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 |
"I read somewhere that Labour is pretty sure about tax increases this October. Their popularity will take quite a beating then and hence they are exploring the idea of doing something about immigration to compensate for it. " Or it was in their manifesto? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read somewhere that Labour is pretty sure about tax increases this October. Their popularity will take quite a beating then and hence they are exploring the idea of doing something about immigration to compensate for it. Or it was in their manifesto?" Is this smashing the gangs? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read somewhere that Labour is pretty sure about tax increases this October. Their popularity will take quite a beating then and hence they are exploring the idea of doing something about immigration to compensate for it. Or it was in their manifesto?" They mentioned something about stopping arrivals by boat. Nothing about deportation | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read somewhere that Labour is pretty sure about tax increases this October. Their popularity will take quite a beating then and hence they are exploring the idea of doing something about immigration to compensate for it. " They’ll just front load all the shit in this parliament while they enjoy a super majority. Then in four years time as we head towards the next GE they’ll start with the giveaways saying “we had to make tough decisions 4 years ago to balance the books due to the mess left behind by the Conservatives, but thanks to our approach we can now start to give back…!” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read somewhere that Labour is pretty sure about tax increases this October. Their popularity will take quite a beating then and hence they are exploring the idea of doing something about immigration to compensate for it. Or it was in their manifesto? Is this smashing the gangs? " On Fab it is usually the gangs doing the smashing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"cut'n'paste from labour manifesto 2024 - 'Labour will set up a new returns and enforcement unit, with an additional 1,000 staff, to fast-track removals to safe countries for people who do not have the right to stay here. We will negotiate additional returns arrangements to speed up returns and increase the number of safe countries that failed asylum seekers can swiftly be sent back to.' seems they at least intend on following through .... how cheap the talk is remains to be seen .... perhaps the doubters can apply for one of the 1000 jobs going and do something about it rather than whining on and on from their 'safe-space' behind their keyboards like they've done for the last decade and a half " I see they are simply putting numbers behind their promises, any idea when they are going to beat May’s returns? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"cut'n'paste from labour manifesto 2024 - 'Labour will set up a new returns and enforcement unit, with an additional 1,000 staff, to fast-track removals to safe countries for people who do not have the right to stay here. We will negotiate additional returns arrangements to speed up returns and increase the number of safe countries that failed asylum seekers can swiftly be sent back to.' seems they at least intend on following through .... how cheap the talk is remains to be seen .... perhaps the doubters can apply for one of the 1000 jobs going and do something about it rather than whining on and on from their 'safe-space' behind their keyboards like they've done for the last decade and a half I see they are simply putting numbers behind their promises, any idea when they are going to beat May’s returns? " i couldn't care less | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"cut'n'paste from labour manifesto 2024 - 'Labour will set up a new returns and enforcement unit, with an additional 1,000 staff, to fast-track removals to safe countries for people who do not have the right to stay here. We will negotiate additional returns arrangements to speed up returns and increase the number of safe countries that failed asylum seekers can swiftly be sent back to.' seems they at least intend on following through .... how cheap the talk is remains to be seen .... perhaps the doubters can apply for one of the 1000 jobs going and do something about it rather than whining on and on from their 'safe-space' behind their keyboards like they've done for the last decade and a half I see they are simply putting numbers behind their promises, any idea when they are going to beat May’s returns? i couldn't care less " I know | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"“we had to make tough decisions 4 years ago to balance the books due to the mess left behind by the Conservatives, but thanks to our approach we can now start to give back…!”" Sounds exactly like what the Conservatives said when they got elected after the financial crisis. All we have is a puppet show and nothing will change until we get a PM that is prepared to deal with the heads of the civil service and make serious restructuring changes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"“we had to make tough decisions 4 years ago to balance the books due to the mess left behind by the Conservatives, but thanks to our approach we can now start to give back…!” Sounds exactly like what the Conservatives said when they got elected after the financial crisis. All we have is a puppet show and nothing will change until we get a PM that is prepared to deal with the heads of the civil service and make serious restructuring changes." The Conservatives might have said that but then continued to cut jobs in the Home Office the the lowest numbers there had been since WW2. Is it any surprise they failed to deliver..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read somewhere that Labour is pretty sure about tax increases this October. Their popularity will take quite a beating then and hence they are exploring the idea of doing something about immigration to compensate for it. Or it was in their manifesto?" Yeah many got confused. They talked about spending cuts and tax increases. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious." Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"cut'n'paste from labour manifesto 2024 - 'Labour will set up a new returns and enforcement unit, with an additional 1,000 staff, to fast-track removals to safe countries for people who do not have the right to stay here. We will negotiate additional returns arrangements to speed up returns and increase the number of safe countries that failed asylum seekers can swiftly be sent back to.' seems they at least intend on following through .... how cheap the talk is remains to be seen .... perhaps the doubters can apply for one of the 1000 jobs going and do something about it rather than whining on and on from their 'safe-space' behind their keyboards like they've done for the last decade and a half " So what happens if you come from a country that is not SAFE. Guess you get to stay? How long before everyone coming are just from unsafe country's so they get to stay. Then what. It's really just a wast of time. If they want to come let them but once hear process them quick, and let them stand on there own. Like any one else. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win." Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win." Yes I'm with you. If you give less you might get less.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"“we had to make tough decisions 4 years ago to balance the books due to the mess left behind by the Conservatives, but thanks to our approach we can now start to give back…!” Sounds exactly like what the Conservatives said when they got elected after the financial crisis. All we have is a puppet show and nothing will change until we get a PM that is prepared to deal with the heads of the civil service and make serious restructuring changes." Ah the “blob” argument  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"“we had to make tough decisions 4 years ago to balance the books due to the mess left behind by the Conservatives, but thanks to our approach we can now start to give back…!” Sounds exactly like what the Conservatives said when they got elected after the financial crisis. All we have is a puppet show and nothing will change until we get a PM that is prepared to deal with the heads of the civil service and make serious restructuring changes. The Conservatives might have said that but then continued to cut jobs in the Home Office the the lowest numbers there had been since WW2. Is it any surprise they failed to deliver..?" And insisted the Civil Service try to enact things that were illegal. The CS is required to advise Ministers on what is legally possible and what is logistically possible with the resources and budget available. Ultimate decision on all Govt policy still resides with Minister(s)/Cabinet/PM. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians." Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. " True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months." Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants." Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months." Bringing the problem forward is still a good thing. BTW. I'm not defending labour here. I just think that the very long wait in process time that's built up over the last decade or so is something that needs dealing with. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears." The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely?" Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently." Then why not wait and see what happens? Otherwise you risk looking like you are trying to find any reason to have a go at Labour, even for things that haven’t happened. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Then why not wait and see what happens? Otherwise you risk looking like you are trying to find any reason to have a go at Labour, even for things that haven’t happened." Nah, I think it's fair game to comment on policies as and when their announced. This is a Politics Forum after all. If we wait for policies to be implemented and fail, we just have a 'fait accompli' (not that our views matter one way or the other). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who would have thought it? Yvette Priti Braverman Cooper, said she is going lock up and deport migrants. With Labour saying the aim over the next six months is to achieve "the highest rate of removals of those with no right to be here" since Theresa May's premiership in 2018" I'm sure the tories are kicking themselves for not playing harder. Top trumps "Have you read what you wrote? "the highest rate of removals of those with no right to be here" In my mind that is simply the Home office doing its job. Claim asylum and the case is accepted - no issues. Claim asylum and the case fails, along with god knows how many appeals - adios No-one will be objecting to the asylum system working as it should. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants." But if the failed application is from someone how is not safe in there own country, then its not legal to deport them back to there own country. Nor is it legal to depot them to any other country. And this is the bigger problem. Say 20,000 come this year 70% pass and are granted asylum, and half can be deported that still leaves around 3000 people left stuck that are not hear legally and can't ve deport to an unsafe country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. But if the failed application is from someone how is not safe in there own country, then its not legal to deport them back to there own country. Nor is it legal to depot them to any other country. And this is the bigger problem. Say 20,000 come this year 70% pass and are granted asylum, and half can be deported that still leaves around 3000 people left stuck that are not hear legally and can't ve deport to an unsafe country. " But 3000 have been deported, and the status of the others is known. Under the last government we were barely processing anyone so the numbers who could be deported were tiny. Now some say that was a deliberate policy but that’s another debate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read somewhere that Labour is pretty sure about tax increases this October. Their popularity will take quite a beating then and hence they are exploring the idea of doing something about immigration to compensate for it. Or it was in their manifesto?" detail was very scant in their manifesto….. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Haven’t governments been trying to solve this for years? Remember when you have a liberal-left civil service running things , no one actually gets kicked out , doesn’t matter what the government says " The civil service has a responsibility to abide by the law, that’s what they do. It can be very annoying at times, I have experience of this, but once you acknowledge that it is the law stopping things happening, and not the civil service, you can start working out how to get things done. Fact of the matter is the last government was lacking in talent, and very lazy. They didn’t want to have to consult with civil servants because that would make more work for them. So they didn’t bother and blamed the civil servants for things not happening when it was pointed out that what the ministers wanted to do was illegal. You can take the easy way out and say it’s lefty civil servants but in my experience they are not particularly liberal, they are however hard working and annoyingly over officious, although to be fair that is their job. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win."
But shhh don't tell the righties, they want Labour to fail to be proved correct. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians." Sounds like the previous 14 years to me  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Haven’t governments been trying to solve this for years? Remember when you have a liberal-left civil service running things , no one actually gets kicked out , doesn’t matter what the government says The civil service has a responsibility to abide by the law, that’s what they do. It can be very annoying at times, I have experience of this, but once you acknowledge that it is the law stopping things happening, and not the civil service, you can start working out how to get things done. Fact of the matter is the last government was lacking in talent, and very lazy. They didn’t want to have to consult with civil servants because that would make more work for them. So they didn’t bother and blamed the civil servants for things not happening when it was pointed out that what the ministers wanted to do was illegal. You can take the easy way out and say it’s lefty civil servants but in my experience they are not particularly liberal, they are however hard working and annoyingly over officious, although to be fair that is their job." Ignore civil servants, change the law and still not be successful, aka Rwanda project. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Conservatives might have said that but then continued to cut jobs in the Home Office the the lowest numbers there had been since WW2. Is it any surprise they failed to deliver..?" They then increased them back to higher than before the financial crisis... Scroll down a bit on the below page; https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/civil-service-staff-numbers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Haven’t governments been trying to solve this for years? Remember when you have a liberal-left civil service running things , no one actually gets kicked out , doesn’t matter what the government says " This is so true. I laughed yesterday when a spokesperson for a refugee charity, with no axe to grind 🤥 said that 90% of all appeals were granted, meaning the system was obviating at the first step. The idea the appeal process is flawed would never cross her mind. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Haven’t governments been trying to solve this for years? Remember when you have a liberal-left civil service running things , no one actually gets kicked out , doesn’t matter what the government says This is so true. I laughed yesterday when a spokesperson for a refugee charity, with no axe to grind 🤥 said that 90% of all appeals were granted, meaning the system was obviating at the first step. The idea the appeal process is flawed would never cross her mind. " So in reality at a guess we are spending how much as a country to hold and process 90% of applications and don't know what to do with the 10% How failed at the last hurdle. There must be a better way to spend tax payers money even if more get in. Are allowed to work and contribute to society and community. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Haven’t governments been trying to solve this for years? Remember when you have a liberal-left civil service running things , no one actually gets kicked out , doesn’t matter what the government says This is so true. I laughed yesterday when a spokesperson for a refugee charity, with no axe to grind 🤥 said that 90% of all appeals were granted, meaning the system was obviating at the first step. The idea the appeal process is flawed would never cross her mind. " Do you think she could be correct though? The statistics are certainly with her. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win.
But shhh don't tell the righties, they want Labour to fail to be proved correct. "And shhh the lefties can't bring themselves to admit Labour are wrong, even when it's right there in front of their eyes   | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win.
But shhh don't tell the righties, they want Labour to fail to be proved correct.
And shhh the lefties can't bring themselves to admit Labour are wrong, even when it's right there in front of their eyes "Give them a chance to be wrong or to fail before you condemn them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently." Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner" OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country!" I think you have misunderstood. I did not say at any point that people from Syria or Iran are not allowed to claim asylum here. I also at no point mentioned anything about them traveling through other safe countries. The post was about failed asylum seekers from those countries and how do the government go about sending them back. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country!" You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. " I think the confusion comes from my sentence about ditching a third safe country. I was not referring to them passing through other safe countries but it was what an article mentioned about where do you deport failed claimants from places like Iran to. You can no longer use Rwanda so where now | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. I think the confusion comes from my sentence about ditching a third safe country. I was not referring to them passing through other safe countries but it was what an article mentioned about where do you deport failed claimants from places like Iran to. You can no longer use Rwanda so where now" Leave the convention and free up the jails, fast track court cases for unlawful entry, jail the first 20 for 4 - 5 years each and we will see a sudden stop. I have seen this somewhere before, and it worked a bloody treat in restoring law and order and taking back control of the streets in no time at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! I think you have misunderstood. I did not say at any point that people from Syria or Iran are not allowed to claim asylum here. I also at no point mentioned anything about them traveling through other safe countries. The post was about failed asylum seekers from those countries and how do the government go about sending them back." If I misunderstood I apologise | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. " Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British "The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today. "Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️ So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet? Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel "'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently 
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British "I said leave the convention, I did not indicate the next step in what we should replace it with, you jumped as many do to the nuclear button to hammer home a message of dissent towards anything that would be considered different or detrimental, without focus on what could be better. It is recognised that the convention is out of date, and is being exploited, so why would we stay in it, is the question I have for you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Conservatives might have said that but then continued to cut jobs in the Home Office the the lowest numbers there had been since WW2. Is it any surprise they failed to deliver..? They then increased them back to higher than before the financial crisis... Scroll down a bit on the below page; https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/civil-service-staff-numbers" That was done to handle the extra workload created by Brexit and then the pandemic. Those extra resources weren't allocated to asylum processing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all. "What needs to be done then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
I said leave the convention, I did not indicate the next step in what we should replace it with, you jumped as many do to the nuclear button to hammer home a message of dissent towards anything that would be considered different or detrimental, without focus on what could be better.
It is recognised that the convention is out of date, and is being exploited, so why would we stay in it, is the question I have for you. "Adapt and change. Provide a proposed alternative before simply walking away. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! I think you have misunderstood. I did not say at any point that people from Syria or Iran are not allowed to claim asylum here. I also at no point mentioned anything about them traveling through other safe countries. The post was about failed asylum seekers from those countries and how do the government go about sending them back. If I misunderstood I apologise " thank you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then? "I'm not elected to come up with those answers. The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
I said leave the convention, I did not indicate the next step in what we should replace it with, you jumped as many do to the nuclear button to hammer home a message of dissent towards anything that would be considered different or detrimental, without focus on what could be better.
It is recognised that the convention is out of date, and is being exploited, so why would we stay in it, is the question I have for you.
Adapt and change. Provide a proposed alternative before simply walking away."We need to walk away from the convention before we can implement an alternative. It is that simple | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sighs ... said it before the election, Tories and Labour, fag paper between them all. Keep voting for them in this fptp, you got no chance of change. You lot keep lapping up the crumbs off their table and being thankful for it. Shame on the lot of you who keep the system going " I can happily say with a clear conscious that i didn't vote for.the Tories or this lunatic government in Labour. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will. "Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sighs ... said it before the election, Tories and Labour, fag paper between them all. Keep voting for them in this fptp, you got no chance of change. You lot keep lapping up the crumbs off their table and being thankful for it. Shame on the lot of you who keep the system going I can happily say with a clear conscious that i didn't vote for.the Tories or this lunatic government in Labour. " As can I | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?"By making them a place that people do not want to enter illegally as to do so produces poor outcomes that are not worth the risk. The 1951 convention removes the ability for us be able to manage this in a way that would allow any meaningful deterrent. We are also an island, this hinders our ability to protect areas with physical barriers, leaving no option but to deal with illegal entry as they enter unsafe waters or are on land with no way back. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
By making them a place that people do not want to enter illegally as to do so produces poor outcomes that are not worth the risk.
The 1951 convention removes the ability for us be able to manage this in a way that would allow any meaningful deterrent. We are also an island, this hinders our ability to protect areas with physical barriers, leaving no option but to deal with illegal entry as they enter unsafe waters or are on land with no way back. "So you want to make Britain a place where foreigners are treated badly and live in fear? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sighs ... said it before the election, Tories and Labour, fag paper between them all. Keep voting for them in this fptp, you got no chance of change. You lot keep lapping up the crumbs off their table and being thankful for it. Shame on the lot of you who keep the system going " Tell us how, in the GE, we could have changed it? The way I see it, is that people should contact their MPs and demand change. Moaning on a forum won't change things. Perhaps get a petition going so they HAVE to debate it in parliament if enough signatories. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
By making them a place that people do not want to enter illegally as to do so produces poor outcomes that are not worth the risk.
The 1951 convention removes the ability for us be able to manage this in a way that would allow any meaningful deterrent. We are also an island, this hinders our ability to protect areas with physical barriers, leaving no option but to deal with illegal entry as they enter unsafe waters or are on land with no way back. "I finally see why the last govt let the water companies get away with so much! They want to surround the UK with a ring of shit to stop the boats | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
By making them a place that people do not want to enter illegally as to do so produces poor outcomes that are not worth the risk.
The 1951 convention removes the ability for us be able to manage this in a way that would allow any meaningful deterrent. We are also an island, this hinders our ability to protect areas with physical barriers, leaving no option but to deal with illegal entry as they enter unsafe waters or are on land with no way back. "Do you think the UK should have no responsibility to take asylum seekers? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I finally see why the last govt let the water companies get away with so much! They want to surround the UK with a ring of shit to stop the boats "at least that might reduce the amount of youthful australian and south african surfers overstaying on their backpacking visas | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Haven’t governments been trying to solve this for years? Remember when you have a liberal-left civil service running things , no one actually gets kicked out , doesn’t matter what the government says The civil service has a responsibility to abide by the law, that’s what they do. It can be very annoying at times, I have experience of this, but once you acknowledge that it is the law stopping things happening, and not the civil service, you can start working out how to get things done. Fact of the matter is the last government was lacking in talent, and very lazy. They didn’t want to have to consult with civil servants because that would make more work for them. So they didn’t bother and blamed the civil servants for things not happening when it was pointed out that what the ministers wanted to do was illegal. You can take the easy way out and say it’s lefty civil servants but in my experience they are not particularly liberal, they are however hard working and annoyingly over officious, although to be fair that is their job." I’m guessing you have worked in the civil service? I have both middle and senior level and that is not my experience it is that large areas of the civil service are infiltrated by people with almost militant ideology Amore do everything possible to go against policies sat by Tories or even central middle of the road labour them just had their own audiology and any kind of reform that doesn’t align with that will be resisted | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Haven’t governments been trying to solve this for years? Remember when you have a liberal-left civil service running things , no one actually gets kicked out , doesn’t matter what the government says The civil service has a responsibility to abide by the law, that’s what they do. It can be very annoying at times, I have experience of this, but once you acknowledge that it is the law stopping things happening, and not the civil service, you can start working out how to get things done. Fact of the matter is the last government was lacking in talent, and very lazy. They didn’t want to have to consult with civil servants because that would make more work for them. So they didn’t bother and blamed the civil servants for things not happening when it was pointed out that what the ministers wanted to do was illegal. You can take the easy way out and say it’s lefty civil servants but in my experience they are not particularly liberal, they are however hard working and annoyingly over officious, although to be fair that is their job. I’m guessing you have worked in the civil service? I have both middle and senior level and that is not my experience it is that large areas of the civil service are infiltrated by people with almost militant ideology Amore do everything possible to go against policies sat by Tories or even central middle of the road labour them just had their own audiology and any kind of reform that doesn’t align with that will be resisted" No but I have had to deal with civil servants many times over the years, anything we say is anecdotal though, so essentially meaningless. I’m sure you reported these militant anti-Tories though, what happened to them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This whole “Civil Service Blob” was simply another scapegoating exercise by an increasingly out of touch and influenced by extremists Tory party. The Civil Service enacts the will of the current govt. When ordered to develop policy, part of the required due diligence is to present options and impact assessments. That is not stopping the Govt enacting policy (only parliament can do that) it is ensuring any policy proposed to become legislation is bullet proof, legally compliant, achievable, value for money, etc. the problem is Minister’s want YES Men so they can plough ahead with their ideas regardless of how bat shit crazy they might be. To day otherwise is to display ignorance of how govt in the UK operates and is dismissive of the checks and balances put in place to safeguard democracy. We’ve seen what happens when the executive take full control in an emergency and circumvent these checks and balances, you get things like the PPE VIP lane facilitating the personal enrichment of friends and family connected to the executive - which all sounds rather banana republic to me 🍌 " you also get situations where people like robert jenrick accept bungs totalling millions from friends in exchange for greenlighting planning consent for unecessary construction projects .... a situation where outside of being in the cabinet he would still be serving gaol time | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
By making them a place that people do not want to enter illegally as to do so produces poor outcomes that are not worth the risk.
The 1951 convention removes the ability for us be able to manage this in a way that would allow any meaningful deterrent. We are also an island, this hinders our ability to protect areas with physical barriers, leaving no option but to deal with illegal entry as they enter unsafe waters or are on land with no way back.
So you want to make Britain a place where foreigners are treated badly and live in fear?"You Missed the point again, deter! Deterrents to stop crossings not make people’s lives harder here….. it’s not that hard to understand, surely. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?"Enter illegally? Jail. Enter on a work visa? Be employed in the sector which your visa was granted for or deportation. Overstay a holiday visa? Deportation. As I've said all along, there only has to be will to control the borders, no one has the will. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
By making them a place that people do not want to enter illegally as to do so produces poor outcomes that are not worth the risk.
The 1951 convention removes the ability for us be able to manage this in a way that would allow any meaningful deterrent. We are also an island, this hinders our ability to protect areas with physical barriers, leaving no option but to deal with illegal entry as they enter unsafe waters or are on land with no way back.
So you want to make Britain a place where foreigners are treated badly and live in fear?
You Missed the point again, deter! Deterrents to stop crossings not make people’s lives harder here….. it’s not that hard to understand, surely.
"But if people cross the channel illegally and aren’t caught at the beaches, what then? How do we distinguish the foreign people who are here legally, or even those who were born here and aren’t white, from the so called illegal immigants? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
By making them a place that people do not want to enter illegally as to do so produces poor outcomes that are not worth the risk.
The 1951 convention removes the ability for us be able to manage this in a way that would allow any meaningful deterrent. We are also an island, this hinders our ability to protect areas with physical barriers, leaving no option but to deal with illegal entry as they enter unsafe waters or are on land with no way back.
