Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe?" Millions are 'happy', in Poland and other countries bordering Ukraine (obviously excluding Russia). All of your other questions are dealt with by understanding the difference between legal and illegal immigration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe? Millions are 'happy', in Poland and other countries bordering Ukraine (obviously excluding Russia). All of your other questions are dealt with by understanding the difference between legal and illegal immigration. " Yet surely it is ridiculous that Ukrainians can claim asylum abroad to gain entry to the UK. Why should they have special rights - we should treat them like any other asylum seekers and only allow them to claim asylum when in British soil. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe it's that they have been invited and not just forced themselves into the uk?" You have hit the jackpot there. They have reluctantly given routes to apply for asylum so they can apply without actually being in British Sovereign soil. Other asylum seekers are simply not welcome and, their only route, should they wish to apply, is to physically get to Britain so that they can make their application. ...then they get the threat of being sent to Rwanda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe? Millions are 'happy', in Poland and other countries bordering Ukraine (obviously excluding Russia). All of your other questions are dealt with by understanding the difference between legal and illegal immigration. " Think you will find 95% of those arriving through the channel on boats are legal so what’s your point? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe? Millions are 'happy', in Poland and other countries bordering Ukraine (obviously excluding Russia). All of your other questions are dealt with by understanding the difference between legal and illegal immigration. Think you will find 95% of those arriving through the channel on boats are legal so what’s your point? " No they are not. 95% of people that apply for asylum are legal , there are no figures for those coming over on boats. They are all 100% arriving illegally though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They are escaping from a brutal war on this continent. They will return to their own country as soon as safe to do so. Also, they are not nearly all (95%) young males." Regardless of their sex 90% are granted full asylum almost straight away so the government is actually ok with them. The Rwanda bullshit is for the right wing racist element of the party who don’t give a fuck about anything but the days of empire and men only clubs keeping women at home and in their place. . Also the men come first to find work . You know those jobs that the resident Brits don’t want. It’s mostly too dangerous and costly for the women and children to leave their war torn homes. Sone do risk it and fail sadly. Try reading sone actual facts on these people rather than the daily Mail narrative . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They are escaping from a brutal war on this continent. They will return to their own country as soon as safe to do so. Also, they are not nearly all (95%) young males. Regardless of their sex 90% are granted full asylum almost straight away so the government is actually ok with them. The Rwanda bullshit is for the right wing racist element of the party who don’t give a fuck about anything but the days of empire and men only clubs keeping women at home and in their place. . Also the men come first to find work . You know those jobs that the resident Brits don’t want. It’s mostly too dangerous and costly for the women and children to leave their war torn homes. Sone do risk it and fail sadly. Try reading sone actual facts on these people rather than the daily Mail narrative . " Please don’t be so patronising and rude | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe? Millions are 'happy', in Poland and other countries bordering Ukraine (obviously excluding Russia). All of your other questions are dealt with by understanding the difference between legal and illegal immigration. " Why do any Ukrainians need to come here at all? Why do Ukrainians have a "legal" route to claim asylum from abroad but not someone from any other country? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe it's that they have been invited and not just forced themselves into the uk?" Why are Ukrainians being invited, but not people from other countries in equally brutal circumstances? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And the vast majority are doing that - staying in other countries and not coming to the UK…" Why should any be allowed into the UK if they are safe elsewhere? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They are escaping from a brutal war on this continent. They will return to their own country as soon as safe to do so. Also, they are not nearly all (95%) young males." Why should Ukrainians escaping a brutal war be allowed to travel to the UK but not those escaping from brutal wars in other countries? Why will Ukrainians return but not others? Are women and children from other countries provided with special routes for asylum to the UK? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Think you will find 95% of those arriving through the channel on boats are legal ..." "Regardless of their sex 90% are granted full asylum almost straight away ... " Can you please post the sources for these stats? "Also the men come first to find work ..." That would be economic migration. The type that everyone agrees is illegal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Think you will find 95% of those arriving through the channel on boats are legal ... Regardless of their sex 90% are granted full asylum almost straight away ... Can you please post the sources for these stats? Also the men come first to find work ... That would be economic migration. The type that everyone agrees is illegal." It's c 75pc (3.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-march-2022/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to C 50pc of appeals are then granted. And men can both apply for asylum and want to work once granted .... So not sure why you see that has being illegal ... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They are escaping from a brutal war on this continent. They will return to their own country as soon as safe to do so. Also, they are not nearly all (95%) young males. Regardless of their sex 90% are granted full asylum almost straight away so the government is actually ok with them. The Rwanda bullshit is for the right wing racist element of the party who don’t give a fuck about anything but the days of empire and men only clubs keeping women at home and in their place. . Also the men come first to find work . You know those jobs that the resident Brits don’t want. It’s mostly too dangerous and costly for the women and children to leave their war torn homes. Sone do risk it and fail sadly. Try reading sone actual facts on these people rather than the daily Mail narrative . Please don’t be so patronising and rude " You are inferring the young males are not deserving so I could accuse you of the same . As I said read up the facts rather than the media narrative. I’ll repeat for you. Over 10 million people live and work in the U.K. who weren’t born here . 20k plus arriving on boats is not an issue which is of concern it’s purely a flag waving rallying cry for bias media. They arrive here legally. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They are escaping from a brutal war on this continent. They will return to their own country as soon as safe to do so. Also, they are not nearly all (95%) young males. Why should Ukrainians escaping a brutal war be allowed to travel to the UK but not those escaping from brutal wars in other countries? Why will Ukrainians return but not others? Are women and children from other countries provided with special routes for asylum to the UK?" The illegals arriving on boats ALREADY have a safe country - France. They come here for the benefits, free housing etc. The Ukrainians all have sponsors here and are welcome here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They may well be deserving but it’s prudent to be suspicious. I am very concerned as we should all be that any poor soul risks their life and is in the hands of criminal gangs to cross a dangerous sea. So if I set out and landed in France claiming not to have a passport if / when stopped on the beach, is that legal? " you'd have the right to claim aslynum, I'd imagine.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also the men come first to find work ..." "That would be economic migration. The type that everyone agrees is illegal." "And men can both apply for asylum and want to work once granted .... So not sure why you see that has being illegal ..." I read the words "Also the men come first to find work" as meaning "the men come here primarily to find work", with the implication that asylum was the method they used to do that. That is obviously economic migration, and doing that via a small boat from France is clearly illegal. Reading it back I see that he probably meant "the men claim asylum first, so that they can get a job, and then bring their family over". But I'm just guessing at what that poster meant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So if I set out and landed in France claiming not to have a passport if / when stopped on the beach, is that legal? " If a non-UK citizen lands on a beach in the UK, that's definitely illegal. The ones that get picked up before they set foot on land are almost certainly acting illegally, however it's down to intention which is incredibly hard to prove in a court of law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe?" Im surprised you havnt ask why so many uk citizens are offering to house them yet dont with the boat people you could then get back on your favourite topic racism.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Think you will find 95% of those arriving through the channel on boats are legal ... Regardless of their sex 90% are granted full asylum almost straight away ... Can you please post the sources for these stats? Also the men come first to find work ... That would be economic migration. The type that everyone agrees is illegal." Sources are in the parliamentary library . 75% at first asking and another 15% on appeal . Look it up . They find safe haven and then work as do all refugees if they can or if they wish to return to their home country also if they can and wish. Just like Ukrainians As for the work comment it’s nonsense that immigrants are just looking for benefits. Some indeed will but a small amount but most want to earn and have better safe lives . Immigrants are proven to pay more in tax overall than any benefits paid out. We should just put them to work as we definitely need workers and it would stop the benefits being paid. The whole subject is just a whipped up French you pandering to the right wing section of society. The issue isn’t anywhere near a big a problem as the papers would have you believe. Don’t believe me read the parliamentary library it’s full of facts . Can we also just put this to bed. They are not illegal immigrants they are legal unless they fail to report to authorities so the comments above saying they are illegal is just bullshit! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Think you will find 95% of those arriving through the channel on boats are legal ... Regardless of their sex 90% are granted full asylum almost straight away ... Can you please post the sources for these stats? Also the men come first to find work ... That would be economic migration. The type that everyone agrees is illegal. Sources are in the parliamentary library . 75% at first asking and another 15% on appeal . Look it up . They find safe haven and then work as do all refugees if they can or if they wish to return to their home country also if they can and wish. Just like Ukrainians As for the work comment it’s nonsense that immigrants are just looking for benefits. Some indeed will but a small amount but most want to earn and have better safe lives . Immigrants are proven to pay more in tax overall than any benefits paid out. We should just put them to work as we definitely need workers and it would stop the benefits being paid. The whole subject is just a whipped up French you pandering to the right wing section of society. The issue isn’t anywhere near a big a problem as the papers would have you believe. Don’t believe me read the parliamentary library it’s full of facts . Can we also just put this to bed. They are not illegal immigrants they are legal unless they fail to report to authorities so the comments above saying they are illegal is just bullshit! " can I ask jackal do you ever employ any of these people ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Think you will find 95% of those arriving through the channel on boats are legal ... Regardless of their sex 90% are granted full asylum almost straight away ... Can you please post the sources for these stats? Also the men come first to find work ... That would be economic migration. The type that everyone agrees is illegal. Sources are in the parliamentary library . 75% at first asking and another 15% on appeal . Look it up . They find safe haven and then work as do all refugees if they can or if they wish to return to their home country also if they can and wish. Just like Ukrainians As for the work comment it’s nonsense that immigrants are just looking for benefits. Some indeed will but a small amount but most want to earn and have better safe lives . Immigrants are proven to pay more in tax overall than any benefits paid out. We should just put them to work as we definitely need workers and it would stop the benefits being paid. The whole subject is just a whipped up French you pandering to the right wing section of society. The issue isn’t anywhere near a big a problem as the papers would have you believe. Don’t believe me read the parliamentary library it’s full of facts . Can we also just put this to bed. They are not illegal immigrants they are legal unless they fail to report to authorities so the comments above saying they are illegal is just bullshit! can I ask jackal do you ever employ any of these people ?" Can I ask jackal, if there are migrants that don't report to the authorities, and you only need to sit on Hythe beach to see it, them how can the percentages be reliable? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Think you will find 95% of those arriving through the channel on boats are legal ... Regardless of their sex 90% are granted full asylum almost straight away ... Can you please post the sources for these stats? Also the men come first to find work ... That would be economic migration. The type that everyone agrees is illegal. Sources are in the parliamentary library . 75% at first asking and another 15% on appeal . Look it up . They find safe haven and then work as do all refugees if they can or if they wish to return to their home country also if they can and wish. Just like Ukrainians As for the work comment it’s nonsense that immigrants are just looking for benefits. Some indeed will but a small amount but most want to earn and have better safe lives . Immigrants are proven to pay more in tax overall than any benefits paid out. We should just put them to work as we definitely need workers and it would stop the benefits being paid. The whole subject is just a whipped up French you pandering to the right wing section of society. The issue isn’t anywhere near a big a problem as the papers would have you believe. Don’t believe me read the parliamentary library it’s full of facts . Can we also just put this to bed. They are not illegal immigrants they are legal unless they fail to report to authorities so the comments above saying they are illegal is just bullshit! can I ask jackal do you ever employ any of these people ? Can I ask jackal, if there are migrants that don't report to the authorities, and you only need to sit on Hythe beach to see it, them how can the percentages be reliable?" the percentages are about asylum seekers. There are probably a number of people who sneak in and live in the shadows. Of course, if they are illegaly here, then they can't claim benefits etc. But let's not conflate asylum seekers who arrive on boats, with those who are seeking to remain in the country illegally. I suspect the easier way of disappearing is to come in on a holiday visa and then never go home. Safer than a boat. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe it's that they have been invited and not just forced themselves into the uk? Why are Ukrainians being invited, but not people from other countries in equally brutal circumstances?" Because they are only asking for temporary help not looking to stay and eventually import the rest of the family | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(slight tangent, I know. But Brexit was basically all about pushing fear of foreigners + foreign things.)" Total rubbish. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(slight tangent, I know. But Brexit was basically all about pushing fear of foreigners + foreign things.)Total rubbish." I'm shocked you'd react that way. Shocked I tell you. Well... not that shocked... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sources are in the parliamentary library . 75% at first asking and another 15% on appeal . Look it up ." You originally said "Regardless of their sex 90% are granted full asylum almost straight away", but now you've changed that to 75% and a further 15% later on. The government's 75% figure refers to all asylum seekers, not just those arriving by boat. There are no figures on how many arriving by boat are granted asylum. The various government figures don't add up at the moment. I'm guessing that's due to different reporting periods. You also haven't given a source for your claim that "95% of those arriving through the channel on boats are legal". "Can we also just put this to bed. They are not illegal immigrants they are legal unless they fail to report to authorities so the comments above saying they are illegal is just bullshit! " That's not true. They are acting illegally if they enter UK territorial waters without pre-approval. There's an exemption which allows vessels with non-functional communications equipment to turn up at a customs port and surrender to the authorities. That means that an immigrant can claim to be heading for a customs port, even if that's not what they were planning to do. So prosecutions can only be made if a person enters the UK via a non-approved route (i.e. sets foot on a beach), or if the Crown can prove that the immigrant was intending to avoid customs officers. The fact that we can't prosecute, doesn't make the action legal. The obvious question to ask is, why are they risking this terrible sea crossing when there's a perfectly good ferry available? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sources are in the parliamentary library . 75% at first asking and another 15% on appeal . Look it up . You originally said "Regardless of their sex 90% are granted full asylum almost straight away", but now you've changed that to 75% and a further 15% later on. The government's 75% figure refers to all asylum seekers, not just those arriving by boat. There are no figures on how many arriving by boat are granted asylum. The various government figures don't add up at the moment. I'm guessing that's due to different reporting periods. You also haven't given a source for your claim that "95% of those arriving through the channel on boats are legal". Can we also just put this to bed. They are not illegal immigrants they are legal unless they fail to report to authorities so the comments above saying they are illegal is just bullshit! That's not true. They are acting illegally if they enter UK territorial waters without pre-approval. There's an exemption which allows vessels with non-functional communications equipment to turn up at a customs port and surrender to the authorities. That means that an immigrant can claim to be heading for a customs port, even if that's not what they were planning to do. So prosecutions can only be made if a person enters the UK via a non-approved route (i.e. sets foot on a beach), or if the Crown can prove that the immigrant was intending to avoid customs officers. The fact that we can't prosecute, doesn't make the action legal. The obvious question to ask is, why are they risking this terrible sea crossing when there's a perfectly good ferry available?" Why not do this if you want to come in illegally. Come in as a tourist and never leave ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sources are in the parliamentary library . 75% at first asking and another 15% on appeal . Look it up . You originally said "Regardless of their sex 90% are granted full asylum almost straight away", but now you've changed that to 75% and a further 15% later on. The government's 75% figure refers to all asylum seekers, not just those arriving by boat. There are no figures on how many arriving by boat are granted asylum. The various government figures don't add up at the moment. I'm guessing that's due to different reporting periods. You also haven't given a source for your claim that "95% of those arriving through the channel on boats are legal". Can we also just put this to bed. They are not illegal immigrants they are legal unless they fail to report to authorities so the comments above saying they are illegal is just bullshit! That's not true. They are acting illegally if they enter UK territorial waters without pre-approval. There's an exemption which allows vessels with non-functional communications equipment to turn up at a customs port and surrender to the authorities. That means that an immigrant can claim to be heading for a customs port, even if that's not what they were planning to do. So prosecutions can only be made if a person enters the UK via a non-approved route (i.e. sets foot on a beach), or if the Crown can prove that the immigrant was intending to avoid customs officers. The fact that we can't prosecute, doesn't make the action legal. The obvious question to ask is, why are they risking this terrible sea crossing when there's a perfectly good ferry available?" The delay from 75% to 90% is relatively short in government time. Again the library confirms the numbers a further 5% are eventually allowed though these can take years. 5% are found to be not suitable to enter. So the fact that the government admits they are ok to stay makes the fuss over them arriving just mute crap but unfortunately the media make it a noise. Various independent immigration organisations and refugee sites can confirm the figures . Would I go to court over 95 or 94 no I wouldn’t but seeing as the number is over 90% at the end of the process why is there so much hysterical behaviour of sone people over this? Your own government says they are ok to stay., As for proving they were planning to avoid registration before getting caught . Good luck with that in a court of law. They are in the hands of the authorities either way. Also I didn’t see many radios on those boats so a functioning one is unlikely. You may not like the laws of refugee status but that’s for you to take up with the UN not me. I don’t care about your issues. Are there others who sneak through ? I’m sure there are but if they’re not in the system then the state isn’t paying benefits and as we’ve now secured our borders we don’t have an issue do we. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Think you will find 95% of those arriving through the channel on boats are legal ... Regardless of their sex 90% are granted full asylum almost straight away ... Can you please post the sources for these stats? Also the men come first to find work ... That would be economic migration. The type that everyone agrees is illegal. Sources are in the parliamentary library . 75% at first asking and another 15% on appeal . Look it up . They find safe haven and then work as do all refugees if they can or if they wish to return to their home country also if they can and wish. Just like Ukrainians As for the work comment it’s nonsense that immigrants are just looking for benefits. Some indeed will but a small amount but most want to earn and have better safe lives . Immigrants are proven to pay more in tax overall than any benefits paid out. We should just put them to work as we definitely need workers and it would stop the benefits being paid. The whole subject is just a whipped up French you pandering to the right wing section of society. The issue isn’t anywhere near a big a problem as the papers would have you believe. Don’t believe me read the parliamentary library it’s full of facts . Can we also just put this to bed. They are not illegal immigrants they are legal unless they fail to report to authorities so the comments above saying they are illegal is just bullshit! can I ask jackal do you ever employ any of these people ?" Can I ask did you actually think about that question before posting it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sources are in the parliamentary library . 75% at first asking and another 15% on appeal . Look it up . You originally said "Regardless of their sex 90% are granted full asylum almost straight away", but now you've changed that to 75% and a further 15% later on. The government's 75% figure refers to all asylum seekers, not just those arriving by boat. There are no figures on how many arriving by boat are granted asylum. The various government figures don't add up at the moment. I'm guessing that's due to different reporting periods. You also haven't given a source for your claim that "95% of those arriving through the channel on boats are legal". Can we also just put this to bed. They are not illegal immigrants they are legal unless they fail to report to authorities so the comments above saying they are illegal is just bullshit! That's not true. They are acting illegally if they enter UK territorial waters without pre-approval. There's an exemption which allows vessels with non-functional communications equipment to turn up at a customs port and surrender to the authorities. That means that an immigrant can claim to be heading for a customs port, even if that's not what they were planning to do. So prosecutions can only be made if a person enters the UK via a non-approved route (i.e. sets foot on a beach), or if the Crown can prove that the immigrant was intending to avoid customs officers. The fact that we can't prosecute, doesn't make the action legal. The obvious question to ask is, why are they risking this terrible sea crossing when there's a perfectly good ferry available? The delay from 75% to 90% is relatively short in government time. Again the library confirms the numbers a further 5% are eventually allowed though these can take years. 5% are found to be not suitable to enter. So the fact that the government admits they are ok to stay makes the fuss over them arriving just mute crap but unfortunately the media make it a noise. Various independent immigration organisations and refugee sites can confirm the figures . Would I go to court over 95 or 94 no I wouldn’t but seeing as the number is over 90% at the end of the process why is there so much hysterical behaviour of sone people over this? Your own government says they are ok to stay., As for proving they were planning to avoid registration before getting caught . Good luck with that in a court of law. They are in the hands of the authorities either way. Also I didn’t see many radios on those boats so a functioning one is unlikely. You may not like the laws of refugee status but that’s for you to take up with the UN not me. I don’t care about your issues. Are there others who sneak through ? I’m sure there are but if they’re not in the system then the state isn’t paying benefits and as we’ve now secured our borders we don’t have an issue do we. " You seem perfectly happy to allow anyone to settle here? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The delay from 75% to 90% is relatively short in government time. Again the library confirms the numbers a further 5% are eventually allowed though these can take years. 5% are found to be not suitable to enter." You still haven't posted a source for these numbers. Waving vaguely at 'the parliamentary library' isn't providing a source. I accept the 75% figure, but that's for all asylum seekers, not just those arriving by boat. We simply don't know the proportion of asylum grants to those that arrive by boat. Nor do we know the number of people that don't claim asylum and get returned, either compulsorily, or 'voluntarily'. "You may not like the laws of refugee status but that’s for you to take up with the UN not me." I've given no opinion in this, or any other, thread as to whether the refugee status laws are good or bad. All I have done is attempted to correct those that use misleading figures to shore up their argument. So, once again, what's your explanation for why people risk this terrible sea crossing when there's a perfectly good ferry available? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They are escaping from a brutal war on this continent. They will return to their own country as soon as safe to do so. Also, they are not nearly all (95%) young males. Why should Ukrainians escaping a brutal war be allowed to travel to the UK but not those escaping from brutal wars in other countries? Why will Ukrainians return but not others? Are women and children from other countries provided with special routes for asylum to the UK? The illegals arriving on boats ALREADY have a safe country - France. They come here for the benefits, free housing etc. The Ukrainians all have sponsors here and are welcome here. " Ukrainians are all in a safe countries, so can stay there. Can those seeking asylum from other war zones seek sponsors to come to the UK or have Ukrainians been granted a special privilege? For what reason? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The delay from 75% to 90% is relatively short in government time. Again the library confirms the numbers a further 5% are eventually allowed though these can take years. 5% are found to be not suitable to enter. You still haven't posted a source for these numbers. Waving vaguely at 'the parliamentary library' isn't providing a source. I accept the 75% figure, but that's for all asylum seekers, not just those arriving by boat. We simply don't know the proportion of asylum grants to those that arrive by boat. Nor do we know the number of people that don't claim asylum and get returned, either compulsorily, or 'voluntarily'. You may not like the laws of refugee status but that’s for you to take up with the UN not me. I've given no opinion in this, or any other, thread as to whether the refugee status laws are good or bad. All I have done is attempted to correct those that use misleading figures to shore up their argument. So, once again, what's your explanation for why people risk this terrible sea crossing when there's a perfectly good ferry available?" you need a passport? (3rd time lucky) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They may well be deserving but it’s prudent to be suspicious. I am very concerned as we should all be that any poor soul risks their life and is in the hands of criminal gangs to cross a dangerous sea. So if I set out and landed in France claiming not to have a passport if / when stopped on the beach, is that legal? " Why are Ukrainians allowed to apply directly for asylum in the UK with a sponsor bit those from other countries are not? Would you have to worry about people from other countries risking their lives if they had the same options? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So if I set out and landed in France claiming not to have a passport if / when stopped on the beach, is that legal? If a non-UK citizen lands on a beach in the UK, that's definitely illegal. The ones that get picked up before they set foot on land are almost certainly acting illegally, however it's down to intention which is incredibly hard to prove in a court of law." Why can Ukrainians apply for asylum through a special process and not anyone equally deserving from another war zone? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe it's that they have been invited and not just forced themselves into the uk? Why are Ukrainians being invited, but not people from other countries in equally brutal circumstances? Because they are only asking for temporary help not looking to stay and eventually import the rest of the family " How do you know this? How long before it is safe to return? Why should they go back to a shattered country if they make a life here? Will their husbands and sons be allowed to come to the UK if Ukraine is defeated or uninhabitable or too dangerous for a former soldier? How do you know that those from other countries wouldn't go back of it was safe to do so? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sources are in the parliamentary library . 75% at first asking and another 15% on appeal . Look it up . You originally said "Regardless of their sex 90% are granted full asylum almost straight away", but now you've changed that to 75% and a further 15% later on. The government's 75% figure refers to all asylum seekers, not just those arriving by boat. There are no figures on how many arriving by boat are granted asylum. The various government figures don't add up at the moment. I'm guessing that's due to different reporting periods. You also haven't given a source for your claim that "95% of those arriving through the channel on boats are legal". Can we also just put this to bed. They are not illegal immigrants they are legal unless they fail to report to authorities so the comments above saying they are illegal is just bullshit! That's not true. They are acting illegally if they enter UK territorial waters without pre-approval. There's an exemption which allows vessels with non-functional communications equipment to turn up at a customs port and surrender to the authorities. That means that an immigrant can claim to be heading for a customs port, even if that's not what they were planning to do. So prosecutions can only be made if a person enters the UK via a non-approved route (i.e. sets foot on a beach), or if the Crown can prove that the immigrant was intending to avoid customs officers. The fact that we can't prosecute, doesn't make the action legal. The obvious question to ask is, why are they risking this terrible sea crossing when there's a perfectly good ferry available?" Why are Ukrainians allowed to apply directly for asylum from third, safe, countries but not people fleeing other conflicts? That's the reason they are not "illegal" immigrants by your definition. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The delay from 75% to 90% is relatively short in government time. Again the library confirms the numbers a further 5% are eventually allowed though these can take years. 5% are found to be not suitable to enter. You still haven't posted a source for these numbers. Waving vaguely at 'the parliamentary library' isn't providing a source. I accept the 75% figure, but that's for all asylum seekers, not just those arriving by boat. We simply don't know the proportion of asylum grants to those that arrive by boat. Nor do we know the number of people that don't claim asylum and get returned, either compulsorily, or 'voluntarily'. You may not like the laws of refugee status but that’s for you to take up with the UN not me. I've given no opinion in this, or any other, thread as to whether the refugee status laws are good or bad. All I have done is attempted to correct those that use misleading figures to shore up their argument. So, once again, what's your explanation for why people risk this terrible sea crossing when there's a perfectly good ferry available?" All asylum seekers, except for Ukrainians, must arrive in the UK before requesting asylum. If they do not have passports or travel documents (like many Ukrainians) they cannot reach the UK by regular means. They will be prevented from boarding ferries or flights. So they travel by irregular means. Why do only Ukrainians get a special dispensation for this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The delay from 75% to 90% is relatively short in government time. Again the library confirms the numbers a further 5% are eventually allowed though these can take years. 5% are found to be not suitable to enter. You still haven't posted a source for these numbers. Waving vaguely at 'the parliamentary library' isn't providing a source. I accept the 75% figure, but that's for all asylum seekers, not just those arriving by boat. We simply don't know the proportion of asylum grants to those that arrive by boat. Nor do we know the number of people that don't claim asylum and get returned, either compulsorily, or 'voluntarily'. You may not like the laws of refugee status but that’s for you to take up with the UN not me. I've given no opinion in this, or any other, thread as to whether the refugee status laws are good or bad. All I have done is attempted to correct those that use misleading figures to shore up their argument. So, once again, what's your explanation for why people risk this terrible sea crossing when there's a perfectly good ferry available?" You cannot post links to official UK government websites or research papers or any primary data sources on Fab. Only YouTube and newspapers or television news. Look up: House of Commons Library asylum statistics. The Migration Observatory irregular migration in the UK UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" Why do Ukrainians get a route to apply for asylum or seek shelter in the UK but not those from other conflict zones? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The delay from 75% to 90% is relatively short in government time. Again the library confirms the numbers a further 5% are eventually allowed though these can take years. 5% are found to be not suitable to enter. You still haven't posted a source for these numbers. Waving vaguely at 'the parliamentary library' isn't providing a source. I accept the 75% figure, but that's for all asylum seekers, not just those arriving by boat. We simply don't know the proportion of asylum grants to those that arrive by boat. Nor do we know the number of people that don't claim asylum and get returned, either compulsorily, or 'voluntarily'. You may not like the laws of refugee status but that’s for you to take up with the UN not me. I've given no opinion in this, or any other, thread as to whether the refugee status laws are good or bad. All I have done is attempted to correct those that use misleading figures to shore up their argument. So, once again, what's your explanation for why people risk this terrible sea crossing when there's a perfectly good ferry available?" Please try the library or if you can’t be bothered just type in refugees the truth into Google . I didn’t make up the numbers I just read them. I don’t need to prove it as I’m not in the habit of lying on here and when I’m wrong I admit it publicly as most forum members who frequently post on here will vouch for. If we had a safe option for those people they wouldn’t need to use the dangerous boats would they. But that isn’t offered as we don’t want to make it safe. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sources are in the parliamentary library . 75% at first asking and another 15% on appeal . Look it up . You originally said "Regardless of their sex 90% are granted full asylum almost straight away", but now you've changed that to 75% and a further 15% later on. The government's 75% figure refers to all asylum seekers, not just those arriving by boat. There are no figures on how many arriving by boat are granted asylum. The various government figures don't add up at the moment. I'm guessing that's due to different reporting periods. You also haven't given a source for your claim that "95% of those arriving through the channel on boats are legal". Can we also just put this to bed. They are not illegal immigrants they are legal unless they fail to report to authorities so the comments above saying they are illegal is just bullshit! That's not true. They are acting illegally if they enter UK territorial waters without pre-approval. There's an exemption which allows vessels with non-functional communications equipment to turn up at a customs port and surrender to the authorities. That means that an immigrant can claim to be heading for a customs port, even if that's not what they were planning to do. So prosecutions can only be made if a person enters the UK via a non-approved route (i.e. sets foot on a beach), or if the Crown can prove that the immigrant was intending to avoid customs officers. The fact that we can't prosecute, doesn't make the action legal. The obvious question to ask is, why are they risking this terrible sea crossing when there's a perfectly good ferry available? The delay from 75% to 90% is relatively short in government time. Again the library confirms the numbers a further 5% are eventually allowed though these can take years. 5% are found to be not suitable to enter. So the fact that the government admits they are ok to stay makes the fuss over them arriving just mute crap but unfortunately the media make it a noise. Various independent immigration organisations and refugee sites can confirm the figures . Would I go to court over 95 or 94 no I wouldn’t but seeing as the number is over 90% at the end of the process why is there so much hysterical behaviour of sone people over this? Your own government says they are ok to stay., As for proving they were planning to avoid registration before getting caught . Good luck with that in a court of law. They are in the hands of the authorities either way. Also I didn’t see many radios on those boats so a functioning one is unlikely. You may not like the laws of refugee status but that’s for you to take up with the UN not me. I don’t care about your issues. Are there others who sneak through ? I’m sure there are but if they’re not in the system then the state isn’t paying benefits and as we’ve now secured our borders we don’t have an issue do we. You seem perfectly happy to allow anyone to settle here? " Did I say that or did you just assume that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Look up: House of Commons Library asylum statistics." Another document, another set of numbers. I had a search and came across the Asylum Statistics published 2nd March 2022: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01403/SN01403.pdf It says that 28% of applications are refused at initial decision, so 72% are accepted. It then goes on to say that "around three-quarters (75%) of main applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and just under one third (30%) of those appeals were allowed", so that's a further 6.3% granted. The problem is that the initial refusal statistics used in this document are from 2019, while the successful appeal stats are from 2020. The pattern of immigration to the UK will have changed due to Brexit, and CoViD will have affected the 2020 figures. As for small boat arrivals, the document says "applications from small boat arrivals could have accounted for up to 64% of applications (nearly two thirds) in Q3 2021, and for over a third of applications in most quarters since April 2020". So those figures come from 2021, and aren't very accurate. My point here is that we really don't know how many small boat arrivals are being granted asylum. In addition, since the appeal process can last for years, we don't know how many appeals are being accepted. This means that it is not possible to make a rational argument based on solid data, because we don't have any. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please try the library or if you can’t be bothered just type in refugees the truth into Google . " I have searched the library, and I just don't find what you keep saying. I'm happy for you to post a link to my inbox if you like, so that I can see what you see. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sound like 78.3% are accepted. You can't say there are no figures after literally showing us the figures." I did explain that those 2 figures are from different years, and don't single out small boat arrivals, which is what we are discussing at the moment. There are no useable figures for small boat arrivals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sound like 78.3% are accepted. You can't say there are no figures after literally showing us the figures. I did explain that those 2 figures are from different years, and don't single out small boat arrivals, which is what we are discussing at the moment. There are no useable figures for small boat arrivals." So what? They don't get on the ferry cos of passport control...jesus. having to explain things to people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Looks like the first plane to Rwanda is now set for 14th June according to the BBC but legal challenges are expected" We just know don’t we that one way or another this is going to have a negative comeback on this country. Future compensation? Sanctioned by the UN? State Reputational Damage? Who knows - but there will be negative consequences. There always is with I’ll thought out policies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Looks like the first plane to Rwanda is now set for 14th June according to the BBC but legal challenges are expected We just know don’t we that one way or another this is going to have a negative comeback on this country. Future compensation? Sanctioned by the UN? State Reputational Damage? Who knows - but there will be negative consequences. There always is with I’ll thought out policies. " I suspect as I mentioned on other threads that this will get bogged down in legal challenges. The winners will be the lawyers as usual | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They don't get on the ferry cos of passport control ..." Exactly. They know that if they try to board the ferry they'll be turned away for lack of a passport. But instead of claiming asylum in France, or getting a new passport, they get into a small boat headed for the UK to cheat their way into the system. It's like football fans turning up at the stadium with no tickets. They find they can't get through the turnstiles, so they climb over the fence to watch the game. Do we consider that behaviour acceptable? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They don't get on the ferry cos of passport control ... Exactly. They know that if they try to board the ferry they'll be turned away for lack of a passport. But instead of claiming asylum in France, or getting a new passport, they get into a small boat headed for the UK to cheat their way into the system. It's like football fans turning up at the stadium with no tickets. They find they can't get through the turnstiles, so they climb over the fence to watch the game. Do we consider that behaviour acceptable?" It's not the same thing at all and a terrible false equivalence to equate people who fear for their lives against people who want to watch a football match and you should be ashamed for making the comparison. People are not taking a ferry cos they don't have a passport. They are being exploited by gangs. They can choose to claim asylum wherever they want, as is international law. Which we have signed up to. We don't have any legal ways to claim before people get here so it's us who have created this situation where we are empowering the criminal gangs by not having other routes. It's not a cheat at all. It's the only way some people have. Would you be banging on about Jews staying in Vichy France rather than coming here in the late 30s and 40s? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They don't get on the ferry cos of passport control ... Exactly. They know that if they try to board the ferry they'll be turned away for lack of a passport. But instead of claiming asylum in France, or getting a new passport, they get into a small boat headed for the UK to cheat their way into the system. It's like football fans turning up at the stadium with no tickets. They find they can't get through the turnstiles, so they climb over the fence to watch the game. Do we consider that behaviour acceptable?" so only ppl with passports are allowed to apply for asylum in the UK ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not the same thing at all and a terrible false equivalence to equate people who fear for their lives against people who want to watch a football match ..." I know France isn't a very nice place, but none of those people are fearing for their lives. They may have had good reason to fear for their lives in their home country, but at the point that they get into a boat bound for the UK, they are in a safe land, with no fear of persecution. "People are not taking a ferry cos they don't have a passport. They are being exploited by gangs." Are you saying that the gangs are forcing the people to cross the channel? "They can choose to claim asylum wherever they want, as is international law. Which we have signed up to." That's true, we have signed that law, and it says that only the first country that a person lands in is obliged to consider an asylum application. We could consider their applications if we wanted to, but someone has made the decision that we won't. "We don't have any legal ways to claim before people get here so it's us who have created this situation where we are empowering the criminal gangs by not having other routes." That's the way it has always been. Asylum is supposed to be claimed in the first safe country you get to. You're supposed to claim asylum as soon as you get off the plane / boat from your native land. That's what the international agreement says. "It's not a cheat at all. It's the only way some people have." It's the only way they have of living in Britain. They could easily choose one of the other countries that they have travelled through on their way here. It's not the only way they have of being saved from their oppressors. "Would you be banging on about Jews staying in Vichy France rather than coming here in the late 30s and 40s? " Absolutely not, Jews in France were in imminent danger, and we were one of the closest countries available for them to flee to. The people that nowadays get onto small boats from France are not in imminent danger, and I am genuinely at a loss to understand why they feel the need to risk their lives to get here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so only ppl with passports are allowed to apply for asylum in the UK ?" I didn't write the international agreements on refugees claiming political asylum, but that's what it says. You need to be in a country before you can apply for asylum there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe?" Because the nato war///propoganda machine decries it. Its about time you woke up to that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe?" And because nato are just as evil as Russia, NATO's using the Ukrainians! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe?" Your a fine one spouting on about hypocricy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so only ppl with passports are allowed to apply for asylum in the UK ? I didn't write the international agreements on refugees claiming political asylum, but that's what it says. You need to be in a country before you can apply for asylum there." are you certain that is true ? This looks like the US used to accept applications from Cubans still in Cuba. But even so, I've lost your point here. The law says you can only apply once in the UK. The law says you can only enter with a passport. Therefore if you don't have a passport you can apply for asylum in the UK. Even though you have the right. You very easily get to then, that the law forces people to act illegally in order to claim their right of asylum. So the easy solution to forcing people to take illegal routs and risk their lives is change the law. In a limited and specific way of course  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Look up: House of Commons Library asylum statistics. Another document, another set of numbers. I had a search and came across the Asylum Statistics published 2nd March 2022: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01403/SN01403.pdf It says that 28% of applications are refused at initial decision, so 72% are accepted. It then goes on to say that "around three-quarters (75%) of main applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and just under one third (30%) of those appeals were allowed", so that's a further 6.3% granted. The problem is that the initial refusal statistics used in this document are from 2019, while the successful appeal stats are from 2020. The pattern of immigration to the UK will have changed due to Brexit, and CoViD will have affected the 2020 figures. As for small boat arrivals, the document says "applications from small boat arrivals could have accounted for up to 64% of applications (nearly two thirds) in Q3 2021, and for over a third of applications in most quarters since April 2020". So those figures come from 2021, and aren't very accurate. My point here is that we really don't know how many small boat arrivals are being granted asylum. In addition, since the appeal process can last for years, we don't know how many appeals are being accepted. This means that it is not possible to make a rational argument based on solid data, because we don't have any." So, why does any of that mean that Ukrainians should be treated differently? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Look up: House of Commons Library asylum statistics. Another document, another set of numbers. I had a search and came across the Asylum Statistics published 2nd March 2022: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01403/SN01403.pdf It says that 28% of applications are refused at initial decision, so 72% are accepted. It then goes on to say that "around three-quarters (75%) of main applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and just under one third (30%) of those appeals were allowed", so that's a further 6.3% granted. The problem is that the initial refusal statistics used in this document are from 2019, while the successful appeal stats are from 2020. The pattern of immigration to the UK will have changed due to Brexit, and CoViD will have affected the 2020 figures. As for small boat arrivals, the document says "applications from small boat arrivals could have accounted for up to 64% of applications (nearly two thirds) in Q3 2021, and for over a third of applications in most quarters since April 2020". So those figures come from 2021, and aren't very accurate. My point here is that we really don't know how many small boat arrivals are being granted asylum. In addition, since the appeal process can last for years, we don't know how many appeals are being accepted. This means that it is not possible to make a rational argument based on solid data, because we don't have any." Glad you did some homework and I’ll just add to your figures. The home office published data from 2020 as a reference on relative numbers regarding processing. . “From January to September 2020, 98% of the people who arrived in the UK by crossing the English Channel in small boats claimed asylum, but the majority of asylum seekers did not arrive by small boat” If so far this year we just take “your” figure of around 80% were granted asylum quickly ( it’s not quick) the 6000 who have arrived by boat so far this year equates to 1200 people who are in need of further checks if we allow for summer increases it will run around 6000 in total being further processed for the year. Not particularly big number is it. The figures are slightly out for the previous years so this news gem may help explain the discrepancies. For ongoing case loads ( government facts 2022) the numbers being processed presently stand at 125,000 people. ( double the total figure of arrivals per year) This includes all types of entry. Is this staff shortages or government policy to reduce the number shown as accepted? Who knows but maybe it’s both. I think I can guess seeing as we can’t do border check properly due to no border staff. Wave them through if it’s a foreign import but in the case of immigrants lock them up. To back up the huge increase in cases being delayed again from the governments statistics. The share of asylum applications that received an initial decision within six months fell from 87% in Q2 2014 to 22% in Q2 2020. Dramatic stuff eh. So my figures whilst not court case accurate were in fact on the money until the recent almost stop of processing. Now let’s come to another interesting but often ignored couple of facts. The higher refusal rates across all countries are for migrants arriving into the U.K. from Pakistan, Bangladesh and at the top with 94% India. Most of these top refusals arrive by plane so after adjusting the averages across all routes the acceptance for boat arrivals must even higher proportionately. I wonder if a new trade deal with India will change anything? Interesting fact number two from the government. As the war raged in Syria with our planes joining in the bombing the biggest country of U.K. refugee origin was Syria. “Of all refugees resettled in the UK from January 2010 to December 2020, around 70% were Syrian citizens.” Since the war has abated there less people are seeking asylum and other countries with problems are now leading the way. So the conclusion could be made that if we make where they live safer, richer or we just don’t fucking bomb it then perhaps they will be less likely to become refugees. So if in reality we finally get to even 90% on appeals is it worth the trouble to make such a public fuss of immigration? Those undesirables seem to be a small proportion and ed out anyway. My view is it’s a right wing feeding frenzies whipped up by Patel and Co. to appeal to the extreme right wing of the Tory support. The reality is out of all immigration the refugees are not a big problem at all. The number of granted asylums prove that. One last thing whilst under review the asylum seekers get just under £6 as day to spend. Obviously they get shitty accommodation too. Once they are granted asylum they have 28 days before they are kicked out of the accommodation and expected to fend for themselves in relation to accommodation, benefits and a job. I bet there’s not many on here who could sort that after living here all their lives. Aren’t we generous. Goodnight | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe? Your a fine one spouting on about hypocricy" I think that you've missed the point of the post. Almost completely. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Look up: House of Commons Library asylum statistics. Another document, another set of numbers. I had a search and came across the Asylum Statistics published 2nd March 2022: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01403/SN01403.pdf It says that 28% of applications are refused at initial decision, so 72% are accepted. It then goes on to say that "around three-quarters (75%) of main applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and just under one third (30%) of those appeals were allowed", so that's a further 6.3% granted. The problem is that the initial refusal statistics used in this document are from 2019, while the successful appeal stats are from 2020. The pattern of immigration to the UK will have changed due to Brexit, and CoViD will have affected the 2020 figures. As for small boat arrivals, the document says "applications from small boat arrivals could have accounted for up to 64% of applications (nearly two thirds) in Q3 2021, and for over a third of applications in most quarters since April 2020". So those figures come from 2021, and aren't very accurate. My point here is that we really don't know how many small boat arrivals are being granted asylum. In addition, since the appeal process can last for years, we don't know how many appeals are being accepted. This means that it is not possible to make a rational argument based on solid data, because we don't have any." You seem to have missed the thing that I wrote earlier. UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" Why do Ukrainians have different rules? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so only ppl with passports are allowed to apply for asylum in the UK ? I didn't write the international agreements on refugees claiming political asylum, but that's what it says. You need to be in a country before you can apply for asylum there." You seem to be making things up. Again; UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" Not the first country of arrival. Any country. UNHCR Nationalities and Borders Bill UK "UNHCR believes the UK’s Nationality and Borders Act will penalise most refugees seeking asylum in the country, creating an asylum model that undermines established international refugee protection rules and practices." Why are Ukrainians treated differently? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ukraine are under attack from a nazi despot and I welcome them here and hope we can provide them with a safe,secure and comfortable environment until it's time for them to return to their homeland.its mostly women,children and the elderly. This is in stark contrast to the thousands of economic migrants ,mostly male and under 30 who arrive without passports or any identification and play the system costing us millions every year.its quite clear to anyone what the difference between the two groups are ." So, will you welcome their husbands and sons if Russia wins the war? Large parts of the country are already uninhabitable. Are they allowed to stay? Do we welcome women and children and the elderly from other conflict areas? Do they have a special process for entry? Are fighting men or non-combatant women more at risk from a despotic regime? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Simple truth - People prefer to help others who they identify more with. It's not specific to the UK. It's why India would take Hindu or Buddhist refugees but not Rohingya refugees. There are other issues too. Ukrainian refugees are mostly women. Most men are out there fighting to solve their problem. It's reasonable to assume that these refugees will go back to Ukraine when the war ends." "People"? Which people? Weird how so much money gets raised to help people in other countries who look different and have other religions. Perhaps our government is just playing to a minority? Do we have a process to allow women and children and elderly people to apply for asylum from other conflict zones? Why not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Simple truth - People prefer to help others who they identify more with. It's not specific to the UK. It's why India would take Hindu or Buddhist refugees but not Rohingya refugees. There are other issues too. Ukrainian refugees are mostly women. Most men are out there fighting to solve their problem. It's reasonable to assume that these refugees will go back to Ukraine when the war ends. "People"? Which people? Weird how so much money gets raised to help people in other countries who look different and have other religions. Perhaps our government is just playing to a minority? Do we have a process to allow women and children and elderly people to apply for asylum from other conflict zones? Why not?" Most people prefer helping their own kin first before donating for charity worldwide? I know there are a few who like to donate for charity to other countries. That's not the norm. In general, if someone has limited resources to help and they have to choose between who to help, it's natural for people to start with their own family, friends, community and so on. When it comes to an entire country, it's no different. If you have got extra money to donate and your friend is in need of dire help, will you donate it to your friend or some charity organisation in a country you have never been to? As for the women from other countries, the explanation above applies there too. Limited resources and they prefer to allocate them to people from their European neighbours. If they were to change the rules and allow women alone from the other countries to apply for asylum, can they handle the volume of requests? I don't think so. If the UK suddenly becomes ultra wealthy to handle those many refugees, one can ask for that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Simple truth - People prefer to help others who they identify more with. It's not specific to the UK. It's why India would take Hindu or Buddhist refugees but not Rohingya refugees. There are other issues too. Ukrainian refugees are mostly women. Most men are out there fighting to solve their problem. It's reasonable to assume that these refugees will go back to Ukraine when the war ends. "People"? Which people? Weird how so much money gets raised to help people in other countries who look different and have other religions. Perhaps our government is just playing to a minority? Do we have a process to allow women and children and elderly people to apply for asylum from other conflict zones? Why not? Most people prefer helping their own kin first before donating for charity worldwide? I know there are a few who like to donate for charity to other countries. That's not the norm. In general, if someone has limited resources to help and they have to choose between who to help, it's natural for people to start with their own family, friends, community and so on. When it comes to an entire country, it's no different. If you have got extra money to donate and your friend is in need of dire help, will you donate it to your friend or some charity organisation in a country you have never been to? As for the women from other countries, the explanation above applies there too. Limited resources and they prefer to allocate them to people from their European neighbours. If they were to change the rules and allow women alone from the other countries to apply for asylum, can they handle the volume of requests? I don't think so. If the UK suddenly becomes ultra wealthy to handle those many refugees, one can ask for that." So, there is no appetite in the country to help others? I see. How do you know any of this? Are you just making this up? You do understand the point of this thread, don't you? Why are Ukrainians a special case? Why do "people" want to help them but nobody else, according to you? The British people "prefer" not to help women and children in countries other than Ukraine? So, will you welcome their husbands and sons if Russia wins the war? Large parts of the country are already uninhabitable. Are fighting men or non-combatant women more at risk from a despotic regime? Why is there a special process for Ukrainian women and children over other countries? Wouldn't providing legitimate paths to asylum be cheaper than policing the Channel to the extent that is necessary now. Especially when nearly all applications are granted and are therefore legitimate. "They" apparently can handle this level of unplanned requests, so much easier to handle planned ones. UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" Why do Ukrainians have different rules? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Simple truth - People prefer to help others who they identify more with. It's not specific to the UK. It's why India would take Hindu or Buddhist refugees but not Rohingya refugees. There are other issues too. Ukrainian refugees are mostly women. Most men are out there fighting to solve their problem. It's reasonable to assume that these refugees will go back to Ukraine when the war ends. "People"? Which people? Weird how so much money gets raised to help people in other countries who look different and have other religions. Perhaps our government is just playing to a minority? Do we have a process to allow women and children and elderly people to apply for asylum from other conflict zones? Why not? Most people prefer helping their own kin first before donating for charity worldwide? I know there are a few who like to donate for charity to other countries. That's not the norm. In general, if someone has limited resources to help and they have to choose between who to help, it's natural for people to start with their own family, friends, community and so on. When it comes to an entire country, it's no different. If you have got extra money to donate and your friend is in need of dire help, will you donate it to your friend or some charity organisation in a country you have never been to? As for the women from other countries, the explanation above applies there too. Limited resources and they prefer to allocate them to people from their European neighbours. If they were to change the rules and allow women alone from the other countries to apply for asylum, can they handle the volume of requests? I don't think so. If the UK suddenly becomes ultra wealthy to handle those many refugees, one can ask for that. So, there is no appetite in the country to help others? I see. How do you know any of this? Are you just making this up? You do understand the point of this thread, don't you? Why are Ukrainians a special case? Why do "people" want to help them but nobody else, according to you? The British people "prefer" not to help women and children in countries other than Ukraine? So, will you welcome their husbands and sons if Russia wins the war? Large parts of the country are already uninhabitable. Are fighting men or non-combatant women more at risk from a despotic regime? Why is there a special process for Ukrainian women and children over other countries? Wouldn't providing legitimate paths to asylum be cheaper than policing the Channel to the extent that is necessary now. Especially when nearly all applications are granted and are therefore legitimate. "They" apparently can handle this level of unplanned requests, so much easier to handle planned ones. UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" Why do Ukrainians have different rules?" I think I made it pretty clear in my post. Not sure why you keep asking the same questions again. Everyone has appetite to help. UK is not different. But no one has infinite resources to help. Everyone has to make a choices on who they want to help. UK and all the other European countries have a bigger appetite to help people who they identify with culturally. Now if the UK turns more wealthy and decides to help more people, the government will look over Europeans and find the next group of people they would love to help. In that case, they could look at women from the other countries. It's a hierarchy of preferences. You and me are not any different. If I have money that I decide to donate, I will always help my own family and friends first before anyone else. I still donate for an orphanage in India and not here. Billionaires donate for different causes. Some donate to Africa. Some would rather donate to scientific research. It's not right to go around asking everyone "Why are you helping these people but not others?" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"'That's true, we have signed that law, and it says that only the first country that a person lands in is obliged to consider an asylum application. We could consider their applications if we wanted to, but someone has made the decision that we won't." "That's not true. I'm sorry who has been telling you that cos they lied to you. Now ive told you, stop repeating it." It is true. The law I'm referring to is the Dublin II Regulation, which you can read here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEGISSUM:l33153 Under the section "Illegal entry or stay in a Member State" it states "Where the asylum seeker has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State, that Member State will be responsible for examining the asylum application". Any person arriving in a small boat is coming from France. If they have no passport, then they must have entered France irregularly, and therefore France is responsible. "Apart from the Jews bit. They could have gone to France,just like today. But chose not to. I love how you say we were 'one of the first'. Why is one of the first ok then but not now." I didn't say that were "one of the first", I said that we were "one of the closest". "Just have a think about that and then extrapolate that to today's situation. " You seem to think that I am arguing against immigration. I'm not. I'm just trying to dispel some of the myths and misinformation that are being posted by people that haven't had the impetus to check the facts before posting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Simple truth - People prefer to help others who they identify more with. It's not specific to the UK. It's why India would take Hindu or Buddhist refugees but not Rohingya refugees. There are other issues too. Ukrainian refugees are mostly women. Most men are out there fighting to solve their problem. It's reasonable to assume that these refugees will go back to Ukraine when the war ends. "People"? Which people? Weird how so much money gets raised to help people in other countries who look different and have other religions. Perhaps our government is just playing to a minority? Do we have a process to allow women and children and elderly people to apply for asylum from other conflict zones? Why not? Most people prefer helping their own kin first before donating for charity worldwide? I know there are a few who like to donate for charity to other countries. That's not the norm. In general, if someone has limited resources to help and they have to choose between who to help, it's natural for people to start with their own family, friends, community and so on. When it comes to an entire country, it's no different. If you have got extra money to donate and your friend is in need of dire help, will you donate it to your friend or some charity organisation in a country you have never been to? As for the women from other countries, the explanation above applies there too. Limited resources and they prefer to allocate them to people from their European neighbours. If they were to change the rules and allow women alone from the other countries to apply for asylum, can they handle the volume of requests? I don't think so. If the UK suddenly becomes ultra wealthy to handle those many refugees, one can ask for that. So, there is no appetite in the country to help others? I see. How do you know any of this? Are you just making this up? You do understand the point of this thread, don't you? Why are Ukrainians a special case? Why do "people" want to help them but nobody else, according to you? The British people "prefer" not to help women and children in countries other than Ukraine? So, will you welcome their husbands and sons if Russia wins the war? Large parts of the country are already uninhabitable. Are fighting men or non-combatant women more at risk from a despotic regime? Why is there a special process for Ukrainian women and children over other countries? Wouldn't providing legitimate paths to asylum be cheaper than policing the Channel to the extent that is necessary now. Especially when nearly all applications are granted and are therefore legitimate. "They" apparently can handle this level of unplanned requests, so much easier to handle planned ones. UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" Why do Ukrainians have different rules?" let’s say you have a million pounds to donate you can’t split it it has to be donated in one lump who would you choose to donate to ukrain or Syria? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You need to be in a country before you can apply for asylum there." "are you certain that is true ? This looks like the US used to accept applications from Cubans still in Cuba." I see the confusion. What I meant was that countries are obliged to consider asylum cases from applications made at entry points, or by those who have irregularly entered. That doesn't stop countries from offering extra rights, such as applying from abroad. "But even so, I've lost your point here. The law says you can only apply once in the UK. The law says you can only enter with a passport. Therefore if you don't have a passport you can apply for asylum in the UK. Even though you have the right." The internation laws on asylum say that a person has the right to apply for asylum in a safe country. It does not say that the applicant has a right to choose which country they wish to claim in. Asylum is all about protecting people from harm from their own state. Once a person is in a safe country, they cannot then use refugee rules to move from one safe country to another. So, a refugee that stows away on a plane from Tehran to Heathrow has the right to asylum, and since they are at a UK entry point, they have the right to asylum in the UK. A refugee standing on a beach in France has the right to asylum, but they do not have the right to travel to the UK to claim asylum there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Simple truth - People prefer to help others who they identify more with. It's not specific to the UK. It's why India would take Hindu or Buddhist refugees but not Rohingya refugees. There are other issues too. Ukrainian refugees are mostly women. Most men are out there fighting to solve their problem. It's reasonable to assume that these refugees will go back to Ukraine when the war ends. "People"? Which people? Weird how so much money gets raised to help people in other countries who look different and have other religions. Perhaps our government is just playing to a minority? Do we have a process to allow women and children and elderly people to apply for asylum from other conflict zones? Why not? Most people prefer helping their own kin first before donating for charity worldwide? I know there are a few who like to donate for charity to other countries. That's not the norm. In general, if someone has limited resources to help and they have to choose between who to help, it's natural for people to start with their own family, friends, community and so on. When it comes to an entire country, it's no different. If you have got extra money to donate and your friend is in need of dire help, will you donate it to your friend or some charity organisation in a country you have never been to? As for the women from other countries, the explanation above applies there too. Limited resources and they prefer to allocate them to people from their European neighbours. If they were to change the rules and allow women alone from the other countries to apply for asylum, can they handle the volume of requests? I don't think so. If the UK suddenly becomes ultra wealthy to handle those many refugees, one can ask for that. So, there is no appetite in the country to help others? I see. How do you know any of this? Are you just making this up? You do understand the point of this thread, don't you? Why are Ukrainians a special case? Why do "people" want to help them but nobody else, according to you? The British people "prefer" not to help women and children in countries other than Ukraine? So, will you welcome their husbands and sons if Russia wins the war? Large parts of the country are already uninhabitable. Are fighting men or non-combatant women more at risk from a despotic regime? Why is there a special process for Ukrainian women and children over other countries? Wouldn't providing legitimate paths to asylum be cheaper than policing the Channel to the extent that is necessary now. Especially when nearly all applications are granted and are therefore legitimate. "They" apparently can handle this level of unplanned requests, so much easier to handle planned ones. UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" Why do Ukrainians have different rules?let’s say you have a million pounds to donate you can’t split it it has to be donated in one lump who would you choose to donate to ukrain or Syria?" Why try to answer a different question? Why is there a special process created only for Ukrainians? They are in safe countries. Why should they be allowed into the UK and not someone from anywhere else in equal need? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Simple truth - People prefer to help others who they identify more with. It's not specific to the UK. It's why India would take Hindu or Buddhist refugees but not Rohingya refugees. There are other issues too. Ukrainian refugees are mostly women. Most men are out there fighting to solve their problem. It's reasonable to assume that these refugees will go back to Ukraine when the war ends. "People"? Which people? Weird how so much money gets raised to help people in other countries who look different and have other religions. Perhaps our government is just playing to a minority? Do we have a process to allow women and children and elderly people to apply for asylum from other conflict zones? Why not? Most people prefer helping their own kin first before donating for charity worldwide? I know there are a few who like to donate for charity to other countries. That's not the norm. In general, if someone has limited resources to help and they have to choose between who to help, it's natural for people to start with their own family, friends, community and so on. When it comes to an entire country, it's no different. If you have got extra money to donate and your friend is in need of dire help, will you donate it to your friend or some charity organisation in a country you have never been to? As for the women from other countries, the explanation above applies there too. Limited resources and they prefer to allocate them to people from their European neighbours. If they were to change the rules and allow women alone from the other countries to apply for asylum, can they handle the volume of requests? I don't think so. If the UK suddenly becomes ultra wealthy to handle those many refugees, one can ask for that. So, there is no appetite in the country to help others? I see. How do you know any of this? Are you just making this up? You do understand the point of this thread, don't you? Why are Ukrainians a special case? Why do "people" want to help them but nobody else, according to you? The British people "prefer" not to help women and children in countries other than Ukraine? So, will you welcome their husbands and sons if Russia wins the war? Large parts of the country are already uninhabitable. Are fighting men or non-combatant women more at risk from a despotic regime? Why is there a special process for Ukrainian women and children over other countries? Wouldn't providing legitimate paths to asylum be cheaper than policing the Channel to the extent that is necessary now. Especially when nearly all applications are granted and are therefore legitimate. "They" apparently can handle this level of unplanned requests, so much easier to handle planned ones. UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" Why do Ukrainians have different rules?let’s say you have a million pounds to donate you can’t split it it has to be donated in one lump who would you choose to donate to ukrain or Syria? Why try to answer a different question? Why is there a special process created only for Ukrainians? They are in safe countries. Why should they be allowed into the UK and not someone from anywhere else in equal need?" I hope you are not suggesting it’s because they are white? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Simple truth - People prefer to help others who they identify more with. It's not specific to the UK. It's why India would take Hindu or Buddhist refugees but not Rohingya refugees. There are other issues too. Ukrainian refugees are mostly women. Most men are out there fighting to solve their problem. It's reasonable to assume that these refugees will go back to Ukraine when the war ends. "People"? Which people? Weird how so much money gets raised to help people in other countries who look different and have other religions. Perhaps our government is just playing to a minority? Do we have a process to allow women and children and elderly people to apply for asylum from other conflict zones? Why not? Most people prefer helping their own kin first before donating for charity worldwide? I know there are a few who like to donate for charity to other countries. That's not the norm. In general, if someone has limited resources to help and they have to choose between who to help, it's natural for people to start with their own family, friends, community and so on. When it comes to an entire country, it's no different. If you have got extra money to donate and your friend is in need of dire help, will you donate it to your friend or some charity organisation in a country you have never been to? As for the women from other countries, the explanation above applies there too. Limited resources and they prefer to allocate them to people from their European neighbours. If they were to change the rules and allow women alone from the other countries to apply for asylum, can they handle the volume of requests? I don't think so. If the UK suddenly becomes ultra wealthy to handle those many refugees, one can ask for that. So, there is no appetite in the country to help others? I see. How do you know any of this? Are you just making this up? You do understand the point of this thread, don't you? Why are Ukrainians a special case? Why do "people" want to help them but nobody else, according to you? The British people "prefer" not to help women and children in countries other than Ukraine? So, will you welcome their husbands and sons if Russia wins the war? Large parts of the country are already uninhabitable. Are fighting men or non-combatant women more at risk from a despotic regime? Why is there a special process for Ukrainian women and children over other countries? Wouldn't providing legitimate paths to asylum be cheaper than policing the Channel to the extent that is necessary now. Especially when nearly all applications are granted and are therefore legitimate. "They" apparently can handle this level of unplanned requests, so much easier to handle planned ones. UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" Why do Ukrainians have different rules? I think I made it pretty clear in my post. Not sure why you keep asking the same questions again. Everyone has appetite to help. UK is not different. But no one has infinite resources to help. Everyone has to make a choices on who they want to help. UK and all the other European countries have a bigger appetite to help people who they identify with culturally. Now if the UK turns more wealthy and decides to help more people, the government will look over Europeans and find the next group of people they would love to help. In that case, they could look at women from the other countries. It's a hierarchy of preferences. You and me are not any different. If I have money that I decide to donate, I will always help my own family and friends first before anyone else. I still donate for an orphanage in India and not here. Billionaires donate for different causes. Some donate to Africa. Some would rather donate to scientific research. It's not right to go around asking everyone "Why are you helping these people but not others?" " I am asking the same question because you absolutely have not answered it. Why is there a specific process for Ukrainian refugees separate to that of any other nationality? Will we accept men from Ukraine if they want to join their families and will we keep them here having granted asylum to their families? We identify culturally with Ukrainians? Really? How? This is not about charity. It is, absolutely, correct to ask why our national refugee policy treats some people in equal need differently to others. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If so far this year we just take “your” figure of around 80% were granted asylum quickly" It's not 'my' figure, it's the government's, and it wasn't 80%, it was 72% "the 6000 who have arrived by boat so far this year equates to 1200 people who are in need of further checks if we allow for summer increases it will run around 6000 in total being further processed for the year. Not particularly big number is it." You also seem to think that I'm arguing that we should have less immigration. I'm not. All I'm doing here is trying to correct some of the misleading, untruthful, and downright made-up facts and figures that some people are posting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Simple truth - People prefer to help others who they identify more with. It's not specific to the UK. It's why India would take Hindu or Buddhist refugees but not Rohingya refugees. There are other issues too. Ukrainian refugees are mostly women. Most men are out there fighting to solve their problem. It's reasonable to assume that these refugees will go back to Ukraine when the war ends. "People"? Which people? Weird how so much money gets raised to help people in other countries who look different and have other religions. Perhaps our government is just playing to a minority? Do we have a process to allow women and children and elderly people to apply for asylum from other conflict zones? Why not? Most people prefer helping their own kin first before donating for charity worldwide? I know there are a few who like to donate for charity to other countries. That's not the norm. In general, if someone has limited resources to help and they have to choose between who to help, it's natural for people to start with their own family, friends, community and so on. When it comes to an entire country, it's no different. If you have got extra money to donate and your friend is in need of dire help, will you donate it to your friend or some charity organisation in a country you have never been to? As for the women from other countries, the explanation above applies there too. Limited resources and they prefer to allocate them to people from their European neighbours. If they were to change the rules and allow women alone from the other countries to apply for asylum, can they handle the volume of requests? I don't think so. If the UK suddenly becomes ultra wealthy to handle those many refugees, one can ask for that. So, there is no appetite in the country to help others? I see. How do you know any of this? Are you just making this up? You do understand the point of this thread, don't you? Why are Ukrainians a special case? Why do "people" want to help them but nobody else, according to you? The British people "prefer" not to help women and children in countries other than Ukraine? So, will you welcome their husbands and sons if Russia wins the war? Large parts of the country are already uninhabitable. Are fighting men or non-combatant women more at risk from a despotic regime? Why is there a special process for Ukrainian women and children over other countries? Wouldn't providing legitimate paths to asylum be cheaper than policing the Channel to the extent that is necessary now. Especially when nearly all applications are granted and are therefore legitimate. "They" apparently can handle this level of unplanned requests, so much easier to handle planned ones. UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" Why do Ukrainians have different rules?let’s say you have a million pounds to donate you can’t split it it has to be donated in one lump who would you choose to donate to ukrain or Syria? Why try to answer a different question? Why is there a special process created only for Ukrainians? They are in safe countries. Why should they be allowed into the UK and not someone from anywhere else in equal need?" you ask dozens of questions every day atleast you could answer one or was it to hard to answer lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You seem to have missed the thing that I wrote earlier. UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival"" That's true. But it is illegal to leave a safe country, enter another one irregularly, and then claim asylum. The refugee rules are about protecting people from retribution from their home country. They are not about protecting people from the unpleasantness of France. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I made it pretty clear in my post. Not sure why you keep asking the same questions again." "I am asking the same question because you absolutely have not answered it." Lots of people have answered your question, you just don't like their answers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"'That's true, we have signed that law, and it says that only the first country that a person lands in is obliged to consider an asylum application. We could consider their applications if we wanted to, but someone has made the decision that we won't. That's not true. I'm sorry who has been telling you that cos they lied to you. Now ive told you, stop repeating it. It is true. The law I'm referring to is the Dublin II Regulation, which you can read here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEGISSUM:l33153 Under the section "Illegal entry or stay in a Member State" it states "Where the asylum seeker has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State, that Member State will be responsible for examining the asylum application". Any person arriving in a small boat is coming from France. If they have no passport, then they must have entered France irregularly, and therefore France is responsible. Apart from the Jews bit. They could have gone to France,just like today. But chose not to. I love how you say we were 'one of the first'. Why is one of the first ok then but not now. I didn't say that were "one of the first", I said that we were "one of the closest". Just have a think about that and then extrapolate that to today's situation. You seem to think that I am arguing against immigration. I'm not. I'm just trying to dispel some of the myths and misinformation that are being posted by people that haven't had the impetus to check the facts before posting." We have left the EU so no longer subject to the Dublin Regulations. Once again: UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" We are trying to prevent asylum applications being made at all by preventing people from making landfall so that none have to be granted. Those in most need, unable to obtain travel documents in the hostile environment that they are fleeing will be the most likely to suffer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You seem to have missed the thing that I wrote earlier. UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" That's true. But it is illegal to leave a safe country, enter another one irregularly, and then claim asylum. The refugee rules are about protecting people from retribution from their home country. They are not about protecting people from the unpleasantness of France." No. It is not "illegal" to do so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I made it pretty clear in my post. Not sure why you keep asking the same questions again. I am asking the same question because you absolutely have not answered it. Lots of people have answered your question, you just don't like their answers. " So, what is the answer? Why is there a special regulation that allows Ukrainians to claim asylum in the UK from a safe country which cannot be done for people from other nationalities? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Simple truth - People prefer to help others who they identify more with. It's not specific to the UK. It's why India would take Hindu or Buddhist refugees but not Rohingya refugees. There are other issues too. Ukrainian refugees are mostly women. Most men are out there fighting to solve their problem. It's reasonable to assume that these refugees will go back to Ukraine when the war ends. "People"? Which people? Weird how so much money gets raised to help people in other countries who look different and have other religions. Perhaps our government is just playing to a minority? Do we have a process to allow women and children and elderly people to apply for asylum from other conflict zones? Why not? Most people prefer helping their own kin first before donating for charity worldwide? I know there are a few who like to donate for charity to other countries. That's not the norm. In general, if someone has limited resources to help and they have to choose between who to help, it's natural for people to start with their own family, friends, community and so on. When it comes to an entire country, it's no different. If you have got extra money to donate and your friend is in need of dire help, will you donate it to your friend or some charity organisation in a country you have never been to? As for the women from other countries, the explanation above applies there too. Limited resources and they prefer to allocate them to people from their European neighbours. If they were to change the rules and allow women alone from the other countries to apply for asylum, can they handle the volume of requests? I don't think so. If the UK suddenly becomes ultra wealthy to handle those many refugees, one can ask for that. So, there is no appetite in the country to help others? I see. How do you know any of this? Are you just making this up? You do understand the point of this thread, don't you? Why are Ukrainians a special case? Why do "people" want to help them but nobody else, according to you? The British people "prefer" not to help women and children in countries other than Ukraine? So, will you welcome their husbands and sons if Russia wins the war? Large parts of the country are already uninhabitable. Are fighting men or non-combatant women more at risk from a despotic regime? Why is there a special process for Ukrainian women and children over other countries? Wouldn't providing legitimate paths to asylum be cheaper than policing the Channel to the extent that is necessary now. Especially when nearly all applications are granted and are therefore legitimate. "They" apparently can handle this level of unplanned requests, so much easier to handle planned ones. UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" Why do Ukrainians have different rules?let’s say you have a million pounds to donate you can’t split it it has to be donated in one lump who would you choose to donate to ukrain or Syria? Why try to answer a different question? Why is there a special process created only for Ukrainians? They are in safe countries. Why should they be allowed into the UK and not someone from anywhere else in equal need?you ask dozens of questions every day atleast you could answer one or was it to hard to answer lol" I posted a thread and you decided to ask something else to just say something because the question is too difficult for you to address. Either you want to engage or you don't. Clearly you cannot or will not. As expected, sadly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s funny how some get so upset about this issue and dig in. The UK has a proud history of helping those in need. Do we always get it right? Of course not. There is a movement going on though of Biblical proportions. Millions of people seeking a better way of life and who can blame them for that? China and other Asian countries have decimated what industry there was in parts of the Middle East and Africa. Just look at all the black guys in France & Spain selling all the tat at tourist hotspots, all made in the Far East. How sad is that? And what sort of life? Look at the women selling the Big issue - they all look identical and seem to be from East Europe, driven to their alloyed pitch in a big Mercedes’ and left for the day, what’s that all about? We have an incredible amount of guys here in Maldon that claim to be Turkish - most are Albanian and would buy Bulgarian passports, how does that work? Of course we should help desperate people seeking asylum & escaping persecution, and no OP , we do not decide this based on colour as you are desperate to suggest. We also need to be grown up enough to to know that many will play the system and take advantage of good nature. Giving false hope to people that become disillusioned when they realise it’s not as easy as they were Les to believe, we don’t all drive around in a Porsche, the weather is often shit, the winters long, days short, without the money , fuck all to do. They are alone in a different climate & culture. It’s a huge industry and I sometimes wonder that apart from the level of violence if there’s any real difference in the career lawyers that major on immigration & asylum and the gang masters & people smugglers. All in the same industry. Here is the solution - let’s limit all immigration legal or not, to attractive young women only. " You are merely repeating rumour and gossip. Have you any information to corroborate your assertion about passports and Mercedes? How big a "problem" is this claimed abuse of the system statistically. Any idea? Continually trying to link economic migration to refugees is pretty unpleasant, but common. Easier to turn those in need away if you can associate them with those people have less sympathy for. If someone has moved to flee persecution or war then selling tat on the street is better. I have no idea why we are able to create a process to allow Ukrainians to claim asylum from a a safe third country to come to the UK but are unable or unwilling to for people of other nationalities. Consequently, my expectation would be that we apply a uniform policy regardless of ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. What do you think that we should do? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so only ppl with passports are allowed to apply for asylum in the UK ? I didn't write the international agreements on refugees claiming political asylum, but that's what it says. You need to be in a country before you can apply for asylum there." You didn't write them. The UNHCR did. Search: House of Commons Library Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR advises that “coming directly” means that States can treat refugees differently “if they have already settled in a country and subsequently move onwards for reasons unrelated to their need for international protection.” It emphasises that Article 31 does not support the notion that asylum must be claimed in the first safe country reached. It observes: Given that the 1951 Convention was drafted at a time when air travel was inaccessible to most, and overland travel was by far the most common mode of transport, such a principle would have relieved the very States that drafted and signed the Convention of any significant obligations under it.4 It further comments (emphasis as per original source): 19. (...). Whilst international law does not provide an unrestricted right to choose where to apply for asylum, there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach. This expectation would undermine the global humanitarian and cooperative principles on which refugee protection is founded, as emphasized by the 1951 Convention and recently reaffirmed by the General Assembly, including the UK, in the Global Compact on Refugees. It would impose an arbitrary and disproportionate burden on countries in the immediate region(s) of flight and threaten the capacity and willingness of those countries to properly process claims or provide acceptable reception conditions and durable solutions. This would (and does) threaten to make these first countries, in turn, unsafe and encourage onward movement. Instead, it says “the term “directly” is to be interpreted broadly, so that refugees who have passed through or stopped over in other countries en route, may still be exempt from penalties.” UK jurisprudence reflects this interpretation. UNHCR further notes that, where penalties for illegal entry/presence may be permissible, they should not go so far as to interfere with the fundamental right to seek asylum, or other guarantees provided by the Convention (emphasis as per original source): Where asylum-seekers are not protected against the imposition of penalties under Article 31(1) (not having arrived directly, presented themselves without delay or shown good cause for their irregular entry or presence) any penalising measure must not undermine the right to seek and enjoy asylum or be at variance with other provisions of the 1951 Convention and international and regional human rights law. Thus, such penalties must not involve or indirectly result in denying asylum seekers access to an asylum procedure. Nor ... can it involve the denial of the full set of rights guaranteed by the 1951 Convention. UNHCR further considers that the denial of entry or the summary removal from its territory of asylum-seekers based on their irregular entry or presence, without necessary safeguards regarding the application of safe third country concepts, would also be in breach of the UK’s obligations under the 1951 Convention and applicable international and regional human rights law." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so only ppl with passports are allowed to apply for asylum in the UK ? I didn't write the international agreements on refugees claiming political asylum, but that's what it says. You need to be in a country before you can apply for asylum there. You didn't write them. The UNHCR did. Search: House of Commons Library Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR advises that “coming directly” means that States can treat refugees differently “if they have already settled in a country and subsequently move onwards for reasons unrelated to their need for international protection.” It emphasises that Article 31 does not support the notion that asylum must be claimed in the first safe country reached. It observes: Given that the 1951 Convention was drafted at a time when air travel was inaccessible to most, and overland travel was by far the most common mode of transport, such a principle would have relieved the very States that drafted and signed the Convention of any significant obligations under it.4 It further comments (emphasis as per original source): 19. (...). Whilst international law does not provide an unrestricted right to choose where to apply for asylum, there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach. This expectation would undermine the global humanitarian and cooperative principles on which refugee protection is founded, as emphasized by the 1951 Convention and recently reaffirmed by the General Assembly, including the UK, in the Global Compact on Refugees. It would impose an arbitrary and disproportionate burden on countries in the immediate region(s) of flight and threaten the capacity and willingness of those countries to properly process claims or provide acceptable reception conditions and durable solutions. This would (and does) threaten to make these first countries, in turn, unsafe and encourage onward movement. Instead, it says “the term “directly” is to be interpreted broadly, so that refugees who have passed through or stopped over in other countries en route, may still be exempt from penalties.” UK jurisprudence reflects this interpretation. UNHCR further notes that, where penalties for illegal entry/presence may be permissible, they should not go so far as to interfere with the fundamental right to seek asylum, or other guarantees provided by the Convention (emphasis as per original source): Where asylum-seekers are not protected against the imposition of penalties under Article 31(1) (not having arrived directly, presented themselves without delay or shown good cause for their irregular entry or presence) any penalising measure must not undermine the right to seek and enjoy asylum or be at variance with other provisions of the 1951 Convention and international and regional human rights law. Thus, such penalties must not involve or indirectly result in denying asylum seekers access to an asylum procedure. Nor ... can it involve the denial of the full set of rights guaranteed by the 1951 Convention. UNHCR further considers that the denial of entry or the summary removal from its territory of asylum-seekers based on their irregular entry or presence, without necessary safeguards regarding the application of safe third country concepts, would also be in breach of the UK’s obligations under the 1951 Convention and applicable international and regional human rights law."" How tedious is this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so only ppl with passports are allowed to apply for asylum in the UK ? I didn't write the international agreements on refugees claiming political asylum, but that's what it says. You need to be in a country before you can apply for asylum there. You didn't write them. The UNHCR did. Search: House of Commons Library Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR advises that “coming directly” means that States can treat refugees differently “if they have already settled in a country and subsequently move onwards for reasons unrelated to their need for international protection.” It emphasises that Article 31 does not support the notion that asylum must be claimed in the first safe country reached. It observes: Given that the 1951 Convention was drafted at a time when air travel was inaccessible to most, and overland travel was by far the most common mode of transport, such a principle would have relieved the very States that drafted and signed the Convention of any significant obligations under it.4 It further comments (emphasis as per original source): 19. (...). Whilst international law does not provide an unrestricted right to choose where to apply for asylum, there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach. This expectation would undermine the global humanitarian and cooperative principles on which refugee protection is founded, as emphasized by the 1951 Convention and recently reaffirmed by the General Assembly, including the UK, in the Global Compact on Refugees. It would impose an arbitrary and disproportionate burden on countries in the immediate region(s) of flight and threaten the capacity and willingness of those countries to properly process claims or provide acceptable reception conditions and durable solutions. This would (and does) threaten to make these first countries, in turn, unsafe and encourage onward movement. Instead, it says “the term “directly” is to be interpreted broadly, so that refugees who have passed through or stopped over in other countries en route, may still be exempt from penalties.” UK jurisprudence reflects this interpretation. UNHCR further notes that, where penalties for illegal entry/presence may be permissible, they should not go so far as to interfere with the fundamental right to seek asylum, or other guarantees provided by the Convention (emphasis as per original source): Where asylum-seekers are not protected against the imposition of penalties under Article 31(1) (not having arrived directly, presented themselves without delay or shown good cause for their irregular entry or presence) any penalising measure must not undermine the right to seek and enjoy asylum or be at variance with other provisions of the 1951 Convention and international and regional human rights law. Thus, such penalties must not involve or indirectly result in denying asylum seekers access to an asylum procedure. Nor ... can it involve the denial of the full set of rights guaranteed by the 1951 Convention. UNHCR further considers that the denial of entry or the summary removal from its territory of asylum-seekers based on their irregular entry or presence, without necessary safeguards regarding the application of safe third country concepts, would also be in breach of the UK’s obligations under the 1951 Convention and applicable international and regional human rights law." How tedious is this? " Understanding and following the actual rules? Very tedious. Much easier to make it up arbitrarily as you go along. Excellent point | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so only ppl with passports are allowed to apply for asylum in the UK ? I didn't write the international agreements on refugees claiming political asylum, but that's what it says. You need to be in a country before you can apply for asylum there. You didn't write them. The UNHCR did. Search: House of Commons Library Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR advises that “coming directly” means that States can treat refugees differently “if they have already settled in a country and subsequently move onwards for reasons unrelated to their need for international protection.” It emphasises that Article 31 does not support the notion that asylum must be claimed in the first safe country reached. It observes: Given that the 1951 Convention was drafted at a time when air travel was inaccessible to most, and overland travel was by far the most common mode of transport, such a principle would have relieved the very States that drafted and signed the Convention of any significant obligations under it.4 It further comments (emphasis as per original source): 19. (...). Whilst international law does not provide an unrestricted right to choose where to apply for asylum, there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach. This expectation would undermine the global humanitarian and cooperative principles on which refugee protection is founded, as emphasized by the 1951 Convention and recently reaffirmed by the General Assembly, including the UK, in the Global Compact on Refugees. It would impose an arbitrary and disproportionate burden on countries in the immediate region(s) of flight and threaten the capacity and willingness of those countries to properly process claims or provide acceptable reception conditions and durable solutions. This would (and does) threaten to make these first countries, in turn, unsafe and encourage onward movement. Instead, it says “the term “directly” is to be interpreted broadly, so that refugees who have passed through or stopped over in other countries en route, may still be exempt from penalties.” UK jurisprudence reflects this interpretation. UNHCR further notes that, where penalties for illegal entry/presence may be permissible, they should not go so far as to interfere with the fundamental right to seek asylum, or other guarantees provided by the Convention (emphasis as per original source): Where asylum-seekers are not protected against the imposition of penalties under Article 31(1) (not having arrived directly, presented themselves without delay or shown good cause for their irregular entry or presence) any penalising measure must not undermine the right to seek and enjoy asylum or be at variance with other provisions of the 1951 Convention and international and regional human rights law. Thus, such penalties must not involve or indirectly result in denying asylum seekers access to an asylum procedure. Nor ... can it involve the denial of the full set of rights guaranteed by the 1951 Convention. UNHCR further considers that the denial of entry or the summary removal from its territory of asylum-seekers based on their irregular entry or presence, without necessary safeguards regarding the application of safe third country concepts, would also be in breach of the UK’s obligations under the 1951 Convention and applicable international and regional human rights law." How tedious is this? Understanding and following the actual rules? Very tedious. Much easier to make it up arbitrarily as you go along. Excellent point "Make what up? I’m not too sure what your point is. You seem to think the UK is institutionally racist in its immigration policy and that we prefer lovely white Ukrainians to nasty brown or black people. Stop being so naughty. The ridiculous situation in the channel where people are risking their lives must stop. I would take anyone that embarks on that journey and dump them in Calais. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so only ppl with passports are allowed to apply for asylum in the UK ? I didn't write the international agreements on refugees claiming political asylum, but that's what it says. You need to be in a country before you can apply for asylum there. You didn't write them. The UNHCR did. Search: House of Commons Library Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR advises that “coming directly” means that States can treat refugees differently “if they have already settled in a country and subsequently move onwards for reasons unrelated to their need for international protection.” It emphasises that Article 31 does not support the notion that asylum must be claimed in the first safe country reached. It observes: Given that the 1951 Convention was drafted at a time when air travel was inaccessible to most, and overland travel was by far the most common mode of transport, such a principle would have relieved the very States that drafted and signed the Convention of any significant obligations under it.4 It further comments (emphasis as per original source): 19. (...). Whilst international law does not provide an unrestricted right to choose where to apply for asylum, there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach. This expectation would undermine the global humanitarian and cooperative principles on which refugee protection is founded, as emphasized by the 1951 Convention and recently reaffirmed by the General Assembly, including the UK, in the Global Compact on Refugees. It would impose an arbitrary and disproportionate burden on countries in the immediate region(s) of flight and threaten the capacity and willingness of those countries to properly process claims or provide acceptable reception conditions and durable solutions. This would (and does) threaten to make these first countries, in turn, unsafe and encourage onward movement. Instead, it says “the term “directly” is to be interpreted broadly, so that refugees who have passed through or stopped over in other countries en route, may still be exempt from penalties.” UK jurisprudence reflects this interpretation. UNHCR further notes that, where penalties for illegal entry/presence may be permissible, they should not go so far as to interfere with the fundamental right to seek asylum, or other guarantees provided by the Convention (emphasis as per original source): Where asylum-seekers are not protected against the imposition of penalties under Article 31(1) (not having arrived directly, presented themselves without delay or shown good cause for their irregular entry or presence) any penalising measure must not undermine the right to seek and enjoy asylum or be at variance with other provisions of the 1951 Convention and international and regional human rights law. Thus, such penalties must not involve or indirectly result in denying asylum seekers access to an asylum procedure. Nor ... can it involve the denial of the full set of rights guaranteed by the 1951 Convention. UNHCR further considers that the denial of entry or the summary removal from its territory of asylum-seekers based on their irregular entry or presence, without necessary safeguards regarding the application of safe third country concepts, would also be in breach of the UK’s obligations under the 1951 Convention and applicable international and regional human rights law." How tedious is this? Understanding and following the actual rules? Very tedious. Much easier to make it up arbitrarily as you go along. Excellent point
Make what up? I’m not too sure what your point is. You seem to think the UK is institutionally racist in its immigration policy and that we prefer lovely white Ukrainians to nasty brown or black people. Stop being so naughty. The ridiculous situation in the channel where people are risking their lives must stop. I would take anyone that embarks on that journey and dump them in Calais. "Thank you for mansplaining what I think. Should the UK Government apply a consistent asylum policy or not? Why is it able to process Ukrainians in a safe third country and facilitate their travel to the UK but not those from other nations? A simple question. There is no accusation or implication of racism but if you claim that it does it allows you to avoid addressing the question. Well done you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so only ppl with passports are allowed to apply for asylum in the UK ? I didn't write the international agreements on refugees claiming political asylum, but that's what it says. You need to be in a country before you can apply for asylum there. You didn't write them. The UNHCR did. Search: House of Commons Library Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR advises that “coming directly” means that States can treat refugees differently “if they have already settled in a country and subsequently move onwards for reasons unrelated to their need for international protection.” It emphasises that Article 31 does not support the notion that asylum must be claimed in the first safe country reached. It observes: Given that the 1951 Convention was drafted at a time when air travel was inaccessible to most, and overland travel was by far the most common mode of transport, such a principle would have relieved the very States that drafted and signed the Convention of any significant obligations under it.4 It further comments (emphasis as per original source): 19. (...). Whilst international law does not provide an unrestricted right to choose where to apply for asylum, there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach. This expectation would undermine the global humanitarian and cooperative principles on which refugee protection is founded, as emphasized by the 1951 Convention and recently reaffirmed by the General Assembly, including the UK, in the Global Compact on Refugees. It would impose an arbitrary and disproportionate burden on countries in the immediate region(s) of flight and threaten the capacity and willingness of those countries to properly process claims or provide acceptable reception conditions and durable solutions. This would (and does) threaten to make these first countries, in turn, unsafe and encourage onward movement. Instead, it says “the term “directly” is to be interpreted broadly, so that refugees who have passed through or stopped over in other countries en route, may still be exempt from penalties.” UK jurisprudence reflects this interpretation. UNHCR further notes that, where penalties for illegal entry/presence may be permissible, they should not go so far as to interfere with the fundamental right to seek asylum, or other guarantees provided by the Convention (emphasis as per original source): Where asylum-seekers are not protected against the imposition of penalties under Article 31(1) (not having arrived directly, presented themselves without delay or shown good cause for their irregular entry or presence) any penalising measure must not undermine the right to seek and enjoy asylum or be at variance with other provisions of the 1951 Convention and international and regional human rights law. Thus, such penalties must not involve or indirectly result in denying asylum seekers access to an asylum procedure. Nor ... can it involve the denial of the full set of rights guaranteed by the 1951 Convention. UNHCR further considers that the denial of entry or the summary removal from its territory of asylum-seekers based on their irregular entry or presence, without necessary safeguards regarding the application of safe third country concepts, would also be in breach of the UK’s obligations under the 1951 Convention and applicable international and regional human rights law." How tedious is this? Understanding and following the actual rules? Very tedious. Much easier to make it up arbitrarily as you go along. Excellent point
Make what up? I’m not too sure what your point is. You seem to think the UK is institutionally racist in its immigration policy and that we prefer lovely white Ukrainians to nasty brown or black people. Stop being so naughty. The ridiculous situation in the channel where people are risking their lives must stop. I would take anyone that embarks on that journey and dump them in Calais.
Thank you for mansplaining what I think.
Should the UK Government apply a consistent asylum policy or not?
Why is it able to process Ukrainians in a safe third country and facilitate their travel to the UK but not those from other nations?
A simple question. There is no accusation or implication of racism but if you claim that it does it allows you to avoid addressing the question.
Well done you "We do apply a consistent asylum policy. Sadly some choose to take advantage and profit from it. I’m not a fan of our current government but I’m proud that like others in Europe we stepped up to help in what is a horrific situation in Ukraine. One that poses a threat to our way of life. Would you have preferred we didn’t help? Can you imagine the chaos then in France, where people from Ukraine are fighting off those from the Middle East and Africa to get a boat? What is it that has upset you so much? Are you a people smuggler? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, what is the answer? Why is there a special regulation that allows Ukrainians to claim asylum in the UK from a safe country which cannot be done for people from other nationalities?" Because there were lots of pictures in the papers showing injured people and damaged buildings. Lots of British people demanded that something be done, so the government decided to implement a special immigration scheme to make people feel that we were indeed doing something. It's not a moral stand, or a decision about the relative 'worth' of people from particular countries, it's just a political move designed to make the government look better. Does that answer your question? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so only ppl with passports are allowed to apply for asylum in the UK ? I didn't write the international agreements on refugees claiming political asylum, but that's what it says. You need to be in a country before you can apply for asylum there. You didn't write them. The UNHCR did. Search: House of Commons Library Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR advises that “coming directly” means that States can treat refugees differently “if they have already settled in a country and subsequently move onwards for reasons unrelated to their need for international protection.” It emphasises that Article 31 does not support the notion that asylum must be claimed in the first safe country reached. It observes: Given that the 1951 Convention was drafted at a time when air travel was inaccessible to most, and overland travel was by far the most common mode of transport, such a principle would have relieved the very States that drafted and signed the Convention of any significant obligations under it.4 It further comments (emphasis as per original source): 19. (...). Whilst international law does not provide an unrestricted right to choose where to apply for asylum, there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach. This expectation would undermine the global humanitarian and cooperative principles on which refugee protection is founded, as emphasized by the 1951 Convention and recently reaffirmed by the General Assembly, including the UK, in the Global Compact on Refugees. It would impose an arbitrary and disproportionate burden on countries in the immediate region(s) of flight and threaten the capacity and willingness of those countries to properly process claims or provide acceptable reception conditions and durable solutions. This would (and does) threaten to make these first countries, in turn, unsafe and encourage onward movement. Instead, it says “the term “directly” is to be interpreted broadly, so that refugees who have passed through or stopped over in other countries en route, may still be exempt from penalties.” UK jurisprudence reflects this interpretation. UNHCR further notes that, where penalties for illegal entry/presence may be permissible, they should not go so far as to interfere with the fundamental right to seek asylum, or other guarantees provided by the Convention (emphasis as per original source): Where asylum-seekers are not protected against the imposition of penalties under Article 31(1) (not having arrived directly, presented themselves without delay or shown good cause for their irregular entry or presence) any penalising measure must not undermine the right to seek and enjoy asylum or be at variance with other provisions of the 1951 Convention and international and regional human rights law. Thus, such penalties must not involve or indirectly result in denying asylum seekers access to an asylum procedure. Nor ... can it involve the denial of the full set of rights guaranteed by the 1951 Convention. UNHCR further considers that the denial of entry or the summary removal from its territory of asylum-seekers based on their irregular entry or presence, without necessary safeguards regarding the application of safe third country concepts, would also be in breach of the UK’s obligations under the 1951 Convention and applicable international and regional human rights law." How tedious is this? Understanding and following the actual rules? Very tedious. Much easier to make it up arbitrarily as you go along. Excellent point
Make what up? I’m not too sure what your point is. You seem to think the UK is institutionally racist in its immigration policy and that we prefer lovely white Ukrainians to nasty brown or black people. Stop being so naughty. The ridiculous situation in the channel where people are risking their lives must stop. I would take anyone that embarks on that journey and dump them in Calais.
Thank you for mansplaining what I think.
Should the UK Government apply a consistent asylum policy or not?
Why is it able to process Ukrainians in a safe third country and facilitate their travel to the UK but not those from other nations?
A simple question. There is no accusation or implication of racism but if you claim that it does it allows you to avoid addressing the question.
Well done you
We do apply a consistent asylum policy. Sadly some choose to take advantage and profit from it.
I’m not a fan of our current government but I’m proud that like others in Europe we stepped up to help in what is a horrific situation in Ukraine. One that poses a threat to our way of life. Would you have preferred we didn’t help? Can you imagine the chaos then in France, where people from Ukraine are fighting off those from the Middle East and Africa to get a boat?
