International News Immigration

Isle of Wight Yellow said:
I’ve seen all those things talked about.

I never understand this thing where if something is brought up (and both sides do it, to be fair) someone always goes ‘Oh yeah?! So you don’t care about THIS, then?!’

You can care about more than one thing at once. You can choose to discuss something, while accepting that there are other things going on - maybe even more important things.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

Frustrations get in the way particularly when we are constantly told what a big issue immigration is for the UK( with one of the lowest intake world wide) and from a single piece on the BBC we are told there is a pandemic of crime stemming from bad lawyers doing this sort of scam.

To be clear the BBC found 1 woman doing this.
There will be more but they have evidence of one.

From 1 bad lawyer I have heard Reform this morning at about 8:30 radio 4 suggesting that anybody coming here to claim asylum based on religious or sexual orientation should be turned away. And that any lawyer not proven but thought to be supporting illegal applications like this be charged.

Let that sink in…… any lawyer not proven to be acting illegally charged……….

5 years ago that would have been headline news and it won’t get a sniff today.

We live in dangerous times.
 
Sadly, whenever there is money to be made, you will always get some shysters looking for ways to fill their boots no matter what the ethics. Preying on people's desperation, and looking to take advantage of the situation to further their own greed. That's why Reform UK are polling so high these days.
 
Marston Road Yellow said:
Fair enough.

Frustrations get in the way particularly when we are constantly told what a big issue immigration is for the UK( with one of the lowest intake world wide) and from a single piece on the BBC we are told there is a pandemic of crime stemming from bad lawyers doing this sort of scam.

To be clear the BBC found 1 woman doing this.
There will be more but they have evidence of one.

From 1 bad lawyer I have heard Reform this morning at about 8:30 radio 4 suggesting that anybody coming here to claim asylum based on religious or sexual orientation should be turned away. And that any lawyer not proven but thought to be supporting illegal applications like this be charged.

Let that sink in…… any lawyer not proven to be acting illegally charged……….

5 years ago that would have been headline news and it won’t get a sniff today.

We live in dangerous times.
Click to expand...

For the 473rd time I have no issue with controlled, documented, legal immigration.

I have a huge issue with illegal,corrupt, undocumented, unfettered immigration.

That is it.
 
Matty Greens Left Boot said:
I think you're wasting your time keeping repeating yourself. Some people never listen
Click to expand...

It`s almost as if I would like the UK to be like pretty much every other independent country in the world and have a robust border where we can let in the people you want or need and keep the rest out.

Who would have thought it so simple? 🤷‍♂️
 
Marston Road Yellow said:
And that any lawyer not proven but thought to be supporting illegal applications like this be charged.

Let that sink in…… any lawyer not proven to be acting illegally charged……….
Click to expand...

So I'm on your side most of the time, MRY......but the above doesn't seem that scary to me. In fact, it seems like standard practise.

For the CPS to charge someone with a crime, they have to believe that a) there is a realistic prospect of conviction, and b) it's in the public interest to charge this person. That's all. There's no 'beyond reasonable doubt' provision for someone to be charged, only for a conviction.

Almost by definition, they can't prove someone guilty before they charge them......because the whole point of charging them is to then prove them guilty in court after that.

If they have some evidence that the lawyers in question have been advising their clients to defraud the immigration system, then they should charge them. And then they can use the time between now and the trial (during which the lawyer in question will be out on bail) to investigate further and build a better case.

But maybe I've just watched too many episodes of Law & Order........
 
Essexyellows said:
For the 473rd time I have no issue with controlled, documented, legal immigration.

I have a huge issue with illegal,corrupt, undocumented, unfettered immigration.

That is it.
Click to expand...
For someone who has "no issue with legal immigration" you don't half go on about it a lot.

(I'm sure if I could be bothered to go back through your regular "look everybody, an immigrant committed a crime - ALL IMMIGRANTS ARE BAAAAD" posts, I'd find some that involved legal, documented, immigrants. But I'd need a shower afterwards and you aren't really worth the effort.)
 