So you want to make Britain a place where foreigners are treated badly and live in fear?
You Missed the point again, deter! Deterrents to stop crossings not make people’s lives harder here….. it’s not that hard to understand, surely.
But if people cross the channel illegally and aren’t caught at the beaches, what then? How do we distinguish the foreign people who are here legally, or even those who were born here and aren’t white, from the so called illegal immigants?"If someone is here legally, they where either born here, easy for authorities to prove/disprove. Or, they will have a passport. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
By making them a place that people do not want to enter illegally as to do so produces poor outcomes that are not worth the risk.
The 1951 convention removes the ability for us be able to manage this in a way that would allow any meaningful deterrent. We are also an island, this hinders our ability to protect areas with physical barriers, leaving no option but to deal with illegal entry as they enter unsafe waters or are on land with no way back.
So you want to make Britain a place where foreigners are treated badly and live in fear?
You Missed the point again, deter! Deterrents to stop crossings not make people’s lives harder here….. it’s not that hard to understand, surely.
But if people cross the channel illegally and aren’t caught at the beaches, what then? How do we distinguish the foreign people who are here legally, or even those who were born here and aren’t white, from the so called illegal immigants?
If someone is here legally, they where either born here, easy for authorities to prove/disprove. Or, they will have a passport."But how does that deter illegal immigrants from entering the country? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read somewhere that Labour is pretty sure about tax increases this October. Their popularity will take quite a beating then and hence they are exploring the idea of doing something about immigration to compensate for it. Or it was in their manifesto? Is this smashing the gangs? On Fab it is usually the gangs doing the smashing " It certainly is!!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
By making them a place that people do not want to enter illegally as to do so produces poor outcomes that are not worth the risk.
The 1951 convention removes the ability for us be able to manage this in a way that would allow any meaningful deterrent. We are also an island, this hinders our ability to protect areas with physical barriers, leaving no option but to deal with illegal entry as they enter unsafe waters or are on land with no way back.
So you want to make Britain a place where foreigners are treated badly and live in fear?
You Missed the point again, deter! Deterrents to stop crossings not make people’s lives harder here….. it’s not that hard to understand, surely.
But if people cross the channel illegally and aren’t caught at the beaches, what then? How do we distinguish the foreign people who are here legally, or even those who were born here and aren’t white, from the so called illegal immigants?
If someone is here legally, they where either born here, easy for authorities to prove/disprove. Or, they will have a passport.
But how does that deter illegal immigrants from entering the country?"You asked how to distinguish. I gave the answer. Anyone who is caught at a later date, shouldn't be too hard, should face jail and then immediate deportation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
By making them a place that people do not want to enter illegally as to do so produces poor outcomes that are not worth the risk.
The 1951 convention removes the ability for us be able to manage this in a way that would allow any meaningful deterrent. We are also an island, this hinders our ability to protect areas with physical barriers, leaving no option but to deal with illegal entry as they enter unsafe waters or are on land with no way back.
So you want to make Britain a place where foreigners are treated badly and live in fear?
You Missed the point again, deter! Deterrents to stop crossings not make people’s lives harder here….. it’s not that hard to understand, surely.
But if people cross the channel illegally and aren’t caught at the beaches, what then? How do we distinguish the foreign people who are here legally, or even those who were born here and aren’t white, from the so called illegal immigants?
If someone is here legally, they where either born here, easy for authorities to prove/disprove. Or, they will have a passport.
But how does that deter illegal immigrants from entering the country?
You asked how to distinguish. I gave the answer.
Anyone who is caught at a later date, shouldn't be too hard, should face jail and then immediate deportation. "So it’s not a deterrent then, cool. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
By making them a place that people do not want to enter illegally as to do so produces poor outcomes that are not worth the risk.
The 1951 convention removes the ability for us be able to manage this in a way that would allow any meaningful deterrent. We are also an island, this hinders our ability to protect areas with physical barriers, leaving no option but to deal with illegal entry as they enter unsafe waters or are on land with no way back.
So you want to make Britain a place where foreigners are treated badly and live in fear?
You Missed the point again, deter! Deterrents to stop crossings not make people’s lives harder here….. it’s not that hard to understand, surely.
But if people cross the channel illegally and aren’t caught at the beaches, what then? How do we distinguish the foreign people who are here legally, or even those who were born here and aren’t white, from the so called illegal immigants?
If someone is here legally, they where either born here, easy for authorities to prove/disprove. Or, they will have a passport.
But how does that deter illegal immigrants from entering the country?
You asked how to distinguish. I gave the answer.
Anyone who is caught at a later date, shouldn't be too hard, should face jail and then immediate deportation.
So it’s not a deterrent then, cool."Why bother having prisons if they aren't deterrents? Remember last week you were advocating locking up rioters to deter others. It'll never work. Only it has  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
Enter illegally? Jail.
Enter on a work visa? Be employed in the sector which your visa was granted for or deportation.
Overstay a holiday visa? Deportation.
As I've said all along, there only has to be will to control the borders, no one has the will. "Get into the UK and claim asylum = NOT illegal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
Enter illegally? Jail.
Enter on a work visa? Be employed in the sector which your visa was granted for or deportation.
Overstay a holiday visa? Deportation.
As I've said all along, there only has to be will to control the borders, no one has the will.
Get into the UK and claim asylum = NOT illegal"Get into the UK illegally and claim asylum = illegal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
Enter illegally? Jail.
Enter on a work visa? Be employed in the sector which your visa was granted for or deportation.
Overstay a holiday visa? Deportation.
As I've said all along, there only has to be will to control the borders, no one has the will.
Get into the UK and claim asylum = NOT illegal
Get into the UK illegally and claim asylum = illegal
"My apologies... inadmissible | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
Enter illegally? Jail.
Enter on a work visa? Be employed in the sector which your visa was granted for or deportation.
Overstay a holiday visa? Deportation.
As I've said all along, there only has to be will to control the borders, no one has the will.
Get into the UK and claim asylum = NOT illegal"Entering the UK without ID is illegal. They are 'let off' because they claim asylum. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
Enter illegally? Jail.
Enter on a work visa? Be employed in the sector which your visa was granted for or deportation.
Overstay a holiday visa? Deportation.
As I've said all along, there only has to be will to control the borders, no one has the will.
Get into the UK and claim asylum = NOT illegal
Entering the UK without ID is illegal. They are 'let off' because they claim asylum. "Illegal migration act 2023 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
Enter illegally? Jail.
Enter on a work visa? Be employed in the sector which your visa was granted for or deportation.
Overstay a holiday visa? Deportation.
As I've said all along, there only has to be will to control the borders, no one has the will.
Get into the UK and claim asylum = NOT illegal
Get into the UK illegally and claim asylum = illegal
"Nope. Once you have claimed asylum the manner in which you entered the UK becomes irrelevant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
Enter illegally? Jail.
Enter on a work visa? Be employed in the sector which your visa was granted for or deportation.
Overstay a holiday visa? Deportation.
As I've said all along, there only has to be will to control the borders, no one has the will.
Get into the UK and claim asylum = NOT illegal
Entering the UK without ID is illegal. They are 'let off' because they claim asylum. "Yep. As per my answer above. Claim asylum = no longer illegal. Simple! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
Enter illegally? Jail.
Enter on a work visa? Be employed in the sector which your visa was granted for or deportation.
Overstay a holiday visa? Deportation.
As I've said all along, there only has to be will to control the borders, no one has the will.
Get into the UK and claim asylum = NOT illegal
Entering the UK without ID is illegal. They are 'let off' because they claim asylum.
Yep. As per my answer above. Claim asylum = no longer illegal. Simple!"From 28 July 2022 onwards, anybody who enters the UK (without a visa) and claims asylum will be going against this law. You must distinguish between being an 'illegal immigrant' and gaining 'illegal entry'. Illegal entry is a crime. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
Enter illegally? Jail.
Enter on a work visa? Be employed in the sector which your visa was granted for or deportation.
Overstay a holiday visa? Deportation.
As I've said all along, there only has to be will to control the borders, no one has the will.
Get into the UK and claim asylum = NOT illegal
Entering the UK without ID is illegal. They are 'let off' because they claim asylum.
Yep. As per my answer above. Claim asylum = no longer illegal. Simple!"Leave the convention problem solved. those who are clearly taking the piss are no longer legal, simple! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
Enter illegally? Jail.
Enter on a work visa? Be employed in the sector which your visa was granted for or deportation.
Overstay a holiday visa? Deportation.
As I've said all along, there only has to be will to control the borders, no one has the will.
Get into the UK and claim asylum = NOT illegal
Entering the UK without ID is illegal. They are 'let off' because they claim asylum.
Yep. As per my answer above. Claim asylum = no longer illegal. Simple!
Leave the convention problem solved. those who are clearly taking the piss are no longer legal, simple!"We’re not going to leave the convention so it’s really pointless talking about it. It’s a right wing fantasy that died when the Tories were voted out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When I started this thread I wondered what direction it would travel due not to the nature of the topic, but for the added complexity of labour making the same noise as the tories. After interacting and reading posts I’m not at all surprised in the direction of travel, the usual soundbites with back and forth it’s the norm. What has made me sit up is the lack of cognisance towards the timing of the announcement by labour and the language of the announcement, if this had been under Tory governance, it would be called dog whistling. Did we really change government to quieten the voices of the left?" What is the language in the announcement you consider dog whistling? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
Enter illegally? Jail.
Enter on a work visa? Be employed in the sector which your visa was granted for or deportation.
Overstay a holiday visa? Deportation.
As I've said all along, there only has to be will to control the borders, no one has the will.
Get into the UK and claim asylum = NOT illegal
Entering the UK without ID is illegal. They are 'let off' because they claim asylum.
Yep. As per my answer above. Claim asylum = no longer illegal. Simple!
Leave the convention problem solved. those who are clearly taking the piss are no longer legal, simple!
We’re not going to leave the convention so it’s really pointless talking about it. It’s a right wing fantasy that died when the Tories were voted out."We will, it is time to update and stop bending to liberal fantasies, the question you should be asking yourself is, when will it happen | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When I started this thread I wondered what direction it would travel due not to the nature of the topic, but for the added complexity of labour making the same noise as the tories. After interacting and reading posts I’m not at all surprised in the direction of travel, the usual soundbites with back and forth it’s the norm. What has made me sit up is the lack of cognisance towards the timing of the announcement by labour and the language of the announcement, if this had been under Tory governance, it would be called dog whistling. Did we really change government to quieten the voices of the left? What is the language in the announcement you consider dog whistling?" it is interesting that you can't hear it, or recognise it when it comes from the left | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When I started this thread I wondered what direction it would travel due not to the nature of the topic, but for the added complexity of labour making the same noise as the tories. After interacting and reading posts I’m not at all surprised in the direction of travel, the usual soundbites with back and forth it’s the norm. What has made me sit up is the lack of cognisance towards the timing of the announcement by labour and the language of the announcement, if this had been under Tory governance, it would be called dog whistling. Did we really change government to quieten the voices of the left? What is the language in the announcement you consider dog whistling? it is interesting that you can't hear it, or recognise it when it comes from the left "If you can’t find examples that’s ok, just say x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When I started this thread I wondered what direction it would travel due not to the nature of the topic, but for the added complexity of labour making the same noise as the tories. After interacting and reading posts I’m not at all surprised in the direction of travel, the usual soundbites with back and forth it’s the norm. What has made me sit up is the lack of cognisance towards the timing of the announcement by labour and the language of the announcement, if this had been under Tory governance, it would be called dog whistling. Did we really change government to quieten the voices of the left? What is the language in the announcement you consider dog whistling? it is interesting that you can't hear it, or recognise it when it comes from the left
If you can’t find examples that’s ok, just say x"It isn't me that can't find them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
Enter illegally? Jail.
Enter on a work visa? Be employed in the sector which your visa was granted for or deportation.
Overstay a holiday visa? Deportation.
As I've said all along, there only has to be will to control the borders, no one has the will.
Get into the UK and claim asylum = NOT illegal
Entering the UK without ID is illegal. They are 'let off' because they claim asylum.
Yep. As per my answer above. Claim asylum = no longer illegal. Simple!
Leave the convention problem solved. those who are clearly taking the piss are no longer legal, simple!
We’re not going to leave the convention so it’s really pointless talking about it. It’s a right wing fantasy that died when the Tories were voted out.
We will, it is time to update and stop bending to liberal fantasies, the question you should be asking yourself is, when will it happen"I’m quite comfortable in the knowledge it won’t, thankfully the right wing fantasists are small in number. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a con trick by Labour. They will get rid of those ".......not allowed to be here". But hang on, what about those who are "allowed to be here" i.e. all the asylum applicants that have been approved under new fastrack laws. Labour at the most devious. Wouldn't fast tracking be a good thing? Process the applications quickly, save having to house people for so long. Save money. Win/win. Depends on the criteria, and where you set the bar. Look, this is a conjuring trick by Labour. If they get to approve large numbers of asylum applicants, the 'illegal' immigration problem suddenly goes away. we are being taken for mugs by devious politicians. Quick processing doesn't not equal approving large numbers. True, but I suspect it will. In any event, what will Labour do with 'rejections'? If the acceptance rate is equal or lower, there is still the problem of what to do with failed applicants. It just brings the problem forward by a few months. Isn’t the point of this thread that Labour have said they will deport people who don’t have the right to be here more quickly? That’s what will happen with the failed applicants. Yes, that's what they've said. But read their wording carefully. They pledge to remove " ....those who don't have a right to be here". So if they approve more asylum applicants, many more have the 'right to be here' and the problem of removal magically disappears. The rate for approval of asylum applications over the last decade has been anywhere between 60% and 70% so as long as the approval rate doesn’t deviate much from that there’s no reason to complain, surely? Agreed. If the rate stays unchanged, we must assume the approved applicants are genuine asylum seekers. I suppose there is a concern that an accelerated processing procedure might not permit all due checks to be carried out? I still don't see how Labour will remove failed applicants any more efficiently. Labour were repeatedly asked about how they intend to deport failed claimants if they come from places like Syria and Iran who either won't accept them back or would execute them, given they ditched a third country deemed to be safe. They would not answer but have said the renamed border force are getting more personnel. The gang smashing is just around the corner OMFG how many times do we go around and around on this? Someone who gets to the UK to claim asylum from Syria or Iran is legally entitled to do so. There is no requirement in international law for the asylum seeker to stop and claim in the first safe country they enter. The ONLY way to stop that is to change international law. But I suspect all the countries that border Syria and Iran might not be that keen on being the first safe country! You don't need everyone to agree to change the 1951 refugee convention, the Uk can simply stop recognising it and remove participation. Is that the 1951 refugee convention the UK were a leading party in writing and securing worldwide agreement around? Is that what the UK has become? Regressive and isolationist? Makes you proud to be British
The UK may well have been a leading party in securing that, however, that was 70+ years ago. The world is a very different place today.
Is it? Thanks hadn’t considered that 🤷🏻♂️
So why not lead from the front? Why not seek to galvanise the West/First World into updating the relevant treaties to reflect our changing planet?
Or we just sit behind our moat with pill boxes and machine guns pointing across the channel
'Think before you act', I think someone else used that slogan recently
There is no will to 'lead from the front', there is also no will to 'sit behind our machine guns', hence we're in the shit we're in.
Something has to be done, yet no one is willing to do anything at all.
What needs to be done then?
I'm not elected to come up with those answers.
The simplistic answer is to ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders. As I said, there's no will.
Beyond barbed wire fences, guard dogs abd watch towers, how do you ACTUALLY CONTROL our borders?
Enter illegally? Jail.
Enter on a work visa? Be employed in the sector which your visa was granted for or deportation.
Overstay a holiday visa? Deportation.
As I've said all along, there only has to be will to control the borders, no one has the will.
Get into the UK and claim asylum = NOT illegal
Entering the UK without ID is illegal. They are 'let off' because they claim asylum.
Yep. As per my answer above. Claim asylum = no longer illegal. Simple!
Leave the convention problem solved. those who are clearly taking the piss are no longer legal, simple!
We’re not going to leave the convention so it’s really pointless talking about it. It’s a right wing fantasy that died when the Tories were voted out.
We will, it is time to update and stop bending to liberal fantasies, the question you should be asking yourself is, when will it happen
I’m quite comfortable in the knowledge it won’t, thankfully the right wing fantasists are small in number."Okay | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Every time the topic of illegal immigration comes up, people tend to jump between moral and legal arguments based on their convenience. Do you think we shouldn't take action against anyone who shows up within the border and just says they want asylum, thereby making it an open border system? If yes, is it because you morally feel that's correct or because of the legal side of things based on refugee convention? If it's just because of the legal side, would you change your stance if we change the law? If it's just your moral view, then there isn't any value in making arguments based on the law as laws can be changed and the whole point of a political discussion is to figure out if the laws ought to be changed." The only action that should be taken with people who claim asylum to s to process their claim as quickly as possible. This is both a moral and legal point of view. Personally the moral ‘argument’ is of more importance because I don’t need laws to make me do the right thing. Pretty much every border in the world is an open border when it comes to refugees, and that’s as it should be. Whether the refugee is judged to have a right to asylum is another matter. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The only action that should be taken with people who claim asylum to s to process their claim as quickly as possible. " What's the point if you can't send them back even if they failed in their asylum claims? " This is both a moral and legal point of view. Personally the moral ‘argument’ is of more importance because I don’t need laws to make me do the right thing. " What the "right thing" is, varies from person to person. If we have a referendum and majority of people say that we should change the legal framework around handling refugees, would your moral framework give more priority to democracy or would you say fuck democracy and your own moral views should be forced on everyone? Also, it's not you who is doing the right thing. You doing the right thing would be you making personal sacrifices, like paying for the refugee's housing and other expenses and ensuring that they assimilate with the local culture. Forcing other people to make sacrifices for your own virtue doesn't make you a better person. It only makes you an authoritarian. " Pretty much every border in the world is an open border when it comes to refugees, and that’s as it should be. Whether the refugee is judged to have a right to asylum is another matter. " About 1/4th of the countries in the world haven't signed up to the refugee conventions. Pretty much every country can see that the current asylum process has loopholes which are being exploited left and right. Not to mention the fact that it's unsustainable in the long term. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety." The reason there are no ideas other than leaving the convention is the convention is what stops most ideas… Everything you have suggested is flawed due to the convention. Setup a centre in. France, flawed, those not getting through there legally will cross in small boats, enter illegally and like now, there is nothing we can do about it. Don’t give people benefits for 2 years, flawed and will be easily challenged in the courts and even if it was passed you would simply be encouraging crime for people to be able to eat and live. ID cards what benefit will they provide other than expense to the tax payer? See above refusing to support people. Provide jobs and eco systems with healthcare, that will stop the attempted crossings for sure. 
Speed up processing, great they move out of holding hotels into housing t will stop the crossings
You haven’t suggested anything that would prevent people making the crossing, your suggestions are to inconvenience them and reward them in equal measure, once here.
The convention needs rewriting to allow us to deal with the situation, once the laws are changed we can then deal with illegal entry in a meaningful way, and by then the shine of being here will have worn off for those who should not be here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The reason there are no ideas other than leaving the convention is the convention is what stops most ideas… Everything you have suggested is flawed due to the convention. Setup a centre in. France, flawed, those not getting through there legally will cross in small boats, enter illegally and like now, there is nothing we can do about it. Don’t give people benefits for 2 years, flawed and will be easily challenged in the courts and even if it was passed you would simply be encouraging crime for people to be able to eat and live. ID cards what benefit will they provide other than expense to the tax payer? See above refusing to support people. Provide jobs and eco systems with healthcare, that will stop the attempted crossings for sure.
Speed up processing, great they move out of holding hotels into housing t will stop the crossings
You haven’t suggested anything that would prevent people making the crossing, your suggestions are to inconvenience them and reward them in equal measure, once here.
The convention needs rewriting to allow us to deal with the situation, once the laws are changed we can then deal with illegal entry in a meaningful way, and by then the shine of being here will have worn off for those who should not be here. "I disagree but that’s not a surprise… if shelter and food is provided in a camp environment it removes any requirement for benefits as they do not need money. Long term it will be cheaper to build and maintain camp(s) than pay for hotel accommodation and would be less controversial than huge taxpayer bills for hotel rooms (and how that is perceived). You say no benefits will leas to crime but not if they are given shelter and food in a camp and their whereabouts known. Saying all that you are clearly set on leaving convention. Ok let’s say the UK does. What would the new convention or alternative look like once we leave? How can you persuade people to support leaving the convention without knowing what you propose to do with that new freedom? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The reason there are no ideas other than leaving the convention is the convention is what stops most ideas… Everything you have suggested is flawed due to the convention. Setup a centre in. France, flawed, those not getting through there legally will cross in small boats, enter illegally and like now, there is nothing we can do about it. Don’t give people benefits for 2 years, flawed and will be easily challenged in the courts and even if it was passed you would simply be encouraging crime for people to be able to eat and live. ID cards what benefit will they provide other than expense to the tax payer? See above refusing to support people. Provide jobs and eco systems with healthcare, that will stop the attempted crossings for sure.
Speed up processing, great they move out of holding hotels into housing t will stop the crossings
You haven’t suggested anything that would prevent people making the crossing, your suggestions are to inconvenience them and reward them in equal measure, once here.
The convention needs rewriting to allow us to deal with the situation, once the laws are changed we can then deal with illegal entry in a meaningful way, and by then the shine of being here will have worn off for those who should not be here.
I disagree but that’s not a surprise… if shelter and food is provided in a camp environment it removes any requirement for benefits as they do not need money. Long term it will be cheaper to build and maintain camp(s) than pay for hotel accommodation and would be less controversial than huge taxpayer bills for hotel rooms (and how that is perceived). You say no benefits will leas to crime but not if they are given shelter and food in a camp and their whereabouts known.
Saying all that you are clearly set on leaving convention. Ok let’s say the UK does. What would the new convention or alternative look like once we leave? How can you persuade people to support leaving the convention without knowing what you propose to do with that new freedom? "Less controversial?? I can already see 'open air prison' headlines | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The reason there are no ideas other than leaving the convention is the convention is what stops most ideas… Everything you have suggested is flawed due to the convention. Setup a centre in. France, flawed, those not getting through there legally will cross in small boats, enter illegally and like now, there is nothing we can do about it. Don’t give people benefits for 2 years, flawed and will be easily challenged in the courts and even if it was passed you would simply be encouraging crime for people to be able to eat and live. ID cards what benefit will they provide other than expense to the tax payer? See above refusing to support people. Provide jobs and eco systems with healthcare, that will stop the attempted crossings for sure.
Speed up processing, great they move out of holding hotels into housing t will stop the crossings
You haven’t suggested anything that would prevent people making the crossing, your suggestions are to inconvenience them and reward them in equal measure, once here.
