[Politics] Stop the boats

[The Clamp]

I have found some answers, thanks. Of those processed, 24%have been rejected. 28% of arrivals were Albanians and 20% Afghans in the year to March 6th 2023.
What is the bleeding obvious answer?

What exactly is your question? What is your point?

 

[Seagull58]

What exactly is your question? What is your point?

Bad fish said that the answer to the question why do asylum seekers not have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach was bleeding obvious. It is not bleeding obvious to me. For example, why do the Albanians not claim asylum in Greece? If they arrive in Greece without permission e.g. a visa, and then travel through the EU to get to the UK they are illegal immigrants in each country they pass through, so it would seem sensible to insist they claim asylum in the first country.

 

[BadFish]

Bad fish said that the answer to the question why do asylum seekers not claim asylum in the first safe country they reach was bleeding obvious. It is not bleeding obvious to me. For example, why do the Albanians not claim asylum in Greece?

No I didn't, that would be stupid. Many people have many different reasons for their choice of country. Just as migrants like you and I have different reasons for our choice of country.

I said that the reason for the law stating that they didn't have to claim asylum in the first safe country they came to was bleeding obvious.

 

[Seagull58]

No I didn't, that would be stupid. Many people have many different reasons for their choice of country. Just as migrants like you and I have different reasons for our choice of country.

I said that the reason for the law stating that they didn't have to claim asylum in the first safe country they came to was bleeding obvious.

What is the bleeding obvious answer?
If they enter a country without permission and don't claim asylum they are illegal immigrants in that country.

 

[BadFish]

What is the bleeding obvious answer?
If they enter a country without permission and don't claim asylum they are illegal immigrants in that country.

To share the responsibility and load of the problem, so they don't end up concentrated in the countries closest to the source.

 

[The Clamp]

Bad fish said that the answer to the question why do asylum seekers not have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach was bleeding obvious. It is not bleeding obvious to me. For example, why do the Albanians not claim asylum in Greece? If they arrive in Greece without permission e.g. a visa, and then travel through the EU to get to the UK they are illegal immigrants in each country they pass through, so it would seem sensible to insist they claim asylum in the first country.

It’d be a bit silly for every asylum seeker to move to the country next door.
You’d end with three or four countries processing the world’s refugees.

 

[Seagull58]

To share the responsibility and load of the problem, so they don't end up concentrated in the countries closest to the source.

But once they claim asylum they can request, or be requested, to be transported to another country to complete the asylum process. This is no reason for them not to legalise their entry in the first safe country they enter.
For example, millions of Ukrainian refugees have entered Poland, been processed there and then transported to other countries.

 

[Seagull58]

It’d be a bit silly for every asylum seeker to move to the country next door.
You’d end with three or four countries processing the world’s refugees.

On the contrary, it would be sensible and safer to claim asylum in the country next door, if safe to do so, and then move on to their desired destination, if approved by the destination country.
It makes no sense at all for asylum seekers from Albania and Afghanistan, which together comprise nearly 50% of asylum seekers in the UK, to enter Europe at its southern border, travel illegally (since they haven't claimed asylum) all the way to the channel and risk their lives crossing in small boats to claim asylum in the UK.

 

[The Clamp]

On the contrary, it would be sensible and safer to claim asylum in the country next door, if safe to do so, and then move on to their desired destination, if approved by the destination country.
It makes no sense at all for asylum seekers from Albania and Afghanistan, which together comprise nearly 50% of asylum seekers in the UK, to enter Europe at its southern border, travel illegally (since they haven't claimed asylum) all the way to the channel and risk their lives crossing in small boats to claim asylum in the UK.

The Tory’s removed that facility. Now they have no choice but to take dangerous routes.

And there is no such thing as “travelling illegally”.

 

[BadFish]

But once they claim asylum they can request, or be requested, to be transported to another country to complete the asylum process. This is no reason for them not to legalise their entry in the first safe country they enter.
For example, millions of Ukrainian refugees have entered Poland, been processed there and then transported to other countries.

Well yes that was an idea too, trouble is it doesn't work. Some countries dont take their fair share. Some countries use the problem as political capital and shut down the processing and transporting you speak of.

How does the UN refugee council deal with such counties? Well they make it legal to claim asylum in any country the seekers choose, if they can get there of course.

I am beginning to think that the questions you have been asking on this thread are a little more loaded than they appear. You seem to have taken a position on this subject already.

 

[Rodney Thomas]

On the contrary, it would be sensible and safer to claim asylum in the country next door, if safe to do so, and then move on to their desired destination, if approved by the destination country.
It makes no sense at all for asylum seekers from Albania and Afghanistan, which together comprise nearly 50% of asylum seekers in the UK, to enter Europe at its southern border, travel illegally (since they haven't claimed asylum) all the way to the channel and risk their lives crossing in small boats to claim asylum in the UK.

Errrr, have you looked at where Albania is on a map?

