For once and for all…..

astleyfox said:
Certainly not the intention. I asked the question because though peoples heads explode at every aggempt to limit illegal immigration, none have a semblance of an alternative.
Click to expand...
They don't have an alternative and don't claim to have one

They favour unlimited and unrestricted immigration be it legal or otherwise - they simply aren't brave enough to admit it or to sell us why this is desirable

All political parties agree with them
 
Pen4 said:
They don't have an alternative and don't claim to have one

They favour unlimited and unrestricted immigration be it legal or otherwise - they simply aren't brave enough to admit it or to sell us why this is desirable

All political parties agree with them
Click to expand...
Anyone agree with this?
 
astleyfox said:
Anyone agree with this?
Click to expand...
No, I’m not sure who he thinks ‘they’ are or why ‘they’ should all have the same opinion. Quite clearly not all, if any, political parties agree with it, country clearly couldn’t deal with unlimited and unrestricted immigration.
He believes everything he’s told by other bigots. He won’t even agree that some of those dining here have skills we may need. Sees them all as spongers.
 
The other night several of us had a discussion in the pub about asylum seekers and how many of them were single young men in their twenties. A theory was put forward(and I apologise if it has been mooted on here before) that a great way to infiltrate a country would be to supply young blokes with mobile phones(they all seem to have one) and pay the traffickers the money to ship them( apparently it costs thousands and if you are on the bones of your arse where does the money come from) over time you have a small army entrenched in a country and ready to be mobilised into terror cells.
The cost for Hamas/ Iran/Hezbollah/ and the rest would be minimal compared to fighting a full on war against the west.
We had an interesting debate!!
 
George Ferris said:
The other night several of us had a discussion in the pub about asylum seekers and how many of them were single young men in their twenties. A theory was put forward(and I apologise if it has been mooted on here before) that a great way to infiltrate a country would be to supply young blokes with mobile phones(they all seem to have one) and pay the traffickers the money to ship them( apparently it costs thousands and if you are on the bones of your arse where does the money come from) over time you have a small army entrenched in a country and ready to be mobilised into terror cells.
The cost for Hamas/ Iran/Hezbollah/ and the rest would be minimal compared to fighting a full on war against the west.
We had an interesting debate!!
Click to expand...
Why is there this belief that they should all be poor and not have any possessions? Owning a mobile phone isn't only for rich people, they can still be threatened with torture for their beliefs and have a full time job. Obviously, according to Pen4 they won't be capable of doing any job, they just come to scrounge benefits, although if that were the case, why don't they go to some of the other European countries where they get higher benefits?
 
George Ferris said:
The other night several of us had a discussion in the pub about asylum seekers and how many of them were single young men in their twenties. A theory was put forward(and I apologise if it has been mooted on here before) that a great way to infiltrate a country would be to supply young blokes with mobile phones(they all seem to have one) and pay the traffickers the money to ship them( apparently it costs thousands and if you are on the bones of your arse where does the money come from) over time you have a small army entrenched in a country and ready to be mobilised into terror cells.
The cost for Hamas/ Iran/Hezbollah/ and the rest would be minimal compared to fighting a full on war against the west.
We had an interesting debate!!
Click to expand...
Always have a mobile phone but somehow lose all identification documents on the trip to the UK. Says everything that you need to know about these benefit tourists
 
I'm not saying what's right or wrong, just that it would be an ingenious way of infiltrating a country(or continent).
Apparently it costs thousands to get across so the question is who pays?
 
I was at Stansted airport this week and noticed there is still a stand where people fleeing Ukraine can go to, to initially be processed and help offered. I’ve seen this stand many times but have never seen anyone approach it.
 
Pen4 said:
Always have a mobile phone but somehow lose all identification documents on the trip to the UK. Says everything that you need to know about these benefit tourists
Click to expand...
You are the guy on the right.
 

Attachments

  • FD1BEB08-F286-47D5-9F21-24090197FE7E.jpeg
    FD1BEB08-F286-47D5-9F21-24090197FE7E.jpeg
    148.4 KB · Views: 18
astleyfox said:
Can someone please tell me the answer to the controversial question of assylum/ immigration.
So that horrible racist Indian woman has had the tin tack, for wanting them to be sent to Rwanda. Every time I hear this argument, I ask those against such policies, “so how would you handle it”? So, that question goes out to Hackers, snitch Mistry et all. Usually, they open it up with, “Well, safe routes to apply, for a start”! That will need to be explained in full, if used.
Click to expand...
Here you go, educate yourself

www.against-inhumanity.org

Asylum Seekers Crossing the English Channel: Why Don’t They Stay in France? - By Marie Léveillé - United Against Inhumanity

