OV9

It’s not an insult Duncs just an observation.

I think the way that people view immigration in this country is dangerous. As we see with the annual flare ups of violence against immigrants.

It’s fed by brutally anti immigrant rhetoric from the media and politicians but it’s a choice to believe it.

On the work thing Gav, my view is that if we actually processed immigration claims and let people work legally, there would be way less people willing to do the underground illegal work.

Given that it was this hostility to immigration that brought us Brexit, and everyone cites the economic fairness of migrants taking a share of UK taxpayer money, here's an interesting comparison:
Total cost of the UK asylum system: £1.5bn
Cost to British business in additional regulation and admin resulting from Brexit: £7.5-8.1bn (as part of an estimated wider cost to the British economy of £150-200bn)

Maybe, just maybe, if you had taken some of that lost money and spent it on a *better* asylum system - you know, one that assessed people in weeks rather than years, allowed them to make applications from outside the UK, and treated them like actual human beings - rather than blaming all of societies failings on "others", we might not have whipped up all that irrational and unfounded hostility in the first place

ZedLeg wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 8:11 am It’s not an insult Duncs just an observation.

Perhaps I'm not intelligent enough to know an insult when I see one.

I don’t know why you’ve taken it so personally but apologies if I gave the impression that I was having a go at you specifically.

ZedLeg wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 8:11 am
On the work thing Gav, my view is that if we actually processed immigration claims and let people work legally, there would be way less people willing to do the underground illegal work.

I agree on that - my criticism is very much that the government is woefully bad at processing and dealing with asylum seekers and that's what allows the criminality to flourish. My lodger reckons it's common for a delayed asylum application to take up to 18 months, during which time they are supposedly meant to just sit in temporary accomodation twiddling their thumbs on £50 a week benefits. Of course they look for other ways to make money during that time - hence the crime gangs facilitate that need.

Gavster wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 7:54 am The asylum space has been infiltrated with criminality, just not the violent kind that Dave is talking about. Uber Eats riders, corner shop workers, cleaners, labourers, prostitutes, car wash attendants. Many of these workers are doing this work under the supervision of organised groups for cash while actively delaying their asylum claims. My lodger is a migrant and knows this labour market well, he has friends who work in it.

I do think the way that all asylum seekers are treated as having de facto noble intent to seek a better life can be a little misplaced. While it is true that they are often running away from atrocities or persecution which is a valid claim for asylum, that doesn't automatically equate to respect for a destination country. When we did our Ukraine trip, my Russian gf was helping with translation at Przemyśl refugee camp. When Ukrainian refugees crossed into Poland they'd get taken to the camp to be routed to a destination country in Europe to live. Because so many EU countries had opened their borders to Ukrainian refugees, they had a choice, and their default first question was, without fail, "which country has the best benefits" - they were usually more interested in what they can take, rather than integration.

What question would you expect them to ask? They've just fled war with little or no possessions, little or no access to any resources (financial or otherwise), very limited knowledge about the countries they can choose to go too, and probably a language barrier on top.

It seems a very sensible and logical question to ask in trying to ensure some kind of near-term future. What the EU/we could have done is set a standard across the recieving countries so that there was no difference in that regard.

Genuine Question here - not looking to provoke, honestly.

Let's assume for a moment we invest in the Asylum system as Nef suggests. Applications can be made from abroad and decisions happen in days or a few weeks only and even, lets suppose, we provide assistance with travel costs (maybe similar to the Student Loan scheme) so successful applicants aren't still forced to cross on boats etc.

Here's the question - would applications be based on a Merit Based decision, regardless of the numbers who apply and meet the merit threshold or would there be some element of a numbers game which means some years, applicants who meet the merit threshold still fail and have to look to another country ?

duncs500 wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 8:00 am My main point is that I see a lot of rhetoric from both sides of the argument and I see things when I'm out in society, I think the reality of things is different and more complicated than what either side would have you belive.

It is interesting that you see my comments as from the "other" side. I have only stated the factual position on legal status, appealed that people should be viewed with a little empathy and as human beings in the first instance (rather than "illegals", or other similar performative term) , and suggested that the processing and housing system could be improved. Does that make me the "other side"?

dinny_g wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 9:16 am Genuine Question here - not looking to provoke, honestly.

Let's assume for a moment we invest in the Asylum system as Nef suggests. Applications can be made from abroad and decisions happen in days or a few weeks only and even, lets suppose, we provide assistance with travel costs (maybe similar to the Student Loan scheme) so successful applicants aren't still forced to cross on boats etc.

