Forum menu
those crossing either don’t fall under any of the legal routes, or are illegal migrants rather than asylum seekers
99% of those arriving in small boats claim asylum, which very clearly by definition makes them asylum seekers. Most will be successful in their asylum applications.
And since you now seem to accept that there is no safe legal route for them why do you think the government is right not to talk about establishing safe legal routes?
How can you expect to solve the problem without tackling the root cause?
Blimey, this granny has got some form......convictions for 22 previous offences, including assault and public disorder.
And since you now seem to accept that there is no safe legal route for them why do you think the government is right not to talk about establishing safe legal routes?
Again, as stated before, how do you expect the UK to establish a new safe legal route, that no other country in Europe offers, without the UK becoming the main focal point for those wanting to migrate somewhere in the west, do you think this would increase, or reduce the immigration issue?
How can you expect to solve the problem without tackling the root cause?
Again, what are you stating is the root cause, to be the root, you'd be looking at the reason people are migrating from their nation of residence/birth/etc, why they are asylum, that's a vast problem.
who got caught because he had his name printed on the back of his tee shirt
Remind me of a primary school evening to introduce them to the secondary school. Guy arrives with a divisive football shirt on with "shagger 1" on the back. There's not much support from home for that pupil.
also we have a large cohort of asylum seekers who can NOT be processed leagally nor legally returned. they are in indefinite limbo.
How many of those are because they have got rid of their identity documents in order to make it harder to identify where they are from and if they are asylum seekers or economic migrants.
Given the number of safe countries they have travelled through to reach the UK I struggle to see how the majority are genuine asylum seekers. Why not apply on the countries on the way of you are in genuine fear of persecution
Given the number of safe countries they have travelled through to reach the UK I struggle to see how the majority are genuine asylum seekers.
Sounds irrelevant to me. It is not only for neighbouring countries to offer asylum to those needing it. Travelling further does not and should not negate your case if seeking asylum.
How many of those are because they have got rid of their identity documents in order to make it harder to identify where they are from and if they are asylum seekers or economic migrants.
Source?
On the topic of the folks getting locked up and their defences advanced....my favourite so for 'the defendant was only in town to buy a suit for a funeral but got caught up in the events'...aye of course he was ? There's been several other crackers too.
for those wanting to migrate somewhere in the west, do you think this would increase, or reduce the immigration issue?
Like the rioters you appear unable to make a distinction between those fleeing wars and persecution and those who want to live "somewhere in the west".
The UK has no responsibility to failed asylum seekers beyond treating them humanely.
Most of those arriving to the UK in small boats have a legal right to apply for, and be granted, asylum.
They also represent a tiny percentage of total immigration into the UK, 2% I believe a recent article in the Guardian claimed. So providing them with safe routes would present no significant hardship for the UK. Although it is likely to upset Daily Mail columnists, and possibly you.
You wanted a source here you go
98% don’t have documents according to migration watch
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/666
That is not a source that they have deliberately "got rid of" their passports as you claimed.
I don't expect many people living in famine, poverty in war zones or under persecution to have passports or be able to get them easily.
It is not only for neighbouring countries to offer asylum to those needing it. Travelling further does not and should not negate your case if seeking asylum.
Why not? The Geneva Convention was written to allow for persecuted people to seek sanctuary with a view to them being able to return home at some point in the future. Not to allow for people to pick and choose. Surely a better solution would be for asylum to be sought in the first safe country and then agreements between countries on how to allow the legal immigration of those who qualified as asylum seekers
That is not a source that they have deliberately “got rid of” their passports as you claimed, I don’t expect many people living in poverty and/or under persecution to have passports.
I never said passports I said identity documents which could be a national identity card, driving licence, bank card etc. there are numerous documents they could have with them very easily some of which are mandated to be carried in many countries round the world
Yeah, I am sure they all work in business.
