|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 24, 2024 19:20:42 GMT
France must be genuinely awful then if they don't feel safe enough to apply for asylum there? They need a UN Special Rapporteur to write a strongly worded statement about their society and condemn the populous. That'll make them think twice. I don't think it's as bad as that. In 2023 France received 142,500 Asylum Applications In 2023 UK received 84,435 Asylum Applications or just under 60% of France There are all sorts of reasons Asylum Seekers want to claim Asylum in a particular Country, Language, Family ties, Colonial ties etc Mind you , France is over twice as big as the UK in area, perhaps they should take twice as many. The UK Population is much more densely concentrated into smaller connurbations. As immigration is good for countries perhaps it would be advantageous for France to build a few New Towns in the countryside to take advantage. Lovely Jubbly, Everyone's a winner
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 24, 2024 19:59:22 GMT
Yes, if an Asylum seeker from any Country seeks protection in UK and that claim is proved to be genuine based on the criteria then Yes again UK is obliged to give them Leave to Remain. That is if UK wants to abide by its Treaty Obligations under UNHCR Yes in this case the US would be obliged to accept back the failed Asylum Seeker I know you haven't asked but I'll expand. The problem becomes when an Asylum Seeker Application from someone say from Afghanistan or Syria etc fails there is no way the UK would send them back because most likely by seeking Asylum they have put themselves in danger. I'm quite convinced that this will be one of the challenges we will se in UK Courts when individuals are identified for deportation to Rwanda UK has changed the law to say if you come to UK by "irregular" means i.e. by Boat we declare you are illegal and won't even review an application from you to see if you have a legitimate claim. From the Rwanda side the challenge will be based on Refoulment which is sending an Asylum Seeker back to where they came from knowing they will be in danger. This is precisely what happened when Israel offshored Asylum Seekers to Rwanda and the scheme collapsed Hope I've answered your question finally Thanks Wannabee I don't support the Rwanda thing at all, the whole concept seems ridiculous to me. I agree But on your last paragraph, the policy on " irregular " means, where is thst laid out?( I AM NOT DOUBTING YOU.....I just want to read it)...Also ( not judt for the Uk) if the " original" country refuses to take the person back, what then? The Illegal Migration Act 2023 www.gov.uk/government/collections/illegal-migration-bill
As an aside , suppsing an " accepting" country says " We are really sympathetic with your case, which we believe is genuine, but unfortunately for our domestic reasons, we don't think we can do anymore ( irrespective of whether anyone thinks differently) what then? Governments/Countries can make decisions but an individual can challenge the legality of the decision in the Courts which happened with the original Structure of the Rwanda Deal which the Supreme Court said was illegal under UK Law.
At the end of the Day it comes down to whether Countries respect Domestic and International Laws they have signed up to.
Also what is the situation with a clear bogus claim , if the originating country refuses to take the asylum seeker back? In this case, assuming the refusing Country has signed up to UNHCR, it wouldn't apply if they hadn't, then the refusing Country would be in Breach of UNHCR as UK would be if they didn't comply with UNHCR
The damage to a Country is largely reputational for instance the only Countries who are not signed up to ECHR are Russia and Belarus
In this case the UK would be entitled to detain the failed Asylum Seeker until the refusing Country accepted them.
I've never known of such a case mind
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 24, 2024 20:09:45 GMT
Thanks Wannabee I don't support the Rwanda thing at all, the whole concept seems ridiculous to me. I agree But on your last paragraph, the policy on " irregular " means, where is thst laid out?( I AM NOT DOUBTING YOU.....I just want to read it)...Also ( not judt for the Uk) if the " original" country refuses to take the person back, what then? The Illegal Migration Act 2023 www.gov.uk/government/collections/illegal-migration-bill
As an aside , suppsing an " accepting" country says " We are really sympathetic with your case, which we believe is genuine, but unfortunately for our domestic reasons, we don't think we can do anymore ( irrespective of whether anyone thinks differently) what then? Governments/Countries can make decisions but an individual can challenge the legality of the decision in the Courts which happened with the original Structure of the Rwanda Deal which the Supreme Court said was illegal under UK Law.
At the end of the Day it comes down to whether Countries respect Domestic and International Laws they have signed up to.