“It is often claimed that asylum-seekers coming to the UK in small boats should have applied for asylum in France. In this article, Marie Leveille explains that most asylum-seekers reaching France stay in France, why those who cross the Channel do so, and shows that they have every right to make...
www.against-inhumanity.org www.against-inhumanity.org
 
This thread is like a cross section of the general public.
On one side we have those that think all asylum seekers are potential terrorist who throw their documents away. All males who are preparing for the next Jihad.
On the other side we have those who think that all of them are genuine and should be welcomed with open arms because our government are a bunch of cunts who make it virtually impossible for asylum seekers to gain legal entry into the UK and never the Twain shall meet and if you question anything then you’re a racist.
Fact is there’s truth on both sides of the argument and as long as any real discussion keeps getting shut down more and more folk are getting more and more concerned with the situation and siding with the hard line tactics this government is trying to employ with the help of the press.
 
Richardvanles said:
This thread is like a cross section of the general public.
On one side we have those that think all asylum seekers are potential terrorist who throw their documents away. All males who are preparing for the next Jihad.
On the other side we have those who think that all of them are genuine and should be welcomed with open arms because our government are a bunch of cunts who make it virtually impossible for asylum seekers to gain legal entry into the UK and never the Twain shall meet and if you question anything then you’re a racist.
Fact is there’s truth on both sides of the argument and as long as any real discussion keeps getting shut down more and more folk are getting more and more concerned with the situation and siding with the hard line tactics this government is trying to employ with the help of the press.
Click to expand...
Mostly agree with that, but I'm not in favour of unlimited immigration, and I don't think all of them are nice innocent people fleeing persecution. You'll always get people trying to take advantage of any system, the hard part is sifting them out.
 
Richardvanles said:
This thread is like a cross section of the general public.
On one side we have those that think all asylum seekers are potential terrorist who throw their documents away. All males who are preparing for the next Jihad.
On the other side we have those who think that all of them are genuine and should be welcomed with open arms because our government are a bunch of cunts who make it virtually impossible for asylum seekers to gain legal entry into the UK and never the Twain shall meet and if you question anything then you’re a racist.
Fact is there’s truth on both sides of the argument and as long as any real discussion keeps getting shut down more and more folk are getting more and more concerned with the situation and siding with the hard line tactics this government is trying to employ with the help of the press.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe any one here has said all of them are genuine - we’ve simply pointed out there’s a better & more humane way of dealing with them.

That we have a bunch of politicians willing to spend so much money on Rwandan flights & barges (most of which seems to end up in the pockets of their mates anyway) with all the effort of something worked out in 5 minutes in order to weaponise the issue, tells you everything.

And when you have a situation whereby people are openly saying just sink the boats, you have to wonder where that threshold ends up next.
 
Mistryman said:
I don’t believe any one here has said all of them are genuine - we’ve simply pointed out there’s a better & more humane way of dealing with them.

That we have a bunch of politicians willing to spend so much money on Rwandan flights & barges (most of which seems to end up in the pockets of their mates anyway) with all the effort of something worked out in 5 minutes in order to weaponise the issue, tells you everything.

And when you have a situation whereby people are openly saying just sink the boats, you have to wonder where that threshold ends up next.
Click to expand...
Not heard anyone say all of them are not genuine either.
Until concerns are properly addressed and not dismissed as folk just being racist I’ve a good idea where the threshold will end up.
Ignoring the law, their law I might add, with full support of a large majority of voters.
 
hackneyfox said:
Pen 4 puts up a laughing emoji if there’s a mention that some of them may have qualifications and skills we need.
Click to expand...
Qualifications and skills has nothing to do with whether they are genuine asylum seekers. Whatever genuine asylum seekers actually means. Personally i think their lives must be pretty shit if they’re prepared to jump in a shitty dinghy to try to get to the UK but what do I know.
 
Richardvanles said:
Qualifications and skills has nothing to do with whether they are genuine asylum seekers. Whatever genuine asylum seekers actually means. Personally i think their lives must be pretty shit if they’re prepared to jump in a shitty dinghy to try to get to the UK but what do I know.
Click to expand...
True in many cases, Dickie, but I say once again, where are they going to live?
 
hackneyfox said:
No, I’m not sure who he thinks ‘they’ are or why ‘they’ should all have the same opinion. Quite clearly not all, if any, political parties agree with it, country clearly couldn’t deal with unlimited and unrestricted immigration.
He believes everything he’s told by other bigots. He won’t even agree that some of those dining here have skills we may need. Sees them all as spongers.
Click to expand...
So, do you believe that if someone wants to come here they should be waved through?
 
astleyfox said:
True in many cases, Dickie, but I say once again, where are they going to live?
Click to expand...
I’ve no idea, if I had the answer I’d be sitting in the House of Commons getting blowies off Suella Braverman for solving all her problems instead of driving a fork lift around all day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top