|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 4, 2024 11:24:28 GMT
All the more reason not to fret so much about the few tens of thousands who arrive from France and worry instead about the hundreds of thousands (i.e. many millions) who have arrived and continue to arrive directly from Africa, the Middle East, the Subcontinent and the Far East.
Rather than the half a dozen or so dinghys with a few hundred on board, a dozen jumbos arrive everyday with another several thousand.
Tell me again why the former are a problem but the latter aren't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 4, 2024 11:45:34 GMT
All the more reason not to fret so much about the few tens of thousands who arrive from France and worry instead about the hundreds of thousands (i.e. many millions) who have arrived and continue to arrive directly from Africa, the Middle East, the Subcontinent and the Far East. Rather than the half a dozen or so dinghys with a few hundred on board, a dozen jumbos arrive everyday with another several thousand. Tell me again why the former are a problem but the latter aren't. Well you say 'a few tens of thousands' as if it's insignificant, but 30,000 illegals crossing the channel every year courtesy of the incompetent EU/French authorities, 40,000 projected for this year, and a hotel bill alone of £15 million a day, is not by any stretch of the imagination, insignificant. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 4, 2024 11:50:57 GMT
All the more reason not to fret so much about the few tens of thousands who arrive from France and worry instead about the hundreds of thousands (i.e. many millions) who have arrived and continue to arrive directly from Africa, the Middle East, the Subcontinent and the Far East. Rather than the half a dozen or so dinghys with a few hundred on board, a dozen jumbos arrive everyday with another several thousand. Tell me again why the former are a problem but the latter aren't. I suppose the channel is a direct measure and visual marker of the overall problem. I think most people who believe immigration at current levels, and probably at most historic levels as well, is bad for the country concentrate on both with the channel being indicative of how out of control it all is. There is also the argument that legal migrants are 'invited' although why a government of a country 'invites' on average well over 100,000 people annually it specifically stated it would not invite when seeking election is a strange turn of events and could be argued is treason of some sort. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 4, 2024 11:58:51 GMT
All the more reason not to fret so much about the few tens of thousands who arrive from France and worry instead about the hundreds of thousands (i.e. many millions) who have arrived and continue to arrive directly from Africa, the Middle East, the Subcontinent and the Far East. Rather than the half a dozen or so dinghys with a few hundred on board, a dozen jumbos arrive everyday with another several thousand. Tell me again why the former are a problem but the latter aren't. Well you say 'a few tens of thousands' as if it's insignificant, but 30,000 illegals crossing the channel every year courtesy of the incompetent EU/French authorities, 40,000 projected for this year, and a hotel bill alone of £15 million a day, is not by any stretch of the imagination, insignificant. I didn't use the term 'insignificant', that's something you have introduced to inflate the relative importance of the cross-channel flow. In reality it is more than an order of magnitude less significant than the flows arriving by other means.
I'm beginning to suspect it's not so much the channel flow itself that you find so irksome, but rather the belief you have arrived at that the French are putting one over on the hapless Brits, aided and abetted by the unelected Dictators in Brussels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 4, 2024 12:12:25 GMT
All the more reason not to fret so much about the few tens of thousands who arrive from France and worry instead about the hundreds of thousands (i.e. many millions) who have arrived and continue to arrive directly from Africa, the Middle East, the Subcontinent and the Far East. Rather than the half a dozen or so dinghys with a few hundred on board, a dozen jumbos arrive everyday with another several thousand. Tell me again why the former are a problem but the latter aren't. I suppose the channel is a direct measure and visual marker of the overall problem. I think most people who believe immigration at current levels, and probably at most historic levels as well, is bad for the country concentrate on both with the channel being indicative of how out of control it all is. There is also the argument that legal migrants are 'invited' although why a government of a country 'invites' on average well over 100,000 people annually it specifically stated it would not invite when seeking election is a strange turn of events and could be argued is treason of some sort. I'd just note that I've never seen the legacy media, let alone GB News or Nigel Farage for that matter, taking up station at Heathrow observing and noting the hordes of persons of colour admitted every day through the 'Non UK Channel' (or the 'UK' one).
We all remember Nige standing sentinel on the White Cliffs not too long ago reporting on the numbers of dinghy paddlers arriving.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 4, 2024 12:29:11 GMT
I suppose the channel is a direct measure and visual marker of the overall problem. I think most people who believe immigration at current levels, and probably at most historic levels as well, is bad for the country concentrate on both with the channel being indicative of how out of control it all is. There is also the argument that legal migrants are 'invited' although why a government of a country 'invites' on average well over 100,000 people annually it specifically stated it would not invite when seeking election is a strange turn of events and could be argued is treason of some sort. I'd just note that I've never seen the legacy media, let alone GB News or Nigel Farage for that matter, taking up station at Heathrow observing and noting the hordes of persons of colour admitted every day through the 'Non UK Channel' (or the 'UK' one).
We all remember Nige standing sentinel on the White Cliffs not too long ago reporting on the numbers of dinghy paddlers arriving.
