UK Politics Thread (Part 3)

[Dane]

@Noo_Noo

I want controlled immigration

As do most people.
Yet anyone who even suggests there should be caveats in place, is all too often labelled far right/racist/Farage follower.

[Noo_Noo]

Sadly it often is because that exact language you’ve quoted is not used. Most often its something crazy like shooting boats, streets in Leeds that dont speak English, Turkish barbers and so on. The discussion is never sensible, especially when dinghies are brought into it because of the reasons I mentioned in posts above.

For example
https://x.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/1849548642706772003

Thanks @Livvy for posting in the US election thread

[redfanman]

@Lynch04

So does the UK have a proper process in place?

for the third time, yes.

@Lynch04

Is it adequate?

Well, as I have already said it has been under resourced over a period in which ancillary support has also been under resourced. As a process, it’s largely fine. Can always be improved upon and there will have been recent events it will have needed to adapt to as there will be in the future. Proper government focus will also help.

@Lynch04

As you said it has been under funded since 2010, a couple of quid chucked into it over the last few months doesn’t fix it, surely?

You’ll also have noted then that I said that more needs to be done and it was a step in the right direction.

[Mascot]

@Dane

You do know there is middle ground between people with racist mindsets and people who campaign or protest to allow ALL migrants entry regardless of background or circumstances?

Politically, that ‘middle ground’ has been dragged massively to the right to the point where what now passes as a reasonable position on immigration would have been considered pretty horrific a couple of decades ago.

[Cologne-Liverpool]

Personally think current international asylum convention will fall like a card house, after one or two major countries will abandon it. Poland is already going down that road.
Hope I’m wrong, it’s a major human achievement.

[Dane]

I’m talking about people in general, not politicians.

[Noo_Noo]

Even better would be having no need for it but you know… @cynicaloldgit can finish this off.

[Mascot]

@Cologne-Liverpool

Personally think current international asylum convention will fall like a card house, after one or two major countries will abandon it. Poland is already going down that road.
Hope I’m wrong, it’s a major human achievement.

Then people will largely ignore it and just move anyway. Climate change is going to spark waves of migration that we are totally unprepared for. It’s going to be biblical.

[Mascot]

@Dane

I’m talking about people in general, not politicians.

I think it works either way. What openly racist, right wing politics has done is give people permission to drag their opinions to the right too.

[Dane]

@Mascot

@Dane

I’m talking about people in general, not politicians.

I think it works either way. What openly racist, right wing politics has done is give people permission to drag their opinions to the right too.

Or perhaps, maybe just maybe, most people are capable of forming their own thoughts and opinions.

[Noo_Noo]

Meanwhile in the US Trump might become president again.

You sure they can safely form well thought out opinions?

And of course we gave Boris a hugd 80+ seat majority, all based on a lie.

Yeah, no.

[Dane]

@Noo_Noo

Meanwhile in the US Trump might become president again.

You sure they can safely form well thought out opinions?

And of course we gave Boris a hugd 80+ seat majority, all based on a lie.

Yeah, no.

Fair point.
We even voted in Starmer and his entourage of scheming liars.

Well 33% of 60% did

[Lynch04]

@redalways

By whom, the ones who choose to reply with snarky responses congratulating themselves on their supposed moral superiority and completely ignoring the facts, calling others pedantic when called out on that?

Maybe that does happen, if you are referring to me, then I apologise if I have come across in that manner. You could however question the irony in your comment.
In the post I was replying to, you said;

@redalways

You ignore the fact that the “problems” regarding immigration are constantly blown out of proportion or even manufactured (see the asylum system backlog) to create precisely that kind of perception to keep or get right-wing parties in power.

Stating that I ignore ‘the fact’ is a bit condescending and could be seen to be taking the moral high ground. Especially, when the whole of your comment is opinion based.

@redalways

Again, who’s ignoring facts apart from the usual trolls? As far as I can see, everyone else is, and has been debating with their opinions based on their interpretation of facts.

Well, I have provided figures of the rise in popularity of Right Wing parties across Europe.
Your response was to dismiss “the facts” as sensationalised stories, and manufactured to create outrage. Irrelevant of whether the stories are true or not, or have a hidden agenda, a lot of people relate or buy into this.

@redalways

Which issue? “Immigration” in general is such a nebulous problem. Is it a problem of the numbers of migrants? Is it a problem of the integration of migrants? Is it a problem with illegal immigration? Is it a problem with the asylum system? Is it a problem with principles? Is it a problem with how principles are applied? Is it a problem with supposedly incompatible cultures?