What is it that has upset you so much? Are you a people smuggler? "spot on I’d say you can’t argue with that but I know he will | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so only ppl with passports are allowed to apply for asylum in the UK ? I didn't write the international agreements on refugees claiming political asylum, but that's what it says. You need to be in a country before you can apply for asylum there. You didn't write them. The UNHCR did. Search: House of Commons Library Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR advises that “coming directly” means that States can treat refugees differently “if they have already settled in a country and subsequently move onwards for reasons unrelated to their need for international protection.” It emphasises that Article 31 does not support the notion that asylum must be claimed in the first safe country reached. It observes: Given that the 1951 Convention was drafted at a time when air travel was inaccessible to most, and overland travel was by far the most common mode of transport, such a principle would have relieved the very States that drafted and signed the Convention of any significant obligations under it.4 It further comments (emphasis as per original source): 19. (...). Whilst international law does not provide an unrestricted right to choose where to apply for asylum, there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach. This expectation would undermine the global humanitarian and cooperative principles on which refugee protection is founded, as emphasized by the 1951 Convention and recently reaffirmed by the General Assembly, including the UK, in the Global Compact on Refugees. It would impose an arbitrary and disproportionate burden on countries in the immediate region(s) of flight and threaten the capacity and willingness of those countries to properly process claims or provide acceptable reception conditions and durable solutions. This would (and does) threaten to make these first countries, in turn, unsafe and encourage onward movement. Instead, it says “the term “directly” is to be interpreted broadly, so that refugees who have passed through or stopped over in other countries en route, may still be exempt from penalties.” UK jurisprudence reflects this interpretation. UNHCR further notes that, where penalties for illegal entry/presence may be permissible, they should not go so far as to interfere with the fundamental right to seek asylum, or other guarantees provided by the Convention (emphasis as per original source): Where asylum-seekers are not protected against the imposition of penalties under Article 31(1) (not having arrived directly, presented themselves without delay or shown good cause for their irregular entry or presence) any penalising measure must not undermine the right to seek and enjoy asylum or be at variance with other provisions of the 1951 Convention and international and regional human rights law. Thus, such penalties must not involve or indirectly result in denying asylum seekers access to an asylum procedure. Nor ... can it involve the denial of the full set of rights guaranteed by the 1951 Convention. UNHCR further considers that the denial of entry or the summary removal from its territory of asylum-seekers based on their irregular entry or presence, without necessary safeguards regarding the application of safe third country concepts, would also be in breach of the UK’s obligations under the 1951 Convention and applicable international and regional human rights law." How tedious is this? Understanding and following the actual rules? Very tedious. Much easier to make it up arbitrarily as you go along. Excellent point
Make what up? I’m not too sure what your point is. You seem to think the UK is institutionally racist in its immigration policy and that we prefer lovely white Ukrainians to nasty brown or black people. Stop being so naughty. The ridiculous situation in the channel where people are risking their lives must stop. I would take anyone that embarks on that journey and dump them in Calais.
Thank you for mansplaining what I think.
Should the UK Government apply a consistent asylum policy or not?
Why is it able to process Ukrainians in a safe third country and facilitate their travel to the UK but not those from other nations?
A simple question. There is no accusation or implication of racism but if you claim that it does it allows you to avoid addressing the question.
Well done you
We do apply a consistent asylum policy. Sadly some choose to take advantage and profit from it.
I’m not a fan of our current government but I’m proud that like others in Europe we stepped up to help in what is a horrific situation in Ukraine. One that poses a threat to our way of life. Would you have preferred we didn’t help? Can you imagine the chaos then in France, where people from Ukraine are fighting off those from the Middle East and Africa to get a boat?
What is it that has upset you so much? Are you a people smuggler? "What proportion have "taken advantage" of the UK asylum policy? Associating legitimate asylum seekers with an unknown number of failed or fraudulent applications is a well trodden path to attempt not to accept any. We clearly do not apply a consistent asylum policy as it is different to those fleeing "a horrific" situation in Ukraine compared to those who suffer "a horrific" situation in Afghanistan or Syria. No, we should not help Ukrainians if we do not help Syrians. They are safe in Poland or Moldova. Why is it our responsibility to "step up" for Ukrainians but not Syrians? Again, telling me how I feel. A rare taken and a poor attempt at mockery which adds nothing. Good stuff | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, what is the answer? Why is there a special regulation that allows Ukrainians to claim asylum in the UK from a safe country which cannot be done for people from other nationalities? Because there were lots of pictures in the papers showing injured people and damaged buildings. Lots of British people demanded that something be done, so the government decided to implement a special immigration scheme to make people feel that we were indeed doing something. It's not a moral stand, or a decision about the relative 'worth' of people from particular countries, it's just a political move designed to make the government look better. Does that answer your question?" Lots of people demanded the same for Syria, yet nothing. It is, clearly possible to process asylum claims in third countries and acceptable to accept applicants from safe countries. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so only ppl with passports are allowed to apply for asylum in the UK ? I didn't write the international agreements on refugees claiming political asylum, but that's what it says. You need to be in a country before you can apply for asylum there. You didn't write them. The UNHCR did. Search: House of Commons Library Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR advises that “coming directly” means that States can treat refugees differently “if they have already settled in a country and subsequently move onwards for reasons unrelated to their need for international protection.” It emphasises that Article 31 does not support the notion that asylum must be claimed in the first safe country reached. It observes: Given that the 1951 Convention was drafted at a time when air travel was inaccessible to most, and overland travel was by far the most common mode of transport, such a principle would have relieved the very States that drafted and signed the Convention of any significant obligations under it.4 It further comments (emphasis as per original source): 19. (...). Whilst international law does not provide an unrestricted right to choose where to apply for asylum, there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach. This expectation would undermine the global humanitarian and cooperative principles on which refugee protection is founded, as emphasized by the 1951 Convention and recently reaffirmed by the General Assembly, including the UK, in the Global Compact on Refugees. It would impose an arbitrary and disproportionate burden on countries in the immediate region(s) of flight and threaten the capacity and willingness of those countries to properly process claims or provide acceptable reception conditions and durable solutions. This would (and does) threaten to make these first countries, in turn, unsafe and encourage onward movement. Instead, it says “the term “directly” is to be interpreted broadly, so that refugees who have passed through or stopped over in other countries en route, may still be exempt from penalties.” UK jurisprudence reflects this interpretation. UNHCR further notes that, where penalties for illegal entry/presence may be permissible, they should not go so far as to interfere with the fundamental right to seek asylum, or other guarantees provided by the Convention (emphasis as per original source): Where asylum-seekers are not protected against the imposition of penalties under Article 31(1) (not having arrived directly, presented themselves without delay or shown good cause for their irregular entry or presence) any penalising measure must not undermine the right to seek and enjoy asylum or be at variance with other provisions of the 1951 Convention and international and regional human rights law. Thus, such penalties must not involve or indirectly result in denying asylum seekers access to an asylum procedure. Nor ... can it involve the denial of the full set of rights guaranteed by the 1951 Convention. UNHCR further considers that the denial of entry or the summary removal from its territory of asylum-seekers based on their irregular entry or presence, without necessary safeguards regarding the application of safe third country concepts, would also be in breach of the UK’s obligations under the 1951 Convention and applicable international and regional human rights law." How tedious is this? Understanding and following the actual rules? Very tedious. Much easier to make it up arbitrarily as you go along. Excellent point
Make what up? I’m not too sure what your point is. You seem to think the UK is institutionally racist in its immigration policy and that we prefer lovely white Ukrainians to nasty brown or black people. Stop being so naughty. The ridiculous situation in the channel where people are risking their lives must stop. I would take anyone that embarks on that journey and dump them in Calais.
Thank you for mansplaining what I think.
Should the UK Government apply a consistent asylum policy or not?
Why is it able to process Ukrainians in a safe third country and facilitate their travel to the UK but not those from other nations?
A simple question. There is no accusation or implication of racism but if you claim that it does it allows you to avoid addressing the question.
Well done you
We do apply a consistent asylum policy. Sadly some choose to take advantage and profit from it.
I’m not a fan of our current government but I’m proud that like others in Europe we stepped up to help in what is a horrific situation in Ukraine. One that poses a threat to our way of life. Would you have preferred we didn’t help? Can you imagine the chaos then in France, where people from Ukraine are fighting off those from the Middle East and Africa to get a boat?
What is it that has upset you so much? Are you a people smuggler? spot on I’d say you can’t argue with that but I know he will "Yes, many things appear simple to you when they are complex. You are still unable to address the thread directly but continue to feel the need to "contribute" by jeering. Good on you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You didn't write them. The UNHCR did. ..." "How tedious is this? " Very tedious, and self-contradictory, and in some places just plain wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Im guesding there letting them apply from other countrys because a lot of british people have agreed to house them and look after them why they are here, you have to ask why those who have offerd to open there homes to ukrainians havent opoened there homes up to others from different parts of the world in the past, my guess is the ukrainians look like most other europeans so people feel like they have more in common with them, my own view is we shouldnt change the rules for anyone wether there from the ukraine or anywhere else in the world" That option was not available and remains unavailable for people seeking asylum from countries other than Ukraine. That means that your view on feeling an association with Ukrainians may be true but is completely untested. I agree with your final statement, but from the perspective of consistency. I think more problems associated with irregular immigration would be solved by processing applications in third countries. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You didn't write them. The UNHCR did. ... How tedious is this? Very tedious, and self-contradictory, and in some places just plain wrong." You think that the interpretation of the regulations by the body that monitors and governs them is: "very tedious, and self-contradictory, and in some places just plain wrong"? Yet you have been explaining what the law is and unable to indicate why one group should be treated differently from another. Do you have any experience of international law or refugees or conflict? Why is your opinion more valid than those who actually have expertise in the field? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so only ppl with passports are allowed to apply for asylum in the UK ? I didn't write the international agreements on refugees claiming political asylum, but that's what it says. You need to be in a country before you can apply for asylum there. You didn't write them. The UNHCR did. Search: House of Commons Library Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention "UNHCR advises that “coming directly” means that States can treat refugees differently “if they have already settled in a country and subsequently move onwards for reasons unrelated to their need for international protection.” It emphasises that Article 31 does not support the notion that asylum must be claimed in the first safe country reached. It observes: Given that the 1951 Convention was drafted at a time when air travel was inaccessible to most, and overland travel was by far the most common mode of transport, such a principle would have relieved the very States that drafted and signed the Convention of any significant obligations under it.4 It further comments (emphasis as per original source): 19. (...). Whilst international law does not provide an unrestricted right to choose where to apply for asylum, there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach. This expectation would undermine the global humanitarian and cooperative principles on which refugee protection is founded, as emphasized by the 1951 Convention and recently reaffirmed by the General Assembly, including the UK, in the Global Compact on Refugees. It would impose an arbitrary and disproportionate burden on countries in the immediate region(s) of flight and threaten the capacity and willingness of those countries to properly process claims or provide acceptable reception conditions and durable solutions. This would (and does) threaten to make these first countries, in turn, unsafe and encourage onward movement. Instead, it says “the term “directly” is to be interpreted broadly, so that refugees who have passed through or stopped over in other countries en route, may still be exempt from penalties.” UK jurisprudence reflects this interpretation. UNHCR further notes that, where penalties for illegal entry/presence may be permissible, they should not go so far as to interfere with the fundamental right to seek asylum, or other guarantees provided by the Convention (emphasis as per original source): Where asylum-seekers are not protected against the imposition of penalties under Article 31(1) (not having arrived directly, presented themselves without delay or shown good cause for their irregular entry or presence) any penalising measure must not undermine the right to seek and enjoy asylum or be at variance with other provisions of the 1951 Convention and international and regional human rights law. Thus, such penalties must not involve or indirectly result in denying asylum seekers access to an asylum procedure. Nor ... can it involve the denial of the full set of rights guaranteed by the 1951 Convention. UNHCR further considers that the denial of entry or the summary removal from its territory of asylum-seekers based on their irregular entry or presence, without necessary safeguards regarding the application of safe third country concepts, would also be in breach of the UK’s obligations under the 1951 Convention and applicable international and regional human rights law." How tedious is this? Understanding and following the actual rules? Very tedious. Much easier to make it up arbitrarily as you go along. Excellent point
Make what up? I’m not too sure what your point is. You seem to think the UK is institutionally racist in its immigration policy and that we prefer lovely white Ukrainians to nasty brown or black people. Stop being so naughty. The ridiculous situation in the channel where people are risking their lives must stop. I would take anyone that embarks on that journey and dump them in Calais.
Thank you for mansplaining what I think.
Should the UK Government apply a consistent asylum policy or not?
Why is it able to process Ukrainians in a safe third country and facilitate their travel to the UK but not those from other nations?
A simple question. There is no accusation or implication of racism but if you claim that it does it allows you to avoid addressing the question.
Well done you
We do apply a consistent asylum policy. Sadly some choose to take advantage and profit from it.
I’m not a fan of our current government but I’m proud that like others in Europe we stepped up to help in what is a horrific situation in Ukraine. One that poses a threat to our way of life. Would you have preferred we didn’t help? Can you imagine the chaos then in France, where people from Ukraine are fighting off those from the Middle East and Africa to get a boat?
What is it that has upset you so much? Are you a people smuggler? "spot on I’d say you can’t argue with that but I know he will | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s try a different approach. A group of young men on a beach in Kent, little or no grasp of English or could be fluent I guess. No passport, no ID of any sort. They claim to be from a country that they have been told is their best chance of getting asylum. What would you do? " Take them to a police station. Funnily enough, I am not experienced in this subject. Neither are you. Others are and seem to be able to find a way to assess the legitimacy of their claims such that over 80% are granted asylum by the end of a first appeal. So much easier if this was done at a location closer to where they live, as is the case for Ukrainians, no? Odd "approach". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Im guesding there letting them apply from other countrys because a lot of british people have agreed to house them and look after them why they are here, you have to ask why those who have offerd to open there homes to ukrainians havent opoened there homes up to others from different parts of the world in the past, my guess is the ukrainians look like most other europeans so people feel like they have more in common with them, my own view is we shouldnt change the rules for anyone wether there from the ukraine or anywhere else in the world That option was not available and remains unavailable for people seeking asylum from countries other than Ukraine. That means that your view on feeling an association with Ukrainians may be true but is completely untested. I agree with your final statement, but from the perspective of consistency. I think more problems associated with irregular immigration would be solved by processing applications in third countries." my view about them feeling an association with ukrainians may be untested but you asked why the rules have been changed for ukrainians i just gave you my opinion, at least we agree the rules shouldnt have been changed, probably the first time we have agreed on anything | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s try a different approach. A group of young men on a beach in Kent, little or no grasp of English or could be fluent I guess. No passport, no ID of any sort. They claim to be from a country that they have been told is their best chance of getting asylum. What would you do? I’m Take them to a police station. Funnily enough, I am not experienced in this subject. Neither are you. Others are and seem to be able to find a way to assess the legitimacy of their claims such that over 80% are granted asylum by the end of a first appeal. So much easier if this was done at a location closer to where they live, as is the case for Ukrainians, no? Again you are getting the numbers wrong. 80% that cross the channel are not given asylum. The dangerous crossings must be stopped and the evil people that make money from them must be driven out of business. What part of saving lives do you not like? Why do you hate Ukrainians so much? Odd "approach"." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Im guesding there letting them apply from other countrys because a lot of british people have agreed to house them and look after them why they are here, you have to ask why those who have offerd to open there homes to ukrainians havent opoened there homes up to others from different parts of the world in the past, my guess is the ukrainians look like most other europeans so people feel like they have more in common with them, my own view is we shouldnt change the rules for anyone wether there from the ukraine or anywhere else in the world That option was not available and remains unavailable for people seeking asylum from countries other than Ukraine. That means that your view on feeling an association with Ukrainians may be true but is completely untested. I agree with your final statement, but from the perspective of consistency. I think more problems associated with irregular immigration would be solved by processing applications in third countries.my view about them feeling an association with ukrainians may be untested but you asked why the rules have been changed for ukrainians i just gave you my opinion, at least we agree the rules shouldnt have been changed, probably the first time we have agreed on anything" I said that you may be correct. I am perfectly able to agree with anyone when they do not make blanket statements or actually address the question, which you have done very succinctly in this thread. You are, usually, clear and consistent in what you believe, even if I strongly disagree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Very tedious, and self-contradictory, and in some places just plain wrong." "You think that the interpretation of the regulations by the body that monitors and governs them is: "very tedious, and self-contradictory, and in some places just plain wrong"?" No, I think that your interpretation and confused postings are 'tedious'. You keep referring to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and then you quote sections of UNHCR publicity as though it was part of the convention. You posted UNHCR analysis saying that "States can treat refugees differently if they have already settled in a country and subsequently move onwards for reasons unrelated to their need for international protection". Yet you claim that the convention doesn't allow that. That's one of the self-contradictory parts. And of course there's your claim that the UNHCR wrote the 1951 Refugee Convention. The UNHCR is basically a charity set up to monitor and maintain refugees rights. It didn't write the convention, and it has no power to make changes, and no legal status to interpret the convention. That's the bit that was just plain wrong. "Yet you have been explaining what the law is and unable to indicate why one group should be treated differently from another." I have explained why Ukranians are being treated differently. You even quoted my answer in one of your posts. "Why is your opinion more valid than those who actually have expertise in the field?" You haven't posted anywhere that you do have expertise in the field. Could you let us know what it is? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let’s try a different approach. A group of young men on a beach in Kent, little or no grasp of English or could be fluent I guess. No passport, no ID of any sort. They claim to be from a country that they have been told is their best chance of getting asylum. What would you do? I’m Take them to a police station. Funnily enough, I am not experienced in this subject. Neither are you. Others are and seem to be able to find a way to assess the legitimacy of their claims such that over 80% are granted asylum by the end of a first appeal. So much easier if this was done at a location closer to where they live, as is the case for Ukrainians, no? Again you are getting the numbers wrong. 80% that cross the channel are not given asylum. The dangerous crossings must be stopped and the evil people that make money from them must be driven out of business. What part of saving lives do you not like? Why do you hate Ukrainians so much? Odd "approach"." I am only able to quote the available data for those seeking asylum. There is not enough information for those crossing the channel. The figures for their applications may be lower or higher or identical. You have no data at all. It would be ideal to prevent dangerous channel crossings. Even better to avoid exploitation for the journey to France. Process them in a country close to where they are from. Just like the Ukrainians. Again, telling me what I think? Why would you presume to think that I don't want to save lives or hate Ukrainians? Where have I indicated that? Do you think that empty accusations make any argument that you make stronger? Ukrainian refugees should be treated like any other refugee or person in fear of persecution or war, shouldn't they? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Others ... seem to be able to find a way to assess the legitimacy of their claims such that over 80% are granted asylum by the end of a first appeal." Stop doing this. We've already established that the only half decent government figures show that it's about 72% at initial review, and then a further 6.3% after appeal. That's not "over 80%", and the 6.3% covers all appeals, not just the first one. Even with all that said, the 6.3% is recognised as being incorrect because appeals take years, so the rate we see this year doesn't reflect the outcome of appeals made this year. Stop making up numbers and treating them as if they're accurate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Very tedious, and self-contradictory, and in some places just plain wrong. You think that the interpretation of the regulations by the body that monitors and governs them is: "very tedious, and self-contradictory, and in some places just plain wrong"? No, I think that your interpretation and confused postings are 'tedious'. You keep referring to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and then you quote sections of UNHCR publicity as though it was part of the convention. You posted UNHCR analysis saying that "States can treat refugees differently if they have already settled in a country and subsequently move onwards for reasons unrelated to their need for international protection". Yet you claim that the convention doesn't allow that. That's one of the self-contradictory parts. And of course there's your claim that the UNHCR wrote the 1951 Refugee Convention. The UNHCR is basically a charity set up to monitor and maintain refugees rights. It didn't write the convention, and it has no power to make changes, and no legal status to interpret the convention. That's the bit that was just plain wrong. Yet you have been explaining what the law is and unable to indicate why one group should be treated differently from another. I have explained why Ukranians are being treated differently. You even quoted my answer in one of your posts. Why is your opinion more valid than those who actually have expertise in the field? You haven't posted anywhere that you do have expertise in the field. Could you let us know what it is?" There is no contradiction in the statement from the UNHCR. If someone has settled in a safe country and made a life there they cannot ask for asylum somewhere else. However, if they are transiting through a country in order to apply for asylum at the final destination it is perfectly acceptable to do so. That is clear, isn't it? I did not say that the UNHCR wrote the Refugee Convention, did I? 'UNHCR is governed by the UN General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The UNHCR Executive Committee approves the agency's biennial programmes and the corresponding budget. These are presented by the High Commissioner, who is appointed by the UN General Assembly. Our mandate is defined by the 1950 UNHCR Statute. In 2003, the General Assembly extended the organization's mandate "until the refugee problem is solved." The High Commissioner reports annually to ECOSOC and the General Assembly on the work of UNHCR.' 'In Resolution 319 (IV), of 3 December 1949, the United Nations General Assembly decided to establish a High Commissioner’s Office for Refugees as of 1 January 1951. The Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was adopted by the General Assembly on 14 December 1950 as Annex to Resolution 428 (V). In this Resolution, reproduced on page 4, the Assembly also called upon the Governments to cooperate with the High Commissioner in the performance of his or her functions concerning refugees falling under the competence of the Office. In accordance with the Statute, the work of the High Commissioner is humanitarian and social and of an entirely non-political character. The functions of the High Commissioner are defined in the Statute and in various Resolutions subsequently adopted by the General Assembly. Resolutions concerning the High Commissioner’s Office adopted by the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council are available on UNHCR’s website at www.unhcr.org. The High Commissioner reports annually to the General Assembly' Not a "charity" at all, is it? I have quoted their informed and expert opinions. I am no expert, nor have I claimed to be and neither are you. The UNHCR is expert and qualified and mandated. As you stated, none of the justifications for stopping asylum applications from other countries stand compared to Ukraine and consequently the position is hypocritical as per the title of the thread. Correct? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Others ... seem to be able to find a way to assess the legitimacy of their claims such that over 80% are granted asylum by the end of a first appeal. Stop doing this. We've already established that the only half decent government figures show that it's about 72% at initial review, and then a further 6.3% after appeal. That's not "over 80%", and the 6.3% covers all appeals, not just the first one. Even with all that said, the 6.3% is recognised as being incorrect because appeals take years, so the rate we see this year doesn't reflect the outcome of appeals made this year. Stop making up numbers and treating them as if they're accurate." Correct, but curiously pedantic. Nearly 80% are granted asylum on appeal. I did not "make up" any numbers. In fact, I provided you with them didn't I? I made a slightly incorrect generalisation which I am happy to apologise for. The vast majority are judged to have genuine grounds for asylum. That is the actual point, is it not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Others ... seem to be able to find a way to assess the legitimacy of their claims such that over 80% are granted asylum by the end of a first appeal. Stop doing this. We've already established that the only half decent government figures show that it's about 72% at initial review, and then a further 6.3% after appeal. That's not "over 80%", and the 6.3% covers all appeals, not just the first one. Even with all that said, the 6.3% is recognised as being incorrect because appeals take years, so the rate we see this year doesn't reflect the outcome of appeals made this year. Stop making up numbers and treating them as if they're accurate. Correct, but curiously pedantic. Nearly 80% are granted asylum on appeal. I did not "make up" any numbers. In fact, I provided you with them didn't I? I made a slightly incorrect generalisation which I am happy to apologise for. The vast majority are judged to have genuine grounds for asylum. That is the actual point, is it not?" Stop being disingenuous. The 80% figure is from total asylum claims. Not from the illegal entry crossings. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe?" There is no “hypocrisy “. Simply a humanitarian response to a recent horrific event. They would of course be far happier at their home in Ukraine where I’m sure they will return as soon as possible. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I did not say that the UNHCR wrote the Refugee Convention, did I?" Yes you did. I said "I didn't write the international agreements on refugees claiming political asylum" and you replied with "You didn't write them. The UNHCR did". "Not a "charity" at all, is it?" . I said "basically a charity", because technically no, UNHCR is not a charity. It's a monitoring body set up after the war to make sure that refugees were treated correctly. Once that was pretty much over they started looking for other reasons to exist, and set up charities in various countries to raise more funding for their work. Search for "United Kingdom for UNHCR" and you'll find the website of the UK branch. On the front page of their website it says "Our supporters make our work possible – only 1% of UNHCR’s budget comes from the UN". If a group is 99% funded by public donations, I call it a charity. "As you stated, none of the justifications for stopping asylum applications from other countries stand compared to Ukraine and consequently the position is hypocritical as per the title of the thread. Correct?" Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. If you can find an example of the government doing that with immigration, then yes, they're being hypocritical. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Others ... seem to be able to find a way to assess the legitimacy of their claims such that over 80% are granted asylum by the end of a first appeal. Stop doing this. We've already established that the only half decent government figures show that it's about 72% at initial review, and then a further 6.3% after appeal. That's not "over 80%", and the 6.3% covers all appeals, not just the first one. Even with all that said, the 6.3% is recognised as being incorrect because appeals take years, so the rate we see this year doesn't reflect the outcome of appeals made this year. Stop making up numbers and treating them as if they're accurate. Correct, but curiously pedantic. Nearly 80% are granted asylum on appeal. I did not "make up" any numbers. In fact, I provided you with them didn't I? I made a slightly incorrect generalisation which I am happy to apologise for. The vast majority are judged to have genuine grounds for asylum. That is the actual point, is it not? Stop being disingenuous. The 80% figure is from total asylum claims. Not from the illegal entry crossings. " I appreciate that you are trying to divert away from your inability to address the OP directly, but I have already stated: "I am only able to quote the available data for those seeking asylum. There is not enough information for those crossing the channel. The figures for their applications may be lower or higher or identical. You have no data at all." I have also provided the information on numerous occasions that from the UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention: "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" I understand that you wish to use language to deligitamise the position of those fleeing persecution or war, but let's see of you can stay vaguely on point, shall we? The position on Ukrainian asylum applicants compared to those from other countries is, in fact, hypocritical, isn't it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Stop doing this. We've already established that the only half decent government figures show that it's about 72% at initial review, and then a further 6.3% after appeal ..." "I did not "make up" any numbers. In fact, I provided you with them didn't I?" No you didn't. All of the numbers I have posted have come from government websites, with sources attached. None of your numbers have been sourced, or accurate. "The vast majority are judged to have genuine grounds for asylum. That is the actual point, is it not?" My point is just to make sure that the correct numbers are being used, and to show that even the best numbers that we have are not accurate or reliable. I am uninterested in whether the numbers indicate genuine claims or not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Others ... seem to be able to find a way to assess the legitimacy of their claims such that over 80% are granted asylum by the end of a first appeal. Stop doing this. We've already established that the only half decent government figures show that it's about 72% at initial review, and then a further 6.3% after appeal. That's not "over 80%", and the 6.3% covers all appeals, not just the first one. Even with all that said, the 6.3% is recognised as being incorrect because appeals take years, so the rate we see this year doesn't reflect the outcome of appeals made this year. Stop making up numbers and treating them as if they're accurate. Correct, but curiously pedantic. Nearly 80% are granted asylum on appeal. I did not "make up" any numbers. In fact, I provided you with them didn't I? I made a slightly incorrect generalisation which I am happy to apologise for. The vast majority are judged to have genuine grounds for asylum. That is the actual point, is it not? Stop being disingenuous. The 80% figure is from total asylum claims. Not from the illegal entry crossings. I appreciate that you are trying to divert away from your inability to address the OP directly, but I have already stated: "I am only able to quote the available data for those seeking asylum. There is not enough information for those crossing the channel. The figures for their applications may be lower or higher or identical. You have no data at all." I have also provided the information on numerous occasions that from the UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention: "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" I understand that you wish to use language to deligitamise the position of those fleeing persecution or war, but let's see of you can stay vaguely on point, shall we? The position on Ukrainian asylum applicants compared to those from other countries is, in fact, hypocritical, isn't it?" Different does not mean hypocritical. Arriving by dingy without ID when they must have had documents to cross a continent is illegal. I really don’t give a stuff about an outdated convention from a different era. What I can’t understand is why you posted in the first place. I know you were playing the devils advocate but your point is just silly. You know why ‘different’ rules were placed for Ukrainians, for some reason known only to you, you don’t like it . Get over it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I did not say that the UNHCR wrote the Refugee Convention, did I? Yes you did. I said "I didn't write the international agreements on refugees claiming political asylum" and you replied with "You didn't write them. The UNHCR did". Not a "charity" at all, is it?. I said "basically a charity", because technically no, UNHCR is not a charity. It's a monitoring body set up after the war to make sure that refugees were treated correctly. Once that was pretty much over they started looking for other reasons to exist, and set up charities in various countries to raise more funding for their work. Search for "United Kingdom for UNHCR" and you'll find the website of the UK branch. On the front page of their website it says "Our supporters make our work possible – only 1% of UNHCR’s budget comes from the UN". If a group is 99% funded by public donations, I call it a charity. As you stated, none of the justifications for stopping asylum applications from other countries stand compared to Ukraine and consequently the position is hypocritical as per the title of the thread. Correct? Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. If you can find an example of the government doing that with immigration, then yes, they're being hypocritical." Again, you are correct. I did write that. The initial draft of the Convention was written by the International Refugee Organisation which became the UNHCR. So it did and it didn't write it. Regardless, they know far better than either of us, don't they? I did provide you with the mandate of the UNHCR, but if you know better and need to be write than go ahead. Everyone else can read the same information and come to their own conclusion. By your reckoning, the UN is also a "charity". So you agree that the UK policy on Ukrainian asylum is hypocritical but unable to write it? OK | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Stop doing this. We've already established that the only half decent government figures show that it's about 72% at initial review, and then a further 6.3% after appeal ... I did not "make up" any numbers. In fact, I provided you with them didn't I? No you didn't. All of the numbers I have posted have come from government websites, with sources attached. None of your numbers have been sourced, or accurate. The vast majority are judged to have genuine grounds for asylum. That is the actual point, is it not? My point is just to make sure that the correct numbers are being used, and to show that even the best numbers that we have are not accurate or reliable. I am uninterested in whether the numbers indicate genuine claims or not." I literally gave you the search terms which you used and quoted. You are interested in the accuracy and reliability of numbers but not what they represent and mean? Righto | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The initial draft of the Convention was written by the International Refugee Organisation which became the UNHCR." The UNHCR was founded 14th December 1950. The IRO didn't close till 31st January 1952. The one did not become the other. "Regardless, they know far better than either of us, don't they?" I agree. So do all of the immigration lawyers employed by the government to help the write the new Nationality and Borders Bill. How do you decide which of those experts is the better one? "By your reckoning, the UN is also a "charity"." The UN is funded by donations from countries. It does not ask for, not allow, donations from individuals. Not a charity. "So you agree that the UK policy on Ukrainian asylum is hypocritical but unable to write it? OK "I don't, but I'm happy to write it if someone provides a quote from a government publication that seems to contradict what they are actually doing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am asking the same question because you absolutely have not answered it. Why is there a specific process for Ukrainian refugees separate to that of any other nationality? Will we accept men from Ukraine if they want to join their families and will we keep them here having granted asylum to their families? We identify culturally with Ukrainians? Really? How? This is not about charity. It is, absolutely, correct to ask why our national refugee policy treats some people in equal need differently to others." I have answered your question. It looks like you are just intentionally overlooking it and going around in circles. Taking refugees is charity. You can show all the refugee convention agreements. But in the end, it boils down to the will of the country and its ability to provide refugee. Ukraine is getting special treatment because they have more cultural connections with UK. They are part of Europe. They also share the same major religion which plays a big role when in these decisions. Just like how Islamic countries would love to have Islamic refugees and Hindu majority countries would be happy to have Hindu and Buddhist refugees. About Ukrainian men vs women, I have already explained it like I explain to children. Anyway I will repeat myself again. There is a rough hierarchy of who the country will want to help: Ukrainian women/Children Ukrainian men Women/children from Non-European countries Men from Non-European countries We could make the list more granular by dividing people from Non-European countries based on other factors like their cultural values, skillset etc. But this list is enough for argument. Ukrainians get better treatment mainly because they share similar values and partly because the men are fighting the war and mostly women/children are fleeing the country. If many men start applying for refugee, their treatment would not be as easy as that of the women. But still they will find it easy to get asylum compared to other country refugees. You can cry all about why religious identity and cultural values are given more importance. But I personally don't think there is anything morally wrong with a country wanting to help one country more than the other countries. All that matters is they are willing to help. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Others ... seem to be able to find a way to assess the legitimacy of their claims such that over 80% are granted asylum by the end of a first appeal. Stop doing this. We've already established that the only half decent government figures show that it's about 72% at initial review, and then a further 6.3% after appeal. That's not "over 80%", and the 6.3% covers all appeals, not just the first one. Even with all that said, the 6.3% is recognised as being incorrect because appeals take years, so the rate we see this year doesn't reflect the outcome of appeals made this year. Stop making up numbers and treating them as if they're accurate. Correct, but curiously pedantic. Nearly 80% are granted asylum on appeal. I did not "make up" any numbers. In fact, I provided you with them didn't I? I made a slightly incorrect generalisation which I am happy to apologise for. The vast majority are judged to have genuine grounds for asylum. That is the actual point, is it not? Stop being disingenuous. The 80% figure is from total asylum claims. Not from the illegal entry crossings. I appreciate that you are trying to divert away from your inability to address the OP directly, but I have already stated: "I am only able to quote the available data for those seeking asylum. There is not enough information for those crossing the channel. The figures for their applications may be lower or higher or identical. You have no data at all." I have also provided the information on numerous occasions that from the UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention: "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" I understand that you wish to use language to deligitamise the position of those fleeing persecution or war, but let's see of you can stay vaguely on point, shall we? The position on Ukrainian asylum applicants compared to those from other countries is, in fact, hypocritical, isn't it? Different does not mean hypocritical. Arriving by dingy without ID when they must have had documents to cross a continent is illegal. I really don’t give a stuff about an outdated convention from a different era. What I can’t understand is why you posted in the first place. I know you were playing the devils advocate but your point is just silly. You know why ‘different’ rules were placed for Ukrainians, for some reason known only to you, you don’t like it . Get over it." What you do or do not "give a stuff about" is not relevant to the law either domestic or international. Your personal definition of "illegal" is just not meaningful. You don't need to reply multiple times to a thread that you don't understand the reason for, but you have anyway. You clearly have strong views on migration despite some confusion on what is legal, illegal, economic or asylum. The point that one group of people in a "horrific" situation is treated differently to another is not 'silly'. It is fundamental. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Others ... seem to be able to find a way to assess the legitimacy of their claims such that over 80% are granted asylum by the end of a first appeal. Stop doing this. We've already established that the only half decent government figures show that it's about 72% at initial review, and then a further 6.3% after appeal. That's not "over 80%", and the 6.3% covers all appeals, not just the first one. Even with all that said, the 6.3% is recognised as being incorrect because appeals take years, so the rate we see this year doesn't reflect the outcome of appeals made this year. Stop making up numbers and treating them as if they're accurate. Correct, but curiously pedantic. Nearly 80% are granted asylum on appeal. I did not "make up" any numbers. In fact, I provided you with them didn't I? I made a slightly incorrect generalisation which I am happy to apologise for. The vast majority are judged to have genuine grounds for asylum. That is the actual point, is it not? Stop being disingenuous. The 80% figure is from total asylum claims. Not from the illegal entry crossings. I appreciate that you are trying to divert away from your inability to address the OP directly, but I have already stated: "I am only able to quote the available data for those seeking asylum. There is not enough information for those crossing the channel. The figures for their applications may be lower or higher or identical. You have no data at all." I have also provided the information on numerous occasions that from the UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention: "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" I understand that you wish to use language to deligitamise the position of those fleeing persecution or war, but let's see of you can stay vaguely on point, shall we? The position on Ukrainian asylum applicants compared to those from other countries is, in fact, hypocritical, isn't it? Different does not mean hypocritical. Arriving by dingy without ID when they must have had documents to cross a continent is illegal. I really don’t give a stuff about an outdated convention from a different era. What I can’t understand is why you posted in the first place. I know you were playing the devils advocate but your point is just silly. You know why ‘different’ rules were placed for Ukrainians, for some reason known only to you, you don’t like it . Get over it. What you do or do not "give a stuff about" is not relevant to the law either domestic or international. Your personal definition of "illegal" is just not meaningful. You don't need to reply multiple times to a thread that you don't understand the reason for, but you have anyway. You clearly have strong views on migration despite some confusion on what is legal, illegal, economic or asylum. The point that one group of people in a "horrific" situation is treated differently to another is not 'silly'. It is fundamental." So other than trying to create division, why did you post? What were you hoping to achieve? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The initial draft of the Convention was written by the International Refugee Organisation which became the UNHCR. The UNHCR was founded 14th December 1950. The IRO didn't close till 31st January 1952. The one did not become the other. Regardless, they know far better than either of us, don't they? I agree. So do all of the immigration lawyers employed by the government to help the write the new Nationality and Borders Bill. How do you decide which of those experts is the better one? By your reckoning, the UN is also a "charity". The UN is funded by donations from countries. It does not ask for, not allow, donations from individuals. Not a charity. So you agree that the UK policy on Ukrainian asylum is hypocritical but unable to write it? OK
I don't, but I'm happy to write it if someone provides a quote from a government publication that seems to contradict what they are actually doing. "You can have a read about the process around the Refugee convention and who moved between what organisation and when if you like, or don't. I see that you need to be right and that the detail is more important than the substance for you. I have no interest in going down that rabbit hole any further, but take whatever "victory" you wish. The basic fact that Ukrainians specifically have a route to travel to the UK from a safe third country to settle in the UK is hypocritical compared to the arguments that the Government uses to deny those from other companies the same rights. That is the point of the thread. You can find yourself a link I'm sure | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Others ... seem to be able to find a way to assess the legitimacy of their claims such that over 80% are granted asylum by the end of a first appeal. Stop doing this. We've already established that the only half decent government figures show that it's about 72% at initial review, and then a further 6.3% after appeal. That's not "over 80%", and the 6.3% covers all appeals, not just the first one. Even with all that said, the 6.3% is recognised as being incorrect because appeals take years, so the rate we see this year doesn't reflect the outcome of appeals made this year. Stop making up numbers and treating them as if they're accurate. Correct, but curiously pedantic. Nearly 80% are granted asylum on appeal. I did not "make up" any numbers. In fact, I provided you with them didn't I? I made a slightly incorrect generalisation which I am happy to apologise for. The vast majority are judged to have genuine grounds for asylum. That is the actual point, is it not? Stop being disingenuous. The 80% figure is from total asylum claims. Not from the illegal entry crossings. I appreciate that you are trying to divert away from your inability to address the OP directly, but I have already stated: "I am only able to quote the available data for those seeking asylum. There is not enough information for those crossing the channel. The figures for their applications may be lower or higher or identical. You have no data at all." I have also provided the information on numerous occasions that from the UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention: "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" I understand that you wish to use language to deligitamise the position of those fleeing persecution or war, but let's see of you can stay vaguely on point, shall we? The position on Ukrainian asylum applicants compared to those from other countries is, in fact, hypocritical, isn't it? Different does not mean hypocritical. Arriving by dingy without ID when they must have had documents to cross a continent is illegal. I really don’t give a stuff about an outdated convention from a different era. What I can’t understand is why you posted in the first place. I know you were playing the devils advocate but your point is just silly. You know why ‘different’ rules were placed for Ukrainians, for some reason known only to you, you don’t like it . Get over it. What you do or do not "give a stuff about" is not relevant to the law either domestic or international. Your personal definition of "illegal" is just not meaningful. You don't need to reply multiple times to a thread that you don't understand the reason for, but you have anyway. You clearly have strong views on migration despite some confusion on what is legal, illegal, economic or asylum. The point that one group of people in a "horrific" situation is treated differently to another is not 'silly'. It is fundamental. So other than trying to create division, why did you post? What were you hoping to achieve? " Telling me my own motives yet again? I was interested to know how people could justify treating one group of people in equal need differently from another. Cognitive dissonance and motivated reasoning all displayed. All displayed with such absolute certainty. Interesting to see  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am asking the same question because you absolutely have not answered it. Why is there a specific process for Ukrainian refugees separate to that of any other nationality? Will we accept men from Ukraine if they want to join their families and will we keep them here having granted asylum to their families? We identify culturally with Ukrainians? Really? How? This is not about charity. It is, absolutely, correct to ask why our national refugee policy treats some people in equal need differently to others. I have answered your question. It looks like you are just intentionally overlooking it and going around in circles. Taking refugees is charity. You can show all the refugee convention agreements. But in the end, it boils down to the will of the country and its ability to provide refugee. Ukraine is getting special treatment because they have more cultural connections with UK. They are part of Europe. They also share the same major religion which plays a big role when in these decisions. Just like how Islamic countries would love to have Islamic refugees and Hindu majority countries would be happy to have Hindu and Buddhist refugees. About Ukrainian men vs women, I have already explained it like I explain to children. Anyway I will repeat myself again. There is a rough hierarchy of who the country will want to help: Ukrainian women/Children Ukrainian men Women/children from Non-European countries Men from Non-European countries We could make the list more granular by dividing people from Non-European countries based on other factors like their cultural values, skillset etc. But this list is enough for argument. Ukrainians get better treatment mainly because they share similar values and partly because the men are fighting the war and mostly women/children are fleeing the country. If many men start applying for refugee, their treatment would not be as easy as that of the women. But still they will find it easy to get asylum compared to other country refugees. You can cry all about why religious identity and cultural values are given more importance. But I personally don't think there is anything morally wrong with a country wanting to help one country more than the other countries. All that matters is they are willing to help." Ukraine's "cultural connection" to the UK? Also the "strong" Protestant convictions of the UK aligning with the Catholic and Orthodox Ukrainian ones? Interesting. Your "hierarchy" of people is an ugly one, but explains a lot about the world view of some. Few people would lay it out in the cold terms that you have, but it is clear. I'm not "crying" about anything, but your interpretation of my thoughts is no more pertinent now than it has been previously. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The basic fact that Ukrainians specifically have a route to travel to the UK from a safe third country to settle in the UK is hypocritical compared to the arguments that the Government uses to deny those from other companies the same rights." Again, hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. If the government said that all refugees from war zones must be admitted, but then didn't allow Yemenis in, that would be hypocritical. I agree with you that the UK government is setting different standards for different countries, but that isn't hypocrisy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The basic fact that Ukrainians specifically have a route to travel to the UK from a safe third country to settle in the UK is hypocritical compared to the arguments that the Government uses to deny those from other companies the same rights. Again, hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. If the government said that all refugees from war zones must be admitted, but then didn't allow Yemenis in, that would be hypocritical. I agree with you that the UK government is setting different standards for different countries, but that isn't hypocrisy." If you think so | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am asking the same question because you absolutely have not answered it. Why is there a specific process for Ukrainian refugees separate to that of any other nationality? Will we accept men from Ukraine if they want to join their families and will we keep them here having granted asylum to their families? We identify culturally with Ukrainians? Really? How? This is not about charity. It is, absolutely, correct to ask why our national refugee policy treats some people in equal need differently to others. I have answered your question. It looks like you are just intentionally overlooking it and going around in circles. Taking refugees is charity. You can show all the refugee convention agreements. But in the end, it boils down to the will of the country and its ability to provide refugee. Ukraine is getting special treatment because they have more cultural connections with UK. They are part of Europe. They also share the same major religion which plays a big role when in these decisions. Just like how Islamic countries would love to have Islamic refugees and Hindu majority countries would be happy to have Hindu and Buddhist refugees. About Ukrainian men vs women, I have already explained it like I explain to children. Anyway I will repeat myself again. There is a rough hierarchy of who the country will want to help: Ukrainian women/Children Ukrainian men Women/children from Non-European countries Men from Non-European countries We could make the list more granular by dividing people from Non-European countries based on other factors like their cultural values, skillset etc. But this list is enough for argument. Ukrainians get better treatment mainly because they share similar values and partly because the men are fighting the war and mostly women/children are fleeing the country. If many men start applying for refugee, their treatment would not be as easy as that of the women. But still they will find it easy to get asylum compared to other country refugees. You can cry all about why religious identity and cultural values are given more importance. But I personally don't think there is anything morally wrong with a country wanting to help one country more than the other countries. All that matters is they are willing to help. Ukraine's "cultural connection" to the UK? Also the "strong" Protestant convictions of the UK aligning with the Catholic and Orthodox Ukrainian ones? Interesting. Your "hierarchy" of people is an ugly one, but explains a lot about the world view of some. Few people would lay it out in the cold terms that you have, but it is clear. I'm not "crying" about anything, but your interpretation of my thoughts is no more pertinent now than it has been previously." When was the last time catholics and protestants went to war against each other? They are much more compatible than Christians and other religions. As for the hierarchy being ugly, that's not what the world view has become now. It's what the world view has always been. In fact, it has been even worse in the past. Everyone has a hierarchy like that. Pretty sure if you have limited resources, you will have a hierarchy of family, friends, community, rest of the world when it comes to choosing who you want to help. Of course, it's lot more fun to take a moral high ground, act like we are saints and rest of the world has gone to shit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Others ... seem to be able to find a way to assess the legitimacy of their claims such that over 80% are granted asylum by the end of a first appeal. Stop doing this. We've already established that the only half decent government figures show that it's about 72% at initial review, and then a further 6.3% after appeal. That's not "over 80%", and the 6.3% covers all appeals, not just the first one. Even with all that said, the 6.3% is recognised as being incorrect because appeals take years, so the rate we see this year doesn't reflect the outcome of appeals made this year. Stop making up numbers and treating them as if they're accurate. Correct, but curiously pedantic. Nearly 80% are granted asylum on appeal. I did not "make up" any numbers. In fact, I provided you with them didn't I? I made a slightly incorrect generalisation which I am happy to apologise for. The vast majority are judged to have genuine grounds for asylum. That is the actual point, is it not? Stop being disingenuous. The 80% figure is from total asylum claims. Not from the illegal entry crossings. I appreciate that you are trying to divert away from your inability to address the OP directly, but I have already stated: "I am only able to quote the available data for those seeking asylum. There is not enough information for those crossing the channel. The figures for their applications may be lower or higher or identical. You have no data at all." I have also provided the information on numerous occasions that from the UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention: "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" I understand that you wish to use language to deligitamise the position of those fleeing persecution or war, but let's see of you can stay vaguely on point, shall we? The position on Ukrainian asylum applicants compared to those from other countries is, in fact, hypocritical, isn't it? Different does not mean hypocritical. Arriving by dingy without ID when they must have had documents to cross a continent is illegal. I really don’t give a stuff about an outdated convention from a different era. What I can’t understand is why you posted in the first place. I know you were playing the devils advocate but your point is just silly. You know why ‘different’ rules were placed for Ukrainians, for some reason known only to you, you don’t like it . Get over it. What you do or do not "give a stuff about" is not relevant to the law either domestic or international. Your personal definition of "illegal" is just not meaningful. You don't need to reply multiple times to a thread that you don't understand the reason for, but you have anyway. You clearly have strong views on migration despite some confusion