|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Sept 17, 2023 16:46:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Sept 17, 2023 16:49:25 GMT
Of course Labour can point out the laughable “tens of thousands” Tory “limit” which has been breached every year since they first announced it in 2010.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roxy on Sept 17, 2023 16:51:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Sept 17, 2023 16:54:10 GMT
Of course not. There should never be a set number. You have no idea how many genuine claims you may have to meet under your commitments to treaties the country is signatory too, or how many people may need to come in if wages don't rise. The Conservatives were idiots to say they'd get it down to under ten thousand or 100k whatever the number was, you just give a stick to be beaten with.
What do you do with the next asylum seeker when the number is reached? tell them to fuck off?
Would be very surprised if the Conservatives gave a number either now they've learnt their lesson, it's a stupid question asked because they know politicians cannot answer it, just clickbait stuff.
Anyway, what immigrants, the ones we import for cheap labour? the ones who are asylum seekers? Until people have a sensible discussion about types of immigration and what is and isn't acceptable then it's all just about winding people up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Sept 17, 2023 16:59:32 GMT
Of course not. There should never be a set number. You have no idea how many genuine claims you may have to meet under your commitments to treaties the country is signatory too, or how many people may need to come in if wages don't rise. The Conservatives were idiots to say they'd get it down to under ten thousand or 100k whatever the number was, you just give a stick to be beaten with. What do you do with the next asylum seeker when the number is reached? tell them to fuck off? Would be very surprised if the Conservatives gave a number either now they've learnt their lesson, it's a stupid question asked because they know politicians cannot answer it, just clickbait stuff. Anyway, what immigrants, the ones we import for cheap labour? the ones who are asylum seekers? Until people have a sensible discussion about types of immigration and what is and isn't acceptable then it's all just about winding people up. The Tory limit was expressed as “tens of thousands”, so effectively 99,999. That was for total net immigration, not just asylum seekers. The proposed exchange scheme by Labour involves only Asylum Seekers. |
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Sept 17, 2023 17:10:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Sept 17, 2023 21:05:27 GMT
Of course not. There should never be a set number. You have no idea how many genuine claims you may have to meet under your commitments to treaties the country is signatory too, or how many people may need to come in if wages don't rise. The Conservatives were idiots to say they'd get it down to under ten thousand or 100k whatever the number was, you just give a stick to be beaten with. What do you do with the next asylum seeker when the number is reached? tell them to fuck off? Would be very surprised if the Conservatives gave a number either now they've learnt their lesson, it's a stupid question asked because they know politicians cannot answer it, just clickbait stuff. Anyway, what immigrants, the ones we import for cheap labour? the ones who are asylum seekers? Until people have a sensible discussion about types of immigration and what is and isn't acceptable then it's all just about winding people up. 100% garbage. There's no way you can manage any operation, including a country, if you don't plan the numbers in advance. You think the doors should be open to as many genuine cases as there are but then you'll moan like buggery about services not being planned properly for, as if the immigration numbers should have been known and planned for in advance. So if you're going to leave the door open, stop moaning about services not being there. |
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Sept 18, 2023 0:00:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Sept 18, 2023 2:28:13 GMT
Of course not. There should never be a set number. You have no idea how many genuine claims you may have to meet under your commitments to treaties the country is signatory too, or how many people may need to come in if wages don't rise. The Conservatives were idiots to say they'd get it down to under ten thousand or 100k whatever the number was, you just give a stick to be beaten with. What do you do with the next asylum seeker when the number is reached? tell them to fuck off? Would be very surprised if the Conservatives gave a number either now they've learnt their lesson, it's a stupid question asked because they know politicians cannot answer it, just clickbait stuff. Anyway, what immigrants, the ones we import for cheap labour? the ones who are asylum seekers? Until people have a sensible discussion about types of immigration and what is and isn't acceptable then it's all just about winding people up. 100% garbage. There's no way you can manage any operation, including a country, if you don't plan the numbers in advance. You think the doors should be open to as many genuine cases as there are but then you'll moan like buggery about services not being planned properly for, as if the immigration numbers should have been known and planned for in advance. So if you're going to leave the door open, stop moaning about services not being there. A Romanian friend of mine got sick of waiting for treatment on the NHS, so she flew back to Romania and got it done there. Our health service is shitter than that of a country made up of exclusively of gypsies and car thieves. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Sept 18, 2023 2:30:22 GMT