The main issue that I see is that the “issues” are ill-defined, and the right-wing rags use it to just generate a general xenophobia and borderline racism. Can’t call them brown people or Pakis? We’ll just tar them all with the brush of being “Muslim” then.

You tell me. I don’t know the breakdown of why people have concerns with Immigration.
But I am pretty sure they are not all white and racist, and further more have no problem with the concept of immigration. But maybe, you can just Tar them all as Neo-Nazi’s.

My GF is Black, African and has finally got her British Passport. I am not going to put words in her mouth but she has concerns about immigration, from both sides.

@redalways

Ask me again when I have had the time to dig out the research showing (a) the pure numbers of headlines over the last few years demonising immigrants and Muslims, (b) the sociological research/polling showing that anti-immigrant attitudes correlates negatively with the ethnic diversity in a area, and (c) the research connecting the rise of far-right support with the volume of anti-immigrant rhetoric.

I would not expect anything different regarding a)b)c).

Thank you for the link, I will take a look when I get a chance

[Lynch04]

@Noo_Noo

Oh boy. You are confusing completely different things, exactly as the RW press and Tory mp’s and Farage want you to.

An asylum seeker is NOT an immigrant. They are seeking asylum. Under international law ANYONE can seek asylum in ANY country that has signed the 1951 convention.

So questions. As the uk is a founding member of the 1951 convention, how does someone running from Afghanistan claim asylum in the UK while on the run?
Second, how do they get here without those hunting them knowing or preventing them from doing so?
Thirdly, how does the UK know who is running, wanting asylum here, where they are, why they are running before they even get here?

Now in the absence of all the above, because I already know there are no answers to the above, if someone that wants to enter the UK under the radar for whatever reason then that is a completely different issue but then the question how do you identify and seperate one from another?

The whole system is fine but open to be twisted through misinterpretation and misdirection exactly as has geen done. The UKs failure to
address the fundamental issues has left ut wide open to this abuse from racists, those seeking to create anger and division, criminal gangs and so on.

Oh boy .

@Lynch04

Asylum Seekers are defined differently, in that they are claiming persecution, etc (similar to a refugee) but their case has to be decided upon. Due to differing factors.

Where have I stated that they are an immigrant.

Again, the 1951 convention refers to ‘Refugees’, so it does not apply to everyone wanting to enter another country.

Points 1, 2 and 3, are kind of rhetorical. Is it answered in the 1951 convention?

[Lynch04]

@Mascot

I don’t know if this is what you are getting at, but you can, of course enter a country illegally, and be deemed an illegal immigrant.

I know, which was what I was trying to explain to @Noo_Noo

@Mascot

The point, which I’m not sure if you understand, is that as soon as a person claims asylum, then they are entitled to leave to remain and have their asylum claim processed. It is not legally possible to be an ‘illegal asylum seeker’.

A bit condescending.
Actually, what I don’t understand is why you felt entitled to educate me on something that you assume I don’t understand.

Anyhow, just to clarify. If an Immigrant enters the country illegally, therefore without a right to do so.
Not a refugee.
Not seeking Asylum on the basis of various grounds.
Not having the required paperwork.

Are they an illegal Immigrant?

[Noo_Noo]

@Lynch04

They are illegal if they have entered a Country against its said policies.

Illegal immigrants in the [UK] include those who have:

• entered the [UK] without authority
• entered with [false documents]
• overstayed their [visas]
• worked or studied on a tourist visa/ non-immigrant vi
• entered into forced or fraudulent marriage
• had their marriages terminated or annulled

If you enter the UK ‘irregularly’, in other words crossing a countries international border without the required authorisation or documentation it is illegal.

Your original post on the matter where you clearly assume that everyonevarriving on a boat is an illegal immigrant because they have arrived by unorthadox means.

So my question to you is, how do you know?

[Cologne-Liverpool]

Kinda wondering what the percentage of people is who enter ‘illegally’ by boat and then for some reason don’t even try to claim asylum.

[Noo_Noo]

Zero I bet.

But if they claim asylum have they entered the country illegally?

No, not until their claim has failed.

[Mascot]

@Dane

Or perhaps, maybe just maybe, most people are capable of forming their own thoughts and opinions.

That is hardly the point. Social attitudes studies show that post Brexit, public attitudes on race, nationalism and populism have lurched to the right.

You’ll always have people with dodgy opinions, but the last few years have seen a marked emboldening of people’s confidence to form and air openly racist and xenophobic views.

[Cologne-Liverpool]

Well, exactly. It seems to me that some people think you can tell whether people’s claims are ‘legitimate’ just by having one good look at them.