Which is my point, the channel is a visual representation of the out of control situation and has the potential to be enormous. I think Nigel has referred to large scale immigration on numerous occasions in many locations and watching a plane load of people coming in, many of whom may already be UK citizens, is not the same as watching a boat where we know that they are all illegal migrants. There is also the fact that the illegal migrants cost far more from day 1. Spo it is a bigger problem in terms of direct cost which most people understand directly. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 4, 2024 12:36:36 GMT
I didn't use the term 'insignificant', that's something you have introduced to inflate the relative importance of the cross-channel flow. In reality it is more than an order of magnitude less significant than the flows arriving by other means. I'm beginning to suspect it's not so much the channel flow itself that you find so irksome, but rather the belief you have arrived at that the French are putting one over on the hapless Brits, aided and abetted by the unelected Dictators in Brussels. You certainly gave the impression that 'a few tens of thousands' were insignificant. And of course the EU and French are 'putting one over' on us. Can you for one moment imagine the reaction if tens of thousands of illegals were crossing the channel, in the opposite direction? I imagine the famous gallic shrug as they wave dinghies away to Angleterre would very quickly be replaced with absolute outrage followed by an immediate emergency debate at the EU Commission, appeals to the ECHR and representations to the UN. The EU and French are very relaxed about illegals leaving the EU for the UK. It would of course be completely different if the flow was in the opposite direction. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 4, 2024 13:43:31 GMT
And why shouldn't they be relaxed about illegals leaving for the UK? Wouldn't you be if it was the other way round?
But I think you're right. The French wouldn't just roll over and ask for a tummy tickle if the shoe were on the other foot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 4, 2024 13:48:01 GMT
I'd just note that I've never seen the legacy media, let alone GB News or Nigel Farage for that matter, taking up station at Heathrow observing and noting the hordes of persons of colour admitted every day through the 'Non UK Channel' (or the 'UK' one).
We all remember Nige standing sentinel on the White Cliffs not too long ago reporting on the numbers of dinghy paddlers arriving.
Which is my point, the channel is a visual representation of the out of control situation and has the potential to be enormous. I think Nigel has referred to large scale immigration on numerous occasions in many locations and watching a plane load of people coming in, many of whom may already be UK citizens, is not the same as watching a boat where we know that they are all illegal migrants. There is also the fact that the illegal migrants cost far more from day 1. Spo it is a bigger problem in terms of direct cost which most people understand directly. As a great Englishman once said 'Numbers are of the essence'.
I suspect even Nige might privately agree that admitting a million or so 'legals' every year is a much more damaging affair than 50,000 illegals.
You're probably correct though, your average punter is too thick to make that connection which is why Nige & Co. don't make a fuss about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 4, 2024 14:41:26 GMT
France does not have a point. The EU spent years encouraging mass migration from the middle east and Africa, and the French look the other way as tens of thousands of illegals, in broad daylight, drag dinghies down French beaches en route for England. This massive problem was designed and implemented from Brussels, with the full support of the French. Our unregulated jobs market, free and easy access to welfare and total inability to deport anyone deemed to be here illegally show that France certainly does have a point. It is our systems and structures that are a massive draw for illegal migrants - it is not the weather. We are constrained by the same ECHR Laws as France, Germany and the rest of Europe. They have the ability to remove those deemed to be in their countries illegally - something even Priti Patel admitted at her pitch to become Conservative Leader. It is an economic CHOICE to NOT remove those immigrants. Because it depresses wages, and increases the cost of living, creating more profits for the Private Sector without any need for them to invest in improving goods or services. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 4, 2024 17:09:28 GMT
No - it's a political choice. Unfortunately left wing politics rule at the moment and the idea of deporting illegals is not very high on the priority list.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 4, 2024 17:20:18 GMT
Which is my point, the channel is a visual representation of the out of control situation and has the potential to be enormous. I think Nigel has referred to large scale immigration on numerous occasions in many locations and watching a plane load of people coming in, many of whom may already be UK citizens, is not the same as watching a boat where we know that they are all illegal migrants. There is also the fact that the illegal migrants cost far more from day 1. Spo it is a bigger problem in terms of direct cost which most people understand directly. As a great Englishman once said 'Numbers are of the essence'.
I suspect even Nige might privately agree that admitting a million or so 'legals' every year is a much more damaging affair than 50,000 illegals.
You're probably correct though, your average punter is too thick to make that connection which is why Nige & Co. don't make a fuss about it.
I beg to differ, your average punter is much more switched on that he is often given credit for. The illegals are noticeable in that they are spread nationwide so there is a direct effect on most. Most people I have spoken to over the years have found that immigration has a major effect on jobs and community, particularly from the late 2000s till Brexit Ref. It is largely why Brexit won as most people did not want their area turned into little Palestine, Little Poland, Little Bulgaria. They had already seen Little Somalia, Little Albania and often seen the politics of the rest of the world played out in microcosm on the streets of London often violently. I repeat Nigel refers to legal migration, and its ridiculous level, frequently but perhaps I listen more often as opposed to relying on the MSN to report accurately what Nigel says and does. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 4, 2024 17:44:15 GMT
I see that the French Coast Guard did come alongside this rubber boat when they saw it getting into trouble but only 6 migrants wanted to get off - the rest chose to stay aboard and continue to the UK.
Unfortunately staying aboard ended up being the wrong decision..
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 4, 2024 20:12:22 GMT
France has said we are to blame by having an unregulated jobs market, does that mean sweat shops? I don't often agree with France but they're right here. It's dead easy for illegals to work in the UK. And there are other pull factors: - The language (English is the second language of the world) - Incredibly generous conditions for illegals - 4 star hotels, free cash, phone etc etc. In France they get nothing. - Access to full benefits when the get permission to stay - including housing - Free access to legal aid to fight deportaton etc - Light touch policing which means that they get away with most crimes - etc We're a soft touch. . I couldn't disagree less. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Sept 4, 2024 20:22:39 GMT
No - it's a political choice. Unfortunately left wing politics rule at the moment and the idea of deporting illegals is not very high on the priority list. The boat people are the fault of Theresa May who forgot to include a returns policy in her withdrawal agreement .The previous agreement ended with us leaving the EU and should have been one of many red lines for any post Brexit deals . Another fuck up by the tories in 'getting brexit done' . But yes the left will be well happy with how its gone along with a green light to 'fix' any problems by falling back into the clutches of Brussels . We won a Battle in 2016 , the war is ongoing . |
|