Because they can't. Back in the EU we have an open border and the Germans just love importing half of Africa. Anyone they give residency to can come to the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Sept 18, 2023 6:25:38 GMT
100% garbage. There's no way you can manage any operation, including a country, if you don't plan the numbers in advance. You think the doors should be open to as many genuine cases as there are but then you'll moan like buggery about services not being planned properly for, as if the immigration numbers should have been known and planned for in advance. So if you're going to leave the door open, stop moaning about services not being there. A Romanian friend of mine got sick of waiting for treatment on the NHS, so she flew back to Romania and got it done there. Our health service is shitter than that of a country made up of exclusively of gypsies and car thieves. Did you tell your Romanian friend that? |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Sept 18, 2023 8:54:24 GMT
A Romanian friend of mine got sick of waiting for treatment on the NHS, so she flew back to Romania and got it done there. Our health service is shitter than that of a country made up of exclusively of gypsies and car thieves. Did you tell your Romanian friend that? Tell her what? |
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Sept 18, 2023 9:38:15 GMT
A Romanian friend of mine got sick of waiting for treatment on the NHS, so she flew back to Romania and got it done there. Our health service is shitter than that of a country made up of exclusively of gypsies and car thieves. Did you tell your Romanian friend that? The Romanian already knew... Pst, there is now also a business case for Britons who cannot wait any longer for their treatment to travel to one of the Balkan countries (Hungary, Czechia) or one of the Baltics (Estland,...) - travel, papers, treatment (hip, knee, teeth,...), hospital, hotel, rehab - all inklusive! Reducing NHS backlog by self-privatization and off-shoring. The money stays in the EU though... |
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Sept 18, 2023 10:10:47 GMT
Of course not. There should never be a set number. You have no idea how many genuine claims you may have to meet under your commitments to treaties the country is signatory too, or how many people may need to come in if wages don't rise. The Conservatives were idiots to say they'd get it down to under ten thousand or 100k whatever the number was, you just give a stick to be beaten with. What do you do with the next asylum seeker when the number is reached? tell them to fuck off? Would be very surprised if the Conservatives gave a number either now they've learnt their lesson, it's a stupid question asked because they know politicians cannot answer it, just clickbait stuff. Anyway, what immigrants, the ones we import for cheap labour? the ones who are asylum seekers? Until people have a sensible discussion about types of immigration and what is and isn't acceptable then it's all just about winding people up. The Tory limit was expressed as “tens of thousands”, so effectively 99,999. That was for total net immigration, not just asylum seekers. The proposed exchange scheme by Labour involves only Asylum Seekers. But then you have situations like Hong Kong, where we arguably have a moral obligation and Ukraine where we wanted to "virtue signal" because they were the "right" type of people fleeing war. Limits just don't work as you never know what is around the corner. I would certainly like to see a day where NO economic immigration is needed and we provide great living wages and we fill all vacancies ourselves, whether that's possible within the Capitalism we work on where labour is exploited (remember P&O, a few years back?) is another matter, a properly run Country shouldn't need to be exploiting 3rd world economies for cheap labour. Get that sorted and you only have asylum seekers who's claims should be turned around in 6 months or less, just need to have the resources to assess those claims. |
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Sept 18, 2023 10:34:15 GMT
Of course not. There should never be a set number. You have no idea how many genuine claims you may have to meet under your commitments to treaties the country is signatory too, or how many people may need to come in if wages don't rise. The Conservatives were idiots to say they'd get it down to under ten thousand or 100k whatever the number was, you just give a stick to be beaten with. What do you do with the next asylum seeker when the number is reached? tell them to fuck off? Would be very surprised if the Conservatives gave a number either now they've learnt their lesson, it's a stupid question asked because they know politicians cannot answer it, just clickbait stuff. Anyway, what immigrants, the ones we import for cheap labour? the ones who are asylum seekers? Until people have a sensible discussion about types of immigration and what is and isn't acceptable then it's all just about winding people up. 100% garbage. There's no way you can manage any operation, including a country, if you don't plan the numbers in advance. You think the doors should be open to as many genuine cases as there are but then you'll moan like buggery about services not being planned properly for, as if the immigration numbers should have been known and planned for in advance. So if you're going to leave the door open, stop moaning about services not being there. What do you tell the first genuine asylum seeker who turns up after the number is reached?. We are signatory to international treaties which means we CANNOT refuse their claim. You refuse them entry then the country would lose the case in the courts whether those courts be world ones or English ones. So, you have your limit, what do you do? |
|
