Latest immigration ploy!

[Pebble]

Did I hear it right? They're suggesting using ferries to store immigrants / asylum seekers on instead of hotels.

Brilliant idea, once they're all on board, set sail for somewhere else, ideally somewhere a very very long way away. Pity Rwanda is land locked. May be we could start using extra large jumbo jets....

[Pebble]

The use of hotels is a poor option anyway. It isn't great for those housed that way, and it deprives small tourism-dependent communities of tourists, with adverse effects on other businesses nearby. Three things are needed to get a grip on this. Firstly, a process for claiming asylum that can be accessed in France and other non-UK locations. Secondly, greater capacity in claim processing. And thirdly, a programme of building to provide decent medium term accommodation. The latter should be alongside a much larger programme of building social housing for established UK residents, to counter narratives about foreigners jumping the queue for homes.

Inward immigration is already necessitating that we build a city the size of somewhere like Derby or Southampton with all the schools hospitals and infrastructure once per year. It is unsustainable as it is, make inward immigration easier and simpler and we would need somewhere the size of Birmingham or even greater London every single year.

[pete75]

The use of hotels is a poor option anyway. It isn't great for those housed that way, and it deprives small tourism-dependent communities of tourists, with adverse effects on other businesses nearby. Three things are needed to get a grip on this. Firstly, a process for claiming asylum that can be accessed in France and other non-UK locations. Secondly, greater capacity in claim processing. And thirdly, a programme of building to provide decent medium term accommodation. The latter should be alongside a much larger programme of building social housing for established UK residents, to counter narratives about foreigners jumping the queue for homes.

Inward immigration is already necessitating that we build a city the size of somewhere like Derby or Southampton with all the schools hospitals and infrastructure once per year. It is unsustainable as it is, make inward immigration easier and simpler and we would need somewhere the size of Birmingham or even greater London every single year.

Could you tell me when and where all these new cities were built each year. I may have missed them, but don't recall any new city being built since Milton Keynes.

[pwa]

The use of hotels is a poor option anyway. It isn't great for those housed that way, and it deprives small tourism-dependent communities of tourists, with adverse effects on other businesses nearby. Three things are needed to get a grip on this. Firstly, a process for claiming asylum that can be accessed in France and other non-UK locations. Secondly, greater capacity in claim processing. And thirdly, a programme of building to provide decent medium term accommodation. The latter should be alongside a much larger programme of building social housing for established UK residents, to counter narratives about foreigners jumping the queue for homes.

Inward immigration is already necessitating that we build a city the size of somewhere like Derby or Southampton with all the schools hospitals and infrastructure once per year. It is unsustainable as it is, make inward immigration easier and simpler and we would need somewhere the size of Birmingham or even greater London every single year.

I agree that inward migration and outward migration need to be brought closer to a balance, but you seem to be assuming that the high inward migration is due to asylum seekers, which is what we are talking about here. Is that the case? Or is the imbalance due more to other forms of immigration?

[pwa]

The use of hotels is a poor option anyway. It isn't great for those housed that way, and it deprives small tourism-dependent communities of tourists, with adverse effects on other businesses nearby. Three things are needed to get a grip on this. Firstly, a process for claiming asylum that can be accessed in France and other non-UK locations. Secondly, greater capacity in claim processing. And thirdly, a programme of building to provide decent medium term accommodation. The latter should be alongside a much larger programme of building social housing for established UK residents, to counter narratives about foreigners jumping the queue for homes.

Inward immigration is already necessitating that we build a city the size of somewhere like Derby or Southampton with all the schools hospitals and infrastructure once per year. It is unsustainable as it is, make inward immigration easier and simpler and we would need somewhere the size of Birmingham or even greater London every single year.

Could you tell me when and where all these new cities were built each year. I may have missed them, but don't recall any new city being built since Milton Keynes.