Here's the question - would applications be based on a Merit Based decision, regardless of the numbers who apply and meet the merit threshold or would there be some element of a numbers game which means some years, applicants who meet the merit threshold still fail and have to look to another country ?

In an ideal world, the issue of refugees should be dealt with at an international level, and based on the scale of the problem, countries agree to take a share - ultimately those people have to go *somewhere*.

Controversially, I might personally suggest that the numbers taken by each country should perhaps reflect the degree of profit each country has taken in supplying the weapons which enabled the conflicts in the first place.

I've said this loads of times on here but...

Peterborough had a brilliant intergrated population, lots of relatively poor, lots of immigration, Bangladesh, Indian, big Pakistani community, Chinese, Latvian, Polish etc etc.

Most of these were in Peterborough town and the Ortons where I lived. Now the amount had grown massively and in many ways rightly so it's seen as the crappest town in the UK. Big drug and corruption problem, the local government is particularly bad and the taxi system a laughing stock, inspections by post etc.

The reason we bought the house next door was because she was a good neighbour and was about to be kicked out, the council said she had to wait till she was physically removed and then they could put her up in a temporary place in Huntingdon. That's 31 miles away, no more nursery and no more school.

So when a group of people have come here, create problems locally, using up huge resources and you see people who have lived, paid taxes and done their best be put in much worse positions, I stop caring about what name I call them.

Go to A+E in Peterborough when an "official asylum seeker" is sent there and you will also see 2 police officers as they have been abusing so much and attacked them.

Plus Lincolnshire police investigated all the car washes about 4 years ago, 100% success rate for finding human traffickers. Every single one, it's why my old school friend fixes computers and phones instead of works in the police, he was tired of it all.

Dave!

As people have said, if we want people coming here to be productive members of society then we have to give them the opportunity to be productive.

If you warehouse people with nothing in areas that are already struggling with deprivation and poverty then you’re just going to exacerbate the issues.

Blaming the people who came here to improve their circumstances rather than the system holding them (and other poor people) down seems backwards imo.

Nefarious wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 9:42 am

dinny_g wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 9:16 am Genuine Question here - not looking to provoke, honestly.

Let's assume for a moment we invest in the Asylum system as Nef suggests. Applications can be made from abroad and decisions happen in days or a few weeks only and even, lets suppose, we provide assistance with travel costs (maybe similar to the Student Loan scheme) so successful applicants aren't still forced to cross on boats etc.

Here's the question - would applications be based on a Merit Based decision, regardless of the numbers who apply and meet the merit threshold or would there be some element of a numbers game which means some years, applicants who meet the merit threshold still fail and have to look to another country ?

In an ideal world, the issue of refugees should be dealt with at an international level, and based on the scale of the problem, countries agree to take a share - ultimately those people have to go *somewhere*.

Controversially, I might personally suggest that the numbers taken by each country should perhaps reflect the degree of profit each country has taken in supplying the weapons which enabled the conflicts in the first place.

I think you're sensible enough to understand that neither of these are achievable by any measure. At an international level, as the famous highland warrior Hamish so eloquently put it, "They cannae agree on the colour of shite"

So back to the question - Numbers (based on need) with Caps and limits or not ?

Because I think the answer, and the way the question is being mishandled by the major parties goes someway to explain the success of Reform.

Setting a cap just sets up the scenario for the next reform/ukip/restore etc grifter to say the cap is too high and we must reduce it imo.

Just evaluate the cases as they come and don’t leave people sitting in limbo for years on end seems like the best plan to me.

ZedLeg wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 10:21 am Just evaluate the cases as they come and don’t leave people sitting in limbo for years on end seems like the best plan to me.

But to the average "Man on the Street" or "Person on the Doorstep", that just sounds like a wishy washy, non committal response and in no way prevents "a free for all". etc etc etc

I think this is why Reform are making headway. The Major Parties are so hellbent in avoiding being labelled "Reform in Disguise" that they are playing into their hands.

Your point above, and Nef's previously require a sensible, measured consideration to be accepted and we all know the electorate is far from sensible and measured

Part of the problem we have just now is politicians chasing the vote of the worst opinion on the street imo.

It’s why Labour are chasing reform down a rabbit hole of blatant bigotry. We should stop pandering to those people.

ZedLeg wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 10:32 am We should stop pandering to those people.