on what is legal, illegal, economic or asylum. The point that one group of people in a "horrific" situation is treated differently to another is not 'silly'. It is fundamental. So other than trying to create division, why did you post? What were you hoping to achieve? Telling me my own motives yet again? I was interested to know how people could justify treating one group of people in equal need differently from another. Cognitive dissonance and motivated reasoning all displayed. All displayed with such absolute certainty. Interesting to see "but when I asked you if you would treat one group different to another you refused to answer because it was obvious you would of said Syria it’s just the natural thing to do human nature | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hello readers! What do you all think? Are we wasting our time here? Should we all go and find more productive things to do? Or are you all really enjoying the exciting back and forth of the debate? Let me know below." I’m off out for a bike ride. Don’t tell Tom though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am asking the same question because you absolutely have not answered it. Why is there a specific process for Ukrainian refugees separate to that of any other nationality? Will we accept men from Ukraine if they want to join their families and will we keep them here having granted asylum to their families? We identify culturally with Ukrainians? Really? How? This is not about charity. It is, absolutely, correct to ask why our national refugee policy treats some people in equal need differently to others. I have answered your question. It looks like you are just intentionally overlooking it and going around in circles. Taking refugees is charity. You can show all the refugee convention agreements. But in the end, it boils down to the will of the country and its ability to provide refugee. Ukraine is getting special treatment because they have more cultural connections with UK. They are part of Europe. They also share the same major religion which plays a big role when in these decisions. Just like how Islamic countries would love to have Islamic refugees and Hindu majority countries would be happy to have Hindu and Buddhist refugees. About Ukrainian men vs women, I have already explained it like I explain to children. Anyway I will repeat myself again. There is a rough hierarchy of who the country will want to help: Ukrainian women/Children Ukrainian men Women/children from Non-European countries Men from Non-European countries We could make the list more granular by dividing people from Non-European countries based on other factors like their cultural values, skillset etc. But this list is enough for argument. Ukrainians get better treatment mainly because they share similar values and partly because the men are fighting the war and mostly women/children are fleeing the country. If many men start applying for refugee, their treatment would not be as easy as that of the women. But still they will find it easy to get asylum compared to other country refugees. You can cry all about why religious identity and cultural values are given more importance. But I personally don't think there is anything morally wrong with a country wanting to help one country more than the other countries. All that matters is they are willing to help. Ukraine's "cultural connection" to the UK? Also the "strong" Protestant convictions of the UK aligning with the Catholic and Orthodox Ukrainian ones? Interesting. Your "hierarchy" of people is an ugly one, but explains a lot about the world view of some. Few people would lay it out in the cold terms that you have, but it is clear. I'm not "crying" about anything, but your interpretation of my thoughts is no more pertinent now than it has been previously. When was the last time catholics and protestants went to war against each other? They are much more compatible than Christians and other religions. As for the hierarchy being ugly, that's not what the world view has become now. It's what the world view has always been. In fact, it has been even worse in the past. Everyone has a hierarchy like that. Pretty sure if you have limited resources, you will have a hierarchy of family, friends, community, rest of the world when it comes to choosing who you want to help. Of course, it's lot more fun to take a moral high ground, act like we are saints and rest of the world has gone to shit." It's being brought to a simmer nicely in Northern Ireland last now. The Omagh bombing was about 25 years ago. You can view the world as you wish. A parallel between strangers from different places and family or friends with a personal connection is also pretty much a nonsense. Again, trying to define a preference for a more equitable view of the world as the "moral high ground" is also informative. You be you and justify it to yourself however you wish or don't | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s the norm on here almost all _asyuk threads are to do with racism " Threads about racism are about racism. Threads about hypocrisy are about hypocrisy. Food effort at making up my motives though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Others ... seem to be able to find a way to assess the legitimacy of their claims such that over 80% are granted asylum by the end of a first appeal. Stop doing this. We've already established that the only half decent government figures show that it's about 72% at initial review, and then a further 6.3% after appeal. That's not "over 80%", and the 6.3% covers all appeals, not just the first one. Even with all that said, the 6.3% is recognised as being incorrect because appeals take years, so the rate we see this year doesn't reflect the outcome of appeals made this year. Stop making up numbers and treating them as if they're accurate. Correct, but curiously pedantic. Nearly 80% are granted asylum on appeal. I did not "make up" any numbers. In fact, I provided you with them didn't I? I made a slightly incorrect generalisation which I am happy to apologise for. The vast majority are judged to have genuine grounds for asylum. That is the actual point, is it not? Stop being disingenuous. The 80% figure is from total asylum claims. Not from the illegal entry crossings. I appreciate that you are trying to divert away from your inability to address the OP directly, but I have already stated: "I am only able to quote the available data for those seeking asylum. There is not enough information for those crossing the channel. The figures for their applications may be lower or higher or identical. You have no data at all." I have also provided the information on numerous occasions that from the UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention: "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" I understand that you wish to use language to deligitamise the position of those fleeing persecution or war, but let's see of you can stay vaguely on point, shall we? The position on Ukrainian asylum applicants compared to those from other countries is, in fact, hypocritical, isn't it? Different does not mean hypocritical. Arriving by dingy without ID when they must have had documents to cross a continent is illegal. I really don’t give a stuff about an outdated convention from a different era. What I can’t understand is why you posted in the first place. I know you were playing the devils advocate but your point is just silly. You know why ‘different’ rules were placed for Ukrainians, for some reason known only to you, you don’t like it . Get over it. What you do or do not "give a stuff about" is not relevant to the law either domestic or international. Your personal definition of "illegal" is just not meaningful. You don't need to reply multiple times to a thread that you don't understand the reason for, but you have anyway. You clearly have strong views on migration despite some confusion on what is legal, illegal, economic or asylum. The point that one group of people in a "horrific" situation is treated differently to another is not 'silly'. It is fundamental. So other than trying to create division, why did you post? What were you hoping to achieve? Telling me my own motives yet again? I was interested to know how people could justify treating one group of people in equal need differently from another. Cognitive dissonance and motivated reasoning all displayed. All displayed with such absolute certainty. Interesting to see but when I asked you if you would treat one group different to another you refused to answer because it was obvious you would of said Syria it’s just the natural thing to do human nature "Actually, not at all. You simply failed to actually engage with the topic directly as presented. You generally just comment to have a personal dig in which I have no interest. Throughout this thread I have been consistent in stating that people in the same circumstances should be treated as fairly and equally as possible. Up to you if that is acceptable or not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I like what you have done here and look forward to the lack of replies by the usual crew." What has proven interesting is the convoluted justification to support this position. Also the normal attempts to insult, confuse and divert the conversation. That's fairly normal. All informative, if somewhat disheartening. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Others ... seem to be able to find a way to assess the legitimacy of their claims such that over 80% are granted asylum by the end of a first appeal. Stop doing this. We've already established that the only half decent government figures show that it's about 72% at initial review, and then a further 6.3% after appeal. That's not "over 80%", and the 6.3% covers all appeals, not just the first one. Even with all that said, the 6.3% is recognised as being incorrect because appeals take years, so the rate we see this year doesn't reflect the outcome of appeals made this year. Stop making up numbers and treating them as if they're accurate. Correct, but curiously pedantic. Nearly 80% are granted asylum on appeal. I did not "make up" any numbers. In fact, I provided you with them didn't I? I made a slightly incorrect generalisation which I am happy to apologise for. The vast majority are judged to have genuine grounds for asylum. That is the actual point, is it not? Stop being disingenuous. The 80% figure is from total asylum claims. Not from the illegal entry crossings. I appreciate that you are trying to divert away from your inability to address the OP directly, but I have already stated: "I am only able to quote the available data for those seeking asylum. There is not enough information for those crossing the channel. The figures for their applications may be lower or higher or identical. You have no data at all." I have also provided the information on numerous occasions that from the UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention: "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" I understand that you wish to use language to deligitamise the position of those fleeing persecution or war, but let's see of you can stay vaguely on point, shall we? The position on Ukrainian asylum applicants compared to those from other countries is, in fact, hypocritical, isn't it? Different does not mean hypocritical. Arriving by dingy without ID when they must have had documents to cross a continent is illegal. I really don’t give a stuff about an outdated convention from a different era. What I can’t understand is why you posted in the first place. I know you were playing the devils advocate but your point is just silly. You know why ‘different’ rules were placed for Ukrainians, for some reason known only to you, you don’t like it . Get over it. What you do or do not "give a stuff about" is not relevant to the law either domestic or international. Your personal definition of "illegal" is just not meaningful. You don't need to reply multiple times to a thread that you don't understand the reason for, but you have anyway. You clearly have strong views on migration despite some confusion on what is legal, illegal, economic or asylum. The point that one group of people in a "horrific" situation is treated differently to another is not 'silly'. It is fundamental. So other than trying to create division, why did you post? What were you hoping to achieve? Telling me my own motives yet again? I was interested to know how people could justify treating one group of people in equal need differently from another. Cognitive dissonance and motivated reasoning all displayed. All displayed with such absolute certainty. Interesting to see but when I asked you if you would treat one group different to another you refused to answer because it was obvious you would of said Syria it’s just the natural thing to do human nature
Actually, not at all. You simply failed to actually engage with the topic directly as presented. You generally just comment to have a personal dig in which I have no interest.
Throughout this thread I have been consistent in stating that people in the same circumstances should be treated as fairly and equally as possible.
Up to you if that is acceptable or not."I agree they should but it’s human nature that it doesn’t and you know it hence you won’t answer the question | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(slight tangent, I know. But Brexit was basically all about pushing fear of foreigners + foreign things.)Total rubbish." Yes, a significant part of it was: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/nigel-farage-says-controversial-anti-migrant-poster-won-referendum-brexit-556699 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-vote-leave-accused-of-fanning-the-flames-of-division-after-publishing-controversial-map-a7067701.html?amp https://news.sky.com/story/amp/which-eu-referendum-camp-is-to-be-believed-10290978 There are others. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Others ... seem to be able to find a way to assess the legitimacy of their claims such that over 80% are granted asylum by the end of a first appeal. Stop doing this. We've already established that the only half decent government figures show that it's about 72% at initial review, and then a further 6.3% after appeal. That's not "over 80%", and the 6.3% covers all appeals, not just the first one. Even with all that said, the 6.3% is recognised as being incorrect because appeals take years, so the rate we see this year doesn't reflect the outcome of appeals made this year. Stop making up numbers and treating them as if they're accurate. Correct, but curiously pedantic. Nearly 80% are granted asylum on appeal. I did not "make up" any numbers. In fact, I provided you with them didn't I? I made a slightly incorrect generalisation which I am happy to apologise for. The vast majority are judged to have genuine grounds for asylum. That is the actual point, is it not? Stop being disingenuous. The 80% figure is from total asylum claims. Not from the illegal entry crossings. I appreciate that you are trying to divert away from your inability to address the OP directly, but I have already stated: "I am only able to quote the available data for those seeking asylum. There is not enough information for those crossing the channel. The figures for their applications may be lower or higher or identical. You have no data at all." I have also provided the information on numerous occasions that from the UNHCR The 1951 Refugee Convention: "it is not ‘illegal’ to enter irregularly if a migrant claims asylum on arrival" I understand that you wish to use language to deligitamise the position of those fleeing persecution or war, but let's see of you can stay vaguely on point, shall we? The position on Ukrainian asylum applicants compared to those from other countries is, in fact, hypocritical, isn't it? Different does not mean hypocritical. Arriving by dingy without ID when they must have had documents to cross a continent is illegal. I really don’t give a stuff about an outdated convention from a different era. What I can’t understand is why you posted in the first place. I know you were playing the devils advocate but your point is just silly. You know why ‘different’ rules were placed for Ukrainians, for some reason known only to you, you don’t like it . Get over it. What you do or do not "give a stuff about" is not relevant to the law either domestic or international. Your personal definition of "illegal" is just not meaningful. You don't need to reply multiple times to a thread that you don't understand the reason for, but you have anyway. You clearly have strong views on migration despite some confusion on what is legal, illegal, economic or asylum. The point that one group of people in a "horrific" situation is treated differently to another is not 'silly'. It is fundamental. So other than trying to create division, why did you post? What were you hoping to achieve? Telling me my own motives yet again? I was interested to know how people could justify treating one group of people in equal need differently from another. Cognitive dissonance and motivated reasoning all displayed. All displayed with such absolute certainty. Interesting to see but when I asked you if you would treat one group different to another you refused to answer because it was obvious you would of said Syria it’s just the natural thing to do human nature
Actually, not at all. You simply failed to actually engage with the topic directly as presented. You generally just comment to have a personal dig in which I have no interest.
Throughout this thread I have been consistent in stating that people in the same circumstances should be treated as fairly and equally as possible.
Up to you if that is acceptable or not. I agree they should but it’s human nature that it doesn’t and you know it hence you won’t answer the question "It's an absolutely nonsensical question. It's a false choice which provides no useful information. No government or individual "has" to allocate all resources to one group. Never. You divide it as the need requires. Should Ukrainians in safe countries be treated differently to people fleeing conflict and persecution from other places? This is an actual thing happening now which our government has chosen to do on your behalf. Yes/No | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am asking the same question because you absolutely have not answered it. Why is there a specific process for Ukrainian refugees separate to that of any other nationality? Will we accept men from Ukraine if they want to join their families and will we keep them here having granted asylum to their families? We identify culturally with Ukrainians? Really? How? This is not about charity. It is, absolutely, correct to ask why our national refugee policy treats some people in equal need differently to others. I have answered your question. It looks like you are just intentionally overlooking it and going around in circles. Taking refugees is charity. You can show all the refugee convention agreements. But in the end, it boils down to the will of the country and its ability to provide refugee. Ukraine is getting special treatment because they have more cultural connections with UK. They are part of Europe. They also share the same major religion which plays a big role when in these decisions. Just like how Islamic countries would love to have Islamic refugees and Hindu majority countries would be happy to have Hindu and Buddhist refugees. About Ukrainian men vs women, I have already explained it like I explain to children. Anyway I will repeat myself again. There is a rough hierarchy of who the country will want to help: Ukrainian women/Children Ukrainian men Women/children from Non-European countries Men from Non-European countries We could make the list more granular by dividing people from Non-European countries based on other factors like their cultural values, skillset etc. But this list is enough for argument. Ukrainians get better treatment mainly because they share similar values and partly because the men are fighting the war and mostly women/children are fleeing the country. If many men start applying for refugee, their treatment would not be as easy as that of the women. But still they will find it easy to get asylum compared to other country refugees. You can cry all about why religious identity and cultural values are given more importance. But I personally don't think there is anything morally wrong with a country wanting to help one country more than the other countries. All that matters is they are willing to help. Ukraine's "cultural connection" to the UK? Also the "strong" Protestant convictions of the UK aligning with the Catholic and Orthodox Ukrainian ones? Interesting. Your "hierarchy" of people is an ugly one, but explains a lot about the world view of some. Few people would lay it out in the cold terms that you have, but it is clear. I'm not "crying" about anything, but your interpretation of my thoughts is no more pertinent now than it has been previously. When was the last time catholics and protestants went to war against each other? They are much more compatible than Christians and other religions. As for the hierarchy being ugly, that's not what the world view has become now. It's what the world view has always been. In fact, it has been even worse in the past. Everyone has a hierarchy like that. Pretty sure if you have limited resources, you will have a hierarchy of family, friends, community, rest of the world when it comes to choosing who you want to help. Of course, it's lot more fun to take a moral high ground, act like we are saints and rest of the world has gone to shit. It's being brought to a simmer nicely in Northern Ireland last now. The Omagh bombing was about 25 years ago. You can view the world as you wish. A parallel between strangers from different places and family or friends with a personal connection is also pretty much a nonsense. Again, trying to define a preference for a more equitable view of the world as the "moral high ground" is also informative. You be you and justify it to yourself however you wish or don't "You seem to miss the whole point about limited resources here. When you have limited resources, an equitable view is just impossible. It's only possible in a dream utopian world where resources are unlimited. With limited resources, you need to make choice. To flip the coin, if you look at charitable donations or economic help made by people and governments from middle east and Pakistan. Their donations will be mostly towards Palestinian, Syrian and Kashmiri cause. Will you go and ask them to redirect a part of their money to Ukraine for a more equitable world view? A government's job in a democracy is to follow the people's wishes. I bet majority of the population in UK are happy with the fact that the government is helping Ukraine. Your view that every government should help every human in the world is nonsensical and practically impossible. Helping the people who suffer is a good thing. There is no need to throw a negative light to it by asking questions like why are you only helping this group and not the other group. If you feel that other countries' issues are important, you gather the people who have similar views as you and donate your money, just like I donate for orphanages in India. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe?" Not sure exactly what they are entitled to once they arrive in the UK in relation to benefits and working or how it differs to other claimants. They may well be very happy in Poland and of course it's not so far to go home if the war ends. How does this applying from abroad work. Do they have to wait until approved or just do the application and then if approved make their way to the UK | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There is no need to throw a negative light to it by asking questions like why are you only helping this group and not the other group. If you feel that other countries' issues are important, you gather the people who have similar views as you and donate your money, just like I donate for orphanages in India. " Very reasonable | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am asking the same question because you absolutely have not answered it. Why is there a specific process for Ukrainian refugees separate to that of any other nationality? Will we accept men from Ukraine if they want to join their families and will we keep them here having granted asylum to their families? We identify culturally with Ukrainians? Really? How? This is not about charity. It is, absolutely, correct to ask why our national refugee policy treats some people in equal need differently to others. I have answered your question. It looks like you are just intentionally overlooking it and going around in circles. Taking refugees is charity. You can show all the refugee convention agreements. But in the end, it boils down to the will of the country and its ability to provide refugee. Ukraine is getting special treatment because they have more cultural connections with UK. They are part of Europe. They also share the same major religion which plays a big role when in these decisions. Just like how Islamic countries would love to have Islamic refugees and Hindu majority countries would be happy to have Hindu and Buddhist refugees. About Ukrainian men vs women, I have already explained it like I explain to children. Anyway I will repeat myself again. There is a rough hierarchy of who the country will want to help: Ukrainian women/Children Ukrainian men Women/children from Non-European countries Men from Non-European countries We could make the list more granular by dividing people from Non-European countries based on other factors like their cultural values, skillset etc. But this list is enough for argument. Ukrainians get better treatment mainly because they share similar values and partly because the men are fighting the war and mostly women/children are fleeing the country. If many men start applying for refugee, their treatment would not be as easy as that of the women. But still they will find it easy to get asylum compared to other country refugees. You can cry all about why religious identity and cultural values are given more importance. But I personally don't think there is anything morally wrong with a country wanting to help one country more than the other countries. All that matters is they are willing to help. Ukraine's "cultural connection" to the UK? Also the "strong" Protestant convictions of the UK aligning with the Catholic and Orthodox Ukrainian ones? Interesting. Your "hierarchy" of people is an ugly one, but explains a lot about the world view of some. Few people would lay it out in the cold terms that you have, but it is clear. I'm not "crying" about anything, but your interpretation of my thoughts is no more pertinent now than it has been previously. When was the last time catholics and protestants went to war against each other? They are much more compatible than Christians and other religions. As for the hierarchy being ugly, that's not what the world view has become now. It's what the world view has always been. In fact, it has been even worse in the past. Everyone has a hierarchy like that. Pretty sure if you have limited resources, you will have a hierarchy of family, friends, community, rest of the world when it comes to choosing who you want to help. Of course, it's lot more fun to take a moral high ground, act like we are saints and rest of the world has gone to shit. It's being brought to a simmer nicely in Northern Ireland last now. The Omagh bombing was about 25 years ago. You can view the world as you wish. A parallel between strangers from different places and family or friends with a personal connection is also pretty much a nonsense. Again, trying to define a preference for a more equitable view of the world as the "moral high ground" is also informative. You be you and justify it to yourself however you wish or don't
You seem to miss the whole point about limited resources here. When you have limited resources, an equitable view is just impossible. It's only possible in a dream utopian world where resources are unlimited. With limited resources, you need to make choice.
To flip the coin, if you look at charitable donations or economic help made by people and governments from middle east and Pakistan. Their donations will be mostly towards Palestinian, Syrian and Kashmiri cause. Will you go and ask them to redirect a part of their money to Ukraine for a more equitable world view?
A government's job in a democracy is to follow the people's wishes. I bet majority of the population in UK are happy with the fact that the government is helping Ukraine. Your view that every government should help every human in the world is nonsensical and practically impossible. Helping the people who suffer is a good thing. There is no need to throw a negative light to it by asking questions like why are you only helping this group and not the other group. If you feel that other countries' issues are important, you gather the people who have similar views as you and donate your money, just like I donate for orphanages in India.
"couldnt agree more it’s normal happens all over the world don’t know why the op as a hard on over it tbh | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am asking the same question because you absolutely have not answered it. Why is there a specific process for Ukrainian refugees separate to that of any other nationality? Will we accept men from Ukraine if they want to join their families and will we keep them here having granted asylum to their families? We identify culturally with Ukrainians? Really? How? This is not about charity. It is, absolutely, correct to ask why our national refugee policy treats some people in equal need differently to others. I have answered your question. It looks like you are just intentionally overlooking it and going around in circles. Taking refugees is charity. You can show all the refugee convention agreements. But in the end, it boils down to the will of the country and its ability to provide refugee. Ukraine is getting special treatment because they have more cultural connections with UK. They are part of Europe. They also share the same major religion which plays a big role when in these decisions. Just like how Islamic countries would love to have Islamic refugees and Hindu majority countries would be happy to have Hindu and Buddhist refugees. About Ukrainian men vs women, I have already explained it like I explain to children. Anyway I will repeat myself again. There is a rough hierarchy of who the country will want to help: Ukrainian women/Children Ukrainian men Women/children from Non-European countries Men from Non-European countries We could make the list more granular by dividing people from Non-European countries based on other factors like their cultural values, skillset etc. But this list is enough for argument. Ukrainians get better treatment mainly because they share similar values and partly because the men are fighting the war and mostly women/children are fleeing the country. If many men start applying for refugee, their treatment would not be as easy as that of the women. But still they will find it easy to get asylum compared to other country refugees. You can cry all about why religious identity and cultural values are given more importance. But I personally don't think there is anything morally wrong with a country wanting to help one country more than the other countries. All that matters is they are willing to help. Ukraine's "cultural connection" to the UK? Also the "strong" Protestant convictions of the UK aligning with the Catholic and Orthodox Ukrainian ones? Interesting. Your "hierarchy" of people is an ugly one, but explains a lot about the world view of some. Few people would lay it out in the cold terms that you have, but it is clear. I'm not "crying" about anything, but your interpretation of my thoughts is no more pertinent now than it has been previously. When was the last time catholics and protestants went to war against each other? They are much more compatible than Christians and other religions. As for the hierarchy being ugly, that's not what the world view has become now. It's what the world view has always been. In fact, it has been even worse in the past. Everyone has a hierarchy like that. Pretty sure if you have limited resources, you will have a hierarchy of family, friends, community, rest of the world when it comes to choosing who you want to help. Of course, it's lot more fun to take a moral high ground, act like we are saints and rest of the world has gone to shit. It's being brought to a simmer nicely in Northern Ireland last now. The Omagh bombing was about 25 years ago. You can view the world as you wish. A parallel between strangers from different places and family or friends with a personal connection is also pretty much a nonsense. Again, trying to define a preference for a more equitable view of the world as the "moral high ground" is also informative. You be you and justify it to yourself however you wish or don't
You seem to miss the whole point about limited resources here. When you have limited resources, an equitable view is just impossible. It's only possible in a dream utopian world where resources are unlimited. With limited resources, you need to make choice.
