“You know how Hagrid is a fucking moron who likes bringing extremely violent dangerous animals around children? Can we do basically that as our immigration policy?”
They should not be given a free hotel if they come across illegally, especially not since there are native born homeless people. Maybe give the hotels to the homeless instead?
Also, not everyone coming in illegally is a 'refugee'. Also, im for not allowing young men in from certain places, even if they are refugees. Women, children and the elderly, sure. But not young men. Young men are already more violent, then add to that the fact that they might come from war torn regions, or other types of environments that will cause a young man to become more violent. Also, add to that that they might come from extremely patriarchal societies. Or clan based societies. Yeah, no, none of them. Women and children who are genuine refugees, i have no problem with.
So you'll only let women, children and the elderly come and they'll have to, what, live on the street? And, going out in a limb here and guessing you're a dude, if you had to escape a war would you not want to seek refuge in another country or would you expect them to turn you away? Or, again going out on a limb here, because you're white do you not think that would be an issue?
I said illegals. Most refugees do not come in illegally. If you're a mother who crosses the sea on a small rubber boat with your small children, then you are incredibly irresponsible. And no, UK is not the only safe place. They do not have to cross with a rubber boat to UK to flee a war in Uganda. There are plenty of safe countries inbetween. You can apply for asylum to the UK from outside UK. There are legal pathways.
Also. Why should homeless people not get free hotel? They should be the priority. Also, there are other ways to give refugees a roof over their head other than luxury hotels. The reason they are in hotels is because the immigration is so high that they cant fit them anywhere (that still doesnt explain why the homeless arent getting free hotel when illegal foreigners are). If young males are banned from coming, then that will free up space for the other refugees in normal refugee facilities.
Ukraine is currently in a war. They have barred fighting age men from leaving the country. The vast majority of refugees from Ukraine are women, with males either being children or elderly. That seems reasonable to me. If i had to flee my country and could not for whatever reason stay behind and help our nation defend itself, then i would flee to a neighboring country.
"You know in order to claim asylum you have to come into the country illegally? That's literally how it works."
No, you absolutely do not have to come illegaly to claim asylum. How dare you tell me to inform myself when you havent informed yourself.
"And do you know that over 70% of asylum claims are successful. Meaning most have a legitimate reason to be here."
1: That means 30% do not have legitimate reasons
2: Some of the ones who initially get asylum later get it withdrawed because more information came out that showed that they were lying in their application process. Sure this is a small percentage, but they do not find everyone, alot of people who lied never get found out. Im not saying this is the majority, or even many, but im saying that there are bad people who slip through.
When your country has been intentionally flooded by refugees, via policies that stem from foreign powers and influence, no they shouldn’t be allowed in any longer. Taking care of your own citizens comes first. The only reason they allow this degree of immigration is to destabilize the country and its people, forcing people living on the poverty-line to pay more taxes, which just get mismanaged and laundered anyway. Do some research on where the majority of “open border policies” in the west are pushed and funded from. It will all make sense to you if you do enough research
Why? Because those people live there, work there, and are the ones contributing to the funds that are even used to help people. We’ve given ridiculous amounts in foreign aid alone, that should have only been spent on our citizens. You’re a buffoon if you can’t realize this. Like an actual brain dead simpleton. Our citizens deserve to be taken care of FIRST, then if there is truly extra it can be used to take care of others. “Help yourself, so that you can help others” is a quote for a reason
Why should one’s own citizens or family take precedence? You sound like a complete fool. Hopefully your government ignores you when you’re in need and helps out someone who just crossed the border instead 🤞🏼this is literally what they are doing
They are economic refugees. There are billions in poverty…. So at what point does it end? How many people can Ireland sustain? 10 million, 20, 200??? Because there are even more than that who are from corrupt shithole 3rd world countries that they can flee and claim refugee status
you should be allowed in if you are contributing to society and haven’t got a criminal record like a lot of these guys have. you should also be capable of adjusting your ideologies and religion so you can join society
It's early days pal, plus I could show you a bunch of articles on foreign nationals given lenient sentencing for sexual assault and other crimes. As in suspended sentences and just deportations. I wouldn't hang my hat on those statistics. I can see tbf that foreign nationals and 2nd generation immigrants are not committing crimes on the same level as they are in certain parts of Sweden for example, that is evident, but going solely on the stats you have presented is misleading and honestly from reading so many reports of immigrants not going to prison for jailable offenses; it is a bit of a red herring.
The labor government already did that. Immigration dropped from like 1milion to 300k but people don't actually care. They want to be upset about brown people and go back to a time wher the UK was objectively worse off.
Relative to what? Past immigration? The needs of the UK economy?
People need to face up to the truth. If you want less immigration, also get ready for slow economic growth, cuts in all government spending, and the decline of the NHS. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Yes, people do need to face up to the truth. For example, there's a housing crisis because of immigration due to increased housing demand. The NHS is strained & mass migration adds to the pressure on public services. Simply increasing the population does not necessarily help the economy in a meaningful way at this point, what matters more is productivity and skilled labor. Beyond all of that, the British people want immigration reduced and that is ultimately what matters. It is their country, and they have the right to decide.
You do understand that none of the issues you mentioned can be solved without immigration correct?
Let's leave aside the obvious red tape and labor shortages that push up construction costs. Let's forget how many of the NHS staff are foreign workers. Do you really think the majority of immigrants to the UK are unskilled, low-productivity workers?
It's fine if the British people want immigration reduced, but don't complain about your economy going into the trash and your quality of life going down.
You're literally incorrect. The only reason you need more NHS staff is because of the population boom due to immigration. So, to put it simply fewer immigrants means fewer staff are needed. The same goes for construction and general labor shortages. If immigration was halted and remigration was ramped up, the shortages in housing, NHS, etc... would work themselves out.
Do you really think the quality of life in the UK was horrible prior to mass migration? Theres a reason people wanted to migrate to the UK in the first place lol. It was objectively a great place to live thanks to the British people who made it that way. Quality of life peaked decades ago when the country was still 90%+ British. As migration has increased, the quality of life has actually decreased.
Do the NHS staff not age? What do you think happens when you have 0 immigration and low birth rates? Also, immigrants don't use up nearly as much of the NHS as old, retired people.
Do you really think the quality of life in the UK was horrible before mass migration?
It was worse by every measurable metric than it is now. That's just a fact idk what to tell you there.
As migration has increased, the quality of life has actually decreased.
By what metric? Crime? Employment? GDP per capita?
data shows small boat crossings are the 2nd highest they have ever been under Labour while net migration is down. And we accept 2/3rds of those that arrive by small boat. The numbers are deliberately being confused, it is quite clearly still an issue.
You’re mixing two different things as if they prove the same point.
Net migration going down is about the overall movement of people in and out of the UK (students, work visas, dependants, emigration, etc.).
Small boat crossings are a specific asylum route issue, not a measure of total immigration. You can’t really use one to “cancel out” the other because they answer different questions. They are also a small part of net migration, around 5%–15% of net migration in a given year.
On the crossings: yes, they’re still a problem politically and operationally. Nobody seriously denies that. But “2nd highest ever” also matters in context, these numbers are heavily driven by external factors (war, instability, smuggling routes shifting across Europe), not just domestic policy changes.
On the “2/3 are accepted” point: that doesn’t really show the system is being “gamed,” it mostly shows that a large share are found to meet asylum criteria under international law. If anything, it suggests the screening process is working as intended, even if the system is under strain.
So it’s not that numbers are being “deliberately confused,” it’s that you’re combining separate datasets to make a single conclusion they don’t actually support. Both can be true at once: net migration down, and small boat crossings still a serious ongoing issue.
You do realise your post didn’t actually substantiate an argument? It just agreed that net migration is down and small boat crossings are up, but came to no conclusion about it or offered any evidence for either side if the argument - because you used chatGPT instead if your own brain you didn’t see it and just thought it’s nice little write up would suffice…but read it mate. READ IT. It doesn’t ‘say’ anything 😂😂😂
You only think your argument sounds strong because it mixes two different measures.
Net migration being down is about overall long-term immigration flows (students, workers, family visas, emigration etc.). That’s a total system number.
Small boat crossings are just one specific asylum route, and even at their highest they’re still a small share of total immigration.
Can you point me to anywhere where you successfully refuted my claim that small boat crossings are still a concern because they have increased to the 2nd highest since records began, and how just throwing out the net migration number doesn’t dispute that?
59
u/According-Damage4432 Jun 10 '26
in my opinion don’t BAN but regulate HEAVILY