The convention needs rewriting to allow us to deal with the situation, once the laws are changed we can then deal with illegal entry in a meaningful way, and by then the shine of being here will have worn off for those who should not be here.
I disagree but that’s not a surprise… if shelter and food is provided in a camp environment it removes any requirement for benefits as they do not need money. Long term it will be cheaper to build and maintain camp(s) than pay for hotel accommodation and would be less controversial than huge taxpayer bills for hotel rooms (and how that is perceived). You say no benefits will leas to crime but not if they are given shelter and food in a camp and their whereabouts known.
Saying all that you are clearly set on leaving convention. Ok let’s say the UK does. What would the new convention or alternative look like once we leave? How can you persuade people to support leaving the convention without knowing what you propose to do with that new freedom? "First let’s discuss your camp idea. You put thousands of young men together in a camp that feeds and houses them, what do they do in the day how are they spending time? Do they go out of the camp? We don’t know the whereabouts of 17000 people who crossed the channel in small boats, what do you think that number would be when they are housed in a camp? Leaving the convention will allow us to be able to do 1 of 2 things, draw up a convention and enlist the support of other countries to have something in place that supports modern day challenges or we go alone. If we go alone, the first thing we could do is take your camp, build big walls imprison them immediately as they land, take them to court on fast track, after all we will have the evidence of their entrance and give them 2 options. 1) go home that day and avoid a prison sentence. 2) go to prison for 5 years We would see an immediate drop in people crossing, because the reward has been removed with the prospect of going back home and that would be outside of the EU, all the travel they have done to that point would have been lost. Or they will be imprisoned for 5 years, and deported on release. Given those outcomes I think it highly unlikely anyone would bother getting in a small boat and leave France. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The only action that should be taken with people who claim asylum to s to process their claim as quickly as possible. What's the point if you can't send them back even if they failed in their asylum claims? " Where do you get the idea people aren’t returned to their own country if their asylum claim (and appeals) is rejected? " This is both a moral and legal point of view. Personally the moral ‘argument’ is of more importance because I don’t need laws to make me do the right thing. What the "right thing" is, varies from person to person. If we have a referendum and majority of people say that we should change the legal framework around handling refugees, would your moral framework give more priority to democracy or would you say fuck democracy and your own moral views should be forced on everyone? Also, it's not you who is doing the right thing. You doing the right thing would be you making personal sacrifices, like paying for the refugee's housing and other expenses and ensuring that they assimilate with the local culture. Forcing other people to make sacrifices for your own virtue doesn't make you a better person. It only makes you an authoritarian. " We don’t have plebiscites for everything, we’ve had two in the last 60 years, we’re not going to have one about the refugee convention, it’s just a right wing wank fantasy. In this country we understand that the collective is stronger than the individual, it’s why we all contribute to a central pot and have public services, again this obsession with the individual having to do everything in s another right wing wank fantasy. If you want to live somewhere like that then I’m afraid Western Europe is not the place for you. " Pretty much every border in the world is an open border when it comes to refugees, and that’s as it should be. Whether the refugee is judged to have a right to asylum is another matter. About 1/4th of the countries in the world haven't signed up to the refugee conventions. Pretty much every country can see that the current asylum process has loopholes which are being exploited left and right. Not to mention the fact that it's unsustainable in the long term." Almost every country in the world can see it? Don’t you mean you think it and are projecting your opinion onto everyone else? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where do you get the idea people aren’t returned to their own country if their asylum claim (and appeals) is rejected? " Returns has been a problem with many countries. Other than the fact that the countries don't want them back, most of these men throw away their passports. How exactly are you going to convince the countries to take someone without a passport? Not every country is weak and stupid. " We don’t have plebiscites for everything, we’ve had two in the last 60 years, we’re not going to have one about the refugee convention, it’s just a right wing wank fantasy. " Looks like you are just doing mental gymnastics to push your authoritarian views. If we do have plebiscite and the majority say they want to change the asylum process, what would your view be? " In this country we understand that the collective is stronger than the individual. it’s why we all contribute to a central pot and have public services, again this obsession with the individual having to do everything in s another right wing wank fantasy. If you want to live somewhere like that then I’m afraid Western Europe is not the place for you. " By "we", you mean you? Because most polls in Western Europe says people want to stop this nonsense. So maybe, Western Europe is not for you? This is again mental gymnastics again to hide the fact that you would never open your own wallet to help a cause that you "say" you support. Any lame guy on the street can point fingers at others and ask them to help. There are numerous "Welcome refugees" people I see on the internet. You want a collective? There is your collective. Why don't you compassionate folks form a group and support the cause you "say" you care about? Why is it always the government that you use to push your authoritarian views? People sign up for social welfare because it's a safety net for themselves. They did not contribute to the pot to help random strangers from other countries. " Almost every country in the world can see it? Don’t you mean you think it and are projecting your opinion onto everyone else? " Most polls within Europe say that. Pretty much every non-European only calls Europe weak and stupid for the way they handle their borders. I am yet to come across anyone who calls Europe compassionate for doing so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety." The asylum system right now has two big problems: - Anyone can show up in the country and claim to seek asylum, thereby escaping any legal action against them - There are no limits on number of people that can be granted asylum. No country has infinite resources to help everyone around the world. If India or China has a civil war next year, would Western Europe take all those people? A workable system: - Get out of the refugee convention - Anyone who shows up into the borders without permission goes to prison - Set an annual limit on number of refugees the country can take. A limit that can change every year based on how well the country is performing - THEN open asylum processing centre in countries which we feel need help. You could prioritise countries which have been impacted by UK's policy that way. Give more importance to women and children. We need to accept that this country cannot solve all the world problems. Limited resources means you can only do limited help. Some hard decisions have to be made. That's why we need limits and a prioritisation framework. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The reason there are no ideas other than leaving the convention is the convention is what stops most ideas… Everything you have suggested is flawed due to the convention. Setup a centre in. France, flawed, those not getting through there legally will cross in small boats, enter illegally and like now, there is nothing we can do about it. Don’t give people benefits for 2 years, flawed and will be easily challenged in the courts and even if it was passed you would simply be encouraging crime for people to be able to eat and live. ID cards what benefit will they provide other than expense to the tax payer? See above refusing to support people. Provide jobs and eco systems with healthcare, that will stop the attempted crossings for sure.
Speed up processing, great they move out of holding hotels into housing t will stop the crossings
You haven’t suggested anything that would prevent people making the crossing, your suggestions are to inconvenience them and reward them in equal measure, once here.
The convention needs rewriting to allow us to deal with the situation, once the laws are changed we can then deal with illegal entry in a meaningful way, and by then the shine of being here will have worn off for those who should not be here.
I disagree but that’s not a surprise… if shelter and food is provided in a camp environment it removes any requirement for benefits as they do not need money. Long term it will be cheaper to build and maintain camp(s) than pay for hotel accommodation and would be less controversial than huge taxpayer bills for hotel rooms (and how that is perceived). You say no benefits will leas to crime but not if they are given shelter and food in a camp and their whereabouts known.
Saying all that you are clearly set on leaving convention. Ok let’s say the UK does. What would the new convention or alternative look like once we leave? How can you persuade people to support leaving the convention without knowing what you propose to do with that new freedom?
First let’s discuss your camp idea. You put thousands of young men together in a camp that feeds and houses them, what do they do in the day how are they spending time? Do they go out of the camp? We don’t know the whereabouts of 17000 people who crossed the channel in small boats, what do you think that number would be when they are housed in a camp?
Leaving the convention will allow us to be able to do 1 of 2 things, draw up a convention and enlist the support of other countries to have something in place that supports modern day challenges or we go alone.
If we go alone, the first thing we could do is take your camp, build big walls imprison them immediately as they land, take them to court on fast track, after all we will have the evidence of their entrance and give them 2 options.
1) go home that day and avoid a prison sentence.
2) go to prison for 5 years
We would see an immediate drop in people crossing, because the reward has been removed with the prospect of going back home and that would be outside of the EU, all the travel they have done to that point would have been lost.
Or they will be imprisoned for 5 years, and deported on release.
Given those outcomes I think it highly unlikely anyone would bother getting in a small boat and leave France."@NotMe and @Feisty joint answer re “Camp” I said like Butlins. So hardly a “concentration/prison camp”. Ensure the media have seem the facilities. Basic but safe and comfortable (not luxury) and a step up from a tent on a French beach! They don’t leave the camp. They are being processed. So sports/gym/fitness/recreation facilities. Allotments needing work. English lessons and British culture lessons to aid with integration. Perhaps those who look more likely to be accepted could have skills training (they surely have skills from their home country). Maybe businesses can sponsor training/apprenticeship schemes (we need builders after all). And before anyone says “what about training for Brits” well doh yeah! Of course businesses should be offering that and undertaking linked to benefits payments etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The asylum system right now has two big problems: - Anyone can show up in the country and claim to seek asylum, thereby escaping any legal action against them - There are no limits on number of people that can be granted asylum. No country has infinite resources to help everyone around the world. If India or China has a civil war next year, would Western Europe take all those people? A workable system: - Get out of the refugee convention - Anyone who shows up into the borders without permission goes to prison - Set an annual limit on number of refugees the country can take. A limit that can change every year based on how well the country is performing - THEN open asylum processing centre in countries which we feel need help. You could prioritise countries which have been impacted by UK's policy that way. Give more importance to women and children. We need to accept that this country cannot solve all the world problems. Limited resources means you can only do limited help. Some hard decisions have to be made. That's why we need limits and a prioritisation framework." Your penultimate paragraph looks familiar
I believe the UK takes far fewer refugees and asylum seekers than Germany or France or Turkey. Maybe it should be based on current population or perhaps wealth per capita?
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The asylum system right now has two big problems: - Anyone can show up in the country and claim to seek asylum, thereby escaping any legal action against them - There are no limits on number of people that can be granted asylum. No country has infinite resources to help everyone around the world. If India or China has a civil war next year, would Western Europe take all those people? A workable system: - Get out of the refugee convention - Anyone who shows up into the borders without permission goes to prison - Set an annual limit on number of refugees the country can take. A limit that can change every year based on how well the country is performing - THEN open asylum processing centre in countries which we feel need help. You could prioritise countries which have been impacted by UK's policy that way. Give more importance to women and children. We need to accept that this country cannot solve all the world problems. Limited resources means you can only do limited help. Some hard decisions have to be made. That's why we need limits and a prioritisation framework. Your penultimate paragraph looks familiar
I believe the UK takes far fewer refugees and asylum seekers than Germany or France or Turkey. Maybe it should be based on current population or perhaps wealth per capita?
"Yes, population, wealth/GDP per capita could be taken into account. Pretty sure the experts in economics can come up with a reasonable formula to calculate that. This way, you can convince people that the numbers are controlled and sustainable. Genuine refugees in threat can be helped. Background checks are easily done in their home countries and gives more guarantees on safety of the process. What we don't want is forcing the majority against their wishes. The outcome of this is terrible both for people here and for the asylum seekers. There is a reason why democratic countries have been mostly peaceful. It's because the wishes of the majority are respected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Returns has been a problem with many countries. Other than the fact that the countries don't want them back, most of these men throw away their passports. How exactly are you going to convince the countries to take someone without a passport? Not every country is weak and stupid. " We have problems with returns with some countries then? Cool, let’s talk to them like we did Albania, that worked really well. " Looks like you are just doing mental gymnastics to push your authoritarian views. If we do have plebiscite and the majority say they want to change the asylum process, what would your view be? " You think I’m doing mental gymnastics about your hypothetical plebiscite that’s never going to happen? " By "we", you mean you? Because most polls in Western Europe says people want to stop this nonsense. So maybe, Western Europe is not for you? This is again mental gymnastics again to hide the fact that you would never open your own wallet to help a cause that you "say" you support. Any lame guy on the street can point fingers at others and ask them to help. There are numerous "Welcome refugees" people I see on the internet. You want a collective? There is your collective. Why don't you compassionate folks form a group and support the cause you "say" you care about? Why is it always the government that you use to push your authoritarian views? People sign up for social welfare because it's a safety net for themselves. They did not contribute to the pot to help random strangers from other countries. " Most polls, or the polls that the social media algorithms float around your right wing bubble? We’re getting to the nub of things here, aren’t we? You just can’t conceive that people do things for other people without expecting anything in return, can you? " Most polls within Europe say that. Pretty much every non-European only calls Europe weak and stupid for the way they handle their borders. I am yet to come across anyone who calls Europe compassionate for doing so. " Here you go again with your ‘most polls’ declaration, it’s meaningless nonsense unless you can show that most polls show that, so off you toddle and get looking them up. See also this weird thing you have about weakness, does pretty much every non-European say that, all 7 billion of them? You’re like a child throwing mud at the wall to see if any of it sticks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We have problems with returns with some countries then? Cool, let’s talk to them like we did Albania, that worked really well. " Not all countries cooperate the same way Albania does? " You think I’m doing mental gymnastics about your hypothetical plebiscite that’s never going to happen? " Why not? We had a referendum to exit the EU. There isn't a possibility that there could be one for the refugee convention? Either way, it's a simple hypothetical question with a yes or no answer. You don't have to do these gymnastics to avoid answering it unless.... " Most polls, or the polls that the social media algorithms float around your right wing bubble? " Yougov polls are based on social media algorithms in right wing bubble? Didn't know that. " You just can’t conceive that people do things for other people without expecting anything in return, can you? " When did I ever say that? This is such a lame strawman argument. Compassionate people exist. I know plenty of them myself. They make charitable donations. They volunteer in groups to support the causes they care about. One thing they don't do is using the government to force others to support the cause they care about. Unlike what you think, I do like collectivism - the type of collectivism where members of the collective volunteer out of their own will. Not the authoritarian left wing collectivism where a few people try to force their values on others so that they don't have to make any personal sacrifices themselves. " Here you go again with your ‘most polls’ declaration, it’s meaningless nonsense unless you can show that most polls show that, so off you toddle and get looking them up. " Yougov polls: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50266-top-national-issues-crime-and-immigration-shoot-up-since-mid-july https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/09/14/15a11/2 Here is a guardian article about the trends in EU. It has a link to europa website which shows that the second most important issue for Europeans is immigration. The first being the Ukraine war: https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2024/may/28/young-more-anti-immigration-than-old-in-parts-of-europe-polling-shows Are all these polls in "right wing bubbles"? What's the excuse this time to force your views on others? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Lostindreams I am fascinated by your passion in relation to the UK. You ssy things like “we had a vote on Brexit” (paraphrase but important bit is “we”)… You are Indian an Indian citizen right? Not British? Why do you feel you have any right to argue what we should do? You are a guest here (and welcome as I know you bring skills - hopefully that no Brit has or else why are you here?)" Yeah that "we" was misleading. I wasn't in the UK when the referendum happened. I used it to avoid mixing pronouns and confusing people. Yes I have Indian citizenship and permanent residency in UK. Why do I have opinions on this matter? Multiple reasons. I am in the 45% tax bracket and pay a lot of taxes. I would love to see my money being put to good use. I haven't really decided which country I want to settle down in. But UK is still the country I live in. I can clearly see discontent rising among people and that's not good for anyone here. Also, I have seen numerous Brits who never visited the US bitch about American culture and politics. Why shouldn't I bitch about the UK? Maybe we should also tell people in the forum not to talk about what Israel and Palestine must do. None of their business, right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The reason there are no ideas other than leaving the convention is the convention is what stops most ideas… Everything you have suggested is flawed due to the convention. Setup a centre in. France, flawed, those not getting through there legally will cross in small boats, enter illegally and like now, there is nothing we can do about it. Don’t give people benefits for 2 years, flawed and will be easily challenged in the courts and even if it was passed you would simply be encouraging crime for people to be able to eat and live. ID cards what benefit will they provide other than expense to the tax payer? See above refusing to support people. Provide jobs and eco systems with healthcare, that will stop the attempted crossings for sure.
Speed up processing, great they move out of holding hotels into housing t will stop the crossings
You haven’t suggested anything that would prevent people making the crossing, your suggestions are to inconvenience them and reward them in equal measure, once here.
The convention needs rewriting to allow us to deal with the situation, once the laws are changed we can then deal with illegal entry in a meaningful way, and by then the shine of being here will have worn off for those who should not be here.
I disagree but that’s not a surprise… if shelter and food is provided in a camp environment it removes any requirement for benefits as they do not need money. Long term it will be cheaper to build and maintain camp(s) than pay for hotel accommodation and would be less controversial than huge taxpayer bills for hotel rooms (and how that is perceived). You say no benefits will leas to crime but not if they are given shelter and food in a camp and their whereabouts known.
Saying all that you are clearly set on leaving convention. Ok let’s say the UK does. What would the new convention or alternative look like once we leave? How can you persuade people to support leaving the convention without knowing what you propose to do with that new freedom?
First let’s discuss your camp idea. You put thousands of young men together in a camp that feeds and houses them, what do they do in the day how are they spending time? Do they go out of the camp? We don’t know the whereabouts of 17000 people who crossed the channel in small boats, what do you think that number would be when they are housed in a camp?
Leaving the convention will allow us to be able to do 1 of 2 things, draw up a convention and enlist the support of other countries to have something in place that supports modern day challenges or we go alone.
If we go alone, the first thing we could do is take your camp, build big walls imprison them immediately as they land, take them to court on fast track, after all we will have the evidence of their entrance and give them 2 options.
1) go home that day and avoid a prison sentence.
2) go to prison for 5 years
We would see an immediate drop in people crossing, because the reward has been removed with the prospect of going back home and that would be outside of the EU, all the travel they have done to that point would have been lost.
Or they will be imprisoned for 5 years, and deported on release.
Given those outcomes I think it highly unlikely anyone would bother getting in a small boat and leave France.
@NotMe and @Feisty joint answer re “Camp”
I said like Butlins. So hardly a “concentration/prison camp”. Ensure the media have seem the facilities. Basic but safe and comfortable (not luxury) and a step up from a tent on a French beach!
They don’t leave the camp. They are being processed. So sports/gym/fitness/recreation facilities. Allotments needing work. English lessons and British culture lessons to aid with integration.
Perhaps those who look more likely to be accepted could have skills training (they surely have skills from their home country). Maybe businesses can sponsor training/apprenticeship schemes (we need builders after all).
And before anyone says “what about training for Brits” well doh yeah! Of course businesses should be offering that and undertaking linked to benefits payments etc."you are not addressing the problem with this solution, you are making it worse. If that doesn't make sense, it might be worth thinking about it from the view point of deterring the crossings and not trying to fix the problem once they have arrived, it is a totally different proposition. Also, the push back and noise from the left wing populists in terms of anything other than excellent in accommodation is amazing, the bibby stockholm as an example, your camp would go down extremely well 👹 On your point to lostin, ref amount of migrants arriving here v France / Germany and Turkey, there is no magic formula that would say how many we can take. The economic impact is enormous and that is being shouldered by the tax payer not only through tax but also in shared resources such as the NHS, dentists, housing, schools etc. We have not accounted for this and areas of the country are suffering terribly, usually the areas that already faced decline. The benefit system is also not setup to deal with these people, we do not require a contribution to provide a payout, so the thousands of illegal entrants are simply taking without contributing, this is what I mean when I say we have not accounted for, it is not 1 individual thing it is everything that needs to be assessed to determine the numbers we can take, and we should quota for the least, not the most. All that being said, the convention is stopping us and it will be changed or scrapped, the timing of this change is critical to the whole of Europe. Hungry and Poland have stress tested the EU on migrant quotas, and it would not surprise me in the least if they led the way out of the convention. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Lostindreams I am fascinated by your passion in relation to the UK. You ssy things like “we had a vote on Brexit” (paraphrase but important bit is “we”)… You are Indian an Indian citizen right? Not British? Why do you feel you have any right to argue what we should do? You are a guest here (and welcome as I know you bring skills - hopefully that no Brit has or else why are you here?) Yeah that "we" was misleading. I wasn't in the UK when the referendum happened. I used it to avoid mixing pronouns and confusing people. Yes I have Indian citizenship and permanent residency in UK. Why do I have opinions on this matter? Multiple reasons. I am in the 45% tax bracket and pay a lot of taxes. I would love to see my money being put to good use. I haven't really decided which country I want to settle down in. But UK is still the country I live in. I can clearly see discontent rising among people and that's not good for anyone here. Also, I have seen numerous Brits who never visited the US bitch about American culture and politics. Why shouldn't I bitch about the UK? Maybe we should also tell people in the forum not to talk about what Israel and Palestine must do. None of their business, right?" I don’t think you should not have an opinion but unless you are going to make the UK your permanent home and become a British Citizen then I think your opinion is leas valid. Not sure what you do for a living but do you have a unique skillset that people in the UK could not provide? I think there may be some out there who would feel maybe you should not be in the UK either? For avoidance of doubt, I am playing Devil’s advocate as I have no problem you being here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The reason there are no ideas other than leaving the convention is the convention is what stops most ideas… Everything you have suggested is flawed due to the convention. Setup a centre in. France, flawed, those not getting through there legally will cross in small boats, enter illegally and like now, there is nothing we can do about it. Don’t give people benefits for 2 years, flawed and will be easily challenged in the courts and even if it was passed you would simply be encouraging crime for people to be able to eat and live. ID cards what benefit will they provide other than expense to the tax payer? See above refusing to support people. Provide jobs and eco systems with healthcare, that will stop the attempted crossings for sure.
Speed up processing, great they move out of holding hotels into housing t will stop the crossings
You haven’t suggested anything that would prevent people making the crossing, your suggestions are to inconvenience them and reward them in equal measure, once here.
The convention needs rewriting to allow us to deal with the situation, once the laws are changed we can then deal with illegal entry in a meaningful way, and by then the shine of being here will have worn off for those who should not be here.
I disagree but that’s not a surprise… if shelter and food is provided in a camp environment it removes any requirement for benefits as they do not need money. Long term it will be cheaper to build and maintain camp(s) than pay for hotel accommodation and would be less controversial than huge taxpayer bills for hotel rooms (and how that is perceived). You say no benefits will leas to crime but not if they are given shelter and food in a camp and their whereabouts known.
Saying all that you are clearly set on leaving convention. Ok let’s say the UK does. What would the new convention or alternative look like once we leave? How can you persuade people to support leaving the convention without knowing what you propose to do with that new freedom?
First let’s discuss your camp idea. You put thousands of young men together in a camp that feeds and houses them, what do they do in the day how are they spending time? Do they go out of the camp? We don’t know the whereabouts of 17000 people who crossed the channel in small boats, what do you think that number would be when they are housed in a camp?
Leaving the convention will allow us to be able to do 1 of 2 things, draw up a convention and enlist the support of other countries to have something in place that supports modern day challenges or we go alone.