To flip the coin, if you look at charitable donations or economic help made by people and governments from middle east and Pakistan. Their donations will be mostly towards Palestinian, Syrian and Kashmiri cause. Will you go and ask them to redirect a part of their money to Ukraine for a more equitable world view?
A government's job in a democracy is to follow the people's wishes. I bet majority of the population in UK are happy with the fact that the government is helping Ukraine. Your view that every government should help every human in the world is nonsensical and practically impossible. Helping the people who suffer is a good thing. There is no need to throw a negative light to it by asking questions like why are you only helping this group and not the other group. If you feel that other countries' issues are important, you gather the people who have similar views as you and donate your money, just like I donate for orphanages in India.
"No, I absolutely don't "miss the whole point about limited resources" because the whole point is trying to the best for the most with the limited resources available. Again, the argument constantly made, including in this thread, is that if people are in a safe country them they do not need to seek asylum anywhere else. However, for some reason this argument does not stand for Ukrainians. This is rank hypocrisy. What is surprising is that you cannot accept that as part of your hierarchy of human value. Why pretend that their is any objective process on place? It's fine if you have low expectations or genuinely feel that one group is more worthy of help than another, but don't claim otherwise Of course the reality is that this is not what is either written or intended in the 1962 Refugee Convention. There is no "balance" between this Government's highly politicised legal advice and that of both International and UK trial law. Again telling me that I want to help every human on the world is laughable. Please stop telling me what I think. The Government's job is not to do whatever the people want. The people want to pay no tax and have lots of free services. The Government's job is to implement it's manifesto promises if possible and make the best decisions that it can when stuff happens. Making decisions on headlines always leads to poor outcomes. The majority of the UK population would also have been happy if we helped Syrians or Afghans. They weren't though. This government chose to help Ukrainians though. Nobody was asked. Helping anybody in need is good. There is no "negative light" there is only the hypocrisy of denying one group of something based on an apparently important principle but ignoring the same important principle for others. The light casts a big shadow. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am asking the same question because you absolutely have not answered it. Why is there a specific process for Ukrainian refugees separate to that of any other nationality? Will we accept men from Ukraine if they want to join their families and will we keep them here having granted asylum to their families? We identify culturally with Ukrainians? Really? How? This is not about charity. It is, absolutely, correct to ask why our national refugee policy treats some people in equal need differently to others. I have answered your question. It looks like you are just intentionally overlooking it and going around in circles. Taking refugees is charity. You can show all the refugee convention agreements. But in the end, it boils down to the will of the country and its ability to provide refugee. Ukraine is getting special treatment because they have more cultural connections with UK. They are part of Europe. They also share the same major religion which plays a big role when in these decisions. Just like how Islamic countries would love to have Islamic refugees and Hindu majority countries would be happy to have Hindu and Buddhist refugees. About Ukrainian men vs women, I have already explained it like I explain to children. Anyway I will repeat myself again. There is a rough hierarchy of who the country will want to help: Ukrainian women/Children Ukrainian men Women/children from Non-European countries Men from Non-European countries We could make the list more granular by dividing people from Non-European countries based on other factors like their cultural values, skillset etc. But this list is enough for argument. Ukrainians get better treatment mainly because they share similar values and partly because the men are fighting the war and mostly women/children are fleeing the country. If many men start applying for refugee, their treatment would not be as easy as that of the women. But still they will find it easy to get asylum compared to other country refugees. You can cry all about why religious identity and cultural values are given more importance. But I personally don't think there is anything morally wrong with a country wanting to help one country more than the other countries. All that matters is they are willing to help. Ukraine's "cultural connection" to the UK? Also the "strong" Protestant convictions of the UK aligning with the Catholic and Orthodox Ukrainian ones? Interesting. Your "hierarchy" of people is an ugly one, but explains a lot about the world view of some. Few people would lay it out in the cold terms that you have, but it is clear. I'm not "crying" about anything, but your interpretation of my thoughts is no more pertinent now than it has been previously. When was the last time catholics and protestants went to war against each other? They are much more compatible than Christians and other religions. As for the hierarchy being ugly, that's not what the world view has become now. It's what the world view has always been. In fact, it has been even worse in the past. Everyone has a hierarchy like that. Pretty sure if you have limited resources, you will have a hierarchy of family, friends, community, rest of the world when it comes to choosing who you want to help. Of course, it's lot more fun to take a moral high ground, act like we are saints and rest of the world has gone to shit. It's being brought to a simmer nicely in Northern Ireland last now. The Omagh bombing was about 25 years ago. You can view the world as you wish. A parallel between strangers from different places and family or friends with a personal connection is also pretty much a nonsense. Again, trying to define a preference for a more equitable view of the world as the "moral high ground" is also informative. You be you and justify it to yourself however you wish or don't
You seem to miss the whole point about limited resources here. When you have limited resources, an equitable view is just impossible. It's only possible in a dream utopian world where resources are unlimited. With limited resources, you need to make choice.
To flip the coin, if you look at charitable donations or economic help made by people and governments from middle east and Pakistan. Their donations will be mostly towards Palestinian, Syrian and Kashmiri cause. Will you go and ask them to redirect a part of their money to Ukraine for a more equitable world view?
A government's job in a democracy is to follow the people's wishes. I bet majority of the population in UK are happy with the fact that the government is helping Ukraine. Your view that every government should help every human in the world is nonsensical and practically impossible. Helping the people who suffer is a good thing. There is no need to throw a negative light to it by asking questions like why are you only helping this group and not the other group. If you feel that other countries' issues are important, you gather the people who have similar views as you and donate your money, just like I donate for orphanages in India.
couldnt agree more it’s normal happens all over the world don’t know why the op as a hard on over it tbh "You continue to be unable to answer the simple question that the thread presents. Too ashamed to write your reasons yourself. Tell me why Ukrainians mean more to you than Afghans if you are able. Tell me why Ukrainians can apply for asylum from a safe country but why being in a safe country is a reason not to allow a Afghan to apply for asylum to the UK, if you are able. Explain why this is not hypocrisy, if you are able. Don't know why you are unable to be civil tbh | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe? Not sure exactly what they are entitled to once they arrive in the UK in relation to benefits and working or how it differs to other claimants. They may well be very happy in Poland and of course it's not so far to go home if the war ends. How does this applying from abroad work. Do they have to wait until approved or just do the application and then if approved make their way to the UK" Ukrainians are issued visas. They do not even have to apply for asylum. The scheme is even being fast tracked. They receive benefits and can work immediately. They can also be sponsored by family members to a wider extent than someone from any other nationality. They are in a significantly better situation than asylum applicants from anywhere else. This is not inherently bad, but it is clearly widely different treatment for different people in equal need. This is "normal" behaviour, apparently. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe? Not sure exactly what they are entitled to once they arrive in the UK in relation to benefits and working or how it differs to other claimants. They may well be very happy in Poland and of course it's not so far to go home if the war ends. How does this applying from abroad work. Do they have to wait until approved or just do the application and then if approved make their way to the UK Ukrainians are issued visas. They do not even have to apply for asylum. The scheme is even being fast tracked. They receive benefits and can work immediately. They can also be sponsored by family members to a wider extent than someone from any other nationality. They are in a significantly better situation than asylum applicants from anywhere else. This is not inherently bad, but it is clearly widely different treatment for different people in equal need. This is "normal" behaviour, apparently." Oh I thought the Ukrainians were applying for asylum like the others but instead are on the visa system. This maybe why they can do it from abroad but not looked into it. I did not think of the situation as anything other than the country doing a good thing but I guess there is two sides to a story. What's your opinion on why the Ukrainians are having different treatment? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe? Not sure exactly what they are entitled to once they arrive in the UK in relation to benefits and working or how it differs to other claimants. They may well be very happy in Poland and of course it's not so far to go home if the war ends. How does this applying from abroad work. Do they have to wait until approved or just do the application and then if approved make their way to the UK Ukrainians are issued visas. They do not even have to apply for asylum. The scheme is even being fast tracked. They receive benefits and can work immediately. They can also be sponsored by family members to a wider extent than someone from any other nationality. They are in a significantly better situation than asylum applicants from anywhere else. This is not inherently bad, but it is clearly widely different treatment for different people in equal need. This is "normal" behaviour, apparently. Oh I thought the Ukrainians were applying for asylum like the others but instead are on the visa system. This maybe why they can do it from abroad but not looked into it. I did not think of the situation as anything other than the country doing a good thing but I guess there is two sides to a story. What's your opinion on why the Ukrainians are having different treatment?" It is a good thing that Ukrainians are being helped, although someone decided on my behalf that I hate Ukrainians. It seems to be a bad thing that they have rejigged the system to help one group of people but continue to make it as difficult as possible for others. Visa with immediate access to benefits and right to work instead of years in the asylum process and subsistence only. This is the situation for the Afghan interpreters and their families who were not abandoned. However, there is, apparently, a perfectly normal hierarchy of humanity's value. Some are worth helping more than others and you should not even try to be in any way objective or fair. That's just idealistic whining. Politically, supporting the Ukraine is a great distraction for BoJo from Partygate and the cost of living. There was some pressure on the UK not doing enough to help Ukraine. They actually dragged their feet in the hope of not having to take too many people, but then had to look serious as they came under further criticism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No, I absolutely don't "miss the whole point about limited resources" because the whole point is trying to the best for the most with the limited resources available. Again, the argument constantly made, including in this thread, is that if people are in a safe country them they do not need to seek asylum anywhere else. However, for some reason this argument does not stand for Ukrainians. This is rank hypocrisy. What is surprising is that you cannot accept that as part of your hierarchy of human value. Why pretend that their is any objective process on place? It's fine if you have low expectations or genuinely feel that one group is more worthy of help than another, but don't claim otherwise Of course the reality is that this is not what is either written or intended in the 1962 Refugee Convention. There is no "balance" between this Government's highly politicised legal advice and that of both International and UK trial law. Again telling me that I want to help every human on the world is laughable. Please stop telling me what I think. The Government's job is not to do whatever the people want. The people want to pay no tax and have lots of free services. The Government's job is to implement it's manifesto promises if possible and make the best decisions that it can when stuff happens. Making decisions on headlines always leads to poor outcomes. The majority of the UK population would also have been happy if we helped Syrians or Afghans. They weren't though. This government chose to help Ukrainians though. Nobody was asked. Helping anybody in need is good. There is no "negative light" there is only the hypocrisy of denying one group of something based on an apparently important principle but ignoring the same important principle for others. The light casts a big shadow." I don't care for the whole safe country argument or what's written on UNHCR. I pointed out that there are limited resources. People have a hierarchy of who they wish to help. They would rather have the resources go to the people in the top of hierarchy than the bottom. It's not just the UK government and people who do that. Every government in the world does that. You say that you want to make "best use of resources available". It's not as easy as you think it is. Allocating charity money is one of the biggest moral dilemmas every human and organisation faces and there is no single solution to it to call one approach right and another approach wrong. It looks like you have one approach in mind and you feel that governments must follow that. And if they don't do that, they are hypocrites. Your question was why government does a lot to help out Ukrainian refugees and not refugees from other countries. Doesn't it mean that you want the government to help all of them? If others should stop telling what you think, maybe you should also consider doing that with others. The government's job is to do what the people want with the caveat that it is economically feasible. If it is economically feasible at some point to reduce taxes, the government must do that because people want that and it is feasible. From what I know, in spite of doing so much for Ukrainians, people were feeling that UK should do more. On the other hand, controlling refugee intake was a major talking point for the Tories and they won the elections. When you see someone helping one group and questioning why they aren't helping another group and calling it hypocrisy is throwing negative light on it. This whole thread, you have been doing the same thing. Imagine you are helping someone and a random person shows up and calls you a hypocrite because you are not helping another person the same way. You think it's not throwing a negative light on what you do? Or do you plan to give a different definition of what negative means? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe? Not sure exactly what they are entitled to once they arrive in the UK in relation to benefits and working or how it differs to other claimants. They may well be very happy in Poland and of course it's not so far to go home if the war ends. How does this applying from abroad work. Do they have to wait until approved or just do the application and then if approved make their way to the UK Ukrainians are issued visas. They do not even have to apply for asylum. The scheme is even being fast tracked. They receive benefits and can work immediately. They can also be sponsored by family members to a wider extent than someone from any other nationality. They are in a significantly better situation than asylum applicants from anywhere else. This is not inherently bad, but it is clearly widely different treatment for different people in equal need. This is "normal" behaviour, apparently. Oh I thought the Ukrainians were applying for asylum like the others but instead are on the visa system. This maybe why they can do it from abroad but not looked into it. I did not think of the situation as anything other than the country doing a good thing but I guess there is two sides to a story. What's your opinion on why the Ukrainians are having different treatment? It is a good thing that Ukrainians are being helped, although someone decided on my behalf that I hate Ukrainians. It seems to be a bad thing that they have rejigged the system to help one group of people but continue to make it as difficult as possible for others. Visa with immediate access to benefits and right to work instead of years in the asylum process and subsistence only. This is the situation for the Afghan interpreters and their families who were not abandoned. However, there is, apparently, a perfectly normal hierarchy of humanity's value. Some are worth helping more than others and you should not even try to be in any way objective or fair. That's just idealistic whining. Politically, supporting the Ukraine is a great distraction for BoJo from Partygate and the cost of living. There was some pressure on the UK not doing enough to help Ukraine. They actually dragged their feet in the hope of not having to take too many people, but then had to look serious as they came under further criticism." Wow! What a nonsensical twist to what we mentioned! No one said some are "worth helping" over other in the hierarchy. Everyone who is suffering is worth helping. But no one can help everyone who is suffering and people pick and choose who they want to help based on the hierarchies. If you choose to give money to a family person instead of a homeless person on the street, does it mean that you consider the homeless person less worthy of help? Or does your moral scrutiny apply only to the rest of the world and not you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP doesn’t like the fact that there are other points of view. There simply is no hypocrisy involved. A different process for a different situation & circumstances. Perhaps if the Afghans had shown a fraction of the resolve shown by the Ukrainians and fought for their country as the women & children sought safety abroad things would have been different. We will never know of course. I repeat - no hypocrisy." Are you serious? The Ukrainians are fighting an army who are wearing a uniform identifying them as the bad guys so they know who to shoot at. The afghans may have their enemy standing right next to them about to blow everyone up and never know. Twenty years of U.K. and American armies with all our firepower trying to beat them didn’t work did it! The differential between the treatment of some country’s refugees and others is very stark. Push the boats back for some but wave the others in. Ultimately most people want to go home but because of aggression by others including the U.K. they don’t have a home fit to live in. When you have nothing but war how do you build? How do you create jobs? Schools, hospital etc etc. Is there much building going on in Eastern Ukraine right now? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP doesn’t like the fact that there are other points of view. There simply is no hypocrisy involved. A different process for a different situation & circumstances. Perhaps if the Afghans had shown a fraction of the resolve shown by the Ukrainians and fought for their country as the women & children sought safety abroad things would have been different. We will never know of course. I repeat - no hypocrisy." To be honest, many people fall into this trap of believing that their own moral opinions are superior others. As a civilization, we have figured out that some moral views are universal.Violence against someone is wrong unless it is for self defense, stealing someone else's hard earned money is wrong etc. But there are millions of issues where there isn't a single right or wrong answer. Refugee intake is one of those issues. Every country has its own share of homelessness. Some people would think its better to allocate the resources to fix their homeless problem first before helping refugees from other countries. Different countries allocate different levels of resources to handle refugees. How much they allocate and who they help depends on numerous factors. Turkey takes numerous Syrian refugees. Should we call them hypocrites because they aren't taking African refugees? In the end it's charitable work and doesn't make any kind of sense to complain about who they help and how much they help. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP doesn’t like the fact that there are other points of view. There simply is no hypocrisy involved. A different process for a different situation & circumstances. Perhaps if the Afghans had shown a fraction of the resolve shown by the Ukrainians and fought for their country as the women & children sought safety abroad things would have been different. We will never know of course. I repeat - no hypocrisy. Are you serious? The Ukrainians are fighting an army who are wearing a uniform identifying them as the bad guys so they know who to shoot at. The afghans may have their enemy standing right next to them about to blow everyone up and never know. Twenty years of U.K. and American armies with all our firepower trying to beat them didn’t work did it! The differential between the treatment of some country’s refugees and others is very stark. Push the boats back for some but wave the others in. Ultimately most people want to go home but because of aggression by others including the U.K. they don’t have a home fit to live in. When you have nothing but war how do you build? How do you create jobs? Schools, hospital etc etc. Is there much building going on in Eastern Ukraine right now? " Nobody is “pushing boats back”, the opposite in fact. The Royal Navy and the RNLI are providing a free welcome & collection. Perhaps if they can pay smugglers between 3&5 k to get in a dingy, they should pay a similar amount to be rescued? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP doesn’t like the fact that there are other points of view. There simply is no hypocrisy involved. A different process for a different situation & circumstances. Perhaps if the Afghans had shown a fraction of the resolve shown by the Ukrainians and fought for their country as the women & children sought safety abroad things would have been different. We will never know of course. I repeat - no hypocrisy. Are you serious? The Ukrainians are fighting an army who are wearing a uniform identifying them as the bad guys so they know who to shoot at. The afghans may have their enemy standing right next to them about to blow everyone up and never know. Twenty years of U.K. and American armies with all our firepower trying to beat them didn’t work did it! The differential between the treatment of some country’s refugees and others is very stark. Push the boats back for some but wave the others in. Ultimately most people want to go home but because of aggression by others including the U.K. they don’t have a home fit to live in. When you have nothing but war how do you build? How do you create jobs? Schools, hospital etc etc. Is there much building going on in Eastern Ukraine right now? Nobody is “pushing boats back”, the opposite in fact. The Royal Navy and the RNLI are providing a free welcome & collection. Perhaps if they can pay smugglers between 3&5 k to get in a dingy, they should pay a similar amount to be rescued? " Shame the free welcome and rescue hasn’t saved the poor bastards who drowned but you keep believing that crap. The Government asked the Royal Navy to look into pushing the boats back. I’ve got family in the navy who confirmed this. The Navy we’re not keen so the government backed off the idea. They wouldn’t need to be rescued if there was a safe route would they! Cost savings and the gangs would be losing out too. It’s a civilised approach. You know just like with Ukrainians. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP doesn’t like the fact that there are other points of view. There simply is no hypocrisy involved. A different process for a different situation & circumstances. Perhaps if the Afghans had shown a fraction of the resolve shown by the Ukrainians and fought for their country as the women & children sought safety abroad things would have been different. We will never know of course. I repeat - no hypocrisy. Are you serious? The Ukrainians are fighting an army who are wearing a uniform identifying them as the bad guys so they know who to shoot at. The afghans may have their enemy standing right next to them about to blow everyone up and never know. Twenty years of U.K. and American armies with all our firepower trying to beat them didn’t work did it! The differential between the treatment of some country’s refugees and others is very stark. Push the boats back for some but wave the others in. Ultimately most people want to go home but because of aggression by others including the U.K. they don’t have a home fit to live in. When you have nothing but war how do you build? How do you create jobs? Schools, hospital etc etc. Is there much building going on in Eastern Ukraine right now? Nobody is “pushing boats back”, the opposite in fact. The Royal Navy and the RNLI are providing a free welcome & collection. Perhaps if they can pay smugglers between 3&5 k to get in a dingy, they should pay a similar amount to be rescued? Shame the free welcome and rescue hasn’t saved the poor bastards who drowned but you keep believing that crap. The Government asked the Royal Navy to look into pushing the boats back. I’ve got family in the navy who confirmed this. The Navy we’re not keen so the government backed off the idea. They wouldn’t need to be rescued if there was a safe route would they! Cost savings and the gangs would be losing out too. It’s a civilised approach. You know just like with Ukrainians. "Believing what crap? There is a safe route and they are in a safe country. One that I wish to live in, I will follow the rules of course. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are Ukrainians being given special privileges to immigrate to the UK? Should they not be happy in Poland or Moldova or any other safe country that they first reach? Why should they get any form of benefits when they arrive or be allowed to work? Shouldn't we deny them entry? Shouldn't we send them on flights to Rwanda where they would be equally safe? Not sure exactly what they are entitled to once they arrive in the UK in relation to benefits and working or how it differs to other claimants. They may well be very happy in Poland and of course it's not so far to go home if the war ends. How does this applying from abroad work. Do they have to wait until approved or just do the application and then if approved make their way to the UK Ukrainians are issued visas. They do not even have to apply for asylum. The scheme is even being fast tracked. They receive benefits and can work immediately. They can also be sponsored by family members to a wider extent than someone from any other nationality. They are in a significantly better situation than asylum applicants from anywhere else. This is not inherently bad, but it is clearly widely different treatment for different people in equal need. This is "normal" behaviour, apparently. Oh I thought the Ukrainians were applying for asylum like the others but instead are on the visa system. This maybe why they can do it from abroad but not looked into it. I did not think of the situation as anything other than the country doing a good thing but I guess there is two sides to a story. What's your opinion on why the Ukrainians are having different treatment? It is a good thing that Ukrainians are being helped, although someone decided on my behalf that I hate Ukrainians. It seems to be a bad thing that they have rejigged the system to help one group of people but continue to make it as difficult as possible for others. Visa with immediate access to benefits and right to work instead of years in the asylum process and subsistence only. This is the situation for the Afghan interpreters and their families who were not abandoned. However, there is, apparently, a perfectly normal hierarchy of humanity's value. Some are worth helping more than others and you should not even try to be in any way objective or fair. That's just idealistic whining. Politically, supporting the Ukraine is a great distraction for BoJo from Partygate and the cost of living. There was some pressure on the UK not doing enough to help Ukraine. They actually dragged their feet in the hope of not having to take too many people, but then had to look serious as they came under further criticism." When I was reading down this thread you seemed to be comparing the Ukrainians with all others using the same system. You was asking why they are treated differently and why Ukrainians can apply from abroad where as the others can't. What you did not point out is that the Ukrainians are on the visa system and the asylum seekers are on the asylum system. Two systems with two sets of rules. It seems this is the answer to why they follow different rules. Of course visas are usually for a set time, where as, if a person is granted asylum then that's for life. Looking at the speed at which places like Poland accepted people, I would guess that they also used a different method to their own asylum system. Politically if the government had not done this people would have complained even more. I don't see any hypocrisy from the UK scheme myself. If there is then it means just about every country in the world are just as hypothetical | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