Also what is the situation with a clear bogus claim , if the originating country refuses to take the asylum seeker back? In this case, assuming the refusing Country has signed up to UNHCR, it wouldn't apply if they hadn't, then the refusing Country would be in Breach of UNHCR as UK would be if they didn't comply with UNHCR
The damage to a Country is largely reputational for instance the only Countries who are not signed up to ECHR are Russia and Belarus
In this case the UK would be entitled to detain the failed Asylum Seeker until the refusing Country accepted them.
I've never known of such a case mind
Thanks for your answer Wannabee. In respect of the The Illegal Migration Act 2023 ... does " arrive here illegally " mean the means by which someone arrives in the UK ( What is a " legal" way , realistically, if the intention is to get here and then claim asylum....illegal by deception?) Or someone whose application for asylum is deemed a failure/ illegal? Is a country expected to accept an endless flow of immigrants....if that number reaches, say, 10 m in 10 years Or 25m in 20 years?
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Apr 24, 2024 20:22:30 GMT
Thanks for your answer Wannabee. In reapext of the The Illegal Migration Act 2023 ... does " arrive here illegally " mean the means by which someone arrives in the UK ( What is a " legal" way , realistically, if the intention is to get here and then claim asylum....illegal by deception?) Or someone whose application for asylum is deemed a dalure/ illegal? Is a country expected to accept an endless flow of immigrants....if that number reaches, say, 10 m in 10 years Or 25m in 20 years? You mean that's not the plan?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 24, 2024 21:01:09 GMT
Thanks for your answer Wannabee. In reapext of the The Illegal Migration Act 2023 ... does " arrive here illegally " mean the means by which someone arrives in the UK ( What is a " legal" way , realistically, if the intention is to get here and then claim asylum....illegal by deception?) Or someone whose application for asylum is deemed a dalure/ illegal? Is a country expected to accept an endless flow of immigrants....if that number reaches, say, 10 m in 10 years Or 25m in 20 years? To comply with its obligations under ECHR UK was obliged to review an Asylum Seekers claim and much to its chagrin when they were eventually processed about 70% had their application granted rising to about 85% on appeal What the Illegal Migration Act 2023 says if you arrive by "irregular" means i.e. by Boat we consider you illegal and won't even review an application from you. Arrival in UK by Air or Ferry and claiming Asylum on arrival is not covered by the Act but if it happens it is very rare as the Airlines and Ferry Companies can suffer very heavy Financial Penalties if they board someone without a Valid Passport and Visa. A second line of defence is when arriving by Air or Ferry they will face UK Immigration actually if by Ferry in France. Your last Paragraph opens up a whole different complex Global question.Whether you subscribe to Global Warming if it occurs there will be many areas of the World Uninhabitable or at least unable to sustain life or be submerged. 90% of Refugees end up in neighbouring Countries the remainder have the Financial means to be mobile and are fitter. Sudan is currently in Civil War with an estimated at least 5 Million People in danger of Famine. How many of those will or are able to be mobile, wouldn't you? Migration is not a problem UK can fix on their own. When conflicts occur like in Ukraine and Mid East the West pick a side and declare enduring support to their favourite as if the other side wins it would amount to an existential threat. Migration and its causes needs to be treated with the same commitment and urgency. It's disengenuous at a minimum for UK to actively Recruit Doctors, Nurses, Carers, Skilled Workers and Paying Students from Developing Countries making the situation worse in those Countries while saying to their fellow Citizens you're not welcome. It smacks too much like Natural Selection for my liking There are no easy solutions but equally I don't see a collective multilayered global commitment to finding one. Citizens are not foolish but are treated as such and in the absence of serious attempts to tackle the problem equitably and fairly causes friction and division Ridiculous tinkering around the edges to grubbily gain a few Votes fools no-one
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 24, 2024 21:38:51 GMT