If we go alone, the first thing we could do is take your camp, build big walls imprison them immediately as they land, take them to court on fast track, after all we will have the evidence of their entrance and give them 2 options.
1) go home that day and avoid a prison sentence.
2) go to prison for 5 years
We would see an immediate drop in people crossing, because the reward has been removed with the prospect of going back home and that would be outside of the EU, all the travel they have done to that point would have been lost.
Or they will be imprisoned for 5 years, and deported on release.
Given those outcomes I think it highly unlikely anyone would bother getting in a small boat and leave France.
@NotMe and @Feisty joint answer re “Camp”
I said like Butlins. So hardly a “concentration/prison camp”. Ensure the media have seem the facilities. Basic but safe and comfortable (not luxury) and a step up from a tent on a French beach!
They don’t leave the camp. They are being processed. So sports/gym/fitness/recreation facilities. Allotments needing work. English lessons and British culture lessons to aid with integration.
Perhaps those who look more likely to be accepted could have skills training (they surely have skills from their home country). Maybe businesses can sponsor training/apprenticeship schemes (we need builders after all).
And before anyone says “what about training for Brits” well doh yeah! Of course businesses should be offering that and undertaking linked to benefits payments etc.
you are not addressing the problem with this solution, you are making it worse. If that doesn't make sense, it might be worth thinking about it from the view point of deterring the crossings and not trying to fix the problem once they have arrived, it is a totally different proposition.
Also, the push back and noise from the left wing populists in terms of anything other than excellent in accommodation is amazing, the bibby stockholm as an example, your camp would go down extremely well 👹
On your point to lostin, ref amount of migrants arriving here v France / Germany and Turkey, there is no magic formula that would say how many we can take.
The economic impact is enormous and that is being shouldered by the tax payer not only through tax but also in shared resources such as the NHS, dentists, housing, schools etc.
We have not accounted for this and areas of the country are suffering terribly, usually the areas that already faced decline. The benefit system is also not setup to deal with these people, we do not require a contribution to provide a payout, so the thousands of illegal entrants are simply taking without contributing, this is what I mean when I say we have not accounted for, it is not 1 individual thing it is everything that needs to be assessed to determine the numbers we can take, and we should quota for the least, not the most.
All that being said, the convention is stopping us and it will be changed or scrapped, the timing of this change is critical to the whole of Europe.
Hungry and Poland have stress tested the EU on migrant quotas, and it would not surprise me in the least if they led the way out of the convention."Hmmm did you actually read my posts. I would say no benefits and being required to stay in a processing centre would be a deterrent compared to today. I also don’t recognise the point re the left and accommodation. The Bibby Stockholm had legionnaire’s disease didn’t it? Decent but secure accommodation that is better for taxpayers than free to come and go hotels would likely be more acceptable to many. And still you provide no solutions or indicate what exactly you think the UK should do if we left the convention! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I don’t think you should not have an opinion but unless you are going to make the UK your permanent home and become a British Citizen then I think your opinion is leas valid. " Why is it less valid? I see the inherent contradictions in what people in this country want and the reality. Some because people's expectations are wildly unrealistic. Some because their expectations contradict with each other. Some because of the way politics work here. One doesn't have to be a citizen to point out these issues. " Not sure what you do for a living but do you have a unique skillset that people in the UK could not provide? I think there may be some out there who would feel maybe you should not be in the UK either? " I work in tech. If some people out there feel that I should leave, it's their right to do so. If they have enough political clout to get rid of me, I would leave. I respect the laws of any country I am in and if the law says I have to leave, I will. It's not like I will struggle to find job opportunities anywhere else anyway. I can even retire now in India if I want to. " For avoidance of doubt, I am playing Devil’s advocate as I have no problem you being here." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The reason there are no ideas other than leaving the convention is the convention is what stops most ideas… Everything you have suggested is flawed due to the convention. Setup a centre in. France, flawed, those not getting through there legally will cross in small boats, enter illegally and like now, there is nothing we can do about it. Don’t give people benefits for 2 years, flawed and will be easily challenged in the courts and even if it was passed you would simply be encouraging crime for people to be able to eat and live. ID cards what benefit will they provide other than expense to the tax payer? See above refusing to support people. Provide jobs and eco systems with healthcare, that will stop the attempted crossings for sure.
Speed up processing, great they move out of holding hotels into housing t will stop the crossings
You haven’t suggested anything that would prevent people making the crossing, your suggestions are to inconvenience them and reward them in equal measure, once here.
The convention needs rewriting to allow us to deal with the situation, once the laws are changed we can then deal with illegal entry in a meaningful way, and by then the shine of being here will have worn off for those who should not be here.
I disagree but that’s not a surprise… if shelter and food is provided in a camp environment it removes any requirement for benefits as they do not need money. Long term it will be cheaper to build and maintain camp(s) than pay for hotel accommodation and would be less controversial than huge taxpayer bills for hotel rooms (and how that is perceived). You say no benefits will leas to crime but not if they are given shelter and food in a camp and their whereabouts known.
Saying all that you are clearly set on leaving convention. Ok let’s say the UK does. What would the new convention or alternative look like once we leave? How can you persuade people to support leaving the convention without knowing what you propose to do with that new freedom?
First let’s discuss your camp idea. You put thousands of young men together in a camp that feeds and houses them, what do they do in the day how are they spending time? Do they go out of the camp? We don’t know the whereabouts of 17000 people who crossed the channel in small boats, what do you think that number would be when they are housed in a camp?
Leaving the convention will allow us to be able to do 1 of 2 things, draw up a convention and enlist the support of other countries to have something in place that supports modern day challenges or we go alone.
If we go alone, the first thing we could do is take your camp, build big walls imprison them immediately as they land, take them to court on fast track, after all we will have the evidence of their entrance and give them 2 options.
1) go home that day and avoid a prison sentence.
2) go to prison for 5 years
We would see an immediate drop in people crossing, because the reward has been removed with the prospect of going back home and that would be outside of the EU, all the travel they have done to that point would have been lost.
Or they will be imprisoned for 5 years, and deported on release.
Given those outcomes I think it highly unlikely anyone would bother getting in a small boat and leave France.
@NotMe and @Feisty joint answer re “Camp”
I said like Butlins. So hardly a “concentration/prison camp”. Ensure the media have seem the facilities. Basic but safe and comfortable (not luxury) and a step up from a tent on a French beach!
They don’t leave the camp. They are being processed. So sports/gym/fitness/recreation facilities. Allotments needing work. English lessons and British culture lessons to aid with integration.
Perhaps those who look more likely to be accepted could have skills training (they surely have skills from their home country). Maybe businesses can sponsor training/apprenticeship schemes (we need builders after all).
And before anyone says “what about training for Brits” well doh yeah! Of course businesses should be offering that and undertaking linked to benefits payments etc.
you are not addressing the problem with this solution, you are making it worse. If that doesn't make sense, it might be worth thinking about it from the view point of deterring the crossings and not trying to fix the problem once they have arrived, it is a totally different proposition.
Also, the push back and noise from the left wing populists in terms of anything other than excellent in accommodation is amazing, the bibby stockholm as an example, your camp would go down extremely well 👹
On your point to lostin, ref amount of migrants arriving here v France / Germany and Turkey, there is no magic formula that would say how many we can take.
The economic impact is enormous and that is being shouldered by the tax payer not only through tax but also in shared resources such as the NHS, dentists, housing, schools etc.
We have not accounted for this and areas of the country are suffering terribly, usually the areas that already faced decline. The benefit system is also not setup to deal with these people, we do not require a contribution to provide a payout, so the thousands of illegal entrants are simply taking without contributing, this is what I mean when I say we have not accounted for, it is not 1 individual thing it is everything that needs to be assessed to determine the numbers we can take, and we should quota for the least, not the most.
All that being said, the convention is stopping us and it will be changed or scrapped, the timing of this change is critical to the whole of Europe.
Hungry and Poland have stress tested the EU on migrant quotas, and it would not surprise me in the least if they led the way out of the convention.
Hmmm did you actually read my posts. I would say no benefits and being required to stay in a processing centre would be a deterrent compared to today. I also don’t recognise the point re the left and accommodation. The Bibby Stockholm had legionnaire’s disease didn’t it? Decent but secure accommodation that is better for taxpayers than free to come and go hotels would likely be more acceptable to many.
And still you provide no solutions or indicate what exactly you think the UK should do if we left the convention! "Yes it did have legionnaires, how do we know that? Because of the tests carried out to make sure it was fit for purpose. However the soundbites of angry left wing populists have left their mark on the narrative. In terms of solutions offered, you've had them from more than just me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The reason there are no ideas other than leaving the convention is the convention is what stops most ideas… Everything you have suggested is flawed due to the convention. Setup a centre in. France, flawed, those not getting through there legally will cross in small boats, enter illegally and like now, there is nothing we can do about it. Don’t give people benefits for 2 years, flawed and will be easily challenged in the courts and even if it was passed you would simply be encouraging crime for people to be able to eat and live. ID cards what benefit will they provide other than expense to the tax payer? See above refusing to support people. Provide jobs and eco systems with healthcare, that will stop the attempted crossings for sure.
Speed up processing, great they move out of holding hotels into housing t will stop the crossings
You haven’t suggested anything that would prevent people making the crossing, your suggestions are to inconvenience them and reward them in equal measure, once here.
The convention needs rewriting to allow us to deal with the situation, once the laws are changed we can then deal with illegal entry in a meaningful way, and by then the shine of being here will have worn off for those who should not be here.
I disagree but that’s not a surprise… if shelter and food is provided in a camp environment it removes any requirement for benefits as they do not need money. Long term it will be cheaper to build and maintain camp(s) than pay for hotel accommodation and would be less controversial than huge taxpayer bills for hotel rooms (and how that is perceived). You say no benefits will leas to crime but not if they are given shelter and food in a camp and their whereabouts known.
Saying all that you are clearly set on leaving convention. Ok let’s say the UK does. What would the new convention or alternative look like once we leave? How can you persuade people to support leaving the convention without knowing what you propose to do with that new freedom?
First let’s discuss your camp idea. You put thousands of young men together in a camp that feeds and houses them, what do they do in the day how are they spending time? Do they go out of the camp? We don’t know the whereabouts of 17000 people who crossed the channel in small boats, what do you think that number would be when they are housed in a camp?
Leaving the convention will allow us to be able to do 1 of 2 things, draw up a convention and enlist the support of other countries to have something in place that supports modern day challenges or we go alone.
If we go alone, the first thing we could do is take your camp, build big walls imprison them immediately as they land, take them to court on fast track, after all we will have the evidence of their entrance and give them 2 options.
1) go home that day and avoid a prison sentence.
2) go to prison for 5 years
We would see an immediate drop in people crossing, because the reward has been removed with the prospect of going back home and that would be outside of the EU, all the travel they have done to that point would have been lost.
Or they will be imprisoned for 5 years, and deported on release.
Given those outcomes I think it highly unlikely anyone would bother getting in a small boat and leave France.
@NotMe and @Feisty joint answer re “Camp”
I said like Butlins. So hardly a “concentration/prison camp”. Ensure the media have seem the facilities. Basic but safe and comfortable (not luxury) and a step up from a tent on a French beach!
They don’t leave the camp. They are being processed. So sports/gym/fitness/recreation facilities. Allotments needing work. English lessons and British culture lessons to aid with integration.
Perhaps those who look more likely to be accepted could have skills training (they surely have skills from their home country). Maybe businesses can sponsor training/apprenticeship schemes (we need builders after all).
And before anyone says “what about training for Brits” well doh yeah! Of course businesses should be offering that and undertaking linked to benefits payments etc.
you are not addressing the problem with this solution, you are making it worse. If that doesn't make sense, it might be worth thinking about it from the view point of deterring the crossings and not trying to fix the problem once they have arrived, it is a totally different proposition.
Also, the push back and noise from the left wing populists in terms of anything other than excellent in accommodation is amazing, the bibby stockholm as an example, your camp would go down extremely well 👹
On your point to lostin, ref amount of migrants arriving here v France / Germany and Turkey, there is no magic formula that would say how many we can take.
The economic impact is enormous and that is being shouldered by the tax payer not only through tax but also in shared resources such as the NHS, dentists, housing, schools etc.
We have not accounted for this and areas of the country are suffering terribly, usually the areas that already faced decline. The benefit system is also not setup to deal with these people, we do not require a contribution to provide a payout, so the thousands of illegal entrants are simply taking without contributing, this is what I mean when I say we have not accounted for, it is not 1 individual thing it is everything that needs to be assessed to determine the numbers we can take, and we should quota for the least, not the most.
All that being said, the convention is stopping us and it will be changed or scrapped, the timing of this change is critical to the whole of Europe.
Hungry and Poland have stress tested the EU on migrant quotas, and it would not surprise me in the least if they led the way out of the convention.
Hmmm did you actually read my posts. I would say no benefits and being required to stay in a processing centre would be a deterrent compared to today. I also don’t recognise the point re the left and accommodation. The Bibby Stockholm had legionnaire’s disease didn’t it? Decent but secure accommodation that is better for taxpayers than free to come and go hotels would likely be more acceptable to many.
And still you provide no solutions or indicate what exactly you think the UK should do if we left the convention!
Yes it did have legionnaires, how do we know that? Because of the tests carried out to make sure it was fit for purpose. However the soundbites of angry left wing populists have left their mark on the narrative.
In terms of solutions offered, you've had them from more than just me.
"I have no idea if you concur or support other people’s ideas so I have asked at least twice what YOUR ideas are that can be enacted following UK exiting the convention. You may not mean to but it is starting to come across as evasive. I have posited several ideas. Some may work some may not, but at least I have attempted to put something forward. I get increasingly frustrated with the whole “we need to do something” followed by nothing! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The reason there are no ideas other than leaving the convention is the convention is what stops most ideas… Everything you have suggested is flawed due to the convention. Setup a centre in. France, flawed, those not getting through there legally will cross in small boats, enter illegally and like now, there is nothing we can do about it. Don’t give people benefits for 2 years, flawed and will be easily challenged in the courts and even if it was passed you would simply be encouraging crime for people to be able to eat and live. ID cards what benefit will they provide other than expense to the tax payer? See above refusing to support people. Provide jobs and eco systems with healthcare, that will stop the attempted crossings for sure.
Speed up processing, great they move out of holding hotels into housing t will stop the crossings
You haven’t suggested anything that would prevent people making the crossing, your suggestions are to inconvenience them and reward them in equal measure, once here.
The convention needs rewriting to allow us to deal with the situation, once the laws are changed we can then deal with illegal entry in a meaningful way, and by then the shine of being here will have worn off for those who should not be here.
I disagree but that’s not a surprise… if shelter and food is provided in a camp environment it removes any requirement for benefits as they do not need money. Long term it will be cheaper to build and maintain camp(s) than pay for hotel accommodation and would be less controversial than huge taxpayer bills for hotel rooms (and how that is perceived). You say no benefits will leas to crime but not if they are given shelter and food in a camp and their whereabouts known.
Saying all that you are clearly set on leaving convention. Ok let’s say the UK does. What would the new convention or alternative look like once we leave? How can you persuade people to support leaving the convention without knowing what you propose to do with that new freedom?
First let’s discuss your camp idea. You put thousands of young men together in a camp that feeds and houses them, what do they do in the day how are they spending time? Do they go out of the camp? We don’t know the whereabouts of 17000 people who crossed the channel in small boats, what do you think that number would be when they are housed in a camp?
Leaving the convention will allow us to be able to do 1 of 2 things, draw up a convention and enlist the support of other countries to have something in place that supports modern day challenges or we go alone.
If we go alone, the first thing we could do is take your camp, build big walls imprison them immediately as they land, take them to court on fast track, after all we will have the evidence of their entrance and give them 2 options.
1) go home that day and avoid a prison sentence.
2) go to prison for 5 years
We would see an immediate drop in people crossing, because the reward has been removed with the prospect of going back home and that would be outside of the EU, all the travel they have done to that point would have been lost.
Or they will be imprisoned for 5 years, and deported on release.
Given those outcomes I think it highly unlikely anyone would bother getting in a small boat and leave France.
@NotMe and @Feisty joint answer re “Camp”
I said like Butlins. So hardly a “concentration/prison camp”. Ensure the media have seem the facilities. Basic but safe and comfortable (not luxury) and a step up from a tent on a French beach!
They don’t leave the camp. They are being processed. So sports/gym/fitness/recreation facilities. Allotments needing work. English lessons and British culture lessons to aid with integration.
Perhaps those who look more likely to be accepted could have skills training (they surely have skills from their home country). Maybe businesses can sponsor training/apprenticeship schemes (we need builders after all).
And before anyone says “what about training for Brits” well doh yeah! Of course businesses should be offering that and undertaking linked to benefits payments etc.
you are not addressing the problem with this solution, you are making it worse. If that doesn't make sense, it might be worth thinking about it from the view point of deterring the crossings and not trying to fix the problem once they have arrived, it is a totally different proposition.
Also, the push back and noise from the left wing populists in terms of anything other than excellent in accommodation is amazing, the bibby stockholm as an example, your camp would go down extremely well 👹
On your point to lostin, ref amount of migrants arriving here v France / Germany and Turkey, there is no magic formula that would say how many we can take.
The economic impact is enormous and that is being shouldered by the tax payer not only through tax but also in shared resources such as the NHS, dentists, housing, schools etc.
We have not accounted for this and areas of the country are suffering terribly, usually the areas that already faced decline. The benefit system is also not setup to deal with these people, we do not require a contribution to provide a payout, so the thousands of illegal entrants are simply taking without contributing, this is what I mean when I say we have not accounted for, it is not 1 individual thing it is everything that needs to be assessed to determine the numbers we can take, and we should quota for the least, not the most.
All that being said, the convention is stopping us and it will be changed or scrapped, the timing of this change is critical to the whole of Europe.
Hungry and Poland have stress tested the EU on migrant quotas, and it would not surprise me in the least if they led the way out of the convention.
Hmmm did you actually read my posts. I would say no benefits and being required to stay in a processing centre would be a deterrent compared to today. I also don’t recognise the point re the left and accommodation. The Bibby Stockholm had legionnaire’s disease didn’t it? Decent but secure accommodation that is better for taxpayers than free to come and go hotels would likely be more acceptable to many.
And still you provide no solutions or indicate what exactly you think the UK should do if we left the convention!
Yes it did have legionnaires, how do we know that? Because of the tests carried out to make sure it was fit for purpose. However the soundbites of angry left wing populists have left their mark on the narrative.
In terms of solutions offered, you've had them from more than just me.
I have no idea if you concur or support other people’s ideas so I have asked at least twice what YOUR ideas are that can be enacted following UK exiting the convention. You may not mean to but it is starting to come across as evasive. I have posited several ideas. Some may work some may not, but at least I have attempted to put something forward. I get increasingly frustrated with the whole “we need to do something” followed by nothing! "What are you not seeing as an answer? Leave the convention, you want to remove that as an answer for some reason, but it is the answer. Why are you ignoring that? The following answers post that action is enabling imprisonment, which does not happen now and immediate deportation again do not happen now. Are those answers not what you want to hear, I’m baffled that at least 3 people have individually given you this way forward independently and you are still saying nobody is offering a solution. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The reason there are no ideas other than leaving the convention is the convention is what stops most ideas… Everything you have suggested is flawed due to the convention. Setup a centre in. France, flawed, those not getting through there legally will cross in small boats, enter illegally and like now, there is nothing we can do about it. Don’t give people benefits for 2 years, flawed and will be easily challenged in the courts and even if it was passed you would simply be encouraging crime for people to be able to eat and live. ID cards what benefit will they provide other than expense to the tax payer? See above refusing to support people. Provide jobs and eco systems with healthcare, that will stop the attempted crossings for sure.
Speed up processing, great they move out of holding hotels into housing t will stop the crossings
You haven’t suggested anything that would prevent people making the crossing, your suggestions are to inconvenience them and reward them in equal measure, once here.
The convention needs rewriting to allow us to deal with the situation, once the laws are changed we can then deal with illegal entry in a meaningful way, and by then the shine of being here will have worn off for those who should not be here.
I disagree but that’s not a surprise… if shelter and food is provided in a camp environment it removes any requirement for benefits as they do not need money. Long term it will be cheaper to build and maintain camp(s) than pay for hotel accommodation and would be less controversial than huge taxpayer bills for hotel rooms (and how that is perceived). You say no benefits will leas to crime but not if they are given shelter and food in a camp and their whereabouts known.
Saying all that you are clearly set on leaving convention. Ok let’s say the UK does. What would the new convention or alternative look like once we leave? How can you persuade people to support leaving the convention without knowing what you propose to do with that new freedom?
First let’s discuss your camp idea. You put thousands of young men together in a camp that feeds and houses them, what do they do in the day how are they spending time? Do they go out of the camp? We don’t know the whereabouts of 17000 people who crossed the channel in small boats, what do you think that number would be when they are housed in a camp?
Leaving the convention will allow us to be able to do 1 of 2 things, draw up a convention and enlist the support of other countries to have something in place that supports modern day challenges or we go alone.
If we go alone, the first thing we could do is take your camp, build big walls imprison them immediately as they land, take them to court on fast track, after all we will have the evidence of their entrance and give them 2 options.
1) go home that day and avoid a prison sentence.
2) go to prison for 5 years
We would see an immediate drop in people crossing, because the reward has been removed with the prospect of going back home and that would be outside of the EU, all the travel they have done to that point would have been lost.
Or they will be imprisoned for 5 years, and deported on release.
Given those outcomes I think it highly unlikely anyone would bother getting in a small boat and leave France.
@NotMe and @Feisty joint answer re “Camp”
I said like Butlins. So hardly a “concentration/prison camp”. Ensure the media have seem the facilities. Basic but safe and comfortable (not luxury) and a step up from a tent on a French beach!
They don’t leave the camp. They are being processed. So sports/gym/fitness/recreation facilities. Allotments needing work. English lessons and British culture lessons to aid with integration.
Perhaps those who look more likely to be accepted could have skills training (they surely have skills from their home country). Maybe businesses can sponsor training/apprenticeship schemes (we need builders after all).
And before anyone says “what about training for Brits” well doh yeah! Of course businesses should be offering that and undertaking linked to benefits payments etc.
you are not addressing the problem with this solution, you are making it worse. If that doesn't make sense, it might be worth thinking about it from the view point of deterring the crossings and not trying to fix the problem once they have arrived, it is a totally different proposition.
Also, the push back and noise from the left wing populists in terms of anything other than excellent in accommodation is amazing, the bibby stockholm as an example, your camp would go down extremely well 👹
On your point to lostin, ref amount of migrants arriving here v France / Germany and Turkey, there is no magic formula that would say how many we can take.