Surely a better solution would be for asylum to be sought in the first safe country
Im sure countries like Turkey which are located next to major conflict zones will be a little unhappy with your suggestion, however much it may serve the purposes of people in the UK who don’t want to live with brown neighbours
So it’s better for them to carry on taking the risks to travel through all of Europe and then across the channel, no doubt building up alsorts of debts to the smuggler gang masters,rather than have an agreed solution at the first safe country.
As it happens I get on very well with my brown, black, and white neighbours and colleagues so I’m not sure what your point is
So it’s better for them to carry on taking the risks to travel through all of Europe and then across the channel, no doubt building up alsorts of debts to the smuggler gang masters,rather than have an agreed solution at the first safe country.
That would depend what exactly you mean by “ an agreed solution”. If it means efficient processing of an asylum claim and provision of a visa to genuine refugees, that’s one thing. Just dumping people in squalid camps in Turkey, ****stan, Iran is another.
Why not apply on the countries on the way of you are in genuine fear of persecution
Many do.
Surely a better solution would be for asylum to be sought in the first safe country
Better for whom? You? The "first safe country" from people fleeing a warzone would be overwhelming for that one country.
Blimey, this granny has got some form……convictions for 22 previous offences, including assault and public disorder.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
The Geneva Convention was written to allow for persecuted people to seek sanctuary with a view to them being able to return home at some point in the future
No it wasn't. The Geneva Convention doesn't guarantee asylum seekers the right to be granted refugee status. The UK has obligations to refugees under various United Nations declarations and conventions which it has signed.
And the UK does not go beyond those obligations, as you seem to be suggesting.
Chrismac : Surely a better solution would be for asylum to be sought in the first safe country and then agreements between countries on how to allow the legal immigration of those who qualified as asylum seekers
I’ll leave this link below for you to read, it will inform you of the facts as otherwise you will continue to appear very ill informed regarding asylum seekers/refugees.
https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/
I bet when Thomas Whitehead went out of his front door a couple of weeks ago to go on holiday he didn't imagine that it would be another 2 years before he would come home again
Dad-of-three touched down at Manchester Airport after Greece holiday, then got sent straight to prison
During questioning, the self-employed man told detectives that he had "been at a public house and noticed a large group gathering and went to see what was happening". Whitehead "accepted throwing an item" but claimed he "didn't believe it had hit any of the officers".
"He had gone to the vigil. He does not know what on Earth took hold of him when he threw that one missile", reports PA. "He is absolutely distraught with what he has done. He does not seek to justify it in any way."
Well who can honestly say that they haven't done something like that........gone for a quiet drink, seen a large group gathering, thought "hang on, what's happening here?", and ended up throwing a missile towards the police?
How can you expect to solve the problem without tackling the root cause?
You probably can never tackle the root causes as there are loads of them depending on which country is leading which people to look for asylum.
You can however easily solve the part in the UKs control and that is people dangerously crossing the channel. Pick them up in large boats and bring them to UK to process their claims, and be quick about it.
Be resourced with people with vast knowledge of each country and culture to more quickly assess the claimants and get to that 25% rejection number as quickly as possible.
@somafunk. Thanks for the link. It’s a well written article from one perspective that is about generating cash for them. They are very selective in facts. For example 52% are granted refugee status on appeal. The other way of saying that if 48% have arrived illegally with no valid claim. Same stat. Same source. Different presentation. It also uses in figures which are lower than U.K. government figures to make the problem look smaller.
They are very selective in facts. For example 52% are granted refugee status on appeal.
From the above link:
granted refugee status or other leave
(grant rate)
34,492 (72%)
The majority of those arriving on small boats have a legal and accepted right to claim and be granted asylum.
Why on Earth should they be forced to pay unscrupulous people smugglers and make a life threatening channel crossing in inflatable dinghies? Why are not safe routes provided?