Thanks for your answer Wannabee. In reapext of the The Illegal Migration Act 2023 ... does " arrive here illegally " mean the means by which someone arrives in the UK ( What is a " legal" way , realistically, if the intention is to get here and then claim asylum....illegal by deception?) Or someone whose application for asylum is deemed a dalure/ illegal? Is a country expected to accept an endless flow of immigrants....if that number reaches, say, 10 m in 10 years Or 25m in 20 years? To comply with its obligations under ECHR UK was obliged to review an Asylum Seekers claim and much to its chagrin when they were eventually processed about 70% had their application granted rising to about 85% on appeal What the Illegal Migration Act 2023 says if you arrive by "irregular" means i.e. by Boat we consider you illegal and won't even review an application from you. Arrival in UK by Air or Ferry and claiming Asylum on arrival is not covered by the Act but if it happens it is very rare as the Airlines and Ferry Companies can suffer very heavy Financial Penalties if they board someone without a Valid Passport and Visa. A second line of defence is when arriving by Air or Ferry they will face UK Immigration actually if by Ferry in France. Your last Paragraph opens up a whole different complex Global question.Whether you subscribe to Global Warming if it occurs there will be many areas of the World Uninhabitable or at least unable to sustain life or be submerged. 90% of Refugees end up in neighbouring Countries the remainder have the Financial means to be mobile and are fitter. Sudan is currently in Civil War with an estimated at least 5 Million People in danger of Famine. How many of those will or are able to be mobile, wouldn't you? Migration is not a problem UK can fix on their own. When conflicts occur like in Ukraine and Mid East the West pick a side and declare enduring support to their favourite as if the other side wins it would amount to an existential threat. Migration and its causes needs to be treated with the same commitment and urgency. It's disengenuous at a minimum for UK to actively Recruit Doctors, Nurses, Carers, Skilled Workers and Paying Students from Developing Countries making the situation worse in those Countries while saying to their fellow Citizens you're not welcome. It smacks too much like Natural Selection for my liking There are no easy solutions but equally I don't see a collective multilayered global commitment to finding one. Citizens are not foolish but are treated as such and in the absence of serious attempts to tackle the problem equitably and fairly causes friction and division Ridiculous tinkering around the edges to grubbily gain a few Votes fools no-one Does the Act actually say " by Boat we consider you illegal and won't even review an application from you?" Does it stipulate Legal means? I would not blame anyone for trying to gain a better life for their family, but do the examples you give fall within the current concept and understanding of asylum ie movement in respect of global warming or even famine? ... obviously an important, but different issue. Isn't the influx of great numbers year in year out possibly an unmanageable issue for the receiving country or is that not an issue?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 24, 2024 22:11:52 GMT
To comply with its obligations under ECHR UK was obliged to review an Asylum Seekers claim and much to its chagrin when they were eventually processed about 70% had their application granted rising to about 85% on appeal What the Illegal Migration Act 2023 says if you arrive by "irregular" means i.e. by Boat we consider you illegal and won't even review an application from you. Arrival in UK by Air or Ferry and claiming Asylum on arrival is not covered by the Act but if it happens it is very rare as the Airlines and Ferry Companies can suffer very heavy Financial Penalties if they board someone without a Valid Passport and Visa. A second line of defence is when arriving by Air or Ferry they will face UK Immigration actually if by Ferry in France. Your last Paragraph opens up a whole different complex Global question.Whether you subscribe to Global Warming if it occurs there will be many areas of the World Uninhabitable or at least unable to sustain life or be submerged. 90% of Refugees end up in neighbouring Countries the remainder have the Financial means to be mobile and are fitter. Sudan is currently in Civil War with an estimated at least 5 Million People in danger of Famine. How many of those will or are able to be mobile, wouldn't you? Migration is not a problem UK can fix on their own. When conflicts occur like in Ukraine and Mid East the West pick a side and declare enduring support to their favourite as if the other side wins it would amount to an existential threat. Migration and its causes needs to be treated with the same commitment and urgency. It's disengenuous at a minimum for UK to actively Recruit Doctors, Nurses, Carers, Skilled Workers and Paying Students from Developing Countries making the situation worse in those Countries while saying to their fellow Citizens you're not welcome. It smacks too much like Natural Selection for my liking There are no easy solutions but equally I don't see a collective multilayered global commitment to finding one. Citizens are not foolish but are treated as such and in the absence of serious attempts to tackle the problem equitably and fairly causes friction and division Ridiculous tinkering around the edges to grubbily gain a few Votes fools no-one Does the Act actually say " by Boat we consider you illegal and won't even review an application from you?" Does it stipulate Legal means? Yes it says so explicitly in the link I gave youI would not blame anyone for trying to gain a better life for their family, but do the examples you give fall within the current