The economic impact is enormous and that is being shouldered by the tax payer not only through tax but also in shared resources such as the NHS, dentists, housing, schools etc.
We have not accounted for this and areas of the country are suffering terribly, usually the areas that already faced decline. The benefit system is also not setup to deal with these people, we do not require a contribution to provide a payout, so the thousands of illegal entrants are simply taking without contributing, this is what I mean when I say we have not accounted for, it is not 1 individual thing it is everything that needs to be assessed to determine the numbers we can take, and we should quota for the least, not the most.
All that being said, the convention is stopping us and it will be changed or scrapped, the timing of this change is critical to the whole of Europe.
Hungry and Poland have stress tested the EU on migrant quotas, and it would not surprise me in the least if they led the way out of the convention.
Hmmm did you actually read my posts. I would say no benefits and being required to stay in a processing centre would be a deterrent compared to today. I also don’t recognise the point re the left and accommodation. The Bibby Stockholm had legionnaire’s disease didn’t it? Decent but secure accommodation that is better for taxpayers than free to come and go hotels would likely be more acceptable to many.
And still you provide no solutions or indicate what exactly you think the UK should do if we left the convention!
Yes it did have legionnaires, how do we know that? Because of the tests carried out to make sure it was fit for purpose. However the soundbites of angry left wing populists have left their mark on the narrative.
In terms of solutions offered, you've had them from more than just me.
I have no idea if you concur or support other people’s ideas so I have asked at least twice what YOUR ideas are that can be enacted following UK exiting the convention. You may not mean to but it is starting to come across as evasive. I have posited several ideas. Some may work some may not, but at least I have attempted to put something forward. I get increasingly frustrated with the whole “we need to do something” followed by nothing!
What are you not seeing as an answer? Leave the convention, you want to remove that as an answer for some reason, but it is the answer. Why are you ignoring that?
The following answers post that action is enabling imprisonment, which does not happen now and immediate deportation again do not happen now.
Are those answers not what you want to hear, I’m baffled that at least 3 people have individually given you this way forward independently and you are still saying nobody is offering a solution.
"I said AFTER we leave the convention so your first point is totally moot. If YOU have said about immediate imprisonment then I missed it and will have to scroll back up. I don’t care what others said, I wanted to know what YOU were proposing. My issue with immediate imprisonment is that I do not think that is a humane way to treat genuine asylum seekers. While it is without doubt some of those coming on small boats are economic migrants not genuine asylum seekers, currently the number/proportion of people granted asylum would indicate it is not the majority. I therefore think a secure but comfortable processing centre(s) is a better halfway measure. We don’t have to agree. I think you are wrong on this. You think I am wrong. Nothing more to say really is there! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The reason there are no ideas other than leaving the convention is the convention is what stops most ideas… Everything you have suggested is flawed due to the convention. Setup a centre in. France, flawed, those not getting through there legally will cross in small boats, enter illegally and like now, there is nothing we can do about it. Don’t give people benefits for 2 years, flawed and will be easily challenged in the courts and even if it was passed you would simply be encouraging crime for people to be able to eat and live. ID cards what benefit will they provide other than expense to the tax payer? See above refusing to support people. Provide jobs and eco systems with healthcare, that will stop the attempted crossings for sure.
Speed up processing, great they move out of holding hotels into housing t will stop the crossings
You haven’t suggested anything that would prevent people making the crossing, your suggestions are to inconvenience them and reward them in equal measure, once here.
The convention needs rewriting to allow us to deal with the situation, once the laws are changed we can then deal with illegal entry in a meaningful way, and by then the shine of being here will have worn off for those who should not be here.
I disagree but that’s not a surprise… if shelter and food is provided in a camp environment it removes any requirement for benefits as they do not need money. Long term it will be cheaper to build and maintain camp(s) than pay for hotel accommodation and would be less controversial than huge taxpayer bills for hotel rooms (and how that is perceived). You say no benefits will leas to crime but not if they are given shelter and food in a camp and their whereabouts known.
Saying all that you are clearly set on leaving convention. Ok let’s say the UK does. What would the new convention or alternative look like once we leave? How can you persuade people to support leaving the convention without knowing what you propose to do with that new freedom?
First let’s discuss your camp idea. You put thousands of young men together in a camp that feeds and houses them, what do they do in the day how are they spending time? Do they go out of the camp? We don’t know the whereabouts of 17000 people who crossed the channel in small boats, what do you think that number would be when they are housed in a camp?
Leaving the convention will allow us to be able to do 1 of 2 things, draw up a convention and enlist the support of other countries to have something in place that supports modern day challenges or we go alone.
If we go alone, the first thing we could do is take your camp, build big walls imprison them immediately as they land, take them to court on fast track, after all we will have the evidence of their entrance and give them 2 options.
1) go home that day and avoid a prison sentence.
2) go to prison for 5 years
We would see an immediate drop in people crossing, because the reward has been removed with the prospect of going back home and that would be outside of the EU, all the travel they have done to that point would have been lost.
Or they will be imprisoned for 5 years, and deported on release.
Given those outcomes I think it highly unlikely anyone would bother getting in a small boat and leave France.
@NotMe and @Feisty joint answer re “Camp”
I said like Butlins. So hardly a “concentration/prison camp”. Ensure the media have seem the facilities. Basic but safe and comfortable (not luxury) and a step up from a tent on a French beach!
They don’t leave the camp. They are being processed. So sports/gym/fitness/recreation facilities. Allotments needing work. English lessons and British culture lessons to aid with integration.
Perhaps those who look more likely to be accepted could have skills training (they surely have skills from their home country). Maybe businesses can sponsor training/apprenticeship schemes (we need builders after all).
And before anyone says “what about training for Brits” well doh yeah! Of course businesses should be offering that and undertaking linked to benefits payments etc.
you are not addressing the problem with this solution, you are making it worse. If that doesn't make sense, it might be worth thinking about it from the view point of deterring the crossings and not trying to fix the problem once they have arrived, it is a totally different proposition.
Also, the push back and noise from the left wing populists in terms of anything other than excellent in accommodation is amazing, the bibby stockholm as an example, your camp would go down extremely well 👹
On your point to lostin, ref amount of migrants arriving here v France / Germany and Turkey, there is no magic formula that would say how many we can take.
The economic impact is enormous and that is being shouldered by the tax payer not only through tax but also in shared resources such as the NHS, dentists, housing, schools etc.
We have not accounted for this and areas of the country are suffering terribly, usually the areas that already faced decline. The benefit system is also not setup to deal with these people, we do not require a contribution to provide a payout, so the thousands of illegal entrants are simply taking without contributing, this is what I mean when I say we have not accounted for, it is not 1 individual thing it is everything that needs to be assessed to determine the numbers we can take, and we should quota for the least, not the most.
All that being said, the convention is stopping us and it will be changed or scrapped, the timing of this change is critical to the whole of Europe.
Hungry and Poland have stress tested the EU on migrant quotas, and it would not surprise me in the least if they led the way out of the convention.
Hmmm did you actually read my posts. I would say no benefits and being required to stay in a processing centre would be a deterrent compared to today. I also don’t recognise the point re the left and accommodation. The Bibby Stockholm had legionnaire’s disease didn’t it? Decent but secure accommodation that is better for taxpayers than free to come and go hotels would likely be more acceptable to many.
And still you provide no solutions or indicate what exactly you think the UK should do if we left the convention!
Yes it did have legionnaires, how do we know that? Because of the tests carried out to make sure it was fit for purpose. However the soundbites of angry left wing populists have left their mark on the narrative.
In terms of solutions offered, you've had them from more than just me.
I have no idea if you concur or support other people’s ideas so I have asked at least twice what YOUR ideas are that can be enacted following UK exiting the convention. You may not mean to but it is starting to come across as evasive. I have posited several ideas. Some may work some may not, but at least I have attempted to put something forward. I get increasingly frustrated with the whole “we need to do something” followed by nothing!
What are you not seeing as an answer? Leave the convention, you want to remove that as an answer for some reason, but it is the answer. Why are you ignoring that?
The following answers post that action is enabling imprisonment, which does not happen now and immediate deportation again do not happen now.
Are those answers not what you want to hear, I’m baffled that at least 3 people have individually given you this way forward independently and you are still saying nobody is offering a solution.
I said AFTER we leave the convention so your first point is totally moot.
If YOU have said about immediate imprisonment then I missed it and will have to scroll back up. I don’t care what others said, I wanted to know what YOU were proposing.
My issue with immediate imprisonment is that I do not think that is a humane way to treat genuine asylum seekers. While it is without doubt some of those coming on small boats are economic migrants not genuine asylum seekers, currently the number/proportion of people granted asylum would indicate it is not the majority.
I therefore think a secure but comfortable processing centre(s) is a better halfway measure.
We don’t have to agree. I think you are wrong on this. You think I am wrong. Nothing more to say really is there!"You have missed the most important point, the imprisonment is a deterrent, that is a deterrent to cross in the first place, meaning we won’t need your proposed camp, or to create eco systems to support. A true deterrent can only be effective post the rewrite or leaving of the convention. You have also missed the 2 options I gave that outline how that would work specifically. IAll the info is above | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The reason there are no ideas other than leaving the convention is the convention is what stops most ideas… Everything you have suggested is flawed due to the convention. Setup a centre in. France, flawed, those not getting through there legally will cross in small boats, enter illegally and like now, there is nothing we can do about it. Don’t give people benefits for 2 years, flawed and will be easily challenged in the courts and even if it was passed you would simply be encouraging crime for people to be able to eat and live. ID cards what benefit will they provide other than expense to the tax payer? See above refusing to support people. Provide jobs and eco systems with healthcare, that will stop the attempted crossings for sure.
Speed up processing, great they move out of holding hotels into housing t will stop the crossings
You haven’t suggested anything that would prevent people making the crossing, your suggestions are to inconvenience them and reward them in equal measure, once here.
The convention needs rewriting to allow us to deal with the situation, once the laws are changed we can then deal with illegal entry in a meaningful way, and by then the shine of being here will have worn off for those who should not be here.
I disagree but that’s not a surprise… if shelter and food is provided in a camp environment it removes any requirement for benefits as they do not need money. Long term it will be cheaper to build and maintain camp(s) than pay for hotel accommodation and would be less controversial than huge taxpayer bills for hotel rooms (and how that is perceived). You say no benefits will leas to crime but not if they are given shelter and food in a camp and their whereabouts known.
Saying all that you are clearly set on leaving convention. Ok let’s say the UK does. What would the new convention or alternative look like once we leave? How can you persuade people to support leaving the convention without knowing what you propose to do with that new freedom?
First let’s discuss your camp idea. You put thousands of young men together in a camp that feeds and houses them, what do they do in the day how are they spending time? Do they go out of the camp? We don’t know the whereabouts of 17000 people who crossed the channel in small boats, what do you think that number would be when they are housed in a camp?
Leaving the convention will allow us to be able to do 1 of 2 things, draw up a convention and enlist the support of other countries to have something in place that supports modern day challenges or we go alone.
If we go alone, the first thing we could do is take your camp, build big walls imprison them immediately as they land, take them to court on fast track, after all we will have the evidence of their entrance and give them 2 options.
1) go home that day and avoid a prison sentence.
2) go to prison for 5 years
We would see an immediate drop in people crossing, because the reward has been removed with the prospect of going back home and that would be outside of the EU, all the travel they have done to that point would have been lost.
Or they will be imprisoned for 5 years, and deported on release.
Given those outcomes I think it highly unlikely anyone would bother getting in a small boat and leave France.
@NotMe and @Feisty joint answer re “Camp”
I said like Butlins. So hardly a “concentration/prison camp”. Ensure the media have seem the facilities. Basic but safe and comfortable (not luxury) and a step up from a tent on a French beach!
They don’t leave the camp. They are being processed. So sports/gym/fitness/recreation facilities. Allotments needing work. English lessons and British culture lessons to aid with integration.
Perhaps those who look more likely to be accepted could have skills training (they surely have skills from their home country). Maybe businesses can sponsor training/apprenticeship schemes (we need builders after all).
And before anyone says “what about training for Brits” well doh yeah! Of course businesses should be offering that and undertaking linked to benefits payments etc.
you are not addressing the problem with this solution, you are making it worse. If that doesn't make sense, it might be worth thinking about it from the view point of deterring the crossings and not trying to fix the problem once they have arrived, it is a totally different proposition.
Also, the push back and noise from the left wing populists in terms of anything other than excellent in accommodation is amazing, the bibby stockholm as an example, your camp would go down extremely well 👹
On your point to lostin, ref amount of migrants arriving here v France / Germany and Turkey, there is no magic formula that would say how many we can take.
The economic impact is enormous and that is being shouldered by the tax payer not only through tax but also in shared resources such as the NHS, dentists, housing, schools etc.
We have not accounted for this and areas of the country are suffering terribly, usually the areas that already faced decline. The benefit system is also not setup to deal with these people, we do not require a contribution to provide a payout, so the thousands of illegal entrants are simply taking without contributing, this is what I mean when I say we have not accounted for, it is not 1 individual thing it is everything that needs to be assessed to determine the numbers we can take, and we should quota for the least, not the most.
All that being said, the convention is stopping us and it will be changed or scrapped, the timing of this change is critical to the whole of Europe.
Hungry and Poland have stress tested the EU on migrant quotas, and it would not surprise me in the least if they led the way out of the convention.
Hmmm did you actually read my posts. I would say no benefits and being required to stay in a processing centre would be a deterrent compared to today. I also don’t recognise the point re the left and accommodation. The Bibby Stockholm had legionnaire’s disease didn’t it? Decent but secure accommodation that is better for taxpayers than free to come and go hotels would likely be more acceptable to many.
And still you provide no solutions or indicate what exactly you think the UK should do if we left the convention!
Yes it did have legionnaires, how do we know that? Because of the tests carried out to make sure it was fit for purpose. However the soundbites of angry left wing populists have left their mark on the narrative.
In terms of solutions offered, you've had them from more than just me.
I have no idea if you concur or support other people’s ideas so I have asked at least twice what YOUR ideas are that can be enacted following UK exiting the convention. You may not mean to but it is starting to come across as evasive. I have posited several ideas. Some may work some may not, but at least I have attempted to put something forward. I get increasingly frustrated with the whole “we need to do something” followed by nothing!
What are you not seeing as an answer? Leave the convention, you want to remove that as an answer for some reason, but it is the answer. Why are you ignoring that?
The following answers post that action is enabling imprisonment, which does not happen now and immediate deportation again do not happen now.
Are those answers not what you want to hear, I’m baffled that at least 3 people have individually given you this way forward independently and you are still saying nobody is offering a solution.
I said AFTER we leave the convention so your first point is totally moot.
If YOU have said about immediate imprisonment then I missed it and will have to scroll back up. I don’t care what others said, I wanted to know what YOU were proposing.
My issue with immediate imprisonment is that I do not think that is a humane way to treat genuine asylum seekers. While it is without doubt some of those coming on small boats are economic migrants not genuine asylum seekers, currently the number/proportion of people granted asylum would indicate it is not the majority.
I therefore think a secure but comfortable processing centre(s) is a better halfway measure.
We don’t have to agree. I think you are wrong on this. You think I am wrong. Nothing more to say really is there!
You have missed the most important point, the imprisonment is a deterrent, that is a deterrent to cross in the first place, meaning we won’t need your proposed camp, or to create eco systems to support.
A true deterrent can only be effective post the rewrite or leaving of the convention.
You have also missed the 2 options I gave that outline how that would work specifically.
IAll the info is above "Of course I did not miss imprisonment being a deterrent! Do you honestly think I am thick? I don’t agree it is needed. I believe a major appeal of coming to the UK is hotel accommodation and benefits plus the perception of soft processing regime. I believe a secure processing centre is a significant step forward from that and will itself be a deterrent. And as I have already said, it doesn’t have to be only stick, you can offer carrot too. Destroy your ID then you go down processing path A but retain your ID and get treated better/processed quicker down path B. But as per my post way up with multiple ideas, the key is opening genuine safe routes from countries in genuine need (ie Afghanistan) and where we DO have a moral obligation. That undermines the gangs at source and provides a quick filter on eligibility if someone arrives in UK not through that channel. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The reason there are no ideas other than leaving the convention is the convention is what stops most ideas… Everything you have suggested is flawed due to the convention. Setup a centre in. France, flawed, those not getting through there legally will cross in small boats, enter illegally and like now, there is nothing we can do about it. Don’t give people benefits for 2 years, flawed and will be easily challenged in the courts and even if it was passed you would simply be encouraging crime for people to be able to eat and live. ID cards what benefit will they provide other than expense to the tax payer? See above refusing to support people. Provide jobs and eco systems with healthcare, that will stop the attempted crossings for sure.
Speed up processing, great they move out of holding hotels into housing t will stop the crossings
You haven’t suggested anything that would prevent people making the crossing, your suggestions are to inconvenience them and reward them in equal measure, once here.
The convention needs rewriting to allow us to deal with the situation, once the laws are changed we can then deal with illegal entry in a meaningful way, and by then the shine of being here will have worn off for those who should not be here.
I disagree but that’s not a surprise… if shelter and food is provided in a camp environment it removes any requirement for benefits as they do not need money. Long term it will be cheaper to build and maintain camp(s) than pay for hotel accommodation and would be less controversial than huge taxpayer bills for hotel rooms (and how that is perceived). You say no benefits will leas to crime but not if they are given shelter and food in a camp and their whereabouts known.
Saying all that you are clearly set on leaving convention. Ok let’s say the UK does. What would the new convention or alternative look like once we leave? How can you persuade people to support leaving the convention without knowing what you propose to do with that new freedom?
First let’s discuss your camp idea. You put thousands of young men together in a camp that feeds and houses them, what do they do in the day how are they spending time? Do they go out of the camp? We don’t know the whereabouts of 17000 people who crossed the channel in small boats, what do you think that number would be when they are housed in a camp?
Leaving the convention will allow us to be able to do 1 of 2 things, draw up a convention and enlist the support of other countries to have something in place that supports modern day challenges or we go alone.
If we go alone, the first thing we could do is take your camp, build big walls imprison them immediately as they land, take them to court on fast track, after all we will have the evidence of their entrance and give them 2 options.
1) go home that day and avoid a prison sentence.
2) go to prison for 5 years
We would see an immediate drop in people crossing, because the reward has been removed with the prospect of going back home and that would be outside of the EU, all the travel they have done to that point would have been lost.
Or they will be imprisoned for 5 years, and deported on release.
Given those outcomes I think it highly unlikely anyone would bother getting in a small boat and leave France.
@NotMe and @Feisty joint answer re “Camp”
I said like Butlins. So hardly a “concentration/prison camp”. Ensure the media have seem the facilities. Basic but safe and comfortable (not luxury) and a step up from a tent on a French beach!
They don’t leave the camp. They are being processed. So sports/gym/fitness/recreation facilities. Allotments needing work. English lessons and British culture lessons to aid with integration.
Perhaps those who look more likely to be accepted could have skills training (they surely have skills from their home country). Maybe businesses can sponsor training/apprenticeship schemes (we need builders after all).
And before anyone says “what about training for Brits” well doh yeah! Of course businesses should be offering that and undertaking linked to benefits payments etc.
you are not addressing the problem with this solution, you are making it worse. If that doesn't make sense, it might be worth thinking about it from the view point of deterring the crossings and not trying to fix the problem once they have arrived, it is a totally different proposition.
Also, the push back and noise from the left wing populists in terms of anything other than excellent in accommodation is amazing, the bibby stockholm as an example, your camp would go down extremely well 👹
On your point to lostin, ref amount of migrants arriving here v France / Germany and Turkey, there is no magic formula that would say how many we can take.
The economic impact is enormous and that is being shouldered by the tax payer not only through tax but also in shared resources such as the NHS, dentists, housing, schools etc.
We have not accounted for this and areas of the country are suffering terribly, usually the areas that already faced decline. The benefit system is also not setup to deal with these people, we do not require a contribution to provide a payout, so the thousands of illegal entrants are simply taking without contributing, this is what I mean when I say we have not accounted for, it is not 1 individual thing it is everything that needs to be assessed to determine the numbers we can take, and we should quota for the least, not the most.
All that being said, the convention is stopping us and it will be changed or scrapped, the timing of this change is critical to the whole of Europe.
Hungry and Poland have stress tested the EU on migrant quotas, and it would not surprise me in the least if they led the way out of the convention.
Hmmm did you actually read my posts. I would say no benefits and being required to stay in a processing centre would be a deterrent compared to today. I also don’t recognise the point re the left and accommodation. The Bibby Stockholm had legionnaire’s disease didn’t it? Decent but secure accommodation that is better for taxpayers than free to come and go hotels would likely be more acceptable to many.
And still you provide no solutions or indicate what exactly you think the UK should do if we left the convention!
Yes it did have legionnaires, how do we know that? Because of the tests carried out to make sure it was fit for purpose. However the soundbites of angry left wing populists have left their mark on the narrative.
In terms of solutions offered, you've had them from more than just me.
I have no idea if you concur or support other people’s ideas so I have asked at least twice what YOUR ideas are that can be enacted following UK exiting the convention. You may not mean to but it is starting to come across as evasive. I have posited several ideas. Some may work some may not, but at least I have attempted to put something forward. I get increasingly frustrated with the whole “we need to do something” followed by nothing!
What are you not seeing as an answer? Leave the convention, you want to remove that as an answer for some reason, but it is the answer. Why are you ignoring that?
The following answers post that action is enabling imprisonment, which does not happen now and immediate deportation again do not happen now.
Are those answers not what you want to hear, I’m baffled that at least 3 people have individually given you this way forward independently and you are still saying nobody is offering a solution.
I said AFTER we leave the convention so your first point is totally moot.
If YOU have said about immediate imprisonment then I missed it and will have to scroll back up. I don’t care what others said, I wanted to know what YOU were proposing.
My issue with immediate imprisonment is that I do not think that is a humane way to treat genuine asylum seekers. While it is without doubt some of those coming on small boats are economic migrants not genuine asylum seekers, currently the number/proportion of people granted asylum would indicate it is not the majority.
I therefore think a secure but comfortable processing centre(s) is a better halfway measure.
We don’t have to agree. I think you are wrong on this. You think I am wrong. Nothing more to say really is there!
You have missed the most important point, the imprisonment is a deterrent, that is a deterrent to cross in the first place, meaning we won’t need your proposed camp, or to create eco systems to support.
A true deterrent can only be effective post the rewrite or leaving of the convention.
You have also missed the 2 options I gave that outline how that would work specifically.
IAll the info is above
Of course I did not miss imprisonment being a deterrent! Do you honestly think I am thick? I don’t agree it is needed. I believe a major appeal of coming to the UK is hotel accommodation and benefits plus the perception of soft processing regime. I believe a secure processing centre is a significant step forward from that and will itself be a deterrent.
