Education for mogrants

Teachers for migrants is it true government going to put teachers on barges and camps to educate migrants when they arrive on the taxi sevice (boats) were does rishi get the money from more of our money wasted

It's all part of the United Nations Marakesh Agreement / Compact on migration -

" international co-operation on migration in a comprehensive manner, in order to “facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration, while reducing the incidence and negative impact of irregular migration,” and also “to reduce the risks and vulnerabilities migrants face at different stages of migration by respecting, protecting and fulfilling their human rights and providing them with care and assistance.”

I expect it's to teach them the English language, and therefore help them integrate.
WW could do with some English teachers.

Also First Mate by teaching them the english language they will be able to claim our benefit's far more easier!!!!!!!!!!
G.B.

Also First Mate by teaching them the english language they will be able to claim our benefit's far more easier!!!!!!!!!!
G.B.

I think its more about finding employment, paying taxes integrating and becoming a benefit to society in general but in saying all that.............. I am not a hard core cynic

Thought one of rushi sunaks pledges was to stop the boats can't see this stopping them could encourage them. ,,dont look like Rwanda flights going to happen

But the Rwanda ‘contract’ will still be paid?

In my opinion the only thing I agree with the tories is their suggestion of sending the immigrants to Rwanda. I sincerely hope that happens. That could be a great deterrent to stop them travelling over here thinking they are going to get a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

No. They’ll get their ‘pot of gold’ in a far nicer place than this one!

osted by: First Mate (1639)

I expect it's to teach them the English language, and therefore help them integrate.
WW could do with some English teachers.

vixen is a retired one

Basil

Vixen had the measure of yoo, because she is a clever fox, not a mangy, moth eaten fox like you are

that's not nice, Worsley Mesnes Wally

Read This!

Disgraceful is that.
I'm getting sick and tired of ethnics getting preferencial treatment than us indigenous people. Why should we fall in line with them? They should be falling in line with us!

Looks like this goverment is encouraging these migrants to come here with free hotels ,board and lodging now education, getting all they need ,

868 arrived yesterday... Marvellous

I posted this years ago, about Doctor Tosh Bhaduri .......

"He once said, "the trouble with our country is there are far too many foreigners being allowed in and one day, maybe not in my lifetime but probably in yours, we will have to take up arms against them.

Looks like he was right on at least one point! "

I was wrong. He was right on ALL points!

Can you really educate people like these?

coming to a street near you!

SOON!

And Wigan will be a 'first-choice' for Bosnian Muslims. Why? ...........

........ "Pies dominate the menu of Bosnian Muslims: burek (meat pie), sirnica (cheese pie), zeljanica (spinach and cheese pie), cabbage pie, and many more. Breakfast pies are served with bread, cheese or cream, and smoked meat like sudzuka (a
sausage). Rural Bosnians eat some foods, like pies, with their hands"!

How come the immigrants get big communal bins and we have to make do with one for general household rubbish? Do they not recycle?

There are nearly more bins in that Longfellow street than houses!

Chesh., referring to immigrants as "ethnics" is incorrect. Even we are 'ethnics'. Everybody is ethnic, of some sort. That's how daft it is.
Call them what you will, but not ethnics. It just makes you seem thick.

Edited to immigrants, Tonker
Thats if they are immigrants?

Do some of you know why we have allowed so many people from the former countries of the British Empire into our country folowing the end of the second world war?

It was because the USA made it a condition of supporting us in the war in Europe that if we won, our country had to dismantle the British Empire and give countries we colonised, independence and access to our country.

The problem has been that in addition to people from our own colonies, people from countries colonised by other European countries have chose to come here rather than go to Belgium, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain etc.

The reasons are obvious!

Poppycock !!!!

Yoo can blame the following for the start of the mass immigration into Britain from the British Commonwealth countries in the 1960s

The ........

de Havilland Comet
Boeing 707
Vickers VC10
Boeing 747
McDonnell Douglas DC-10
Lockheed L-1011 TriStar

And others

Tommy Two Stroke.

A fact released in 1975 under the 30 year non-release of documents ruling.

Why do think that many of the countries who were in the British Empire like the Indian sub continent were given independance straight away after the war while others like Cyprus, Kenya, Malaya etc faught minor wars with us to get their independance because we were not giving them faster enough.