 

[abc]

So, genuine question not trying to make a party political point:
Labour will inherit the current situation, understood. They will, at some point, have to lay out their alternative policy proposal proposals. I am not aware of any alternative policy as yet ( please correct me if I'm wrong) but equally I personally haven't got a clue as to what any workable, moral policy could be that would also be acceptable to the uk electorate.
Anybody?

 

[nicko31]

So, genuine question not trying to make a party political point:
Labour will inherit the current situation, understood. They will, at some point, have to lay out their alternative policy proposal proposals. I am not aware of any alternative policy as yet ( please correct me if I'm wrong) but equally I personally haven't got a clue as to what any workable, moral policy could be that would also be acceptable to the uk electorate.
Anybody?

Getting the backlog down would be a start, inflating this is something the Tories have been keen to Engineer.

A hard reality is invalid asylum claims are a small fraction of the total net immigration figure in the UK. A figure that has doubled posted Brexit

Incidentally any news on stopping lady Mone’s boat?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Well yes that was an idea too, trouble is it doesn't work. Some countries dont take their fair share. Some countries use the problem as political capital and shut down the processing and transporting you speak of.

How does the UN refugee council deal with such counties? Well they make it legal to claim asylum in any country the seekers choose, if they can get there of course.

I am beginning to think that the questions you have been asking on this thread are a little more loaded than they appear. You seem to have taken a position on this subject already.

My assessment too.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

So, genuine question not trying to make a party political point:
Labour will inherit the current situation, understood. They will, at some point, have to lay out their alternative policy proposal proposals. I am not aware of any alternative policy as yet ( please correct me if I'm wrong) but equally I personally haven't got a clue as to what any workable, moral policy could be that would also be acceptable to the uk electorate.
Anybody?

Immediately, start processing the asylum claims. Once cleared, they can start work and contribute to the economy. That in itself will help to pay for more Home Office staff to get the backlog down.
Yes, those whose claims are turned down are deported.

 

[nicko31]

Immediately, start processing the asylum claims. Once cleared, they can start work and contribute to the economy. That in itself will help to pay for more Home Office staff to get the backlog down.
Yes, those whose claims are turned down are deported.

This would be most unwelcome, more chance of having to start talking about things like the 7.8m NHS backlog, soaring inflation and a flagging economy

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This would be most unwelcome, more chance of having to start talking about things like the 7.8m NHS backlog, soaring inflation and a flagging economy

The awful thing is that there fewer asylum seekers now than than 2002, but have been allowed to amass, so the Tories could weaponise them.
Judging by a few of the posts in this thread, the weapon works.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Immediately, start processing the asylum claims. Once cleared, they can start work and contribute to the economy. That in itself will help to pay for more Home Office staff to get the backlog down.
Yes, those whose claims are turned down are deported.

What sort of % do you think will be 1) able and 2) willing to work to generate this contribution?

What sort of jobs? Manual, skilled?

 

[WATFORD zero]

What sort of % do you think will be 1) able and 2) willing to work to generate this contribution?

What sort of jobs? Manual, skilled?

I really don't think that the sum of their ambition is claiming benefits and watching TV all day whilst moaning, whining and posting about 'other' people who have had none of the benefits of being born and educated in Britain doing far better than them. All of the people I have met who have arrived via Asylum have been incredible grateful, hard working, ambitious and successful when they were given the chance. Just the sort of people Britain desperately need.

Well there's NHS, Care Industry, Agriculture, Hospitality etc and all those other industries that can't recruit and are dragging the economy down since your wonderful Brexit win.

If this is the sort of stuff you've been posting all night it saves me time bothering to read it

 

[WATFORD zero]

I think you'll find that it wasn't the Tories that organised the boat and charged people their life savings for a place on it, or arranged for it to be so overloaded it sank. I also think you'll find that the Tories have been trying (not very successfully it's true) to find ways to stop criminal gangs in France selling places on unsafe and illegal boats.

But maybe you don't want to find these things. Whatever, your chances of getting a job as a sub-editor would appear to be zero based on this example of your work!

Yes, there are many things to blame the Tories for (and plenty of threads on NSC where you can do it!) but this isn't one of them.

There are legal routes. Many people do arrive in the UK legally. Yes, the processing once here should be quicker, but the criminal gangs don't sell places on death-trap boats because the processing is slow! One reason for some (many?) of the boat passengers trying to get in illegally is to avoid processing.

Healthy? No....plenty of vitriolic rhetoric, lecturing, hectoring and self-righteousness.....
Debate? No.... just plenty more vitriolic rhetoric, lecturing, hectoring, etc, etc, etc....

Bearpit ot now. The Brexit thread and the Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]... thread are still up on the main board for those who want to lecture the rest of us who are more centrist than they are. Exactly the same points are being re-iterated in perpetuam on those threads - no need for yet another thread.

P.S. I'm aware that this post will provoke outrage from some. I know who they are, and so do they - so nothing new worth saying!

So two posts trying to defend this 'centrist' cabal of yours, a few posts proving you factually wrong, and now it should be moved to the Bear Pit ?

Righty Oh