concept and understanding of asylum ie movement in respect of global warming or even famine? . No it doesn't under UNHCR but that doesn't mean people won't seek Asylum from Famine. What will receiving countries do, return them to a Famine ravaged Country? .. obviously an important, but different issue. Isn't the influx of great numbers year in year out possibly an unmanageable issue for the receiving country or is that not an issue? Of course it's an issue for the receiving Country which in my opinion can only be addressed collectively. People migrating from South America is not an issue for Europe, likewise people migrating from Afghanistan is not an issue for US although it can easily be argued that they are one of the Major causes of the problem. Therefore it's quite clear which Countries should collaborate Unless you fix the problem at source as the reason why people migrate your pissing in the wind. People generally don't want to migrate which is why 90% migrate to a neighbouring. More than 6.5 Million Ukrainian's are Refugees more than 50% of Ukraine Refugees are in Poland another 30% are in Germany because they don't want to be in UK or elsewhere but actually in Ukraine which is unsafe.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 24, 2024 22:15:19 GMT
Does the Act actually say " by Boat we consider you illegal and won't even review an application from you?" Does it stipulate Legal means? Yes it says so explicitly in the link I gave youI would not blame anyone for trying to gain a better life for their family, but do the examples you give fall within the current concept and understanding of asylum ie movement in respect of global warming or even famine? . No it doesn't under UNHCR but that doesn't mean people won't seek Asylum from Famine. What will receiving countries do, return them to a Famine ravaged Country? .. obviously an important, but different issue. Isn't the influx of great numbers year in year out possibly an unmanageable issue for the receiving country or is that not an issue? Of course it's an issue for the receiving Country which in my opinion can only be addressed collectively. People migrating from South America is not an issue for Europe, likewise people migrating from Afghanistan is not an issue for US although it can easily be argued that they are one of the Major causes of the problem. Therefore it's quite clear which Countries should collaborate Unless you fix the problem at source as the reason why people migrate your pissing in the wind. People generally don't want to migrate which is why 90% migrate to a neighbouring. More than 6.5 Million Ukrainian's are Refugees more than 50% of Ukraine Refugees are in Poland another 30% are in Germany because they don't want to be in UK or elsewhere but actually in Ukraine which is unsafe.
The EU seems to want to limit the number of migrants coming into the " bloc" www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/20/european-union-reaches-agreement-on-reforming-migration-rulesThe European Union has reached an agreement on reforms designed to share the cost of hosting migrants and refugees, and limit the numbers of people coming in to the bloc after years of discussion on how to overhaul its outdated asylum rules. Dozens of refugee rights groups have said the deal will create a “cruel system” that is unworkable and will cause what would amount to prison camps at the EU’s borders. .............. France passes tough immigration bill amid Macron party rebellion The French seem to be introducing quotas www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/20/france-passes-tough-immigration-bill-amid-macron-party-rebellion?traffic_source=KeepReading&_gl=1*1r91zxj*_ga*SmlUd0EwUHZ5UGppNE5mM2wzekdNc1F6NWZybnJDNUtheVJ3Y1VEOFZiR2RTbEh1RWhtdUFZOGtJaHJUYURPeQ.. Pressure from the right saw the government agree to water down regulations on residency permits while delaying migrants’ access to welfare benefits – including for children and housing – by several years. The amendments also introduce migration quotas, make it harder for migrants’ children to become French, and say that dual nationals sentenced for serious crimes against the police could be stripped of their French nationality
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 24, 2024 22:20:15 GMT
Thanks for your answer Wannabee. In respect of the The Illegal Migration Act 2023 ... does " arrive here illegally " mean the means by which someone arrives in the UK ( What is a " legal" way , realistically, if the intention is to get here and then claim asylum....illegal by deception?) Or someone whose application for asylum is deemed a failure/ illegal? Is a country expected to accept an endless flow of immigrants....if that number reaches, say, 10 m in 10 years Or 25m in 20 years?
Just to add to wannabee's excellent answers ... your question above, goes to the very heart of the current issue.
That being, for the vast majority of asylum seekers, there is no longer any way for them to arrive on UK shores legally. The Government has to all intent and purposes, removed the routes previously available to asylum seekers, save for those from the Ukraine and Hong Kong and theoretically (although in practice not) Afghanistan.