The only poppycock is you going on about something you evidently know sod all about which might be because of your younger age and not having done National Service at the time in those countries and the minor wars!

O C
What a pathetic reason you make for all the migrants coming to uk,most of them will have no idea what your talking about , the UK goverment can stop them , rushi sunak preferences is give them more money,

Here's a thought, didn't Britain colonise other countries? Maybe it's pay back time for those countries. As I said just a thought

Owd Codger

Doo yoo have to be so rude

I will answer your comments with a question and that is why would the granting of independence, increase migration from the newly independent countries to Britain ?

Surely the opposite would or should be true, because the citizens would no longer be British citizens ?

It didn't work out that way though did it, and the point I am making, is that as air travel became increasingly cheaper and affordable to the citizens of the Commonwealth and old Empire countries in the 1960s and 70s, if they could get themselves over here, then it was more than likely that they would be allowed to stay.

So nothing has changed as it.

TTS

People from the Indian sub continent were classed as British citizens until Independence in 1947. They were entitled to a British passport. This was rescinded several years later.
Independence in 1947 led to the creation of West and East, later Bangladesh, Pakistan.

Gaffer

I see, well enough of the buggers have got in since then, and it's a good job too, because if it weren't for them, we wouldn't have any curry dishes, corner shops or taxi drivers

When Idi Amin kicked them all out of Uganda, they were given the choice (by the British) of either going to Pakistan, or coming to England. The majority chose England.
Now we're getting a sizeable chunk of the population of Hong Kong, because they don't like Chinese rule!

Anyroadup, it all goes much deeper than you think.

I've seen one Asian family living in council property, rent free, council tax free, free dental treatment, everything they want and a bag t'put it in, yet he drove a top of the range BMW and their children all went to Bolton School ???????
Another Asian family had his mother, 86 years old and in ill health, brought over here from Pakistan, a free care package provided for her, disabled living annex built in their double-garage for her, all arranged by their 'Asian GP' and paid for by Bolton Occupational Health!
At the same time, my own mother had had a stroke which paralysed her. She was paying over £600 a month for the same care package plus full council tax - "Sorry, you aren't entitled to any help due to you having private pensions1

Both the families I've mentioned there are sat on £millions of properties all over the North West.

If I know this goes on, those in authority must know it goes on. So, why isn't it stopped?

You cant teach migrants anything they seem to know more about this country than English.

And you can't teach some of our own people with facts about the reasons which started the mass invasion!

Rishi sunak wants them to come hes codding us.

Albion
He his lying to us says his pledge was to stop the boats he has greeted them with hotels food and drink ,schools, and they don't have to lift a finger,

Owd Codger

After the second world war, Britain was buggered, the country was skint, and we went cap in hand to the Americans for a loan, and Britain needed a big loan, but the Americans did not want to throw good money after bad, and Britain's post war Empire was a drain on the country, and the Americans who did not like Imperialism, probably because they were once part of the British Empire, and they had to go to war with Britain to get independence from Britain, so they told Britain to save money by getting rid of it's empire, and also the Labour Government of Clement Atlee, which was elected after the war, also did not like or want the British Empire, so the empire went to please the Americans and to save money, and there was also the domestic political aspect to it, from the Labour Party, but other empires went too, the Dutch and French had their own empires, and they were disposed of, because after the occupation of large parts of the world by the Germans and Japanese, it wasn't fashionable for a country to have an empire.

The immigration came about, because in the late 1940s and 1950s as Britain used the American money to rebuild the country, there was a chronic labour shortage, because of two reasons, firstly a lot of men had been killed during the war, and secondly, a hell of a lot of people emigrated from Britain to Canada, Australia and New Zealand, especially during the 1960s, that increased the labour shortage in this country, so Britain wasn't made to accept immigrants, the immigrants came to address the shortage of Labour, and when an immigrant came over here to work, he was allowed to bring his family over too, so immigrant communities sprang up, and they bred like rabbits, and so here we are,
Britain has been trying to keep them out since the mid 1960s by bringing in various forms of legislation, to restrict the immigration, but nothing seems to work.