They aren’t forced to cross the channel by any method. They have chosen to pass though many other countries where they could have claimed asylum. Why do they do that? I’m sure a small minority have some family connection to the U.K. Why do they choose to take the risk of crossing the channel? I don’t understand why anyone would take the risk of crossing the channel if you could stay in France or one of the other countries along the route.
I don’t understand why anyone would take the risk of crossing the channel if you could stay in France or one of the other countries along the route.
I think a big part of it is language. Many people around the world speak English as a second language, many more than speak French or other European languages. This is as true for people in strife-torn countries as it is for those in safe ones. If you are risking your life to escape conflict, poverty or similar, with nothing more than the clothes on your back, you haven't got a lot going for you. Choosing a destination where you at least speak the language and can be understood, might seem a tad less daunting. I'd probably do the same if god forbid, I was ever in that shitty situation. Just a thought.
Charge them a few hundred quid to come here. Fully refundable by reduced tax and NI payment.
Instead of paying people trafficking gangs and risking drowning pay the government.
They are coming anyway.
If they are legit and can work let's get them on board , working , contributing and paying back their debenture bond.
Yes , it will cost millions to administer but we are giving the French millions to not stop the boats leaving France.
Just an idea , full of pitfalls , but there appears to be a lack of any other ideas from the grown ups in charge.
I don’t understand why anyone would take the risk of crossing the channel if you could stay in France or one of the other countries along the route.
Most don't. Only a minority come to the UK, far more make their application for asylum in France than in the UK :
Number of first-time applications per EU country (2023)
In 2023, Germany received a quarter (25%) of asylum applications in the EU, followed by:
France (16%)
Spain (12%)
Austria (11%)
Italy (9%)
I think about 8% apply for asylum in the UK, so half the number that apply in France.
And Germany has for example the largest Afghan population in Europe, despite the role of the British Empire in Afghanistan and the fact that far more Afghans speak English then German.
Now what I don't understand is why some people create such a fuss about asylum applications from people arriving in small boats when we are in fact talking about such piddling small numbers - 2% of the total immigration into the UK apparently.
Any clues chrismac?
Edit: Sorry there a slight anomaly in those figures. They are for applications per EU country. The figure per European is I believe 22% for Germany, the other countries obviously need to be dialed down slightly. The figure for the UK per European country is about 8% so even if you reduce the figure for France to say 14% it is still a lot more than the UK.
They aren’t forced to cross the channel by any method.
It's desperation, same reason as you get Morrocans doing exactly the same crossing the Med from north Africa to the southern coast of Spain...
Flip the scenario over... how desperate would you have to be to pay some gang a lot of money in some highly dodgy boat with a high chance of drowning?
It's not a gamble I would take unless I had no other options.
I'm not saying that all asylum seekers are 'good actors', they are clearly not... so let's process them in a fast, humane and fair manner, and deal with them in the correct way.
Keeping all asylum seekers in limbo, with no apparent way forward, if nothing else, it just increasing the tax burden on the encumbent country, it serves no purpose other than to cost more money.
I appreciate it's a very hot potato in terms of bad publicity, but surely it's cheaper and more humane in the long term to address the issue rather than ignore it?
I mean, what's the alternative... have a bunch of military helicopters patrolling the channel and simply gunning them to death? Oh please....
I don’t understand
That's clear. Educate yourself.
I appreciate it’s a very hot potato in terms of bad publicity, but surely it’s cheaper and more humane in the long term to address the issue rather than ignore it?
Yep, my plan up there would be a disaster from media and opposition point of view but just stick with it and in a couple of years the evidence will hopefully be there to see with some clear differences
- Much, much lower number of people trying to cross (as I am picking them up)
- Much, much lower number of people being held while awaiting claim processing
When you can put out numbers such as 90% less crossings and 90% (of 200,000) less waiting processing and the subsequent cost avoidance numbers then I am pretty sure that would shut up the people attacking the plan at the start.
I don’t understand why anyone would take the risk of crossing the channel if you could stay in France or one of the other countries along the route.
just to be clear, you not understanding is a you problem not a them problem.
am pretty sure that would shut up the people attacking the plan at the start.