The only way you can apply for asylum in the UK, is if you present yourself in person on British soil, however, now if you arrive on British soil without a visa, then you are deemed to be arriving here illegally and thus your application won't even be considered. So, even if you are a genuine asylum seeker, as there is no other way to reach Britain to have your case considered but by arriving by small boat, your case will never be heard.
The UK is essentially telling the world, that it will no longer consider applications from any asylum seekers (save for the ones mentioned previously), which is a violation of international human rights law.
97% of asylum seekers from Eritrea and Afghanistan were previously granted asylum in the UK, as we recognised that their cases were indeed genuine, however, now, those cases won't even get to be heard.
The French have offered to house UK immigration centres in France, so that asylum seekers can be processed and have their application heard, BEFORE setting off across the channel on a small boat but even though this would dramatically decrease the amount of small boat crossings of the channel, the British government is simply not interested in working with the French to this end because it isn't interested in granting asylum to anybody at all.
This is worth a 2 minute watch ...
wannabee, please feel free to amend any part I may have misrepresented. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 24, 2024 23:09:10 GMT
Forgive my slow replies BigJohn I always post on my phone with Fat Fingers and earlier I was distracted by the footie A lot of European Countries are grappling with this issue not least because it's Citizens are not happy with how they are dealing with it The vast majority of UK people are fair minded but the antics of the present Government give the impression that UK is being singled out to carry the burden of Migrants, in my opinion it's not Earlier Ian posted what I took to be a slightly whimsical view and I replied with a sardonic comment. It's not a numbers games it's real people and some unfortunately lose their lives. You replied to Ian and my exchange that the Ratio of Migrants France accepts versus UK relative to its land mass maybe is about right or perhaps even more in France. It's a valid discussion but UK isn't having it. The discussion in EU is about Migrant burden sharing but no discussion on its causes. Of course there is always a get out clause if you don't share the burden, you pay money to those that do. It's just moving people around on a chess board Fun Fact in the last 3 months 80% of Asylum Seekers in Ireland were previously in Britain and made their way to Belfast Air/Ferry and got a bus to Dublin. If individual Countries believe they can individually solve the Migrant problem they are deluded. If individual Countries believe they can individually solve the causes of Migration they are deluded I'm loath to open another avenue of discussion but Countries like Russia weaponise and facilitate Migrants passage to Europe to cause disruption. Countries like Turkey and Morrocco earn money and hold EU to ransom by holding Millions of Migrants in Refugee Camps. The EU can then close its eyes as to the conditions they are being held. Turkey and Morrocco then turn on and off the tap when it comes to negotiating their fee. It's nothing more than Human Trafficking There are no good guys or good answers in this equation. Early migrants to US from Europe and South America went because the Streets were paved with Gold. The internet has awoken a whole new Population to immeasurable treasure. The fact that as you call it the receiving Countries Citizens know it to be Bullshit the positive message prevails and in relative terms it's true. My generic solution will be I'll received, raise the standard of living to a level that people don't want or need to migrate. The US as a Sheriff is about as incompetent and corrupt as the one in Blazing Saddles, but less amusing. The new Sheriff in Town may come from the East unless the old Whore Europe decides to make a stand
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 25, 2024 10:51:00 GMT
Kind of speaks for itself ...
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Apr 25, 2024 10:55:06 GMT
Kind of speaks for itself ... Never been more ashamed of the "people" currently governing this country. Absolutely fucking appalling.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 25, 2024 11:46:48 GMT
Kind of speaks for itself ... Never been more ashamed of the "people" currently governing this country. Absolutely fucking appalling. Hanging on to power for power's sake. No one with any ability to give the country any direction whatsoever Where's Oliver Cromwell when you need him.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Apr 25, 2024 12:14:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Apr 25, 2024 13:34:18 GMT
I’m in the UK in September. I cannot wait to see the game changing effect this action has. An action designed a minimal % of a backlog each year. A backlog that still represents about a minimal % of total migration into the UK. What an amazing achievement by the Govt. Now people know that they have a fraction of a % chance being deported to Rwanda, they won’t arrive anymore. Before, all they had to worry about was death by drowning, and let’s face it, they can prep for that by doing a few laps down the local pool beforehand.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 25, 2024 14:52:04 GMT
Forgive my slow replies BigJohn I always post on my phone with Fat Fingers and earlier I was distracted by the footie A lot of European Countries are grappling with this issue not least because it's Citizens are not happy with how they are dealing with it The vast majority of UK people are fair minded but the antics of the present Government give the impression that UK is being singled out to carry the burden of Migrants, in my opinion it's not Earlier Ian posted what I took to be a slightly whimsical view and I replied with a sardonic comment. It's not a numbers games it's real people and some unfortunately lose their lives. You replied to Ian and my exchange that the Ratio of Migrants France accepts versus UK relative to its land mass maybe is about right or perhaps even more in France. It's a valid discussion but UK isn't having it. The discussion in EU is about Migrant burden sharing but no discussion on its causes. Of course there is always a get out clause if you don't share the burden, you pay money to those that do. It's just moving people around on a chess board Fun Fact in the last 3 months 80% of Asylum Seekers in Ireland were previously in Britain and made their way to Belfast Air/Ferry and got a bus to Dublin. If individual Countries believe they can individually solve the Migrant problem they are deluded. If individual Countries believe they can individually solve the causes of Migration they are deluded I'm loath to open another avenue of discussion but Countries like Russia weaponise and facilitate Migrants passage to Europe to cause disruption. Countries like Turkey and Morrocco earn money and hold EU to ransom by holding Millions of Migrants in Refugee Camps. The EU can then close its eyes as to the conditions they are being held. Turkey and Morrocco then turn on and off the tap when it comes to negotiating their fee. It's nothing more than Human Trafficking There are no good guys or good answers in this equation. Early migrants to US from Europe and South America went because the Streets were paved with Gold. The internet has awoken a whole new Population to immeasurable treasure. The fact that as you call it the receiving Countries Citizens know it to be Bullshit the positive message prevails and in relative terms it's true. My generic solution will be I'll received, raise the standard of living to a level that people don't want or need to migrate. The US as a Sheriff is about as incompetent and corrupt as the one in Blazing Saddles, but less amusing. The new Sheriff in Town may come from the East unless the old Whore Europe decides to make a stand I agree with most of that Wannabee. It sometimes seems to me thst posters on here don't like to have ( even a partial( if that isn't an oxymoron)) consensus but it seems to me that .....going back to the thread title, All( most?) countries want to control immigration , it is an issue across the Western world, USA, Italy, Greece , the EU bloc, Malta, the UK, Germany and France( not to mention Turkey ( which I have now mentioned ) and the Middle East.....plus parts of Africa etc. As hard as it is to accept these countries do seem to want to restrict numbers. I don't think this means that people don't care.....I can fully understand and have every sympathy for anyone who wants a better life for themselves and their families....In an ideal world ( which clearly this isn't) I agree with your last paragraph that part of the solution is to try to help those migrating in their own countries.....I don't think there will be any will to do so. As you say countries do need to genuinely cooperate. Where we don't have an answer seems to be the whether any country may reach a point of saying " we want to help but for ( a variety of reasons) we don't feel we can......obviously this last statement will be open to dispute.....but actually these types of decisions are made daily by each of us individually and collectively.....eg we only limit the actual help we give to the homeless/ Street sleepers or the ill.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 25, 2024 14:56:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 25, 2024 15:23:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Apr 25, 2024 15:37:03 GMT
Makes you wonder exactly how many more of these mad bastards are roaming the streets. But I know full well there's plenty more. What an absolute piece of shit he is. Hopefully there'll be no soft bastard fighting for his right to remain in this country. Fly him back from whence he came and kick him out mid air, minus a parachute.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Apr 25, 2024 15:50:11 GMT
Forgive my slow replies BigJohn I always post on my phone with Fat Fingers and earlier I was distracted by the footie A lot of European Countries are grappling with this issue not least because it's Citizens are not happy with how they are dealing with it The vast majority of UK people are fair minded but the antics of the present Government give the impression that UK is being singled out to carry the burden of Migrants, in my opinion it's not Earlier Ian posted what I took to be a slightly whimsical view and I replied with a sardonic comment. It's not a numbers games it's real people and some unfortunately lose their lives. You replied to Ian and my exchange that the Ratio of Migrants France accepts versus UK relative to its land mass maybe is about right or perhaps even more in France. It's a valid discussion but UK isn't having it. The discussion in EU is about Migrant burden sharing but no discussion on its causes. Of course there is always a get out clause if you don't share the burden, you pay money to those that do. It's just moving people around on a chess board Fun Fact in the last 3 months 80% of Asylum Seekers in Ireland were previously in Britain and made their way to Belfast Air/Ferry and got a bus to Dublin. If individual Countries believe they can individually solve the Migrant problem they are deluded. If individual Countries believe they can individually solve the causes of Migration they are deluded I'm loath to open another avenue of discussion but Countries like Russia weaponise and facilitate Migrants passage to Europe to cause disruption. Countries like Turkey and Morrocco earn money and hold EU to ransom by holding Millions of Migrants in Refugee Camps. The EU can then close its eyes as to the conditions they are being held. Turkey and Morrocco then turn on and off the tap when it comes to negotiating their fee. It's nothing more than Human Trafficking There are no good guys or good answers in this equation. Early migrants to US from Europe and South America went because the Streets were paved with Gold. The internet has awoken a whole new Population to immeasurable treasure. The fact that as you call it the receiving Countries Citizens know it to be Bullshit the positive message prevails and in relative terms it's true. My generic solution will be I'll received, raise the standard of living to a level that people don't want or need to migrate. The US as a Sheriff is about as incompetent and corrupt as the one in Blazing Saddles, but less amusing. The new Sheriff in Town may come from the East unless the old Whore Europe decides to make a stand I agree with most of that Wannabee. It sometimes seems to me thst posters on here don't like to have ( even a partial( if thst isn't an oxymoron)) consensus but it seems to me that .....going back to the thread title, All( most?) countries want to control immigration , it is an issue across the Western world, USA, Italy, Greece , the EU bloc, Malta, the UK, Germany and France( not to mention Turkey ( which I have now mentioned ) and the Middle East.....plus parts of Africa etc. As hard as it is to accept these countries do seem to want to restrict numbers. I don't think this means that people don't care.....I can fully understand and have every sympathy for anyone who wants a better life for themselves and their families....In an ideal world ( which clearly this isn't) I agree with your last paragraph that part of the solution is to try to help those migrating in their own countries.....I don't think there will be any will to do so. As you say countries do need to genuinely cooperate. Where we don't have an answer seems to be the whether any country may reach a point of saying " we want to help but for ( a variety of reasons) we don't feel we can......obviously this last statement will be open to dispute.....but actually these types of decisions are made daily by each of us individually and collectively.....eg we only limit the actual help we give to the homeless/ Street sleepers or the ill. It was a tongue in cheek comment I made but I wondered if anyone knew why. France refuse approximately 2/3rds of asylum applications (142,000ish applications made in 2023), when they fail they are no longer allowed to stay in French territory. Apparently asylum seekers are 3 times more likely to have a claim accepted in the UK than France and it's this, along with the permissive nature towards applicants - by comparison to France - that the French are critical of as causing the demand to cross the channel. Data I read from a French Quango says that apparently during the two years that the asylum request takes [to process], asylum seekers don't have access to anything: no French classes, no financial help, and no right to work. Until they get an address in France, they're not allowed to access the healthcare system either. Personally I think there needs to be clear explanation made to anyone entering any other country as to the expectations on them if their intent is to settle there. It's not about that country bending to them, it's about their offer to that country. I've seen it with people who have moved here from all over the world for work. Their kids are educated here, they get involved and don't close themselves off from the community they've joined. In those circumstances it's enriching for all parties and a privilege to develop a relationship with people you wouldn't normally have the opportunity to meet. You get to learn an awful lot, good and bad, about other people and their attitudes that way.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 25, 2024 16:03:43 GMT
I agree with most of that Wannabee. It sometimes seems to me thst posters on here don't like to have ( even a partial( if thst isn't an oxymoron)) consensus but it seems to me that .....going back to the thread title, All( most?) countries want to control immigration , it is an issue across the Western world, USA, Italy, Greece , the EU bloc, Malta, the UK, Germany and France( not to mention Turkey ( which I have now mentioned ) and the Middle East.....plus parts of Africa etc. As hard as it is to accept these countries do seem to want to restrict numbers. I don't think this means that people don't care.....I can fully understand and have every sympathy for anyone who wants a better life for themselves and their families....In an ideal world ( which clearly this isn't) I agree with your last paragraph that part of the solution is to try to help those migrating in their own countries.....I don't think there will be any will to do so. As you say countries do need to genuinely cooperate. Where we don't have an answer seems to be the whether any country may reach a point of saying " we want to help but for ( a variety of reasons) we don't feel we can......obviously this last statement will be open to dispute.....but actually these types of decisions are made daily by each of us individually and collectively.....eg we only limit the actual help we give to the homeless/ Street sleepers or the ill. It was a tongue in cheek comment I made but I wondered if anyone knew why. France refuse approximately 2/3rds of asylum applications (142,000ish applications made in 2023), when they fail they are no longer allowed to stay in French territory. Apparently asylum seekers are 3 times more likely to have a claim accepted in the UK than France and it's this, along with the permissive nature towards applicants - by comparison to France - that the French are critical of as causing the demand to cross the channel. Data I read from a French Quango says that apparently during the two years that the asylum request takes [to process], asylum seekers don't have access to anything: no French classes, no financial help, and no right to work. Until they get an address in France, they're not allowed to access the healthcare system either. Personally I think there needs to be clear explanation made to anyone entering any other country as to the expectations on them if their intent is to settle there. It's not about that country bending to them, it's about their offer to that country. I've seen it with people who have moved here from all over the world for work. Their kids are educated here, they get involved and don't close themselves off from the community they've joined. In those circumstances it's enriching for all parties and a privilege to develop a relationship with people you wouldn't normally have the opportunity to meet. You get to learn an awful lot, good and bad, about other people and their attitudes that way. Refugees weren't treated particularly well in Calais either Ian www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/02/life-death-and-limbo-in-the-calais-jungle-five-years-after-its-demolitionwww.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/is-this-really-europe#:~:text=Toilet%20facilities%20are%20limited.,the%20ad%20hoc%20living%20spaces.
|
|
|
Post by sticky on Apr 25, 2024 16:25:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sticky on Apr 25, 2024 16:25:56 GMT
Very worrying how many of these attacks are waiting to unfold
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 25, 2024 16:31:39 GMT
Very worrying how many of these attacks are waiting to unfold I think that the issue that will eventually unfold is that Islam is incompatible with Western values, irrespective of the fact that the vast majority of Muslims in this country are peace loving AND Islam is growing in terms of numbers. Imo there won't be a peaceful coexistence in all communities. Global issues such as Gaza/ zionism will polarise some. I hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Apr 25, 2024 20:15:34 GMT
And banks, who at best, can’t be bothered to properly check questionable practices:https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/hsbc-holdings-plc-and-hsbc-bank-usa-na-admit-anti-money-laundering-and-sanctions-violations Instead, they just lie about how much effort that they put into fraud investigations and the public goes along with it because it’s all done behind closed doors.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 25, 2024 20:30:01 GMT
And banks, who at best, can’t be bothered to properly check questionable practices:https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/hsbc-holdings-plc-and-hsbc-bank-usa-na-admit-anti-money-laundering-and-sanctions-violations Instead, they just lie about how much effort that they put into fraud investigations and the public goes along with it because it’s all done behind closed doors. Yes there are many many other criminal activities......not sure how they are all related to this thread. All criminal activities have victims, some direct , some indirect ...... the boat traffickers are particularly bad imo as they prey on the desperate and vulnerable , simply for profit, with very little responsibility to deliver.....and most importantly can result in the death of people and children. Bankers money laundering is simply a different issue, unless you can see a link that I don't
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 25, 2024 20:30:03 GMT
Very worrying how many of these attacks are waiting to unfold It’s too late now. Reap what you sow and hope you’re not the next victim of a violent attack by a religious nut job.
|
|
|
Post by liathroid on Apr 25, 2024 22:19:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Apr 25, 2024 22:47:35 GMT
Very worrying how many of these attacks are waiting to unfold It’s too late now. Reap what you sow and hope you’re not the next victim of a violent attack by a religious nut job. Or a car accident, which is FAR more likely to kill you, but doesn’t seem to be on people’s minds as much.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Apr 26, 2024 5:05:42 GMT
It’s too late now. Reap what you sow and hope you’re not the next victim of a violent attack by a religious nut job. Or a car accident, which is FAR more likely to kill you, but doesn’t seem to be on people’s minds as much. Ah, well that makes getting stabbed, beheaded or blown up by psycho terrorists ok then. 👍
|
|