France and Germany also have such communities.
Germany take far more asylum seekers/ immigrants than we do in the UK, maybe France too but, I'm not certain ?

In the Tory press, this is portrayed as a UK only issue, when it absolutely isn't.

The whole concept of remaining in the country where you were born no longer seems to apply and in fairness, why should anyone settle with the hand they are dealt, if they believe they can have a better life elsewhere.

The problem is that it's people can see how other nations function (internet etc) and if they can, why wouldn't they try to improve their lot ?

The flip side being that the almost 8 billion people cant all live in the same place.

I just have done below if it helps and it's not my opinion it's a fact, It's not rocket science it's there for you if you care to research it though I doubt you have the capability, which side am I defending when I say it's easier to get asylum in the UK ? bet you've got plenty of O. levels

Yes they (France) do - significantly more.

They've got a lot more room. About half the population density of the UK and about a QUARTER of England

LOL is this the latest right wing statistic that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever?



Them furriners aren't welcome here. And it's ABSOLUTELY NOT because we can't stand the sight of them. No you see it's simply cos we're all living cheek by jowl here in the UK

Yet the facts do not support what you are saying.

1. High refusal rates

– The majority of UK asylum seekers’ claims (two in three) are turned down, the highest refusal rate in Europe. In Denmark, by contrast, four in five are successful.
2. Mistaken decisions

– A large number of initial decisions made by the Home Office on asylum cases are later found to be wrong. In 2016, the courts overturned Home Office decisions in 41% of asylum appeals.


What this shows is that 33% of those who arrive here via boats are accepted by the British Government , the British courts, the British civil service as being 100% Bona Fide asylum seekers .

Still let’s not let the boards little Tommy Robinson let facts get in the way of addressing the BIG problems that we face such as millions being unable to afford food, heating or proper beds for their children. It is all these forinners fault . Tommy, Farage , Bojo’s and wotsupcas’ arguement.

So 67% aren't genuine asylum seekers then? Many thanks for making my argument for me


Love the innuendo that objecting to illegal immigration makes me a knuckle dragging racist. Classy but not untypical of the left.

They do but they also have the unfortunate malady of speaking French and German which is a lot less attractive to someone who can speak their native language and English only. Add in the belief (correct or not) that their quality of life will be better in the UK I can see why someone who has been forced out of their own country is willing to take that risk.

I thought you said 100% were illegal therefore it doesn’t make your argument.

Strange then that only a tiny fraction try to come to the UK compared to the numbers who go to and stay in Germany and France.

I'm well aware. I'm offering an explanation as to why people would want to take the risk to get to the UK as opposed to staying in a safe EU country as there are some people who can't wrap their head around it.

Shameful.
Them poor migrants looking forward to their sunny African summer holidays.
The BigBird is still on the tarmac.
This one's going well.

The Government are pretty clueless what to do really and thought for one millisecond about asking Sir Keir and his mates for advice then realised they'd probably make a bigger cock up than them, maybe you've got a theory or two how to solve a pretty desperate situation instead of taking the pish.

I think you got him there.

Despite what your right wing newspapers will tell you this isn't a "pretty desperate situation" for the UK (although clearly it is for the poor souls risking their lives).

Performatively sending them, at huge cost, to a country with major human rights issues is just grist for right wingers who have long since lost their moral and fiscal compasses.

First of all I don't read newspapers so left or right they are not my newspapers, now that we're clear on that I'll ask you the same question as I asked old numb nuts, do you have a plan to sort out this problem which is clearly causing concern, or will you just revert to type and blame the government, I could accuse your mates of also being clueless as they for once don't seem to have a solution either, till I realised that Sir Keir (notice how I've spelt his name right) and his band of merry men & woman aren't your mates at all, just someone to help you berate this Government, can't wait till the loony left get in to see you siding with the Tories against them

You're deliberately framing the whole discussion in a silly way with starting points of, "this is a HUGE CRISIS!!!" and "well if you don't believe in illegally deporting people to Rwanda what is your solution? It's a HUGE CRISIS?!".

1. It's not a huge crisis.
2. Deporting people, at a huge cost, to a country we have ourselves said has human rights failings failings is not the solution on a cost or a legal or a humane level.

What is my solution?

1. Follow the laws and international agreements we have signed up to
2. Fund the asylum and immigration systems properly so that there aren't backlogs - this is a lot cheaper than the Rwanda plan
3. If people don't meet the criteria (which is a minority of applicants) deport them in line with our international agreements and commitments
4. Don't be racist, xenophobic, irrational or afraid. If the media you follow or the politicians you support are encouraging you to think that poor people, mostly of colour, with few possessions and no money are the biggest problem you're facing then step back and think maybe you're being played for a fool.

I am not being a racist, xenophobic or irrational, I am simply asking you to supply your own answers to the problem in hand which you can't do but simply trot out the usual stuff from the papers which Incidentally I have already told you I don't read nor do I support any politician which once again I have gone to some length to tell you that before now, so if you do not have a solution don't try the soft shoe shuffle with your innuendos about my non existing political leanings to sidestep your own ignorance on the matter, incidentally I see you've sidestepped my question on whether or not you'll still have the same opinions if Sir Keir gets in next time, just a thought really as you've probably a long time to think about it.

If Starmer creates policy for nothing but short-term political gain which directly targets some of the weakest, most powerless in our country then yes I will criticise him too. Likewise if he tries to undermine our democratic institutions and election processes, brings shame to our country on the world stage or breaks laws - civil, criminal or international.

The easiest option would be to set up legal sites in various countries to allow those wishing to apply to do so before they get to the channel. Their applications can then be approved or rejected. This would then indicate that those coming had been rejected or not applied making it easier to return them.
The problem is that the Home office is basically not fit for purpose with current applications taking too long and we don’t have legal routes in those countries where they are most needed.
I suppose it depends on the purpose of the flights and what type of the U.K. population they are trying to appeal to.
I hope that helps you Chissitt with an alternative or is this still not acceptable to you.

Well surprisingly enough it does, surely it's far better to find a decent solution than to blame the Government who clearly haven't got a clue, but that's just me talking because I also don't have a clue, maybe if the French and the English got together and between them sorted the smugglers out it might go a long way to solving the problem who knows, personally I would say the French are more to blame than us, but that's just my opinion.

You're saying you don't have a clue but think the French are to blame.
Seems about right

The only place that many can apply for asylum is once they arrive in the U.K. because the embassy’s are not authorised to handle asylum claims. The problem then is that to get to the U.K. by plane you need a visa and to get one you need to be authorised to enter. This is therefore entirely the government’s fault because it basically does not currently have a system in place, just look at the mess they made in Afghanistan and Ukraine.
The further problem is that our Home Secretary is pretty much disliked in the majority of countries including France which she admits to no longer having any sort of contact with.
I guess those that believe the government’s stance do so because it panders to what they want to hear.

it is a distraction tactic from party gate and multiple other law breaches the current gov have made.

Everyone's entitled to have an opinion even if they admit to not having a clue.
It's called bellendery.