I personally don’t understand how people will happily put up with their tax money going to put ILLEGAL migrants up in hotels. There are bigger issues in this country that need putting first. I truly believe no one here is saying they don’t want skilled and workers coming over to help the country. But some people fail to see/understand the difference. Of course, the hateful rhetoric spread by some parties doesn’t help but the illegal migration levels in the UK are factually unsustainable!
 
Last edited:
Yellowcruncher65 said:
I personally don’t understand how people will happily put up with their tax money going to put ILLEGAL migrants up in hotels.
Click to expand...
Because in the grand scheme of things it costs the country the square root of f**k-all, and because if you don't house and feed them you get a crime wave and that costs more in the long run.

Oh, and basic humanity of course. And it's "ex-hotels", not "hotels". Sharing a functional room with a bunch of strangers in a decommissioned ex-Travelodge doesn't sound that appealing to me.
 
Last edited:
HayfieldYellow said:
For someone who has "no issue with legal immigration" you don't half go on about it a lot.

(I'm sure if I could be bothered to go back through your regular "look everybody, an immigrant committed a crime - ALL IMMIGRANTS ARE BAAAAD" posts, I'd find some that involved legal, documented, immigrants. But I'd need a shower afterwards and you aren't really worth the effort.)
Click to expand...

Worth the effort to reply though?

Aside from that its the illegal aspect I vehemently oppose, as would any sensible individual.
 
tonyw said:
So I'm on your side most of the time, MRY......but the above doesn't seem that scary to me. In fact, it seems like standard practise.

For the CPS to charge someone with a crime, they have to believe that a) there is a realistic prospect of conviction, and b) it's in the public interest to charge this person. That's all. There's no 'beyond reasonable doubt' provision for someone to be charged, only for a conviction.

Almost by definition, they can't prove someone guilty before they charge them......because the whole point of charging them is to then prove them guilty in court after that.

If they have some evidence that the lawyers in question have been advising their clients to defraud the immigration system, then they should charge them. And then they can use the time between now and the trial (during which the lawyer in question will be out on bail) to investigate further and build a better case.

But maybe I've just watched too many episodes of Law & Order........
Click to expand...
I get what you’re saying but how would a solicitor know if someone was or wasn’t gay?

There isn’t some telltale sign that confirms someone’s sexuality.

The assumption is that the solicitor is aware of the person’s honesty.

My concern is that a solicitor is walking a legal tightrope which could loose them their freedom if they accidentally represent the wrong person?

Would that not make it neigh on impossible for a gay person to get legal representation for their immigration application in the basis of their sexuality?

It is a tricky one but I’d still rather not have swathes of innocent solicitors being jailed than 1 or 2 dodgy ones operating freely
 
Essexyellows said:
For the 473rd time I have no issue with controlled, documented, legal immigration.

I have a huge issue with illegal,corrupt, undocumented, unfettered immigration.

That is it.
Click to expand...
Weird how you replied to me with a statement getting irate about something I never raised, on an issue I was responding to someone else with.

You utterly ignored the post where I asked you to not put words in my mouth as I pointed out that those you overtly supported managed to get, through their actions, the boat crossings underway.

I full well know your position on immigration you have expressed it many times.


I wonder if you sometimes accidentally punch yourself in the face?
 
Yellowcruncher65 said:
the migrations levels in the UK are factually unsustainable!
Click to expand...
That's simply not true. Immigration is necessary to keep the British economy on an even keel - it supports care workers, NHS, fruit pickers, vegetable growers, the construction industry, etc. All of which sectors have suffered from labour shortages since Brexit (wonderful idea, wonder who thought up that bollox) and which rely on sustained immigration levels to keep going. In addition, migrants contribute not just to the national economy through the taxes they pay, but also to local economies through recycling the majority of their wages in local shops, pubs, etc. The levels of migration since Brexit actually need increasing to prevent the British economy from falling off a cliff
 
Symp59 said:
What a load of Tosh 🤣🤣🤣
Click to expand...
What is?

That the UK has one of the lowest immigration levels in Europe, that the UK needs immigration to survive, or that Brexit has been a catastrophe for the UK?

These are facts. Like them or not.