And as I have already said, it doesn’t have to be only stick, you can offer carrot too. Destroy your ID then you go down processing path A but retain your ID and get treated better/processed quicker down path B.
But as per my post way up with multiple ideas, the key is opening genuine safe routes from countries in genuine need (ie Afghanistan) and where we DO have a moral obligation. That undermines the gangs at source and provides a quick filter on eligibility if someone arrives in UK not through that channel."did you post this "If YOU have said about immediate imprisonment then I missed it and will have to scroll back up. I don’t care what others said, I wanted to know what YOU were proposing." from that I took it very clearly that if you had missed "immediate imprisonment", you would have also missed "deterrent" as the 2 items are intrinsically linked, and explained as options. If you can't recognise that a deterrent will present better outcomes, we are at an impasse and no amount of backward and forwards will change that until I accept that deterrents are not the way forward, and we should be considering how to make their stay once here more unpleasant, or you accept deterrents are the way forward. Have good Sunday | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The reason there are no ideas other than leaving the convention is the convention is what stops most ideas… Everything you have suggested is flawed due to the convention. Setup a centre in. France, flawed, those not getting through there legally will cross in small boats, enter illegally and like now, there is nothing we can do about it. Don’t give people benefits for 2 years, flawed and will be easily challenged in the courts and even if it was passed you would simply be encouraging crime for people to be able to eat and live. ID cards what benefit will they provide other than expense to the tax payer? See above refusing to support people. Provide jobs and eco systems with healthcare, that will stop the attempted crossings for sure.
Speed up processing, great they move out of holding hotels into housing t will stop the crossings
You haven’t suggested anything that would prevent people making the crossing, your suggestions are to inconvenience them and reward them in equal measure, once here.
The convention needs rewriting to allow us to deal with the situation, once the laws are changed we can then deal with illegal entry in a meaningful way, and by then the shine of being here will have worn off for those who should not be here.
I disagree but that’s not a surprise… if shelter and food is provided in a camp environment it removes any requirement for benefits as they do not need money. Long term it will be cheaper to build and maintain camp(s) than pay for hotel accommodation and would be less controversial than huge taxpayer bills for hotel rooms (and how that is perceived). You say no benefits will leas to crime but not if they are given shelter and food in a camp and their whereabouts known.
Saying all that you are clearly set on leaving convention. Ok let’s say the UK does. What would the new convention or alternative look like once we leave? How can you persuade people to support leaving the convention without knowing what you propose to do with that new freedom?
First let’s discuss your camp idea. You put thousands of young men together in a camp that feeds and houses them, what do they do in the day how are they spending time? Do they go out of the camp? We don’t know the whereabouts of 17000 people who crossed the channel in small boats, what do you think that number would be when they are housed in a camp?
Leaving the convention will allow us to be able to do 1 of 2 things, draw up a convention and enlist the support of other countries to have something in place that supports modern day challenges or we go alone.
If we go alone, the first thing we could do is take your camp, build big walls imprison them immediately as they land, take them to court on fast track, after all we will have the evidence of their entrance and give them 2 options.
1) go home that day and avoid a prison sentence.
2) go to prison for 5 years
We would see an immediate drop in people crossing, because the reward has been removed with the prospect of going back home and that would be outside of the EU, all the travel they have done to that point would have been lost.
Or they will be imprisoned for 5 years, and deported on release.
Given those outcomes I think it highly unlikely anyone would bother getting in a small boat and leave France.
@NotMe and @Feisty joint answer re “Camp”
I said like Butlins. So hardly a “concentration/prison camp”. Ensure the media have seem the facilities. Basic but safe and comfortable (not luxury) and a step up from a tent on a French beach!
They don’t leave the camp. They are being processed. So sports/gym/fitness/recreation facilities. Allotments needing work. English lessons and British culture lessons to aid with integration.
Perhaps those who look more likely to be accepted could have skills training (they surely have skills from their home country). Maybe businesses can sponsor training/apprenticeship schemes (we need builders after all).
And before anyone says “what about training for Brits” well doh yeah! Of course businesses should be offering that and undertaking linked to benefits payments etc.
you are not addressing the problem with this solution, you are making it worse. If that doesn't make sense, it might be worth thinking about it from the view point of deterring the crossings and not trying to fix the problem once they have arrived, it is a totally different proposition.
Also, the push back and noise from the left wing populists in terms of anything other than excellent in accommodation is amazing, the bibby stockholm as an example, your camp would go down extremely well 👹
On your point to lostin, ref amount of migrants arriving here v France / Germany and Turkey, there is no magic formula that would say how many we can take.
The economic impact is enormous and that is being shouldered by the tax payer not only through tax but also in shared resources such as the NHS, dentists, housing, schools etc.
We have not accounted for this and areas of the country are suffering terribly, usually the areas that already faced decline. The benefit system is also not setup to deal with these people, we do not require a contribution to provide a payout, so the thousands of illegal entrants are simply taking without contributing, this is what I mean when I say we have not accounted for, it is not 1 individual thing it is everything that needs to be assessed to determine the numbers we can take, and we should quota for the least, not the most.
All that being said, the convention is stopping us and it will be changed or scrapped, the timing of this change is critical to the whole of Europe.
Hungry and Poland have stress tested the EU on migrant quotas, and it would not surprise me in the least if they led the way out of the convention.
Hmmm did you actually read my posts. I would say no benefits and being required to stay in a processing centre would be a deterrent compared to today. I also don’t recognise the point re the left and accommodation. The Bibby Stockholm had legionnaire’s disease didn’t it? Decent but secure accommodation that is better for taxpayers than free to come and go hotels would likely be more acceptable to many.
And still you provide no solutions or indicate what exactly you think the UK should do if we left the convention!
Yes it did have legionnaires, how do we know that? Because of the tests carried out to make sure it was fit for purpose. However the soundbites of angry left wing populists have left their mark on the narrative.
In terms of solutions offered, you've had them from more than just me.
I have no idea if you concur or support other people’s ideas so I have asked at least twice what YOUR ideas are that can be enacted following UK exiting the convention. You may not mean to but it is starting to come across as evasive. I have posited several ideas. Some may work some may not, but at least I have attempted to put something forward. I get increasingly frustrated with the whole “we need to do something” followed by nothing!
What are you not seeing as an answer? Leave the convention, you want to remove that as an answer for some reason, but it is the answer. Why are you ignoring that?
The following answers post that action is enabling imprisonment, which does not happen now and immediate deportation again do not happen now.
Are those answers not what you want to hear, I’m baffled that at least 3 people have individually given you this way forward independently and you are still saying nobody is offering a solution.
I said AFTER we leave the convention so your first point is totally moot.
If YOU have said about immediate imprisonment then I missed it and will have to scroll back up. I don’t care what others said, I wanted to know what YOU were proposing.
My issue with immediate imprisonment is that I do not think that is a humane way to treat genuine asylum seekers. While it is without doubt some of those coming on small boats are economic migrants not genuine asylum seekers, currently the number/proportion of people granted asylum would indicate it is not the majority.
I therefore think a secure but comfortable processing centre(s) is a better halfway measure.
We don’t have to agree. I think you are wrong on this. You think I am wrong. Nothing more to say really is there!
You have missed the most important point, the imprisonment is a deterrent, that is a deterrent to cross in the first place, meaning we won’t need your proposed camp, or to create eco systems to support.
A true deterrent can only be effective post the rewrite or leaving of the convention.
You have also missed the 2 options I gave that outline how that would work specifically.
IAll the info is above
Of course I did not miss imprisonment being a deterrent! Do you honestly think I am thick? I don’t agree it is needed. I believe a major appeal of coming to the UK is hotel accommodation and benefits plus the perception of soft processing regime. I believe a secure processing centre is a significant step forward from that and will itself be a deterrent.
And as I have already said, it doesn’t have to be only stick, you can offer carrot too. Destroy your ID then you go down processing path A but retain your ID and get treated better/processed quicker down path B.
But as per my post way up with multiple ideas, the key is opening genuine safe routes from countries in genuine need (ie Afghanistan) and where we DO have a moral obligation. That undermines the gangs at source and provides a quick filter on eligibility if someone arrives in UK not through that channel.
did you post this "If YOU have said about immediate imprisonment then I missed it and will have to scroll back up. I don’t care what others said, I wanted to know what YOU were proposing."
from that I took it very clearly that if you had missed "immediate imprisonment", you would have also missed "deterrent" as the 2 items are intrinsically linked, and explained as options.
If you can't recognise that a deterrent will present better outcomes, we are at an impasse and no amount of backward and forwards will change that until I accept that deterrents are not the way forward, and we should be considering how to make their stay once here more unpleasant, or you accept deterrents are the way forward.
Have good Sunday "Of course imprisonment would be a deterrent and of course I recognise that. I just don’t think it is necessary and is a step too far. For me, as I have now said repeatedly, the first step should be the opening of safe routes from key countries which would undermine the gangs at source. Once that alternative is in place it takes away the excuse of trying to get into the UK whatever way possible and distinguishes between those who are genuine and those who are actually illegal (or not genuine asylum seekers). Perhaps THEN imprisonment is a way forward but provide the option of a legal safe route first! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The reason there are no ideas other than leaving the convention is the convention is what stops most ideas… Everything you have suggested is flawed due to the convention. Setup a centre in. France, flawed, those not getting through there legally will cross in small boats, enter illegally and like now, there is nothing we can do about it. Don’t give people benefits for 2 years, flawed and will be easily challenged in the courts and even if it was passed you would simply be encouraging crime for people to be able to eat and live. ID cards what benefit will they provide other than expense to the tax payer? See above refusing to support people. Provide jobs and eco systems with healthcare, that will stop the attempted crossings for sure.
Speed up processing, great they move out of holding hotels into housing t will stop the crossings
You haven’t suggested anything that would prevent people making the crossing, your suggestions are to inconvenience them and reward them in equal measure, once here.
The convention needs rewriting to allow us to deal with the situation, once the laws are changed we can then deal with illegal entry in a meaningful way, and by then the shine of being here will have worn off for those who should not be here.
I disagree but that’s not a surprise… if shelter and food is provided in a camp environment it removes any requirement for benefits as they do not need money. Long term it will be cheaper to build and maintain camp(s) than pay for hotel accommodation and would be less controversial than huge taxpayer bills for hotel rooms (and how that is perceived). You say no benefits will leas to crime but not if they are given shelter and food in a camp and their whereabouts known.
Saying all that you are clearly set on leaving convention. Ok let’s say the UK does. What would the new convention or alternative look like once we leave? How can you persuade people to support leaving the convention without knowing what you propose to do with that new freedom?
First let’s discuss your camp idea. You put thousands of young men together in a camp that feeds and houses them, what do they do in the day how are they spending time? Do they go out of the camp? We don’t know the whereabouts of 17000 people who crossed the channel in small boats, what do you think that number would be when they are housed in a camp?
Leaving the convention will allow us to be able to do 1 of 2 things, draw up a convention and enlist the support of other countries to have something in place that supports modern day challenges or we go alone.
If we go alone, the first thing we could do is take your camp, build big walls imprison them immediately as they land, take them to court on fast track, after all we will have the evidence of their entrance and give them 2 options.
1) go home that day and avoid a prison sentence.
2) go to prison for 5 years
We would see an immediate drop in people crossing, because the reward has been removed with the prospect of going back home and that would be outside of the EU, all the travel they have done to that point would have been lost.
Or they will be imprisoned for 5 years, and deported on release.
Given those outcomes I think it highly unlikely anyone would bother getting in a small boat and leave France.
@NotMe and @Feisty joint answer re “Camp”
I said like Butlins. So hardly a “concentration/prison camp”. Ensure the media have seem the facilities. Basic but safe and comfortable (not luxury) and a step up from a tent on a French beach!
They don’t leave the camp. They are being processed. So sports/gym/fitness/recreation facilities. Allotments needing work. English lessons and British culture lessons to aid with integration.
Perhaps those who look more likely to be accepted could have skills training (they surely have skills from their home country). Maybe businesses can sponsor training/apprenticeship schemes (we need builders after all).
And before anyone says “what about training for Brits” well doh yeah! Of course businesses should be offering that and undertaking linked to benefits payments etc.
you are not addressing the problem with this solution, you are making it worse. If that doesn't make sense, it might be worth thinking about it from the view point of deterring the crossings and not trying to fix the problem once they have arrived, it is a totally different proposition.
Also, the push back and noise from the left wing populists in terms of anything other than excellent in accommodation is amazing, the bibby stockholm as an example, your camp would go down extremely well 👹
On your point to lostin, ref amount of migrants arriving here v France / Germany and Turkey, there is no magic formula that would say how many we can take.
The economic impact is enormous and that is being shouldered by the tax payer not only through tax but also in shared resources such as the NHS, dentists, housing, schools etc.
We have not accounted for this and areas of the country are suffering terribly, usually the areas that already faced decline. The benefit system is also not setup to deal with these people, we do not require a contribution to provide a payout, so the thousands of illegal entrants are simply taking without contributing, this is what I mean when I say we have not accounted for, it is not 1 individual thing it is everything that needs to be assessed to determine the numbers we can take, and we should quota for the least, not the most.
All that being said, the convention is stopping us and it will be changed or scrapped, the timing of this change is critical to the whole of Europe.
Hungry and Poland have stress tested the EU on migrant quotas, and it would not surprise me in the least if they led the way out of the convention.
Hmmm did you actually read my posts. I would say no benefits and being required to stay in a processing centre would be a deterrent compared to today. I also don’t recognise the point re the left and accommodation. The Bibby Stockholm had legionnaire’s disease didn’t it? Decent but secure accommodation that is better for taxpayers than free to come and go hotels would likely be more acceptable to many.
And still you provide no solutions or indicate what exactly you think the UK should do if we left the convention!
Yes it did have legionnaires, how do we know that? Because of the tests carried out to make sure it was fit for purpose. However the soundbites of angry left wing populists have left their mark on the narrative.
In terms of solutions offered, you've had them from more than just me.
I have no idea if you concur or support other people’s ideas so I have asked at least twice what YOUR ideas are that can be enacted following UK exiting the convention. You may not mean to but it is starting to come across as evasive. I have posited several ideas. Some may work some may not, but at least I have attempted to put something forward. I get increasingly frustrated with the whole “we need to do something” followed by nothing!
What are you not seeing as an answer? Leave the convention, you want to remove that as an answer for some reason, but it is the answer. Why are you ignoring that?
The following answers post that action is enabling imprisonment, which does not happen now and immediate deportation again do not happen now.
Are those answers not what you want to hear, I’m baffled that at least 3 people have individually given you this way forward independently and you are still saying nobody is offering a solution.
I said AFTER we leave the convention so your first point is totally moot.
If YOU have said about immediate imprisonment then I missed it and will have to scroll back up. I don’t care what others said, I wanted to know what YOU were proposing.
My issue with immediate imprisonment is that I do not think that is a humane way to treat genuine asylum seekers. While it is without doubt some of those coming on small boats are economic migrants not genuine asylum seekers, currently the number/proportion of people granted asylum would indicate it is not the majority.
I therefore think a secure but comfortable processing centre(s) is a better halfway measure.
We don’t have to agree. I think you are wrong on this. You think I am wrong. Nothing more to say really is there!
You have missed the most important point, the imprisonment is a deterrent, that is a deterrent to cross in the first place, meaning we won’t need your proposed camp, or to create eco systems to support.
A true deterrent can only be effective post the rewrite or leaving of the convention.
You have also missed the 2 options I gave that outline how that would work specifically.
IAll the info is above
Of course I did not miss imprisonment being a deterrent! Do you honestly think I am thick? I don’t agree it is needed. I believe a major appeal of coming to the UK is hotel accommodation and benefits plus the perception of soft processing regime. I believe a secure processing centre is a significant step forward from that and will itself be a deterrent.
And as I have already said, it doesn’t have to be only stick, you can offer carrot too. Destroy your ID then you go down processing path A but retain your ID and get treated better/processed quicker down path B.
But as per my post way up with multiple ideas, the key is opening genuine safe routes from countries in genuine need (ie Afghanistan) and where we DO have a moral obligation. That undermines the gangs at source and provides a quick filter on eligibility if someone arrives in UK not through that channel.
did you post this "If YOU have said about immediate imprisonment then I missed it and will have to scroll back up. I don’t care what others said, I wanted to know what YOU were proposing."
from that I took it very clearly that if you had missed "immediate imprisonment", you would have also missed "deterrent" as the 2 items are intrinsically linked, and explained as options.
If you can't recognise that a deterrent will present better outcomes, we are at an impasse and no amount of backward and forwards will change that until I accept that deterrents are not the way forward, and we should be considering how to make their stay once here more unpleasant, or you accept deterrents are the way forward.
Have good Sunday
Of course imprisonment would be a deterrent and of course I recognise that. I just don’t think it is necessary and is a step too far.
For me, as I have now said repeatedly, the first step should be the opening of safe routes from key countries which would undermine the gangs at source. Once that alternative is in place it takes away the excuse of trying to get into the UK whatever way possible and distinguishes between those who are genuine and those who are actually illegal (or not genuine asylum seekers). Perhaps THEN imprisonment is a way forward but provide the option of a legal safe route first!"Providing the option of safe routes first, shouldn't be first. It has to happen at the same time as 'illegal entry = imprisonment'. But, its not as simple as opening safe routes. If the UK do and no one else joins us then we will have asylum applications like we've never seen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from “leave the 1951 convention” I see a complete lack of ideas on what to do. It’s always “we need to do something!” I’d say there are a few things that could be done (and said this many times). In no particular order: - No benefits paid to anyone who has been in the UK for less than 2 years. - Increase the number of staff processing asylum claims (some on here are anti Civil Service/Public Sector so not sure how they would support this). - Build proper processing centres, yes camps but not concentration camps, more like Butlins (although maybe that isn’t THAT different) to provide safe but controlled environment with doctors, schools (English), maybe allotments, cafeteria, and in the process give a boost to the local economy through construction, maintenance, and staffing (although the NIMBYS won’t like it) and STOP paying for hotels. - Ideally have a processing centre in France (if they would allow) to deter channel crossing. - Bring in compulsory ID Cards in the UK that are needed to access health care (without insurance) and other aspects of society. - Develop proper safe routes operated out of Consulates in main countries (or bordering countries) where the migrants are coming from. - Find a way to incentivise those who arrive with ID docs and disincentivise those who “lose” their ID. - Accept that if the UK has intervened in another country setting up a situation where it leaves instability or compromises those people in that country who helped the UK (as what happened in Afghanistan) then we have a moral duty to help those people and bring them to safety. The reason there are no ideas other than leaving the convention is the convention is what stops most ideas… Everything you have suggested is flawed due to the convention. Setup a centre in. France, flawed, those not getting through there legally will cross in small boats, enter illegally and like now, there is nothing we can do about it. Don’t give people benefits for 2 years, flawed and will be easily challenged in the courts and even if it was passed you would simply be encouraging crime for people to be able to eat and live. ID cards what benefit will they provide other than expense to the tax payer? See above refusing to support people. Provide jobs and eco systems with healthcare, that will stop the attempted crossings for sure.
Speed up processing, great they move out of holding hotels into housing t will stop the crossings
You haven’t suggested anything that would prevent people making the crossing, your suggestions are to inconvenience them and reward them in equal measure, once here.
The convention needs rewriting to allow us to deal with the situation, once the laws are changed we can then deal with illegal entry in a meaningful way, and by then the shine of being here will have worn off for those who should not be here.
I disagree but that’s not a surprise… if shelter and food is provided in a camp environment it removes any requirement for benefits as they do not need money. Long term it will be cheaper to build and maintain camp(s) than pay for hotel accommodation and would be less controversial than huge taxpayer bills for hotel rooms (and how that is perceived). You say no benefits will leas to crime but not if they are given shelter and food in a camp and their whereabouts known.
Saying all that you are clearly set on leaving convention. Ok let’s say the UK does. What would the new convention or alternative look like once we leave? How can you persuade people to support leaving the convention without knowing what you propose to do with that new freedom?
First let’s discuss your camp idea. You put thousands of young men together in a camp that feeds and houses them, what do they do in the day how are they spending time? Do they go out of the camp? We don’t know the whereabouts of 17000 people who crossed the channel in small boats, what do you think that number would be when they are housed in a camp?
Leaving the convention will allow us to be able to do 1 of 2 things, draw up a convention and enlist the support of other countries to have something in place that supports modern day challenges or we go alone.
If we go alone, the first thing we could do is take your camp, build big walls imprison them immediately as they land, take them to court on fast track, after all we will have the evidence of their entrance and give them 2 options.
1) go home that day and avoid a prison sentence.
2) go to prison for 5 years
We would see an immediate drop in people crossing, because the reward has been removed with the prospect of going back home and that would be outside of the EU, all the travel they have done to that point would have been lost.
Or they will be imprisoned for 5 years, and deported on release.
Given those outcomes I think it highly unlikely anyone would bother getting in a small boat and leave France.
@NotMe and @Feisty joint answer re “Camp”
I said like Butlins. So hardly a “concentration/prison camp”. Ensure the media have seem the facilities. Basic but safe and comfortable (not luxury) and a step up from a tent on a French beach!
They don’t leave the camp. They are being processed. So sports/gym/fitness/recreation facilities. Allotments needing work. English lessons and British culture lessons to aid with integration.
Perhaps those who look more likely to be accepted could have skills training (they surely have skills from their home country). Maybe businesses can sponsor training/apprenticeship schemes (we need builders after all).
And before anyone says “what about training for Brits” well doh yeah! Of course businesses should be offering that and undertaking linked to benefits payments etc.
you are not addressing the problem with this solution, you are making it worse. If that doesn't make sense, it might be worth thinking about it from the view point of deterring the crossings and not trying to fix the problem once they have arrived, it is a totally different proposition.
Also, the push back and noise from the left wing populists in terms of anything other than excellent in accommodation is amazing, the bibby stockholm as an example, your camp would go down extremely well 👹
On your point to lostin, ref amount of migrants arriving here v France / Germany and Turkey, there is no magic formula that would say how many we can take.
The economic impact is enormous and that is being shouldered by the tax payer not only through tax but also in shared resources such as the NHS, dentists, housing, schools etc.
We have not accounted for this and areas of the country are suffering terribly, usually the areas that already faced decline. The benefit system is also not setup to deal with these people, we do not require a contribution to provide a payout, so the thousands of illegal entrants are simply taking without contributing, this is what I mean when I say we have not accounted for, it is not 1 individual thing it is everything that needs to be assessed to determine the numbers we can take, and we should quota for the least, not the most.
All that being said, the convention is stopping us and it will be changed or scrapped, the timing of this change is critical to the whole of Europe.
Hungry and Poland have stress tested the EU on migrant quotas, and it would not surprise me in the least if they led the way out of the convention.
Hmmm did you actually read my posts. I would say no benefits and being required to stay in a processing centre would be a deterrent compared to today. I also don’t recognise the point re the left and accommodation. The Bibby Stockholm had legionnaire’s disease didn’t it? Decent but secure accommodation that is better for taxpayers than free to come and go hotels would likely be more acceptable to many.
And still you provide no solutions or indicate what exactly you think the UK should do if we left the convention!
Yes it did have legionnaires, how do we know that? Because of the tests carried out to make sure it was fit for purpose. However the soundbites of angry left wing populists have left their mark on the narrative.
In terms of solutions offered, you've had them from more than just me.
I have no idea if you concur or support other people’s ideas so I have asked at least twice what YOUR ideas are that can be enacted following UK exiting the convention. You may not mean to but it is starting to come across as evasive. I have posited several ideas. Some may work some may not, but at least I have attempted to put something forward. I get increasingly frustrated with the whole “we need to do something” followed by nothing!
What are you not seeing as an answer? Leave the convention, you want to remove that as an answer for some reason, but it is the answer. Why are you ignoring that?
The following answers post that action is enabling imprisonment, which does not happen now and immediate deportation again do not happen now.
Are those answers not what you want to hear, I’m baffled that at least 3 people have individually given you this way forward independently and you are still saying nobody is offering a solution.
I said AFTER we leave the convention so your first point is totally moot.
If YOU have said about immediate imprisonment then I missed it and will have to scroll back up. I don’t care what others said, I wanted to know what YOU were proposing.
My issue with immediate imprisonment is that I do not think that is a humane way to treat genuine asylum seekers. While it is without doubt some of those coming on small boats are economic migrants not genuine asylum seekers, currently the number/proportion of people granted asylum would indicate it is not the majority.
I therefore think a secure but comfortable processing centre(s) is a better halfway measure.
We don’t have to agree. I think you are wrong on this. You think I am wrong. Nothing more to say really is there!
You have missed the most important point, the imprisonment is a deterrent, that is a deterrent to cross in the first place, meaning we won’t need your proposed camp, or to create eco systems to support.
A true deterrent can only be effective post the rewrite or leaving of the convention.
You have also missed the 2 options I gave that outline how that would work specifically.
IAll the info is above
Of course I did not miss imprisonment being a deterrent! Do you honestly think I am thick? I don’t agree it is needed. I believe a major appeal of coming to the UK is hotel accommodation and benefits plus the perception of soft processing regime. I believe a secure processing centre is a significant step forward from that and will itself be a deterrent.
And as I have already said, it doesn’t have to be only stick, you can offer carrot too. Destroy your ID then you go down processing path A but retain your ID and get treated better/processed quicker down path B.
But as per my post way up with multiple ideas, the key is opening genuine safe routes from countries in genuine need (ie Afghanistan) and where we DO have a moral obligation. That undermines the gangs at source and provides a quick filter on eligibility if someone arrives in UK not through that channel.
did you post this "If YOU have said about immediate imprisonment then I missed it and will have to scroll back up. I don’t care what others said, I wanted to know what YOU were proposing."
from that I took it very clearly that if you had missed "immediate imprisonment", you would have also missed "deterrent" as the 2 items are intrinsically linked, and explained as options.
If you can't recognise that a deterrent will present better outcomes, we are at an impasse and no amount of backward and forwards will change that until I accept that deterrents are not the way forward, and we should be considering how to make their stay once here more unpleasant, or you accept deterrents are the way forward.
Have good Sunday
Of course imprisonment would be a deterrent and of course I recognise that. I just don’t think it is necessary and is a step too far.
For me, as I have now said repeatedly, the first step should be the opening of safe routes from key countries which would undermine the gangs at source. Once that alternative is in place it takes away the excuse of trying to get into the UK whatever way possible and distinguishes between those who are genuine and those who are actually illegal (or not genuine asylum seekers). Perhaps THEN imprisonment is a way forward but provide the option of a legal safe route first!
Providing the option of safe routes first, shouldn't be first. It has to happen at the same time as 'illegal entry = imprisonment'.
But, its not as simple as opening safe routes. If the UK do and no one else joins us then we will have asylum applications like we've never seen. "We could determine a quota based on capacity to process. As the applicants are not in the UK they will have to wait their turn in situ but will not be in the UK being housed and fed etc. those who are entitled/genuine get to come to the UK. Those who don’t and still try will therefore clearly be attempting illegal entry. By having safe routes you kneecap the gangs because the volume of people prepared to attempt it (and pay) will drop and become unviable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We could determine a quota based on capacity to process. As the applicants are not in the UK they will have to wait their turn in situ but will not be in the UK being housed and fed etc. those who are entitled/genuine get to come to the UK. Those who don’t and still try will therefore clearly be attempting illegal entry. By having safe routes you kneecap the gangs because the volume of people prepared to attempt it (and pay) will drop and become unviable." OK cool. Lets call it 5k per annum. What benefits are we giving them? You said none for 2 years? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"“we had to make tough decisions 4 years ago to balance the books due to the mess left behind by the Conservatives, but thanks to our approach we can now start to give back…!” Sounds exactly like what the Conservatives said when they got elected after the financial crisis. All we have is a puppet show and nothing will change until we get a PM that is prepared to deal with the heads of the civil service and make serious restructuring changes. The Conservatives might have said that but then continued to cut jobs in the Home Office the the lowest numbers there had been since WW2. Is it any surprise they failed to deliver..?" Some people just want to cut the civil service,even though it's on its knees anyway, just because.. I really don't know. I find it baffling. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We could determine a quota based on capacity to process. As the applicants are not in the UK they will have to wait their turn in situ but will not be in the UK being housed and fed etc. those who are entitled/genuine get to come to the UK. Those who don’t and still try will therefore clearly be attempting illegal entry. By having safe routes you kneecap the gangs because the volume of people prepared to attempt it (and pay) will drop and become unviable. OK cool. Lets call it 5k per annum. What benefits are we giving them? You said none for 2 years? " To paraphrase another poster “don’t know I was not elected to govt / paid to solve these issues” 🤷🏻♂️ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We could determine a quota based on capacity to process. As the applicants are not in the UK they will have to wait their turn in situ but will not be in the UK being housed and fed etc. those who are entitled/genuine get to come to the UK. Those who don’t and still try will therefore clearly be attempting illegal entry. By having safe routes you kneecap the gangs because the volume of people prepared to attempt it (and pay) will drop and become unviable. OK cool. Lets call it 5k per annum. What benefits are we giving them? You said none for 2 years? To paraphrase another poster “don’t know I was not elected to govt / paid to solve these issues” 🤷🏻♂️" I'm working with your suggestions 🤦♂️ You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"I read somewhere that Labour is pretty sure about tax increases this October. Their popularity will take quite a beating then and hence they are exploring the idea of doing something about immigration to compensate for it. They’ll just front load all the shit in this parliament while they enjoy a super majority. Then in four years time as we head towards the next GE they’ll start with the giveaways saying “we had to make tough decisions 4 years ago to balance the books due to the mess left behind by the Conservatives, but thanks to our approach we can now start to give back…!”" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind." I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read somewhere that Labour is pretty sure about tax increases this October. Their popularity will take quite a beating then and hence they are exploring the idea of doing something about immigration to compensate for it. They’ll just front load all the shit in this parliament while they enjoy a super majority. Then in four years time as we head towards the next GE they’ll start with the giveaways saying “we had to make tough decisions 4 years ago to balance the books due to the mess left behind by the Conservatives, but thanks to our approach we can now start to give back…!” "All sounds about right. Starmer's recent pronouncements are clearly softening us up for tax hikes and cutbacks now things are 'far worse than expected'. So what were the Shadow Cabinet doing for 14 years? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read somewhere that Labour is pretty sure about tax increases this October. Their popularity will take quite a beating then and hence they are exploring the idea of doing something about immigration to compensate for it. They’ll just front load all the shit in this parliament while they enjoy a super majority. Then in four years time as we head towards the next GE they’ll start with the giveaways saying “we had to make tough decisions 4 years ago to balance the books due to the mess left behind by the Conservatives, but thanks to our approach we can now start to give back…!”
All sounds about right. Starmer's recent pronouncements are clearly softening us up for tax hikes and cutbacks now things are 'far worse than expected'. So what were the Shadow Cabinet doing for 14 years?"Agreed, all Starmers faux promises will be reneged on | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Feisty You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic." Disagreeing is saying 'you're wrong', no? You have put forward alternative suggestions but when pressed you won't go deeper than surface level. How do we know if your ideas can work if we don't know any details? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read somewhere that Labour is pretty sure about tax increases this October. Their popularity will take quite a beating then and hence they are exploring the idea of doing something about immigration to compensate for it. They’ll just front load all the shit in this parliament while they enjoy a super majority. Then in four years time as we head towards the next GE they’ll start with the giveaways saying “we had to make tough decisions 4 years ago to balance the books due to the mess left behind by the Conservatives, but thanks to our approach we can now start to give back…!”
All sounds about right. Starmer's recent pronouncements are clearly softening us up for tax hikes and cutbacks now things are 'far worse than expected'. So what were the Shadow Cabinet doing for 14 years?"That's the most pathetic question I keep seeing on here. Every year they may have had alternative policies, but as the govt fucks up over and over again, the shadow cabinet has to adjust their plans. In other words, only recent months actually matter for the shadow cabinet to work on policies that may or may not prove to be effective. They have NOT had 14 years to work on plans to overturn 14 years of shit | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read somewhere that Labour is pretty sure about tax increases this October. Their popularity will take quite a beating then and hence they are exploring the idea of doing something about immigration to compensate for it. They’ll just front load all the shit in this parliament while they enjoy a super majority. Then in four years time as we head towards the next GE they’ll start with the giveaways saying “we had to make tough decisions 4 years ago to balance the books due to the mess left behind by the Conservatives, but thanks to our approach we can now start to give back…!”
All sounds about right. Starmer's recent pronouncements are clearly softening us up for tax hikes and cutbacks now things are 'far worse than expected'. So what were the Shadow Cabinet doing for 14 years?"Has the situation not changed much since 2010? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Feisty You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic. Disagreeing is saying 'you're wrong', no? You have put forward alternative suggestions but when pressed you won't go deeper than surface level. How do we know if your ideas can work if we don't know any details?" You could level that at every single idea on here put forward by anyone 
I disagree that disagreeing is saying you are wronf LOL
Without a doubt immediate imprisonment on arrival in the UK by small boat will be a deterrent but my point is I think there are other things wr could do first.
Sometimes this place is really hard. You exchange ideas and different points of view but some people just want to “win” or score points. Quote tiresome 😵💫 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Feisty You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic. Disagreeing is saying 'you're wrong', no? You have put forward alternative suggestions but when pressed you won't go deeper than surface level. How do we know if your ideas can work if we don't know any details? You could level that at every single idea on here put forward by anyone
I disagree that disagreeing is saying you are wronf LOL
Without a doubt immediate imprisonment on arrival in the UK by small boat will be a deterrent but my point is I think there are other things wr could do first.
Sometimes this place is really hard. You exchange ideas and different points of view but some people just want to “win” or score points. Quote tiresome 😵💫"Of course that could be levelled at every idea/argument on here. It would be correct. You've put your points across whilst complaining that no one else offers alternatives, there been plenty of alternatives offered. On that point, I'd definitely agree that sometimes it's hard and tiresome on here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Feisty You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic. Disagreeing is saying 'you're wrong', no? You have put forward alternative suggestions but when pressed you won't go deeper than surface level. How do we know if your ideas can work if we don't know any details? You could level that at every single idea on here put forward by anyone
I disagree that disagreeing is saying you are wronf LOL
Without a doubt immediate imprisonment on arrival in the UK by small boat will be a deterrent but my point is I think there are other things wr could do first.
Sometimes this place is really hard. You exchange ideas and different points of view but some people just want to “win” or score points. Quote tiresome 😵💫
Of course that could be levelled at every idea/argument on here. It would be correct.
You've put your points across whilst complaining that no one else offers alternatives, there been plenty of alternatives offered.
On that point, I'd definitely agree that sometimes it's hard and tiresome on here.
"No I asked NotMe what HIS ideas were because up to that point they were light on detail and he and I were having a convo. He replied others had put forward ideas and my response was that I could not know if he agreed or supported those ideas without him being explicit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Feisty You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic. Disagreeing is saying 'you're wrong', no? You have put forward alternative suggestions but when pressed you won't go deeper than surface level. How do we know if your ideas can work if we don't know any details? You could level that at every single idea on here put forward by anyone
I disagree that disagreeing is saying you are wronf LOL
Without a doubt immediate imprisonment on arrival in the UK by small boat will be a deterrent but my point is I think there are other things wr could do first.
Sometimes this place is really hard. You exchange ideas and different points of view but some people just want to “win” or score points. Quote tiresome 😵💫
Of course that could be levelled at every idea/argument on here. It would be correct.
You've put your points across whilst complaining that no one else offers alternatives, there been plenty of alternatives offered.
On that point, I'd definitely agree that sometimes it's hard and tiresome on here.
No I asked NotMe what HIS ideas were because up to that point they were light on detail and he and I were having a convo. He replied others had put forward ideas and my response was that I could not know if he agreed or supported those ideas without him being explicit. "As I have said prior, the other suggestions were very similar to my own which I support. The outline I gave and the others gave are very clear. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Feisty You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic. Disagreeing is saying 'you're wrong', no? You have put forward alternative suggestions but when pressed you won't go deeper than surface level. How do we know if your ideas can work if we don't know any details? You could level that at every single idea on here put forward by anyone
I disagree that disagreeing is saying you are wronf LOL
Without a doubt immediate imprisonment on arrival in the UK by small boat will be a deterrent but my point is I think there are other things wr could do first.
Sometimes this place is really hard. You exchange ideas and different points of view but some people just want to “win” or score points. Quote tiresome 😵💫
Of course that could be levelled at every idea/argument on here. It would be correct.
You've put your points across whilst complaining that no one else offers alternatives, there been plenty of alternatives offered.
On that point, I'd definitely agree that sometimes it's hard and tiresome on here.
No I asked NotMe what HIS ideas were because up to that point they were light on detail and he and I were having a convo. He replied others had put forward ideas and my response was that I could not know if he agreed or supported those ideas without him being explicit.
As I have said prior, the other suggestions were very similar to my own which I support. The outline I gave and the others gave are very clear."It’s all good. You and a small handful of other posters want anyone trying to get into the UK to claim asylum thrown in prison as step 2 (step 1 unilateral withdrawal from convention). The reason being that not all are genuine asylum seekers and are instead economic migrants. That’s your view and I agree this would likely be a good deterrent. I don’t like it and prefer the suggestions I made (note that was a shopping list not a roadmap, maybe some will/won’t work). So does imprisonment only apply to those without ID? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Feisty You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic. Disagreeing is saying 'you're wrong', no? You have put forward alternative suggestions but when pressed you won't go deeper than surface level. How do we know if your ideas can work if we don't know any details? You could level that at every single idea on here put forward by anyone
I disagree that disagreeing is saying you are wronf LOL
Without a doubt immediate imprisonment on arrival in the UK by small boat will be a deterrent but my point is I think there are other things wr could do first.
Sometimes this place is really hard. You exchange ideas and different points of view but some people just want to “win” or score points. Quote tiresome 😵💫
Of course that could be levelled at every idea/argument on here. It would be correct.
You've put your points across whilst complaining that no one else offers alternatives, there been plenty of alternatives offered.
On that point, I'd definitely agree that sometimes it's hard and tiresome on here.
No I asked NotMe what HIS ideas were because up to that point they were light on detail and he and I were having a convo. He replied others had put forward ideas and my response was that I could not know if he agreed or supported those ideas without him being explicit.
As I have said prior, the other suggestions were very similar to my own which I support. The outline I gave and the others gave are very clear.
It’s all good. You and a small handful of other posters want anyone trying to get into the UK to claim asylum thrown in prison as step 2 (step 1 unilateral withdrawal from convention). The reason being that not all are genuine asylum seekers and are instead economic migrants. That’s your view and I agree this would likely be a good deterrent. I don’t like it and prefer the suggestions I made (note that was a shopping list not a roadmap, maybe some will/won’t work).
So does imprisonment only apply to those without ID?"Anyone entering the country by illegal means should face the consequences of their actions and face immediate jail sentence of 5 years or deportation back to their country of origin, their choice. If they choose jail they will be deported on release. That is step 1, it will become a deterrent. If we get to that position and leave the convention, it would be then a logical step to look at managing safe routes, but not until we have removed the illegal entry problem. Preventing illegal entry with a meaningful deterrent does not impact genuine asylum seekers if they are already in mainland Europe, it is safe, and allowing the deterrent to slow and stop the crossings will give us the time to engineer a solution that is fit for purpose and will not be exploited by criminals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Feisty You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic. Disagreeing is saying 'you're wrong', no? You have put forward alternative suggestions but when pressed you won't go deeper than surface level. How do we know if your ideas can work if we don't know any details? You could level that at every single idea on here put forward by anyone
I disagree that disagreeing is saying you are wronf LOL
Without a doubt immediate imprisonment on arrival in the UK by small boat will be a deterrent but my point is I think there are other things wr could do first.
Sometimes this place is really hard. You exchange ideas and different points of view but some people just want to “win” or score points. Quote tiresome 😵💫
Of course that could be levelled at every idea/argument on here. It would be correct.
You've put your points across whilst complaining that no one else offers alternatives, there been plenty of alternatives offered.
On that point, I'd definitely agree that sometimes it's hard and tiresome on here.
No I asked NotMe what HIS ideas were because up to that point they were light on detail and he and I were having a convo. He replied others had put forward ideas and my response was that I could not know if he agreed or supported those ideas without him being explicit.
As I have said prior, the other suggestions were very similar to my own which I support. The outline I gave and the others gave are very clear.
It’s all good. You and a small handful of other posters want anyone trying to get into the UK to claim asylum thrown in prison as step 2 (step 1 unilateral withdrawal from convention). The reason being that not all are genuine asylum seekers and are instead economic migrants. That’s your view and I agree this would likely be a good deterrent. I don’t like it and prefer the suggestions I made (note that was a shopping list not a roadmap, maybe some will/won’t work).
So does imprisonment only apply to those without ID?
Anyone entering the country by illegal means should face the consequences of their actions and face immediate jail sentence of 5 years or deportation back to their country of origin, their choice. If they choose jail they will be deported on release.
That is step 1, it will become a deterrent.
If we get to that position and leave the convention, it would be then a logical step to look at managing safe routes, but not until we have removed the illegal entry problem.
Preventing illegal entry with a meaningful deterrent does not impact genuine asylum seekers if they are already in mainland Europe, it is safe, and allowing the deterrent to slow and stop the crossings will give us the time to engineer a solution that is fit for purpose and will not be exploited by criminals.
"What if someone flies into the UK on a tourist visa then on arrival at Heathrow claims asylum? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Feisty You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic. Disagreeing is saying 'you're wrong', no? You have put forward alternative suggestions but when pressed you won't go deeper than surface level. How do we know if your ideas can work if we don't know any details? You could level that at every single idea on here put forward by anyone
I disagree that disagreeing is saying you are wronf LOL
Without a doubt immediate imprisonment on arrival in the UK by small boat will be a deterrent but my point is I think there are other things wr could do first.
Sometimes this place is really hard. You exchange ideas and different points of view but some people just want to “win” or score points. Quote tiresome 😵💫
Of course that could be levelled at every idea/argument on here. It would be correct.
You've put your points across whilst complaining that no one else offers alternatives, there been plenty of alternatives offered.
On that point, I'd definitely agree that sometimes it's hard and tiresome on here.
No I asked NotMe what HIS ideas were because up to that point they were light on detail and he and I were having a convo. He replied others had put forward ideas and my response was that I could not know if he agreed or supported those ideas without him being explicit.
As I have said prior, the other suggestions were very similar to my own which I support. The outline I gave and the others gave are very clear.
It’s all good. You and a small handful of other posters want anyone trying to get into the UK to claim asylum thrown in prison as step 2 (step 1 unilateral withdrawal from convention). The reason being that not all are genuine asylum seekers and are instead economic migrants. That’s your view and I agree this would likely be a good deterrent. I don’t like it and prefer the suggestions I made (note that was a shopping list not a roadmap, maybe some will/won’t work).
So does imprisonment only apply to those without ID?
Anyone entering the country by illegal means should face the consequences of their actions and face immediate jail sentence of 5 years or deportation back to their country of origin, their choice. If they choose jail they will be deported on release.
That is step 1, it will become a deterrent.
If we get to that position and leave the convention, it would be then a logical step to look at managing safe routes, but not until we have removed the illegal entry problem.
Preventing illegal entry with a meaningful deterrent does not impact genuine asylum seekers if they are already in mainland Europe, it is safe, and allowing the deterrent to slow and stop the crossings will give us the time to engineer a solution that is fit for purpose and will not be exploited by criminals.
What if someone flies into the UK on a tourist visa then on arrival at Heathrow claims asylum? "What if they don’t? 😂 However, in the what if scenario you added, they would not have entered the country illegally, if they applied for a visa and it was approved. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Feisty You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic. Disagreeing is saying 'you're wrong', no? You have put forward alternative suggestions but when pressed you won't go deeper than surface level. How do we know if your ideas can work if we don't know any details? You could level that at every single idea on here put forward by anyone
I disagree that disagreeing is saying you are wronf LOL
Without a doubt immediate imprisonment on arrival in the UK by small boat will be a deterrent but my point is I think there are other things wr could do first.
Sometimes this place is really hard. You exchange ideas and different points of view but some people just want to “win” or score points. Quote tiresome 😵💫
Of course that could be levelled at every idea/argument on here. It would be correct.
You've put your points across whilst complaining that no one else offers alternatives, there been plenty of alternatives offered.
On that point, I'd definitely agree that sometimes it's hard and tiresome on here.
No I asked NotMe what HIS ideas were because up to that point they were light on detail and he and I were having a convo. He replied others had put forward ideas and my response was that I could not know if he agreed or supported those ideas without him being explicit.
As I have said prior, the other suggestions were very similar to my own which I support. The outline I gave and the others gave are very clear.
It’s all good. You and a small handful of other posters want anyone trying to get into the UK to claim asylum thrown in prison as step 2 (step 1 unilateral withdrawal from convention). The reason being that not all are genuine asylum seekers and are instead economic migrants. That’s your view and I agree this would likely be a good deterrent. I don’t like it and prefer the suggestions I made (note that was a shopping list not a roadmap, maybe some will/won’t work).
So does imprisonment only apply to those without ID?
