Brexit

What exactly is our fair share in your eyes though? We have around the same population as France for example but France has way more land. We have a housing crisis here because we struggle to build enough houses for our current population and the houses we are building are not only being crammed so much that residents in London in 1666 would complain that things were too cramped but it's taking up more and more of our green space.

We can't just take anyone who wants to come here. Currently, the UK has 272 people per square km and if we just take England which is where most of them will land its 424 people per square km (Scotland and Wales have way more space but when you consider the majority of Scotland's population is in that Glasgow to Edinburgh corridor it tells you about how unappealing most of Scotland is as a place to live and work). We need to be more selective about who is legitimate and who will benefit the country and we certainly can't just accept illegals who can't be arsed to try and come here correctly, who would rather pay criminals to smuggle them in before they disappear into the black economy so are just a drain on society as they give nothing back.

If we are to be doing anything it should maybe be giving more to support countries with the space to take way more people like France with their 118 people per sqr km or Spain with their 92 so there can be less justification for them basically just shipping them across the border to the next country like is happening. In fact maybe we need a central fund that everyone contributes to based on their GDP and countries are given grants from that based on how many they have taken in so the countries have more encouragement to take in what the available space allows

 

A big part of that though is we can't deport them because the extreme left who are generally rich enough to not live near where they are housed so having people whose applications have been rejected or rescinded often because of criminal actions doesn't matter to them; are happily bringing injunctions to stop them from being deported because hey their right not to go back and maybe getting killed is more important than protecting innocent tax paying Brits. And many of the things that are being used to have these injunctions happen are things Labour put in place under Blair (most likely led by his bitch of a wife). So you can't just blame the Tories.

 

If you are arriving on a dingy you arent genuine, you are a criminal and should be sent back to the shit-hole country they fled, because you are trying to enter a country illegally you have given up your right to get asylum not just in the UK but any country. The law is pretty simple, you enter a safe country and then stop. From there you can then apply for Asylum in a country of your choosing and you wait where you are while your application is processed. You are a criminal the minute you choose to move from that safe country. What we have though is countries that are entry points are taking other countries' money that they pay them to help fund centres and camps to house them but then basically pushing them over their borders so it's someone else problem. We are paying the likes of Turkey money yet these people end up in France, where we are also then paying them a lot of money who are then basically handing them over to people traffickers to make it not their problem. TBH I wouldn't be surprised if various French officials are on the take from the traffickers because it's worth so much money to them both for the journey over and often when they get here as they generally have things over them that even if they get picked up and are granted asylum they are often forced into the black economy to 'pay them back'.

And as I've said we can't send them back because do-gooders start screaming about Human rights even when the person in question is a murderer or rapist. This is exactly why we need rules that let us kick them out right away because currently the second asylum application is considered it means expensive court case after expensive court case to remove them. It's also why in theory the Rwandan idea isn't a bad one, if you have a country that wants and needs these people and where we can help pay the country to support them for way less than it costs to keep them here and that country is safe for them then that's perfect (although we should be trying to filter out the bad apples and send those people back to their home country as no-one wants a bunch of low-life scum. They need people who will be productive citizens not criminals). The only problem is that perhaps Rwanda is the wrong country as our gov highlighted their human rights issues less than 2 years ago but there absolutely are countries out there than could do with the money and population boost to help them put together the infrastructure to bring the countries forward that they maybe wouldn't have otherwise.

Extreme is subjective, just like most of those labelled extreme-right aren't really extreme-right users. The line to me for when you enter extremism territory is when you start removing the rights of the masses for the minority. So in this case when you

• Force businesses such as Hotels to house people who illegally entered the country and pay them a rate well below what they would actually charge despite their costs being the same (and by all account maybe higher)
• Put them in Social Housing in a priority over actual residents of the country
• Giving them access to the NHS which is stretched and worst of all giving them priority to NHS dentists which the rest of us can't get. Why exactly should the rest of us be expected to pay many many times more to go private for dental treatment, its over £50 for me to have a checkup where if I could get an NHS spot it would be £23.50 for a checkup. If I needed a root canal its £64 on the NHS and nearly £400 on private. That's just wrong, especially when unlike them myself and many others in the same boat and have been paying taxes, which should be giving us more rights than them on these things.
• When their application is denied fighting it over and over again through the courts costs the country a fortune thus taking away money that could be spent on service for actual Brits. Or even to help make the actual asylum process for people who abide by the rules and apply in the first safe country better
• When you choose to fight to keep proven rapists and murderers in the country because their human rights would be at risk if sent back thus removing actual Brit's right to not be fecking raped or murdered by these scumbags.

If compulsory purchase orders were made to acquire some of the land owned by people like Cherrie Blairs and build asylum housing and then stick the people they have fought to keep in the country and watch how quickly they change their mind. It's like with Lineker, while at least he has actually taken 2 asylum seekers in but let's be honest here they were carefully hand-picked. One was a law student from Pakistan, the other a man from Turkey who was going to University to study with the hope of becoming a Rocket Scientist. Both countries they arrived from have somewhat more westernised values than those landing from the likes of Albania or Syria and neither is exactly your average person landing on these shores who really have no prospects. Oh and in both cases both applied and were accepted by the proper channels. Would he take in a group of Albinian or Syrian men with such different values and with no prospects in the way that many small communities are being forced to accept them right now? Like hell he would because the risk to him would be too high.

 

That's not true though, we were having issues with illegal immigration before Brexit too. The French have for a long time made it difficult for them to apply for Asylum in France. They require an address to start the process but many of them don't have an address. It's why coastal towns such as Calais were famous for their refugee jungles as these were people stuck in limbo where they couldn't apply to stay in France even if they wanted to stay in France. While many always intended to come to the UK (Some of these were turning down the limited refugee housing because to get the housing they needed to give their fingerprints which would have absolutely prevented them from applying for asylum in any other country) and while France has been forced to get rid of these they didn't really get rid of the people, they now just live in one of the many smaller ad-hoc migrant camps. France knew what they were doing they were pushing many even if they would have been happy in France to make the choice of living in these horrible camps or try their luck with the traffickers.

What Brexit has done though is make it more visible. It was more common for them to be smuggled in via Lorry and the likes. The Le Touquet agreement means that border control between the UK and France sees French border control being on the UK side and UK border control on the French side so when illegals were caught they are turned away before crossing the UK border so it was less noticeable. (And for the record they have to go through the border control of the country they are in and the one they are going to so there are two points of getting caught). And the reality was the limited checks that were happening due to open borders meant they were often sneaking through unnoticed and never entering the system, they just disappeared into the modern slavery of the Black economy

Now with the extra border checks due to Brexit its a more risky route so they have switched much more to Dingys because once they are on the water they either make it across unnoticed or they get picked up usually by the UK so get brought to the UK. As they generally get spotted and picked up and enter the system so its more noticeable and the figures look higher because of that but we really don't know how both now and before made it into the country unnoticed.

The only way Brexit has really had an impact is the part of the Dublin protocol that lets you return those who entered illegally back to the first member state that passed through but we were only doing that about 200 times a year before because it was only when there were raids on business that were part of the Black economy that we found illegals within UK borders that we could return and even then in those cases its often hard to prove what was the first member state so an agreement could be had of where they should be returned to.

You could argue Brexit has made things better because pushing people into the boats actually allows us a better idea of who and how many are entering illegally which makes it easier to manage everything around it and can reduce the chances of them getting stuck in modern slavery as that's much easier for the criminal gangs to do when the people are ghosts