I think the current excess (inward versus outward migration) is about 500 000 a year. But I doubt that asylum seekers are a dominant factor in that. Asylum applications are about a tenth of that figure.

[[XAP]Bob]

The use of hotels is a poor option anyway. It isn't great for those housed that way, and it deprives small tourism-dependent communities of tourists, with adverse effects on other businesses nearby. Three things are needed to get a grip on this. Firstly, a process for claiming asylum that can be accessed in France and other non-UK locations. Secondly, greater capacity in claim processing. And thirdly, a programme of building to provide decent medium term accommodation. The latter should be alongside a much larger programme of building social housing for established UK residents, to counter narratives about foreigners jumping the queue for homes.

Inward immigration is already necessitating that we build a city the size of somewhere like Derby or Southampton with all the schools hospitals and infrastructure once per year. It is unsustainable as it is, make inward immigration easier and simpler and we would need somewhere the size of Birmingham or even greater London every single year.

I agree that inward migration and outward migration need to be brought closer to a balance, but you seem to be assuming that the high inward migration is due to asylum seekers, which is what we are talking about here. Is that the case? Or is the imbalance due more to other forms of immigration?

The government disagree - inward migration is necessary for the function of our country.

[pwa]

Inward immigration is already necessitating that we build a city the size of somewhere like Derby or Southampton with all the schools hospitals and infrastructure once per year. It is unsustainable as it is, make inward immigration easier and simpler and we would need somewhere the size of Birmingham or even greater London every single year.

I agree that inward migration and outward migration need to be brought closer to a balance, but you seem to be assuming that the high inward migration is due to asylum seekers, which is what we are talking about here. Is that the case? Or is the imbalance due more to other forms of immigration?

The government disagree - inward migration is necessary for the function of our country.

You fall into the trap of discussing what to do with asylum seekers as if you are discussing what to do with all immigrants. Those are two separate but related issues. When they get conflated it results in asylum seekers being blamed for housing shortages, which is wrong when you consider that asylum applications per year are in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands.

[pete75]

Inward immigration is already necessitating that we build a city the size of somewhere like Derby or Southampton with all the schools hospitals and infrastructure once per year. It is unsustainable as it is, make inward immigration easier and simpler and we would need somewhere the size of Birmingham or even greater London every single year.

Could you tell me when and where all these new cities were built each year. I may have missed them, but don't recall any new city being built since Milton Keynes.

I think the current excess (inward versus outward migration) is about 500 000 a year. But I doubt that asylum seekers are a dominant factor in that.

Yes, but where are all these cities the poster claims are needed to be built each year?
Strange isn't it that one of the main claims of the Brexit campaign was that it would reduce immigration, yet it has increased greatly since we left the EU. Wonder just how many of the fabled 17 million were duped by that argument?

[pwa]

Could you tell me when and where all these new cities were built each year. I may have missed them, but don't recall any new city being built since Milton Keynes.

I think the current excess (inward versus outward migration) is about 500 000 a year. But I doubt that asylum seekers are a dominant factor in that.

Yes, but where are all these cities the poster claims are needed to be built each year?
Strange isn't it that one of the main claims of the Brexit campaign was that it would reduce immigrantion, yet it has increased greatly since we left the EU. Wonder just how many of the fabled 17 million were duped by that argument?

Theere is no hiding from the fact that more people need more housing and other facilities, so we cannot get away from a link between this contribution to population growth and the housing shortage. We need to build our way out of this problem, but continuiing this imabalnce in migration will just perpetuate the problem. And asylum seekers are just a small part of inward migration, and not where we should be looking for answers.

Speaking just for myself, I have never expected the Tories to have all the answers regarding migration, or anything else for that matter. Brexit supplied us with one key control over migration. But on its own that is not enough. We also need investment in our labour force, in training and attractive career structures, so that current UK residents want to become nurses or whatever, and have easy access to training. Only when things like that are in place can we become less dependent on imported talent. It is complicated and long term, and I don't think the Tories have even started the job.