That is, unfortunately, a fundamental part of democracy

It’s another choice though. In both the UK and US we’ve seen the mainstream assumed progressive parties vocally reject their progressive base to appeal to more conservative/regressive voters and I don’t think it’s been a success for either of them.

dinny_g wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 10:06 am

Nefarious wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 9:42 am

dinny_g wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 9:16 am Genuine Question here - not looking to provoke, honestly.

Let's assume for a moment we invest in the Asylum system as Nef suggests. Applications can be made from abroad and decisions happen in days or a few weeks only and even, lets suppose, we provide assistance with travel costs (maybe similar to the Student Loan scheme) so successful applicants aren't still forced to cross on boats etc.

Here's the question - would applications be based on a Merit Based decision, regardless of the numbers who apply and meet the merit threshold or would there be some element of a numbers game which means some years, applicants who meet the merit threshold still fail and have to look to another country ?

In an ideal world, the issue of refugees should be dealt with at an international level, and based on the scale of the problem, countries agree to take a share - ultimately those people have to go *somewhere*.

Controversially, I might personally suggest that the numbers taken by each country should perhaps reflect the degree of profit each country has taken in supplying the weapons which enabled the conflicts in the first place.

I think you're sensible enough to understand that neither of these are achievable by any measure. At an international level, as the famous highland warrior Hamish so eloquently put it, "They cannae agree on the colour of shite"

So back to the question - Numbers (based on need) with Caps and limits or not ?

Because I think the answer, and the way the question is being mishandled by the major parties goes someway to explain the success of Reform.

International agreements are often difficult, but to dismiss the concept out of hand as impossible is to deliberately turn a blind eye to the root causes. These are international problems requiring international solutions. Governments are quick enough to reach military, trade, financial agreements when they are incentiv used to do so, it's just about everyone accepting that these are problems that *have* to be solved, like food and energy security.

If I was being facetious, I might even suggest some sort of supernational body or union, perhaps at a European level, with elected representatives from each country, that could facilitate decisions like this for a better collaborative outcome on a continent-wide level.

DeskJockey wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 9:00 am

Gavster wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 7:54 am The asylum space has been infiltrated with criminality, just not the violent kind that Dave is talking about. Uber Eats riders, corner shop workers, cleaners, labourers, prostitutes, car wash attendants. Many of these workers are doing this work under the supervision of organised groups for cash while actively delaying their asylum claims. My lodger is a migrant and knows this labour market well, he has friends who work in it.

I do think the way that all asylum seekers are treated as having de facto noble intent to seek a better life can be a little misplaced. While it is true that they are often running away from atrocities or persecution which is a valid claim for asylum, that doesn't automatically equate to respect for a destination country. When we did our Ukraine trip, my Russian gf was helping with translation at Przemyśl refugee camp. When Ukrainian refugees crossed into Poland they'd get taken to the camp to be routed to a destination country in Europe to live. Because so many EU countries had opened their borders to Ukrainian refugees, they had a choice, and their default first question was, without fail, "which country has the best benefits" - they were usually more interested in what they can take, rather than integration.

What question would you expect them to ask? They've just fled war with little or no possessions, little or no access to any resources (financial or otherwise), very limited knowledge about the countries they can choose to go too, and probably a language barrier on top.

It seems a very sensible and logical question to ask in trying to ensure some kind of near-term future. What the EU/we could have done is set a standard across the recieving countries so that there was no difference in that regard.

I would expect questions about where there are notable Ukrainian-speaking communities, potential opportunities, education, working requirements etc.

I'm not challenging their migratory status, our responsibility to help and their right to claim asylum etc, I believe in all those things. This is simply a response to the idea that asylum seekers somehow have a halo around them. I'm just saying that through my work there and also locally at food banks, people who are seeking asylum or NRPF etc, their ambitions are a very mixed bag, some are amazing, but not all intentions are noble.

Nefarious wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 10:41 am International agreements are often difficult, but to dismiss the concept out of hand as impossible is to deliberately turn a blind eye to the root causes. These are international problems requiring international solutions. Governments are quick enough to reach military, trade, financial agreements when they are incentiv used to do so, it's just about everyone accepting that these are problems that *have* to be solved, like food and energy security.

But military, trade and financial arrangements are never unilateral - it is the rule, rather than the exception, that some support or participate and others do not. This would be no different and to pretend otherwise is just wasting valuable time in coming up with a sustainable long term solution. At least in my opinion