you get these immigrants housed and working you will see an increase in tax revenue which can then be used to improve the public services that are crying out for investment
3 Likes
I mean, where do you even fucking start.
3 Likes
Refugees are defined within the convention as someone that has been forced to flee their country of origin.
An asylum seeker is a person who is awaiting their resolution to a claim for asylum.
I’m not wrong. They are not illegal until their claim is rejected.
3 Likes
What are the grounds for claiming asylum, and when do they fit into the “economic migrant” bracket?
The 1951 convention defines it as “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”
2 Likes
So basically anyone from anywhere.
Maybe a 73 year old document needs updating?
I can only speak for myself, but I’d start with the Ballotine of Duck Liver with Damson Cherry and Pistachio, then move onto the Bresse Pigeon with Smoked Beetroot and Blackberry, and hopefully finish with the Chestnut Mont Blanc with Rum and Caramelised Pear.
5 Likes
Yes, that’s right. I’ve never been to a GP…
I do pay for the dentist, and I am fortunate enough to have never had to require social housing, though.
How do you get ‘anyone from anywhere’ from that definition?
2 Likes
Are you familiar with something called the ‘danelaw’. The Vikings swore by it 
1 Like