[pete75]

Speaking just for myself, I have never expected the Tories to have all the answers regarding migration, or anything else for that matter. Brexit supplied us with one key control over migration. But on its own that is not enough. We also need investment in our labour force, in training and attractive career structures, so that current UK residents want to become nurses or whatever, and have easy access to training. Only when things like that are in place can we become less dependent on imported talent. It is complicated and long term, and I don't think the Tories have even started the job.

Personally I care little where a nurse is from as long as she is competent and has a good manner dealing with patients. You obviously do.

[roubaixtuesday]

Brexit supplied us with one key control over migration.

The iron law of Brexit applies: voters will get the opposite of what they were promised. See also "control", fish, NHS funding, trade etc etc etc.

The thing is, Brexit did nothing (save tanking the economy) to reduce the drivers of immigration.

Ergo, one way or another, that immigration will continue. It'll just be more from more distant, less culturally similar places and won't come with the same quid pro quo of free movement. This is precisely what we've seen to date and it will continue.

[reohn2]

Brexit supplied us with one key control over migration.

The iron law of Brexit applies: voters will get the opposite of what they were promised. See also "control", fish, NHS funding, trade etc etc etc.

The thing is, Brexit did nothing (save tanking the economy) to reduce the drivers of immigration.

Ergo, one way or another, that immigration will continue. It'll just be more from more distant, less culturally similar places and won't come with the same quid pro quo of free movement. This is precisely what we've seen to date and it will continue.

Spot on!
Yet to hear some people talk,exclusively those who voted for it,Brexit has been,or at least will be,a success

[ossie]

HMP Weare was a prison ship in Portland for about four years till about 2006. I was faintly amused when l read it was refurbished to house oil workers in Nigeria and would accommodate 500 rather than the 400 prisoners it had held.

Yes and having visited on several occasions through my work it wasn't actually that bad. This was a temporary measure under a Labour Government and it did a job. As for asylum seekers, I think if you're desperate enough to try the channel in a rubber boat, a ferry in the UK is probably the least of your concerns until your case is heard.

[Bonefishblues]

Brexit supplied us with one key control over migration.

The iron law of Brexit applies: voters will get the opposite of what they were promised. See also "control", fish, NHS funding, trade etc etc etc.

The thing is, Brexit did nothing (save tanking the economy) to reduce the drivers of immigration.

Ergo, one way or another, that immigration will continue. It'll just be more from more distant, less culturally similar places and won't come with the same quid pro quo of free movement. This is precisely what we've seen to date and it will continue.

Spot on!
Yet to hear some people talk,exclusively those who voted for it,Brexit has been,or at least will be,a success

I think that the definition of success varied, that was the issue. I still remember a chap who, when interviewed and when presented with the likelihood that he would be poorer as a result, thought for a while and then agreed with the proposition the interviewer put to him that on balance it was a price worth paying.

But I really do think he got, in the Northern vernacular that's sometimes best, bugger all in return.

[reohn2]

The iron law of Brexit applies: voters will get the opposite of what they were promised. See also "control", fish, NHS funding, trade etc etc etc.

The thing is, Brexit did nothing (save tanking the economy) to reduce the drivers of immigration.

Ergo, one way or another, that immigration will continue. It'll just be more from more distant, less culturally similar places and won't come with the same quid pro quo of free movement. This is precisely what we've seen to date and it will continue.

Spot on!
Yet to hear some people talk,exclusively those who voted for it,Brexit has been,or at least will be,a success

I think that the definition of success varied, that was the issue. I still remember a chap who, when interviewed and when presented with the likelihood that he would be poorer as a result, thought for a while and then agreed with the proposition the interviewer put to him that on balance it was a price worth paying.

But I really do think he got, in the Northern vernacular that's sometimes best, bugger all in return.

The Brexit it cult rumbles on and fools even seemingly astutely aware people from all walks of life,but it's the rich have gained from it.