Tommy Two Stoke

So you agreed that the USA were instrumental in saying that we had to dismantle the British Empire, give the colonised countries independance and open our country to people from those countries.

You got it right about the planes as when they got independance, a mad dash was made to the nearest airport to get to the jobs in our country as there were not many around in their own poverty ridden countries at the time.

The more that come in now, the more that many willl end up living on the welfare state as the number of jobs will decrease as a result of the ongoing automation and technology.

surfer tom

Aye let's leave them unable to speak English unable to get a job and keep paying out for interpreters, that makes perfect sense doesn't it? And you reckon the Rwanda scheme will deter them from coming here. You are wrong! Even if the scheme ever comes to pass, which i think it won't, we will only be sending 200 per year so i think you will find it won't be much of a deterrent at all because they will still take a chance.

Owd Codger

"So you agreed that the USA were instrumental in saying that we had to dismantle the British Empire, give the colonised countries independance and open our country to people from those countries"

No,,, you are twisting history around, to suit your own agenda.

Ahcanwtspeyk
This goverment is throwing money at migrants while people in UK are struggling Rwanda I have said from the start wont happen but still cost millions

I don't think that the Rwanda thig will happen, and so why not build a temporary camp on a remote Scottish Island, and keep them there until their asylum application is either approved or rejected, if they are rejected, and after any appeals process, then deport them back to France, but make it clear that they will not be allowed into mainland Britain, unless their asylum application is accepted.

surfer tom

Are you talking about migrants? Most migrant migrate here legally. So are you talking about illegal immigrants or asylum seekers? Or do you tar them all with the same brush?

Migrant (general) = one who leaves their country of origin.

Emigrant (relative to country of origin) = one who leaves their country of origin to settle in another.

Immigrant (relative to country of settlement) = one who settles in another country after leaving their country of origin.

The position of the United Nations is that freedom to emigrate is a human right, part of the right to freedom of movement. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country".

Illegal Migration does not exist.
Illegal Emigration does not exist.
Illegal Immigration does exist.

The United Nations also say that if fleeing a war conflict or dictatorship, you should go to the nearest safe country!

Since when has the UK seperated from the rest of Europe been the nearest safe country to the war torn countries of Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine etc and the numerous civil wars and dictatorships of African countries?

codger you are wrong!
Asylum and human rights law
Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

The 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees elaborates upon this right. It provides an international meaning of ‘refugee’, which is a person in another country at risk of persecution in her, his or their own country.

The Convention sets out certain basic rights of refugees that are necessary for the enjoyment of asylum. These include the right not to be returned to a place where they are at risk of persecution.

It also includes the right not to be penalised for being in or entering a country without permission where this is necessary for them to seek and receive asylum.

A Shared Responsibility
Providing asylum is a responsibility shared by all countries.

However, this responsibility has fallen most heavily on countries which are closer to places where there is war or political repression. These countries are often themselves among the poorer and less stable countries of the world; and several of these countries also have large populations of their own citizens who are displaced by conflict.

One of the continuing weaknesses of the international system for providing asylum is that the responsibility that countries share in principle and not shared in practice. Many countries seek to avoid doing so by claiming that providing asylum is some other country’s responsibility – whether that country is their neighbour or further away.

The UK government, for example, frequently asserts that people coming to the UK should or are required to claim asylum in other countries they have reached before arriving here.

However, there is no rule or principle in international law requiring a person to claim asylum in any particular country. Someone may wish to travel further to seek asylum where she, he or they believe they are more likely to be safe and secure. That might be for various reasons including that she, he or they have connections or family there or are not or do not feel safe somewhere else.

LINK

Ahcawnt speyk
Are you talking about refugees or migrants or lumping them alltogether

tom

I am responding to codgers post.

ahcawntspeyk

The fact remains that many do not go to the nearest safe country, travel across Europe to Calais and then risk their lives crossing a dangerous shipping channel in their detemination to get into the land of milk and honey called the United Kingdom and even have enough money to pay criminals to help them.

Refugees my backside!

codger

i'm not disputing that, but that doesn't apply to all does it? I'm just saying you posted


The United Nations also say that if fleeing a war conflict or dictatorship, you should go to the nearest safe country!


Which is incorrect isn't it?