Starmer’s chronicles

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's clearly not a volume shifter as it's one in, one out. What do you think it was designed to do?

It’s not one in, one out though is it.

And as Starmer is celebrating one leaving, another thousand turned up.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Thank you for stepping up to the challenge which Old Boy has yet to take up.

However, your research does not answer my question below.

Why are we spending all that money putting them in four star hotels when every other country has them living in tents? No wonder they want to come here.

Where is the word "majority" in that quote?
There are numerous articles about EU countries having thousands of asylum seekers in tents.
Last year in Ireland

Hundreds of asylum seekers who were living in tents in central Dublin have been moved to two accommodation sites, the Irish government has said.
...
The Irish government said the encampment had been dismantled and all asylum seekers had now been moved to Citywest and Crooksling tented accommodation in County Dublin. A total of 186 applicants were taken to Citywest and a further 99 were accommodated at Crooksling.

The point being there should NO duty to house them at all. They were quite happy living in tents or worse, on their long journey, and didn't seek shelter(ie asylum) in any of the many countries they passed through.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It’s not one in, one out though is it.

And as Starmer is celebrating one leaving, another thousand turned up.

Yes it is. One lawful immigrant in and one unlawful one out. These two people are obviously not the only people emigrating from or migrating to, the UK.

---------- Post added at 22:12 ---------- Previous post was at 21:48 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Where is the word "majority" in that quote?
There are numerous articles about EU countries having thousands of asylum seekers in tents.
Last year in Ireland

Old Boy says they are being housed in 4-star hotel accommodation in the UK and in tents in the rest of Europe. This is clearly a flawed comparison which understandably he has not backed up with evidence. To your credit, you have tried to help him out with some anecdotal evidence.

In essence, hotels in the UK and Europe are used. All European countries seem to use a variety of accommodation.

Originally Posted by nomadking

The point being there should NO duty to house them at all. They were quite happy living in tents or worse, on their long journey, and didn't seek shelter(ie asylum) in any of the many countries they passed through.

How do you know that they were quite happy living in tents or worse?

Most do seek asylum in countries that they pass through, we don't take as many asylum seekers as our European peers. It's those with connections to the UK and other reasons who continue on here across the risky English channel. Of the top ten countries accepting refugees, only Poland, Turkey and Germany are in Europe and even Turkey is only partly in.
https://www.concern.org.uk/news/thes...-refugees-2023

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Yes it is. One lawful immigrant in and one unlawful one out. These two people are obviously not the only people emigrating from or migrating to, the UK.

---------- Post added at 22:12 ---------- Previous post was at 21:48 ----------


Old Boy says they are being housed in 4-star hotel accommodation in the UK and in tents in the rest of Europe. This is clearly a flawed comparison which understandably he has not backed up with evidence. To your credit, you have tried to help him out with some anecdotal evidence.

In essence, hotels in the UK and Europe are used. All European countries seem to use a variety of accommodation.


How do you know that they were quite happy living in tents or worse?

Most do seek asylum in countries that they pass through, we don't take as many asylum seekers as our European peers. It's those with connections to the UK and other reasons who continue on here across the risky English channel. Of the top ten countries accepting refugees, only Poland, Turkey and Germany are in Europe and even Turkey is only partly in.
https://www.concern.org.uk/news/thes...-refugees-2023

Can't see the word "all" in the quote either.
32,000 in UK hotels.
From the quoted article, the Irish moved them into tents.
Are they staying in hotels along there way here? Any evidence of that?
Germany's use of hotels seems to have been over 10 years ago and in a period of high demand. They tend to use large centres instead.
Link

The site already houses around 5,000 people in what are essentially shared tents in aircraft hangers.
...
In fact, the LAF currently plans to expand the Tegel facility to make room for 8,000 refugees, but that will only be possible until 2025

We don't have an automatic duty to house UK citizens, so why do we mysteriously have a duty to house asylum seekers.
There is the well known case of a family living safely in Turkey with a home, father with a job, etc, but they wanted to go to Canada, but Canada said no. They got in a dinghy to cross the Med and all but one of the family died as a result. How was that seeking "safety"?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Yes it is. One lawful immigrant in and one unlawful one out.

Are you just trying to be silly ? it was 1000+ unlawful in, not one.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Paul

Are you just trying to be silly ? it was 1000+ unlawful in, not one.

I'm sure that no one is being silly in this thread.

The policy I've described is about swapping an unlawful migrant for a lawful one. Hence the agreement being nicknamed one in, one out.

There's thousands more emigrations and immigrations, lawful and unlawful taking place every day.

No one is pretending otherwise. Unlawful immigration by boat which Farage et al focus on is a very minor portion of immigration into the UK.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...est-statistics

[Sephiroth]

Much better from Andrew.

Doesn't alter the risks of the baddies among the 37,000 and the seriously unfair use of funds to house and service the 37,000 at the expense of our own, paid up citizens.

It's the 37,000 that matter.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Much better from Andrew.

Doesn't alter the risks of the baddies among the 37,000 and the seriously unfair use of funds to house and service the 37,000 at the expense of our own, paid up citizens.

It's the 37,000 that matter.

37,000 - a drop in the Ocean (no pun intended)

37,000 for 5 years on the trot (with no end in sight) is more of a concern

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm sure that no one is being silly in this thread.

The policy I've described is about swapping an unlawful migrant for a lawful one. Hence the agreement being nicknamed one in, one out.

There's thousands more emigrations and immigrations, lawful and unlawful taking place every day.

No one is pretending otherwise. Unlawful immigration by boat which Farage et al focus on is a very minor portion of immigration into the UK.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...est-statistics

Lawful? These are the actual criteria.

ARTICLE 12
Admission Obligations of the United Kingdom
1. The United Kingdom agrees to provide a voluntary application route for entry to the United Kingdom for a Third Country National who is not a family member of an EEA national enjoying free movement under Union Law (“the relevant Third Country National”), and who meets the following criteria:
a. the relevant Third Country National is on the territory of France at the time they make their application for entry into the United Kingdom; and
b. the relevant Third Country National falls within a capped number of applications to be determined by the reciprocal nature of this Agreement.

Boils down to, they are in France and make an application there.
If they want to come to the UK, but have relatives in the EEA, they simply won't tell anyone about them.