The Chronicles of Rishi

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well I'm sick of it. If that makes me Racist, Fascist, Xenophobic, whatever. So be it.

Could that "whatever" be *gulp* a Rejoiner?

Are you sick enough of it yet to want to rejoin the EU so we can send them back to the EU country that they came from? Or is that a bridge - or tunnel - too far?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Are you sick enough of it yet to want to rejoin the EU so we can send them back to the EU country that they came from? Or is that a bridge - or tunnel - too far?

Why are they coming from an EU country in the first place ?

---------- Post added at 17:45 ---------- Previous post was at 17:43 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

Maybe these people are tired of being forced to travel on small boats since they are unable to claim asylum via any other means.

"forced" ?
What prevents them claiming asylum in all the other countries they pass through to get to the channel ?

The Red Cross put together something that explains why they try to get here.

https://www.redcross.org.uk/stories/...ss-the-channel

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Paul

Why are they coming from an EU country in the first place ?

---------- Post added at 17:45 ---------- Previous post was at 17:43 ----------

"forced" ?
What prevents them claiming asylum in all the other countries they pass through to get to the channel ?

Here's the answer to your question:

"Why don't the asylum seekers seek refuge in France or Germany"?

Originally Posted by ianch99

Here's the answer to your question:

No its not, its some twitter post, that doesnt really say anything (other than attack some MP I've not heard of).

Originally Posted by ianch99

Maybe these people are tired of being forced to travel on small boats since they are unable to claim asylum via any other means.

Seems to me its more a case of "unwilling" to claim - not "unable" to claim.

Originally Posted by Hugh

The Red Cross put together something that explains why they try to get here.

Mostly not very compelling reasons.

We should just let in anyone who can speak a bit of English ? I dont think so.

The conditions in other countries are not as good, or the asylum system is more difficult ?
So basically we should just take in everyone because its more difficult to apply elsewhere (or they dont want to) ?

Joining Family ?
Potentially valid, although, how did that family get there ? the same way ?
Here's a thought - get your asylum first, then apply to join your family in the UK.
[ Risking your life on a small boat isnt exactly doing your family any favours, is it ]

The only one on there that is seems valid to me is the "smugglers dictate journeys", this does seem to involve some "forcing".
Its clearly much harder to control, but the French/whoever should be doing more to prevent them being "forced" onto boats, and/or patrolling their own coastline to catch them early. [ of course, they probably dont want to catch them, rather let them go so they become our problem, not theirs ]

Here's a thought - get your asylum first, then apply to join your family in the UK.

The French offered to let the U.K. set up an asylum processing in France - the U.K. Government declined.

Also

https://news.sky.com/story/whats-the...ide%20the%20UK.

You cannot claim asylum from outside the UK.

Seeking asylum is not the same as applying for a visa, which is granted before someone travels to the UK.

Similarly the government's "safe and legal" immigration routes for refugees are different to the asylum seeker system.

Currently the "safe and legal immigration routes" are:

UK Resettlement Scheme - for refugees in camps whose neighbouring countries are at war or there is instability

Community Sponsorship - whereby already resettled refugees are matched with local organisations

Mandate Resettlement Scheme - for refugees who already have a close family member in the UK

Refugee family reunion visas - for immediate relatives of refugees already in the UK

For the year ending September 2022 most refugees who were successfully resettled in the UK were from Syria (56%), Sudan (15%), and Iraq (11%)…

…"Apart from a limited number of Afghans, Ukrainians and people from Hong Kong, there is no legal route for asylum seekers.

"There is no visa application to seek asylum but the government requires that any asylum claim has to be made from inside the UK.

Originally Posted by Hugh

The French offered to let the U.K. set up an asylum processing in France - the U.K. Government declined.

I meant asylum in the country they are in, not the UK.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Paul

I meant asylum in the country they are in, not the UK.

Is there a law that says they have to claim asylum in the country they're in

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Is there a law that says they have to claim asylum in the country they're in

Let's cut to the chase. Do you want undocumented migrants who have deliberately destroyed their ID documents, who might be Albanians who bring their crime with them, who might be ISIS/Alqaeda, etc?