The suggestion is that we are about £225bn worse off per year because we got our county back.

But you keep waving your little flag….
 
Marston Road Yellow said:
What is?

That the UK has one of the lowest immigration levels in Europe, that the UK needs immigration to survive, or that Brexit has been a catastrophe for the UK?

These are facts. Like them or not.

The suggestion is that we are about £225bn worse off per year because we got our county back.

But you keep waving your little flag….
Click to expand...

If you think that is a fact I think you need to look up the definition of the word, its a statement of opinion.
 
Marston Road Yellow said:
Apologies you’re right.

Do you think we don’t need immigration at all to survive then?
Click to expand...

I don't think we need large scale immigration to survive.

I think only a very strange person is against low to mid level immigration, a country keeps it character and those people add to it, while also assimilating to the native population overtime, everyone's a winner. I guess the real argument is what that level is and how you police it.
 
holdsteady said:
I don't think we need large scale immigration to survive.

I think only a very strange person is against low to mid level immigration, a country keeps it character and those people add to it, while also assimilating to the native population overtime, everyone's a winner. I guess the real argument is what that level is and how you police it.
Click to expand...
I think we’re actually agreeing to some point here, and I don’t think too many on here disagree that immigration needs to be managed.

I would also agree that it’s the level, and the support given when they do arrive that causes the most angst.

The numbers have to be realistic, agreed and communicated properly with the general public.

There also has to be a middle ground from giving way too much and enough to survive without the need to resort to crime, begging etc.

I’m not necessarily saying it’s too high or too low at the moment on either point, I just think that the narrative has to move on from immigration is bad and immigrants are bad to something far more grown up, realistic and less nasty.
 
Marston Road Yellow said:
I get what you’re saying but how would a solicitor know if someone was or wasn’t gay?

There isn’t some telltale sign that confirms someone’s sexuality.

The assumption is that the solicitor is aware of the person’s honesty.

My concern is that a solicitor is walking a legal tightrope which could loose them their freedom if they accidentally represent the wrong person?

Would that not make it neigh on impossible for a gay person to get legal representation for their immigration application in the basis of their sexuality?

It is a tricky one but I’d still rather not have swathes of innocent solicitors being jailed than 1 or 2 dodgy ones operating freely
Click to expand...

Speaking as fellow leftie type...

Surely that's down to implementation?

I don't think anybody is suggesting that a solicitor who gets duped once should get exactly the same punishment as someone who makes their living by facilitating criminal immigration.

And we all know that if a system can be abused for personal gain then some will always do so. The disagreement seems to be how many do.
 
m said:
Speaking as fellow leftie type...

Surely that's down to implementation?

I don't think anybody is suggesting that a solicitor who gets duped once should get exactly the same punishment as someone who makes their living by facilitating criminal immigration.

And we all know that if a system can be abused for personal gain then some will always do so. The disagreement seems to be how many do.
Click to expand...
I get that but I suppose my point is more that if you were a solicitor and someone asked you to represent them as being gay through an immigration process would your reaction not be “no thanks”?
 
Last edited:
Marston Road Yellow said:
What is?

That the UK has one of the lowest immigration levels in Europe, that the UK needs immigration to survive, or that Brexit has been a catastrophe for the UK?

These are facts. Like them or not.

The suggestion is that we are about £225bn worse off per year because we got our county back.

But you keep waving your little flag….
Click to expand...
Is it a suggestion, or a fact? I can't tell.

Funny how so many on this thread can't accept a democratic vote. They will come along and say everyone was lied to, which may well be true, but we're lied to during every GE campaign, but those same people will defend their party until their blue in the face. Quite amusing.
 
Carpy said:
Is it a suggestion, or a fact? I can't tell.

Funny how so many on this thread can't accept a democratic vote. They will come along and say everyone was lied to, which may well be true, but we're lied to during every GE campaign, but those same people will defend their party until their blue in the face. Quite amusing.
Click to expand...
I accept a democratic vote. What I said was that it had been a catastrophe for the UK which under every measure it has been.

Funny how some people won’t read what is written then go off on a tangent that doesn’t match what has been written.

Very amusing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom