Britain outside the EU

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Still obsessed I see.

Yes, I do support the UK taking its fair share of Asylum Seekers. I am surprised you don't.

I see you've dodged the question because you've ignored the risk of ISIS type terrorists that I flagged.

"Fair share" is one thing; undocumented id another and is not evidence of good faith by those migrants who have thrown away their documents.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

If they are seeking asylum why do they end up here? the rule is you seek asylum in the first safe country. They are breaking the rules leaving France and therefore are no longer asylum seekers

Originally Posted by BenMcr

No it's not as I posted earlier.

Ben is right, asylum seekers can claim asylum in any country they eventually reach.

The trouble is, some of those countries now have armed forces and barbed wire in place to stop them (the humanitarian EU LMAO ), or a 20 mile stretch of dangerous water to get across.

Stop making the UK attractive to them, and they'll stop coming.

I don't understand why we don't allow Asylum seekers to apply from abroad. The current system incentives people to make the crossing.

Other people who may not be refugees or have been lied about how the process works would still try to make the crossing but it'll surely be easier for us to deal with those people if we took out the ones who will, eventually, be granted Asylum anyway.

[nomadking]

They are NOT asylum seekers.
They have travelled VERY long distances completely safely, not only through the country they are supposed to be fleeing from, but into and through many other countries which are also supposed to be too dangerous.

---------- Post added at 20:57 ---------- Previous post was at 20:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't understand why we don't allow Asylum seekers to apply from abroad. The current system incentives people to make the crossing.

Other people who may not be refugees or have been lied about how the process works would still try to make the crossing but it'll surely be easier for us to deal with those people if we took out the ones who will, eventually, be granted Asylum anyway.

Makes no difference. If they are actually turned down, they come anyway.
Eg Family living safely in Turkey with a house and a job, but want to go to Canada, who turn them down. Next thing it's "dinghy time" and some of the family drowning. The survivor gets let into Canada anyway. How is that a deterrent to drownings?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't understand why we don't allow Asylum seekers to apply from abroad. The current system incentives people to make the crossing.

Other people who may not be refugees or have been lied about how the process works would still try to make the crossing but it'll surely be easier for us to deal with those people if we took out the ones who will, eventually, be granted Asylum anyway.

What happens to these people while the long application process plays out? The initial decision can be up to 1 year or even longer.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

What happens to these people while the long application process plays out? The initial decision can be up to 1 year or even longer.

Is that a reason for letting them in? Surely under that scenario, we would only allow people into the UK who are granted asylum.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Is that a reason for letting them in? Surely under that scenario, we would only allow people into the UK who are granted asylum.

You are missing the point: the UK will have to build & staff a centre in a 3rd country and also convince/pay said country to house/feed/etc. these people while they wait. That is a big ask ..

[Carth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

What happens to these people while the long application process plays out? The initial decision can be up to 1 year or even longer.

I'd imagine many of them just vanish into the general population, probably make contact with 'wrong uns' and work cash in hand or steal to meet their needs.

Just a guess like, so not gonna bother posting links n stuff


edit: aah sorry, didn't read it right, thought you meant those already here. . . point still stands though

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You are missing the point: the UK will have to build & staff a centre in a 3rd country and also convince/pay said country to house/feed/etc. these people while they wait. That is a big ask ..

Good idea.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Good idea.

when he says 'build & staff a center', it will probably have to be on the size of Milton Keynes

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Carth

when he says 'build & staff a center', it will probably have to be on the size of Milton Keynes

Who cares? As long as it's done elsewhere - which will never happen, of course.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

If they are seeking asylum why do they end up here? the rule is you seek asylum in the first safe country. They are breaking the rules leaving France and therefore are no longer asylum seekers

Since we left the EU, we can no longer do this. Nor can we access the Europol database...which is great news for the people-smugglers and not-so-great news for our hard-pressed Police and Immigration services
http://news.sky.com/story/has-brexit...ation-12477985.

[nomadking]

Link

INTERPOL has 195 member countries, making us the world's largest police organization. They work together and with the General Secretariat to share data related to police investigations.

And the UK is one of them.
Being part of the EU didn't make much of a difference.

According to the Migration Observatory, in the five-year period, 2016 to 2020, around 194,000 people applied for asylum in the UK - while there were only around 1,250 Dublin transfers out of the country.

Being part of the EU hasn't helped the French in stopping them from entering France.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Link

And the UK is one of them.
Being part of the EU didn't make much of a difference.

Being part of the EU hasn't helped the French in stopping them from entering France.

Yes, the Europol database loss (thanks for spotting typo) is more important than the loss of the Dublin Agreement per the Sky News article.
The Dublin Agreement doesn't prevent people entering a country, it's about repatriation when they do enter it.