Who says the Yanks have no "common "???!!

[hermeneutika]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/utah-ap-salt-lake-city-republican-senate-b2485676.html

Last year, Republican-led Florida and Texas were first to enact broad-based laws banning diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in higher education. Since then, other states have followed with similar measures.

[Timreason]

On 27/01/2024 17:47, hermeneutika wrote:
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/utah-ap-salt-lake-city-republican-senate-b2485676.html
>
> Last year, Republican-led Florida and Texas were first to enact broad-based laws banning diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in higher education. Since then, other states have followed with similar measures.
>

I suppose living in the States, and living in Russia will soon be much
the same anyway, then.

Tim.

[John]

On 27/01/2024 17:47, hermeneutika wrote:

> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/utah-ap-salt-lake-city-republican-senate-b2485676.html
>
> Last year, Republican-led Florida and Texas were first to enact broad-based laws banning diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in higher education. Since then, other states have followed with similar measures.

Perhaps the biggest campaigner of diversity, equality and inclusion in
bygone times was Jesus.

If an illegal immigrant was lying injured in a ditch would you help him
or walk on by?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/01/2024 19:07, Timreason wrote:

> I suppose living in the States, and living in Russia will soon be much
> the same anyway, then.

Certainly if Trump gets in again!

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/01/2024 19:37, John wrote:

> If an illegal immigrant was lying injured in a ditch would you help him
> or walk on by?

Obviously you would help him and treat his injuries.

Once he was fully cured you'd send him to Rwanda.

[Timreason]

On 28/01/2024 19:39, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 27/01/2024 19:07, Timreason wrote:
>
>> I suppose living in the States, and living in Russia will soon be much
>> the same anyway, then.
>
> Certainly if Trump gets in again!
>

And on that, we are agreed.

Tim.

[John]

On 28/01/2024 19:39, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 27/01/2024 19:37, John wrote:
>
>> If an illegal immigrant was lying injured in a ditch would you help
>> him or walk on by?
>
> Obviously you would help him and treat his injuries.
>
> Once he was fully cured you'd send him to Rwanda.

Did Jesus send the Samaritan away to a foreign country,
And I take it you mean a country that safe we are accepting Rwandan
refugees?

The whole f**&&^%% Rwandan thing is a total farce anyway. £290/£390
million spent and highly unlikely to send a single person over.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/01/2024 08:29, Timreason wrote:

> And on that, we are agreed.

I find it hard to believe that Americans can be so stupid as to elect a
man like that, yet they did once and signs are that they might do it again.

Incredible.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/01/2024 15:10, John wrote:

> Did Jesus send the Samaritan away to a foreign country,

Why would Jesus send the Samaritan anywhere? In case you have forgotten,
it was the Samaritan who helped the injured man.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <up8qi2$ikib$2 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:25:07 +0000:

> On 29/01/2024 08:29, Timreason wrote:
>> And on that, we are agreed.
> I find it hard to believe that Americans can be so stupid as to elect
> a man like that, yet they did once and signs are that they might do it
> again.

This only goes to show you are in one of the two "echo chambers" which
the opinion making machine has created, partitioning and polarizing
thought, through through the exercise of its powers

[Timreason]

That comment doesn't make a lot of sense. Are you trying to claim that
all of the failings of Trump are 'Fake News'?

On the contrary, it shows Kendall is thinking for himself. I say that
because although he politically tends towards the moderate right, he
nevertheless does not blindly support right-wing politicians,
irrespective of their track record. He has sometimes also criticised
some of our own Conservative politicians, not just Liberal or Labour
ones. (It's worth remembering, BTW, what would probably happen to him if
he was Chinese or Russian and did the same in either of those two
countries.)

Trump is manifestly unsuitable for the post of President on many, many
fronts. I too am amazed that Americans would even consider having him back.

Tim.

[John]

Ah fiddlesticks :-)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/01/2024 02:27, Madhu wrote:

> This only goes to show you are in one of the two "echo chambers" which
> the opinion making machine has created, partitioning and polarizing
> thought, through through the exercise of its powers

I concluded that Trump was not a nice person long before he stood for
president, based on how he was treating people who stood in the way of
his golf course up in Scotland.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <upbd2a$137va$1 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:53:15 +0000:

It wasn't your opinion on Trump that prompted my comment, it was your
(conditioned) perception of the Americans (extrapolated from your own
opinion on Trump and the propaganda machine, as it relates to this
issue)

[hermeneutika]

Ultra good question. I am wrestling with the whole issue of justice and mercy. In my Church we are studying the Epistle of James.

Jas 2:13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

So it would seem if i claim to be a follower of the Bible, then i ought to favour mercy over judgement and therefore help even a illegal immigrant injured in a ditch! Even if the said illegal immigrant promptly murders my wife and children....And of course i forgive him!!!
But when it comes to me......well

2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

But then the vexed question of who pays? We end up with x millions of illegals who all need housing, medical treatement, education etc etc....

So we all end up homeless and broke!!!! Praise the Lord!!

[Muhammad]

On 31/01/2024 10:28, hermeneutika wrote:
> On Sat Jan 27 19:37:53 2024 John wrote:
>> On 27/01/2024 17:47, hermeneutika wrote:
>>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/utah-ap-salt-lake-city-republican-senate-b2485676.html
>>>
>
>

> But then the vexed question of who pays? We end up with x millions of illegals who all need housing, medical treatement, education etc etc....
>
> So we all end up homeless and broke!!!! Praise the Lord!!
>

We're more likely to end homeless and broke, due to political decisions
made by our political elite. They've systematically diminished and
undermined public services from the NHS, social care, police, schools...

It wasn't immigrants that caused the wealth gap between the rich and
poor to increase. It wasn't immigrants that lied to us about Brexit,
telling us the EU would allow us to trade check free, that we'd still be
able to live in Europe. It wasn't immigrants that used many hundred of
pounds of taxpayer money to fund their mates, then quietly write off the
debt...

Immigrants in general tend to be net contributors, when given the
opportunity.

Before some of you try to insist, 2+2=22.

I'm not for open borders, I'm for controlled borders. The money we're
spending on Rwanda, a country from which, we're accepted asylum seekers.
That money could have been used to process more applications, weed out
the illegal from the legal. France offered the UK a station on their
side of the border to process claims; the UK rejected it.

Immigration is being used as a tool to whip up racist rhetoric to divide
the country (as that dimwit 30p said, culture wars). To give those with
(deep) nationalist ideals, the feeling of being under threat, which in
turn plays in the handbook of right wing racist groups. Little wonder,
why, right wing racist groups have been on the in the UK - being seen as
the most significant terrorist threat for a time.

[John]

On 31/01/2024 10:28, hermeneutika wrote:

> On Sat Jan 27 19:37:53 2024 John wrote:
>> On 27/01/2024 17:47, hermeneutika wrote:
>>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/utah-ap-salt-lake-city-republican-senate-b2485676.html
>>>
>>> Last year, Republican-led Florida and Texas were first to enact broad-based laws banning diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in higher education. Since then, other states have followed with similar measures.
>>
>> Perhaps the biggest campaigner of diversity, equality and inclusion in
>> bygone times was Jesus.
>>
>> If an illegal immigrant was lying injured in a ditch would you help him
>> or walk on by?


> Ultra good question. I am wrestling with the whole issue of justice and mercy. In my Church we are studying the Epistle of James.
>
> Jas 2:13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

Absolutely 100%
>
> So it would seem if i claim to be a follower of the Bible, then i ought to favour mercy over judgement and therefore help even a illegal immigrant injured in a ditch! Even if the said illegal immigrant promptly murders my wife andchildren....And of course i forgive him!!!

And why would you think that? If the purpose of illegal immigrants was
to come over here to maim and kill then surely that would have happened
by now? Yes, we have the odd sparodic attack (not always from an
illegal immigrant either) but there will always be bad apples.

> 2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
>
> But then the vexed question of who pays? We end up with x millions of illegals who all need housing, medical treatement, education etc etc....

Lets see now, before 2018, a handful. After 2018 there have been 115,000
illegal immigrants arriving by boat.

> So we all end up homeless and broke!!!! Praise the Lord!!

If you don't mind me saying, that's a ridiculous statement to make.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/02/2024 21:33, John wrote:

> Lets see now, before 2018, a handful. After 2018 there have been 115,000
> illegal immigrants arriving by boat.

Is that per day or per hour?

[John]

Very good :-) thats total to end of 2023

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/02/2024 18:46, John wrote:

> Very good :-)   thats total to end of 2023

In which case I question your complacency. I notice that Wikipedia
states that only 297 crossed the Channel in 2018; by 2020 that number
had increased to 7,500. So the vast majority of the number you quote
have come in the last three years and the signs are that the number is
growing, not decreasing.

[Muhammad]

Rather than discussing the frivolous back-and-forth of numbers...

How about, the people your ilk, supported and continue to support,
actually do something about, instead of scoring points with the lowest
of low in society; racist bigots.

Instead of wasting money to send a handful of people to, to a country
we're accepting asylum seekers from, why not:

1. fund the asylum system so that it can make better and more decision.
2. should have accepted France's offer, of having an office on their
side of the border to process claims.
3. *Stop destabilising nations around the world.*

[John]

On 03/02/2024 03:59, Kendall K. Down wrote:

Are you sure? Yes there was a much increased influx in 2019 compared to
2020, then the number increased in both 2020 and 2021, before reaching
45,000 in 2022. Last years total was 29,000 ish. Surely you must have
heard Rishi the Great banging on about it, it's been his mantra for
several months now.

Reason for my complacency? It's a drop in the ocean (pun not intended)
compared to legal migration which was a whopping 3/4 million almost, the
highest on record.

And this is what *isses me off, the right wing has stoked up such a
massive storm (literally in a teacup) over a handful of immigrants
coming here by illegal means, as if all Britain's woes can be laid at
their door.

[Mark Goodge]

It is decreasing; it's gone down a lot since the middle of last year and
last year in total was significantly lower than the year before.

What prompted the big increase in Channel crossings was Covid. With the
normal routes mostly inoperative because of lockdown, the people traffickers
needed to find another option. It took them a while to set up the supply
lines necessary to run boats at a large enough scale, but then once they'd
got that into place it equally took the British and French authorities a
while to respond to the change. So for around three and a half years, from
the end of 2020 to mid-2023, the traffickers had an open window which they
exploited to the full.

On both sides of the Channel, the anti-smuggler systems were previously
aimed primarily at detecting human cargo in the back of lorries - which
pretty much ceased to operate during lockdown - and redeploying those
resources to counter boat crossings probably took longer than it should. But
having got them in place, it has made a big difference. Towards the end of
2023, average daily crossings were back down to 2020 levels.

That doesn't necessarily mean, of course, that illegal migration has also
gone down. What's more likely is that the traffickers, now that the
authorities are better at stopping the boats, are reverting back to the
methods they used before. From the traffickers' perspective, HGV trailers
are a better option; it requires less hands-on intervention by themselves,
thus minimising the prospect of being caught - even if migrants are found in
a lorry, there's no link to the people who put them there - and it provides
better onward routes. The problem with a boat is that it can only go as far
as the coast, which isn't usually where the migrants want to be. But they
don't have to get off a lorry in Dover, they can stay on it until it's
anywhere else in the country and then slip out while the driver is taking a
break - often under cover of darkness, which isn't generally possible on a
Channel crossing as even the traffickers aren't desperate enough to try that
at night.

It's also worth bearing in mind that not all illegal migrants want to claim
asylum. Particularly for those arriving via traditional smuggling routes,
such as in HGV trailers, the intent is not to claim asylum, but instead to
disappear into the underground economy. The problem with claiming asylum is
that it might be refused, and if it is refused then you'll be sent back. So
the majority of economic migrants (as opposed to those genuinely fleeing
persecution) generally prefer not to claim asylum. The switch to boat
crossings massively increased the number of asylum claims, precisely because
it's much harder to enter the UK undetectably by boat. But if you're caught
coming in, then your only practical option is to chance your arm with an
asylum claim, even if it's unlikely to succeed, because once you have been
caught your chances of sucessfully going underground are even slimmer. A
switch back to ferries and trucks as the preferred route for traffickers
will reduce asylum claims, but it will also increase the number of
undetected migrants operating in the black economy. It's not at all obvious
that that's the best solution. At least with the boats, we do have a
reasonable prospect of sending back the ones that fail an asylum claim. It's
much harder to catch people who are living here undetected.

Mark

[John]

1. In my opinion, it was a deliberate ploy to stoke up hatred. Very
little attempt was made until last year to try and clear the backlog of
asylum decisions. That should have been their top priority back in 2019/20

2. Absolutely, and done more to smash the gangs that bring asylum
seekers over here, although finally they started doing something about
it last year. More importantly, open safe routes so that genuine asylum
seekers can come over to Britain.

3. I think the last war we were directly involved in was Iraq. I agree
we shouldn't have got involved and it was on a false premise that we
did. Not Tony's finest hour.

[John]

On 03/02/2024 13:36, John wrote:


> Reason for my complacency?  It's a drop in the ocean (pun not intended)
> compared to legal migration which was a whopping 3/4 million almost, the
> highest on record.

oops, I should have said this was just in 2022, so illegal immigration
in 2022 represents a mere 6% of total immigration. I'm not sure why you
and Michael get your knickers in such a twist about it.

[John]

On 03/02/2024 13:43, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 03:59:15 +0000, "Kendall K. Down"
> <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/02/2024 18:46, John wrote:
>>
>>> Very good :-)   thats total to end of 2023
>>
>> In which case I question your complacency. I notice that Wikipedia
>> states that only 297 crossed the Channel in 2018; by 2020 that number
>> had increased to 7,500. So the vast majority of the number you quote
>> have come in the last three years and the signs are that the number is
>> growing, not decreasing.

snipped for brevity only.

> It's also worth bearing in mind that not all illegal migrants want to claim
> asylum. Particularly for those arriving via traditional smuggling routes,
> such as in HGV trailers, the intent is not to claim asylum, but instead to
> disappear into the underground economy. The problem with claiming asylum is
> that it might be refused, and if it is refused then you'll be sent back. So
> the majority of economic migrants (as opposed to those genuinely fleeing
> persecution) generally prefer not to claim asylum. The switch to boat
> crossings massively increased the number of asylum claims, precisely because
> it's much harder to enter the UK undetectably by boat. But if you're caught
> coming in, then your only practical option is to chance your arm with an
> asylum claim, even if it's unlikely to succeed, because once you have been
> caught your chances of sucessfully going underground are even slimmer. A
> switch back to ferries and trucks as the preferred route for traffickers
> will reduce asylum claims, but it will also increase the number of
> undetected migrants operating in the black economy. It's not at all obvious
> that that's the best solution. At least with the boats, we do have a
> reasonable prospect of sending back the ones that fail an asylum claim. It's
> much harder to catch people who are living here undetected.

Interesting reading, and a different prespective on the situation. I'm
not altogether convinced that the switch happened because of covid,
because the numbers increased quite sharply during 2019, so more to do
with Brexit and the closure of safe routes than anything else, although
obviously 2020 and 2021 would have contributed. It doesn't explain why
2022 was a record year, given that HGV's were operating in quantity
again. (Granted economic migrants from Albania contributed to that figure).

I'm also not sure that the same quantities were coming over previously
either. If I was an illegal trying to get into the country to disapear
into the black economy, I'm not sure I would want to go straiht into the
hands of customs either.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 16:11:02 +0000, John <mega...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Interesting reading, and a different prespective on the situation. I'm
>not altogether convinced that the switch happened because of covid,
>because the numbers increased quite sharply during 2019, so more to do
>with Brexit and the closure of safe routes than anything else, although
>obviously 2020 and 2021 would have contributed. It doesn't explain why
>2022 was a record year, given that HGV's were operating in quantity
>again. (Granted economic migrants from Albania contributed to that figure).

The ONS attributes the big rise in boat crossings to Covid. It's quite
likely that Brexit was a contributory factor, and started the process, but
Covid signficantly accelerated it.

The reason it peaked in 2022, despite other routes being open again by then,
is because the traffickers had invested a lot into the Channel route and
were finding it very lucrative. So they only started to switch back to other
routes when the authorities started to get a grip on the crossings.

Albanian migrants seem to have been a bit of a statistical oddity. Their
numbers massively increased in 2023 (there were fifteen times as many in
2022 as there were in 2021), but then dropped right back down again in 2023.
This does seem to have been a result of deliberate exploitation of the
trafficking routes by criminal gangs, and was pretty effectively ended by a
policy agreed with the Albanian goverment to simply send them all back.

Disregarding Albania, the biggest increase has been in migrants from
Afghanistan. Those numbers shot up (a tenfold increase) after the Taliban
takeover. But, unlike Albanians, it's likely that the vast majority of those
are genuine refugees. Similarly, a smaller, but still statistically
significant, increase in numbers from various Middle Eastern countries is
likely to have been prompted by the activities of Daesh and other militant
extremist groups.

>I'm also not sure that the same quantities were coming over previously
>either. If I was an illegal trying to get into the country to disapear
>into the black economy, I'm not sure I would want to go straiht into the
>hands of customs either.

That's precisely the point. The vast majority of boat crossings are
detected, and the people in the boats go straight into the asylum system.
But those entering the UK in HGV trailers are usually undetected, at least
until much later when they get caught by means of a tip-off or find
themselves in other trouble with the law. So we don't really know how many
illegal immigrants there are in the underground economy, because if we had a
reliable way of counting them then we'd also be able to catch them.

What that means, in practice, is that the boat crossings have not led to an
overall increase in the number of illegal immigrants. It's merely made them
more detectable. And, equally, reducing the boat crossings will not
necessarily reduce the number of illegal immigrants. It will just mean that
more of them evade detection and don't enter the asylum system.

To illustrate that, in 2018 and 2019 the largest group of known irregular
immigrants were those who were detected within the UK - that is, as above,
detected after initially evading detection on entry but subsequently being
caught. In 2020, that figure was overtaken by small boat arrivals, and small
boats have been the highest ever since. But, as the number of detected small
boat arrivals has gone up, the number of in-UK detections has gone down.
This suggests that the switch to boats has meant fewer getting through
initially undetected, a statistic which is supported by the massive rise in
asylum claims over the same period.

Mark

[John]

On 04/02/2024 13:31, Mark Goodge wrote:


Again snipped for brevity only.

> What that means, in practice, is that the boat crossings have not led to an
> overall increase in the number of illegal immigrants. It's merely made them
> more detectable. And, equally, reducing the boat crossings will not
> necessarily reduce the number of illegal immigrants. It will just mean that
> more of them evade detection and don't enter the asylum system.

i find that very interesting. A different perspective from one that I
was aware of. You've certainly enlightened me, thanks for posting.