Anyone entering the country by illegal means should face the consequences of their actions and face immediate jail sentence of 5 years or deportation back to their country of origin, their choice. If they choose jail they will be deported on release.
That is step 1, it will become a deterrent.
If we get to that position and leave the convention, it would be then a logical step to look at managing safe routes, but not until we have removed the illegal entry problem.
Preventing illegal entry with a meaningful deterrent does not impact genuine asylum seekers if they are already in mainland Europe, it is safe, and allowing the deterrent to slow and stop the crossings will give us the time to engineer a solution that is fit for purpose and will not be exploited by criminals.
What if someone flies into the UK on a tourist visa then on arrival at Heathrow claims asylum?
What if they don’t? 😂
However, in the what if scenario you added, they would not have entered the country illegally, if they applied for a visa and it was approved.
"Except it is illegal to apply for a tourist visa in the knowledge that you are intending to enter the UK for any reason other than tourism including to claim asylum. Airlines are required to scrutinise and observe too as they can be held responsible for the costs of returning the person. You cannot travel to the UK with the intention of claiming asylum, you won’t be granted a visa. So the only way to get into the country is via nefarious means. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Feisty You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic. Disagreeing is saying 'you're wrong', no? You have put forward alternative suggestions but when pressed you won't go deeper than surface level. How do we know if your ideas can work if we don't know any details? You could level that at every single idea on here put forward by anyone
I disagree that disagreeing is saying you are wronf LOL
Without a doubt immediate imprisonment on arrival in the UK by small boat will be a deterrent but my point is I think there are other things wr could do first.
Sometimes this place is really hard. You exchange ideas and different points of view but some people just want to “win” or score points. Quote tiresome 😵💫
Of course that could be levelled at every idea/argument on here. It would be correct.
You've put your points across whilst complaining that no one else offers alternatives, there been plenty of alternatives offered.
On that point, I'd definitely agree that sometimes it's hard and tiresome on here.
No I asked NotMe what HIS ideas were because up to that point they were light on detail and he and I were having a convo. He replied others had put forward ideas and my response was that I could not know if he agreed or supported those ideas without him being explicit.
As I have said prior, the other suggestions were very similar to my own which I support. The outline I gave and the others gave are very clear.
It’s all good. You and a small handful of other posters want anyone trying to get into the UK to claim asylum thrown in prison as step 2 (step 1 unilateral withdrawal from convention). The reason being that not all are genuine asylum seekers and are instead economic migrants. That’s your view and I agree this would likely be a good deterrent. I don’t like it and prefer the suggestions I made (note that was a shopping list not a roadmap, maybe some will/won’t work).
So does imprisonment only apply to those without ID?
Anyone entering the country by illegal means should face the consequences of their actions and face immediate jail sentence of 5 years or deportation back to their country of origin, their choice. If they choose jail they will be deported on release.
That is step 1, it will become a deterrent.
If we get to that position and leave the convention, it would be then a logical step to look at managing safe routes, but not until we have removed the illegal entry problem.
Preventing illegal entry with a meaningful deterrent does not impact genuine asylum seekers if they are already in mainland Europe, it is safe, and allowing the deterrent to slow and stop the crossings will give us the time to engineer a solution that is fit for purpose and will not be exploited by criminals.
What if someone flies into the UK on a tourist visa then on arrival at Heathrow claims asylum?
What if they don’t? 😂
However, in the what if scenario you added, they would not have entered the country illegally, if they applied for a visa and it was approved.
Except it is illegal to apply for a tourist visa in the knowledge that you are intending to enter the UK for any reason other than tourism including to claim asylum. Airlines are required to scrutinise and observe too as they can be held responsible for the costs of returning the person. You cannot travel to the UK with the intention of claiming asylum, you won’t be granted a visa. So the only way to get into the country is via nefarious means."Ah I see, now you have highlighted that is illegal it can go on the straight to jail list. Good work | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Feisty You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic. Disagreeing is saying 'you're wrong', no? You have put forward alternative suggestions but when pressed you won't go deeper than surface level. How do we know if your ideas can work if we don't know any details? You could level that at every single idea on here put forward by anyone
I disagree that disagreeing is saying you are wronf LOL
Without a doubt immediate imprisonment on arrival in the UK by small boat will be a deterrent but my point is I think there are other things wr could do first.
Sometimes this place is really hard. You exchange ideas and different points of view but some people just want to “win” or score points. Quote tiresome 😵💫
Of course that could be levelled at every idea/argument on here. It would be correct.
You've put your points across whilst complaining that no one else offers alternatives, there been plenty of alternatives offered.
On that point, I'd definitely agree that sometimes it's hard and tiresome on here.
No I asked NotMe what HIS ideas were because up to that point they were light on detail and he and I were having a convo. He replied others had put forward ideas and my response was that I could not know if he agreed or supported those ideas without him being explicit.
As I have said prior, the other suggestions were very similar to my own which I support. The outline I gave and the others gave are very clear.
It’s all good. You and a small handful of other posters want anyone trying to get into the UK to claim asylum thrown in prison as step 2 (step 1 unilateral withdrawal from convention). The reason being that not all are genuine asylum seekers and are instead economic migrants. That’s your view and I agree this would likely be a good deterrent. I don’t like it and prefer the suggestions I made (note that was a shopping list not a roadmap, maybe some will/won’t work).
So does imprisonment only apply to those without ID?
Anyone entering the country by illegal means should face the consequences of their actions and face immediate jail sentence of 5 years or deportation back to their country of origin, their choice. If they choose jail they will be deported on release.
That is step 1, it will become a deterrent.
If we get to that position and leave the convention, it would be then a logical step to look at managing safe routes, but not until we have removed the illegal entry problem.
Preventing illegal entry with a meaningful deterrent does not impact genuine asylum seekers if they are already in mainland Europe, it is safe, and allowing the deterrent to slow and stop the crossings will give us the time to engineer a solution that is fit for purpose and will not be exploited by criminals.
What if someone flies into the UK on a tourist visa then on arrival at Heathrow claims asylum?
What if they don’t? 😂
However, in the what if scenario you added, they would not have entered the country illegally, if they applied for a visa and it was approved.
Except it is illegal to apply for a tourist visa in the knowledge that you are intending to enter the UK for any reason other than tourism including to claim asylum. Airlines are required to scrutinise and observe too as they can be held responsible for the costs of returning the person. You cannot travel to the UK with the intention of claiming asylum, you won’t be granted a visa. So the only way to get into the country is via nefarious means.
Ah I see, now you have highlighted that is illegal it can go on the straight to jail list.
Good work "What it means is that it is impossible in your scenario for anyone to claim asylum as you have to be in the country to claim it. So your straight to jail approach criminalises everyone including genuine asylum seekers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Feisty You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic. Disagreeing is saying 'you're wrong', no? You have put forward alternative suggestions but when pressed you won't go deeper than surface level. How do we know if your ideas can work if we don't know any details? You could level that at every single idea on here put forward by anyone
I disagree that disagreeing is saying you are wronf LOL
Without a doubt immediate imprisonment on arrival in the UK by small boat will be a deterrent but my point is I think there are other things wr could do first.
Sometimes this place is really hard. You exchange ideas and different points of view but some people just want to “win” or score points. Quote tiresome 😵💫
Of course that could be levelled at every idea/argument on here. It would be correct.
You've put your points across whilst complaining that no one else offers alternatives, there been plenty of alternatives offered.
On that point, I'd definitely agree that sometimes it's hard and tiresome on here.
No I asked NotMe what HIS ideas were because up to that point they were light on detail and he and I were having a convo. He replied others had put forward ideas and my response was that I could not know if he agreed or supported those ideas without him being explicit.
As I have said prior, the other suggestions were very similar to my own which I support. The outline I gave and the others gave are very clear.
It’s all good. You and a small handful of other posters want anyone trying to get into the UK to claim asylum thrown in prison as step 2 (step 1 unilateral withdrawal from convention). The reason being that not all are genuine asylum seekers and are instead economic migrants. That’s your view and I agree this would likely be a good deterrent. I don’t like it and prefer the suggestions I made (note that was a shopping list not a roadmap, maybe some will/won’t work).
So does imprisonment only apply to those without ID?
Anyone entering the country by illegal means should face the consequences of their actions and face immediate jail sentence of 5 years or deportation back to their country of origin, their choice. If they choose jail they will be deported on release.
That is step 1, it will become a deterrent.
If we get to that position and leave the convention, it would be then a logical step to look at managing safe routes, but not until we have removed the illegal entry problem.
Preventing illegal entry with a meaningful deterrent does not impact genuine asylum seekers if they are already in mainland Europe, it is safe, and allowing the deterrent to slow and stop the crossings will give us the time to engineer a solution that is fit for purpose and will not be exploited by criminals.
What if someone flies into the UK on a tourist visa then on arrival at Heathrow claims asylum?
What if they don’t? 😂
However, in the what if scenario you added, they would not have entered the country illegally, if they applied for a visa and it was approved.
Except it is illegal to apply for a tourist visa in the knowledge that you are intending to enter the UK for any reason other than tourism including to claim asylum. Airlines are required to scrutinise and observe too as they can be held responsible for the costs of returning the person. You cannot travel to the UK with the intention of claiming asylum, you won’t be granted a visa. So the only way to get into the country is via nefarious means.
Ah I see, now you have highlighted that is illegal it can go on the straight to jail list.
Good work
What it means is that it is impossible in your scenario for anyone to claim asylum as you have to be in the country to claim it. So your straight to jail approach criminalises everyone including genuine asylum seekers."Oh, I see you missed part of my reply that said this "If we get to that position and leave the convention, it would be then a logical step to look at managing safe routes" It is in this thread betweeen us, if you want to go back through | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Feisty You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic. Disagreeing is saying 'you're wrong', no? You have put forward alternative suggestions but when pressed you won't go deeper than surface level. How do we know if your ideas can work if we don't know any details? You could level that at every single idea on here put forward by anyone
I disagree that disagreeing is saying you are wronf LOL
Without a doubt immediate imprisonment on arrival in the UK by small boat will be a deterrent but my point is I think there are other things wr could do first.
Sometimes this place is really hard. You exchange ideas and different points of view but some people just want to “win” or score points. Quote tiresome 😵💫
Of course that could be levelled at every idea/argument on here. It would be correct.
You've put your points across whilst complaining that no one else offers alternatives, there been plenty of alternatives offered.
On that point, I'd definitely agree that sometimes it's hard and tiresome on here.
No I asked NotMe what HIS ideas were because up to that point they were light on detail and he and I were having a convo. He replied others had put forward ideas and my response was that I could not know if he agreed or supported those ideas without him being explicit.
As I have said prior, the other suggestions were very similar to my own which I support. The outline I gave and the others gave are very clear.
It’s all good. You and a small handful of other posters want anyone trying to get into the UK to claim asylum thrown in prison as step 2 (step 1 unilateral withdrawal from convention). The reason being that not all are genuine asylum seekers and are instead economic migrants. That’s your view and I agree this would likely be a good deterrent. I don’t like it and prefer the suggestions I made (note that was a shopping list not a roadmap, maybe some will/won’t work).
So does imprisonment only apply to those without ID?
Anyone entering the country by illegal means should face the consequences of their actions and face immediate jail sentence of 5 years or deportation back to their country of origin, their choice. If they choose jail they will be deported on release.
That is step 1, it will become a deterrent.
If we get to that position and leave the convention, it would be then a logical step to look at managing safe routes, but not until we have removed the illegal entry problem.
Preventing illegal entry with a meaningful deterrent does not impact genuine asylum seekers if they are already in mainland Europe, it is safe, and allowing the deterrent to slow and stop the crossings will give us the time to engineer a solution that is fit for purpose and will not be exploited by criminals.
What if someone flies into the UK on a tourist visa then on arrival at Heathrow claims asylum?
What if they don’t? 😂
However, in the what if scenario you added, they would not have entered the country illegally, if they applied for a visa and it was approved.
Except it is illegal to apply for a tourist visa in the knowledge that you are intending to enter the UK for any reason other than tourism including to claim asylum. Airlines are required to scrutinise and observe too as they can be held responsible for the costs of returning the person. You cannot travel to the UK with the intention of claiming asylum, you won’t be granted a visa. So the only way to get into the country is via nefarious means.
Ah I see, now you have highlighted that is illegal it can go on the straight to jail list.
Good work
What it means is that it is impossible in your scenario for anyone to claim asylum as you have to be in the country to claim it. So your straight to jail approach criminalises everyone including genuine asylum seekers.
Oh, I see you missed part of my reply that said this "If we get to that position and leave the convention, it would be then a logical step to look at managing safe routes"
It is in this thread betweeen us, if you want to go back through"Why can’t we manage safe routes while remaining part of the convention? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Feisty You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic. Disagreeing is saying 'you're wrong', no? You have put forward alternative suggestions but when pressed you won't go deeper than surface level. How do we know if your ideas can work if we don't know any details? You could level that at every single idea on here put forward by anyone
I disagree that disagreeing is saying you are wronf LOL
Without a doubt immediate imprisonment on arrival in the UK by small boat will be a deterrent but my point is I think there are other things wr could do first.
Sometimes this place is really hard. You exchange ideas and different points of view but some people just want to “win” or score points. Quote tiresome 😵💫
Of course that could be levelled at every idea/argument on here. It would be correct.
You've put your points across whilst complaining that no one else offers alternatives, there been plenty of alternatives offered.
On that point, I'd definitely agree that sometimes it's hard and tiresome on here.
No I asked NotMe what HIS ideas were because up to that point they were light on detail and he and I were having a convo. He replied others had put forward ideas and my response was that I could not know if he agreed or supported those ideas without him being explicit.
As I have said prior, the other suggestions were very similar to my own which I support. The outline I gave and the others gave are very clear.
It’s all good. You and a small handful of other posters want anyone trying to get into the UK to claim asylum thrown in prison as step 2 (step 1 unilateral withdrawal from convention). The reason being that not all are genuine asylum seekers and are instead economic migrants. That’s your view and I agree this would likely be a good deterrent. I don’t like it and prefer the suggestions I made (note that was a shopping list not a roadmap, maybe some will/won’t work).
So does imprisonment only apply to those without ID?
Anyone entering the country by illegal means should face the consequences of their actions and face immediate jail sentence of 5 years or deportation back to their country of origin, their choice. If they choose jail they will be deported on release.
That is step 1, it will become a deterrent.
If we get to that position and leave the convention, it would be then a logical step to look at managing safe routes, but not until we have removed the illegal entry problem.
Preventing illegal entry with a meaningful deterrent does not impact genuine asylum seekers if they are already in mainland Europe, it is safe, and allowing the deterrent to slow and stop the crossings will give us the time to engineer a solution that is fit for purpose and will not be exploited by criminals.
What if someone flies into the UK on a tourist visa then on arrival at Heathrow claims asylum?
What if they don’t? 😂
However, in the what if scenario you added, they would not have entered the country illegally, if they applied for a visa and it was approved.
Except it is illegal to apply for a tourist visa in the knowledge that you are intending to enter the UK for any reason other than tourism including to claim asylum. Airlines are required to scrutinise and observe too as they can be held responsible for the costs of returning the person. You cannot travel to the UK with the intention of claiming asylum, you won’t be granted a visa. So the only way to get into the country is via nefarious means.
Ah I see, now you have highlighted that is illegal it can go on the straight to jail list.
Good work
What it means is that it is impossible in your scenario for anyone to claim asylum as you have to be in the country to claim it. So your straight to jail approach criminalises everyone including genuine asylum seekers.
Oh, I see you missed part of my reply that said this "If we get to that position and leave the convention, it would be then a logical step to look at managing safe routes"
It is in this thread betweeen us, if you want to go back through
Why can’t we manage safe routes while remaining part of the convention?"I'm not going to repeat the whole thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Feisty You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic. Disagreeing is saying 'you're wrong', no? You have put forward alternative suggestions but when pressed you won't go deeper than surface level. How do we know if your ideas can work if we don't know any details? You could level that at every single idea on here put forward by anyone
I disagree that disagreeing is saying you are wronf LOL
Without a doubt immediate imprisonment on arrival in the UK by small boat will be a deterrent but my point is I think there are other things wr could do first.
Sometimes this place is really hard. You exchange ideas and different points of view but some people just want to “win” or score points. Quote tiresome 😵💫
Of course that could be levelled at every idea/argument on here. It would be correct.
You've put your points across whilst complaining that no one else offers alternatives, there been plenty of alternatives offered.
On that point, I'd definitely agree that sometimes it's hard and tiresome on here.
No I asked NotMe what HIS ideas were because up to that point they were light on detail and he and I were having a convo. He replied others had put forward ideas and my response was that I could not know if he agreed or supported those ideas without him being explicit.
As I have said prior, the other suggestions were very similar to my own which I support. The outline I gave and the others gave are very clear.
It’s all good. You and a small handful of other posters want anyone trying to get into the UK to claim asylum thrown in prison as step 2 (step 1 unilateral withdrawal from convention). The reason being that not all are genuine asylum seekers and are instead economic migrants. That’s your view and I agree this would likely be a good deterrent. I don’t like it and prefer the suggestions I made (note that was a shopping list not a roadmap, maybe some will/won’t work).
So does imprisonment only apply to those without ID?
Anyone entering the country by illegal means should face the consequences of their actions and face immediate jail sentence of 5 years or deportation back to their country of origin, their choice. If they choose jail they will be deported on release.
That is step 1, it will become a deterrent.
If we get to that position and leave the convention, it would be then a logical step to look at managing safe routes, but not until we have removed the illegal entry problem.
Preventing illegal entry with a meaningful deterrent does not impact genuine asylum seekers if they are already in mainland Europe, it is safe, and allowing the deterrent to slow and stop the crossings will give us the time to engineer a solution that is fit for purpose and will not be exploited by criminals.
What if someone flies into the UK on a tourist visa then on arrival at Heathrow claims asylum?
What if they don’t? 😂
However, in the what if scenario you added, they would not have entered the country illegally, if they applied for a visa and it was approved.
Except it is illegal to apply for a tourist visa in the knowledge that you are intending to enter the UK for any reason other than tourism including to claim asylum. Airlines are required to scrutinise and observe too as they can be held responsible for the costs of returning the person. You cannot travel to the UK with the intention of claiming asylum, you won’t be granted a visa. So the only way to get into the country is via nefarious means.
Ah I see, now you have highlighted that is illegal it can go on the straight to jail list.
Good work
What it means is that it is impossible in your scenario for anyone to claim asylum as you have to be in the country to claim it. So your straight to jail approach criminalises everyone including genuine asylum seekers.
Oh, I see you missed part of my reply that said this "If we get to that position and leave the convention, it would be then a logical step to look at managing safe routes"
It is in this thread betweeen us, if you want to go back through
Why can’t we manage safe routes while remaining part of the convention?
I'm not going to repeat the whole thread."You seem very opposed to letting foreign people into the UK, I suppose I just don’t understand why a foreigner would be that way. I get that you come from a place with a hard right authoritarian government but has that embedded itself into your psyche so deeply? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@Feisty You spend a lot of time telling us we're wrong so surely we can delve a bit deeper into your your ideas, which I assume are right in your mind. I don’t believe I have said anyone is “wrong” but if I have can you show me where? What I know/thought I have been saying is that I disagree with some of the suggested approaches or have put forward alternative ideas. Doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. I doubt it is as black & white as that as it is a highly complex and emotive topic. Disagreeing is saying 'you're wrong', no? You have put forward alternative suggestions but when pressed you won't go deeper than surface level. How do we know if your ideas can work if we don't know any details? You could level that at every single idea on here put forward by anyone
I disagree that disagreeing is saying you are wronf LOL
Without a doubt immediate imprisonment on arrival in the UK by small boat will be a deterrent but my point is I think there are other things wr could do first.
Sometimes this place is really hard. You exchange ideas and different points of view but some people just want to “win” or score points. Quote tiresome 😵💫
Of course that could be levelled at every idea/argument on here. It would be correct.
You've put your points across whilst complaining that no one else offers alternatives, there been plenty of alternatives offered.
On that point, I'd definitely agree that sometimes it's hard and tiresome on here.
No I asked NotMe what HIS ideas were because up to that point they were light on detail and he and I were having a convo. He replied others had put forward ideas and my response was that I could not know if he agreed or supported those ideas without him being explicit.
As I have said prior, the other suggestions were very similar to my own which I support. The outline I gave and the others gave are very clear.
It’s all good. You and a small handful of other posters want anyone trying to get into the UK to claim asylum thrown in prison as step 2 (step 1 unilateral withdrawal from convention). The reason being that not all are genuine asylum seekers and are instead economic migrants. That’s your view and I agree this would likely be a good deterrent. I don’t like it and prefer the suggestions I made (note that was a shopping list not a roadmap, maybe some will/won’t work).
So does imprisonment only apply to those without ID?
Anyone entering the country by illegal means should face the consequences of their actions and face immediate jail sentence of 5 years or deportation back to their country of origin, their choice. If they choose jail they will be deported on release.
That is step 1, it will become a deterrent.
If we get to that position and leave the convention, it would be then a logical step to look at managing safe routes, but not until we have removed the illegal entry problem.
Preventing illegal entry with a meaningful deterrent does not impact genuine asylum seekers if they are already in mainland Europe, it is safe, and allowing the deterrent to slow and stop the crossings will give us the time to engineer a solution that is fit for purpose and will not be exploited by criminals.
What if someone flies into the UK on a tourist visa then on arrival at Heathrow claims asylum?
What if they don’t? 😂
However, in the what if scenario you added, they would not have entered the country illegally, if they applied for a visa and it was approved.
Except it is illegal to apply for a tourist visa in the knowledge that you are intending to enter the UK for any reason other than tourism including to claim asylum. Airlines are required to scrutinise and observe too as they can be held responsible for the costs of returning the person. You cannot travel to the UK with the intention of claiming asylum, you won’t be granted a visa. So the only way to get into the country is via nefarious means.
Ah I see, now you have highlighted that is illegal it can go on the straight to jail list.
Good work
What it means is that it is impossible in your scenario for anyone to claim asylum as you have to be in the country to claim it. So your straight to jail approach criminalises everyone including genuine asylum seekers.
Oh, I see you missed part of my reply that said this "If we get to that position and leave the convention, it would be then a logical step to look at managing safe routes"
It is in this thread betweeen us, if you want to go back through
Why can’t we manage safe routes while remaining part of the convention?
I'm not going to repeat the whole thread.
You seem very opposed to letting foreign people into the UK, I suppose I just don’t understand why a foreigner would be that way. I get that you come from a place with a hard right authoritarian government but has that embedded itself into your psyche so deeply?"Read the posts again, if you want the shorthand, I'm opposed to people entering the country illegally, like every law abiding person should be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