However, I am in favour of a deal with France that stops the boats but enrols UK in a European wide asylum share programme. The problem with the programme will be the calculations of fair shares and what degree of say we have in rules formulation.

Finally, we have to be vigilant. 750 millions (or whatever) from Africa could be eyeing up Europe and the UK especially. What then?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Let's cut to the chase. Do you want undocumented migrants who have deliberately destroyed their ID documents, who might be Albanians who bring their crime with them, who might be ISIS/Alqaeda, etc?

However, I am in favour of a deal with France that stops the boats but enrols UK in a European wide asylum share programme. The problem with the programme will be the calculations of fair shares and what degree of say we have in rules formulation.

Finally, we have to be vigilant. 750 millions (or whatever) from Africa could be eyeing up Europe and the UK especially. What then?

We help deal with the issues that are forcing them to migrate/claim asylum instead of being increasingly insular?
The main reason we have a decent overseas aid budget was for stability in other countries, which is in our interest. Climate change will also be a massive driver to immigration, but we don't really deal with that either. Always short termism, looking no further than the next election.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Let's cut to the chase. Do you want undocumented migrants who have deliberately destroyed their ID documents, who might be Albanians who bring their crime with them, who might be ISIS/Alqaeda, etc?

However, I am in favour of a deal with France that stops the boats but enrols UK in a European wide asylum share programme. The problem with the programme will be the calculations of fair shares and what degree of say we have in rules formulation.

Finally, we have to be vigilant. 750 millions (or whatever) from Africa could be eyeing up Europe and the UK especially. What then?

I'm not in favour of any of that, we were promised that when we left the EU all this crap would stop, not get worse. So now there's three quarters of a billion Africans eyeing up the UK, 10 times the number of Turks that were already on their way here 7 years ago

[1andrew1]

This sounds quite likely to me!

Johansson’s comments will add to the perception that ministers expect the bill to be stalled by legal challenges, and may be a cynical attempt to provoke a row with Labour in the run-up to a general election. Braverman wrote on the front page of the bill that she was unable to say that the provisions were “compatible with the convention rights”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ernational-law

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

We help deal with the issues that are forcing them to migrate/claim asylum instead of being increasingly insular?
The main reason we have a decent overseas aid budget was for stability in other countries, which is in our interest. Climate change will also be a massive driver to immigration, but we don't really deal with that either. Always short termism, looking no further than the next election.

So, you've dodged my question.


---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 21:30 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I'm not in favour of any of that, we were promised that when we left the EU all this crap would stop, not get worse. So now there's three quarters of a billion Africans eyeing up the UK, 10 times the number of Turks that were already on their way here 7 years ago

You've answered my question.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Is there a law that says they have to claim asylum in the country they're in

A law where ? How is that even relevant.
I doubt any country has such a law, why would they.

Asylum is however something all countries are obliged to provide under the Geneva Convention, and the EU (which all these people pass though on the way to the UK) even has its own "Common European Asylum System". So there is no reason for them to flee all the way to the UK, risking their lives (and the lives of others when their boats get into trouble).

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Paul

No its not, its some twitter post, that doesnt really say anything (other than attack some MP I've not heard of)

Then you did not watch the video, or did not understand what was said. She was giving evidence to, it seems, a Select committee. What the hell does it matter what platform is hosting the content?

The UK, as the 5/6th richest nation has an obligation to accept its fair chare of asylum claims. If an individual wishes to claim asylum in the UK, they have every *legal* right to do so.

---------- Post added at 22:05 ---------- Previous post was at 22:03 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Let's cut to the chase. Do you want undocumented migrants who have deliberately destroyed their ID documents, who might be Albanians who bring their crime with them, who might be ISIS/Alqaeda, etc?

However, I am in favour of a deal with France that stops the boats but enrols UK in a European wide asylum share programme. The problem with the programme will be the calculations of fair shares and what degree of say we have in rules formulation.

Finally, we have to be vigilant. 750 millions (or whatever) from Africa could be eyeing up Europe and the UK especially. What then?

You seem to overdoing the dog whistling tonight? Best check under the bed!