Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "UK immigration centre overcrowding: Home Secretary asked to act" video.

Of course they rightly point out that the system as it currently stands came from the EU which the UK was a member of for 9 of those 12 years. Of the remaining 3 years, 2 of those have been focused on CoVID. So in effect this is the first year they've actually had any real opportunity to do anything about the immigration system, and most of that time post CoVID has been taken up with stupid leadership contests.
5
@mwd331 Assigning blame is usually unhelpful. Assigning blame where it is not due is never helpful. While you're crying partisan politics, facts matter
3
@mwd331 Still pushing partisan politics and lacking nuance I see.
2
@christopherblackburn6811 The problem with your claim is that it's false. The EU's CEAS has been in place since 2005. It is governed by 5 legislative instruments; * The Asylum Procedures Directive * The Reception Conditions Directive * The Qualification Directive * The Dublin Regulation * The EURODAC Regulation CEAS is administered by The European Union Agency for Asylum. Furthermore, what you fail to have noticed is the major fraction of irregular crossings come from countries like Albania whom are either in the EU already or far along in the process into accession. Albanian gangs for example are noted for tricking or kidnapping tens of thousands of women annually and trafficking them to countries like the UK to engage in forced prostitution.
2
You're acting as if the word invasion has only one meaning @gordonstrong5232 when nothing could be further from the truth. From the OED. Invasion -- in-vey-zhuhn 1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army. 2. the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease. 3. entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists. 4. infringement by intrusion You may wish to pay close attention to definition entries, 3 and 4. Invasion is the correct word. Now that this ridiculous dispute about syntax has been settled, let's look to the rest of your comment. You're out here talking about 1.4 million job vacancies, whilst failing to acknowledge the industries and roles these vacancies are in. That's not 1.4M low and no skilled jobs, it's 1.4M highly skilled jobs that require years of tertiary training. A full list of the shortage industries and roles can be found on the UK gov site, but it includes roles like geophysics, civil engineers, health services MANAGERS, veterinarians, orchestrial musicians, etc. Economic migrants are moving on the basis that their homeland has no economy, and it has no economy because it has no highly skilled workforce. There goes that notion for needing them. The UK needs more unskilled labour like one needs a hole in the head. That is to say, not at all. But it doesn't just stop there, recklessly throwing open the borders as you advocate would collapse the UK economy overnight. You think cost of living is high under current inflation? You haven't seen anything yet compared to if the borders were thrown open as a grab all. Try actually understanding capitalism and economics. Immigration managed correctly brings great financial reward to a country, but it's a balancing act. Capitalism demands perpetual growth of population, so managing immigration means understanding natural growth (domestic births) and supplementing the number with well selected immigrants up to the point annual perpetual growth is achieved. Under or over even by a few hundred and you've got economic trouble.
2
@gordonstrong5232 Mate do you ever stop making stupid statements? You're completely out of your depth. An asylum seeker IS NOT the same thing as a refugee. An asylum seeker is granted the right to selection if passing through a transitory country. However, not all countries are signatories to the UDHR and thus do not have to obey it's rules. Furthermore, countries can for blocs (eg the EU), regional associations (eg ASEAN) or have private agreements regardless of whether they are all signatories to the UDHR or not. Lastly the UDHR and the UN charter that underlies it are both explicit that neither agreement undermines national sovereignty. In other words, it's up to each individual country as to whether they'll allow transit. A refugee is a LEGAL STATUS. It can ONLY be granted after an asylum claim has been made, processed and found to be valid under the definition in the country the claim was made in. If said country is part of a bloc or regional association whom have agreed to honour refugee status between members then that refugee status carries between the involved countries. For example, someone found to be a refugee in Greece is considered a legal refugee anywhere in the EU. However, where a nation does not share any such agreements with other nations, that refugee status applies ONLY in the host nation. If the refugee wishes to travel outside the host nation they would need either a special temporary travel visa on humanitarian grounds, or would need to claim asylum again. If the later they would have to claim asylum from their host nation and could not claim it from their original nation. Refugees are people whom have been processed and found to meet strict criteria. They have rights under international law. Asylum seekers are not refugees. They have few rights under international law. They are not the same thing and this is far from pedantic syntax. Calling an asylum seeker a refugee is like calling a house yours because you applied for a home loan you may not get.
2
@Jxotic631 Are you suggesting that the UK wasn't a part of the EU during the first 9 years the Tories were in office, and that CoVID didn't happen? Is that what you're suggesting?
1
@mwd331 lol. No such thing exists
1
Do you expect anything else from a system that has devolved into partisanship and power grabbing?
1
@gordonstrong5232 Whilst I was writing my above comment you went ahead and commented another stupid thing. You are correct that an irregular border crossing for the purpose of seeking asylum is not illegal. HOWEVER, what you seem to have completely missed is, that only applies to genuine asylum seekers as defined international and domestically. All persons outside of that definition, even where they have claimed asylum have made an illegal crossing. This is the purpose of "processing" claims and is defined internationally under the UDHR and in more detail in the 1951 Refugee Convention. Under international law an economic migrant seeking to abuse the asylum system has committed a crime. Latest government figures (2021) show of 37,562 applications in the 2020/21 reporting period, only 13,210 (35%) where given some form of leave to stay with 10,700 (28.49%) granted actual refugee status. In other words, 2/3rds of irregular border crossings resulting in an asylum claim where found to be not legitimate and thus ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. The figures for the 2021/22 report period are due next month. Try actually reading and understanding the law you crazy dolt.
1
Come off it@UCtL2Lacs-MB5m32g9Elk3Jw you know the home secretary was using the word invasion by definition 3, don't be intellectually dishonest. Who do you honestly think you're fooling? It's interesting that we've gone from 1,400,000 job vacancies for no skill migration to fill, down to a tenth of that. And of the 165K you're now talking about, you're underestimating the job skill levels. Then you want to talk about season jobs in agribusiness and out of desperation , you suggest subverting the skilled migration system and looking to the undeveloped and developing world to provide tertiary training for people whom speak little to no english and lack even a high school education (sometimes even lacking a primary school one). At tax payer expense no doubt. Perhaps if you were seeking to train a group of people at tax payer expense in order to fill the skills shortage, one might start with citizens on the dole. Leave the developing world to ... develop. They'll never get anywhere if all their citizens leave. Taxation from immigration only works so long as you keep immigration balanced and ensure you are highly selective of whom you allow in. Immigration is being used as a crutch to solve the aging population, but it's really a band aid solution that can't continue indefinitely. Globally the writing is on the wall for not only mixed capitalism, but all economic systems currently deployed anywhere. We need a new system that takes reducing or stable population into account. Not just to solve immigration, but to solve bigger international problems such as climate change, population density and crime. To continue to grow as a species, 5th waves economics demands a new system. In terms of selection of immigrants, an economic migrant attempting to make an illegal and irregular crossing has already demonstrated a weakness in character which makes them unsuitable/undesirable. That migrant has the option to apply through an existing, orderly system which evaluates them based on the value they provide to the economy, society and nation generally. Those whom would be denied under such application have already demonstrated they are not suitable. Gordon, to describe anything I've said as emotional can only be taken as facetious in nature. What I have done is falsified the dishonest claims you have repeatedly flogged on others in this thread. Yes, many of those claims are ludicrous and false on their face. That makes them stupid things to say. The facts do not support you Gordon. There is no genuine discussion if facts don't form it's basis.
1
@socialmeaslesinpartnership1252 Honestly I'm not entirely sure what that huge running sentence was about, but I'm quite sure if you got some fresh air it might help.
1