Nice idea. Have you seen the absolute dog's abuse the coast guard and RNLI get for saving the lives of drowning migrants? The FB memes about machine gunning them? The knuckle draggers aren't bothered about the stats or a few quid saved, they simply don't want brown people to come here full stop. The thought of the state enabling that, even if it saved lives and money etc. would cause their tiny racist brains to explode.
I don’t understand why anyone would take the risk of crossing the channel if you could stay in France or one of the other countries along the route
The principle is a simple one; "push" gets people out a war zone, persecution, etc. and "pull" takes migrants to a particular country
A cheap B&B isn't generally regarded as a "pull" for migrants and so a stay on the Bibby Stockholm isn't a deterrent. Employment isn't a "pull" either because migrants aren't initially allowed into legal employment, so they become vulnerable to criminal exploitation
We find that the strongest pull factor for asylum seekers to a destination is social networks both in terms of previous asylum applicants as well as stock of previous migrants. Our findings also suggest that employment bans are not a strong deterrence for asylum seekers given their modest association to asylum flows.
Politicians either don't understand or pretend not to understand and make populist but pointless policy decisions. This has been a misunderstanding since the Blair government looked at opening up former military bases in the middle of nowhere and has gathered momentum as migration numbers have become more public
Have you seen the absolute dog’s abuse the coast guard and RNLI get for saving the lives of drowning migrants?
This is both true and very depressing. However it loses sight of the fact that we are talking about a small minority. Again and again this small minority is seen as representing mainstream thinking.
The rioters were only ever small in numbers, the biggest mobs were typically 200-400. Obviously sufficient to cause a huge amount of damage but in the end they were stopped by anti-fascists who were able to mobilise thousands.
An opinion poll showed that only 7% of the public had any sympathy for the rioters and polls now show overwhelming support for the harsh sentences they are recieving, with many people believing that they are not harsh enough.
And don't forget this:
Donations to RNLI rise 3,000% after Farage’s migrant criticism
Also don't forget that despite making "stop the boats" one of the central planks of their election strategy, proudly displaying the slogan wherever they could, the Tories, with a 24% share of the vote, suffered their worse election result in 200 years last month.
There no evidence that applying humane policies to the issue of refugees carries a heavy electoral cost. Nor am I convinced that educating the wider public that the whole issue of refugees arriving in small boats has been massively exaggerated by right-wingers is.
For years the public have been fed the lie that refugees arriving in small boats are a huge problem which somehow directly affects them. Many won't buy the lie but it is still time to push back and expose it.
Unfortunately looks like the stabbings in Germany were carried out by a Syrian refugee who arrived in 2022. Islamic state have also stuck their oar in and claimed responsibility. Shall be interesting to see how Germany's knuckle draggers respond.
Again and again this small minority is seen as representing mainstream thinking.
Ernie I think you may live in a bit of a bubble (you've mentioned several times being in Muslim dominate WhatsApp groups), please don't take that as judgement, it's not, just an ibservation from your posts. Although a tiny minority go out and riot and are rightly condemened by the vast majority, I think the underlying animosity to anyone a bit different is pretty wide spread in the UK, especially in deprived areas and ironically areas with little to no visible immigration.
I keep and eye on our local town Facebook group, occaissionally its actually useful, but the levels of unchecked racism on there is disgusting and usually when one idiot starts there's plenty prepared to egg them on. We also live in a pretty multi cultural part of the country in East Lancshire but deprivation and blame every one else for your own misfortunes is pretty rife.
Ernie I think you may live in a bit of a bubble (you’ve mentioned several times being in Muslim dominate WhatsApp groups),
You could not be more wrong with your conclusion. The Muslims which dominate the WhatsApp groups I am on seem mostly convinced that everyone blames and hates Muslims, they presumably base this generalisation on personal experience.
I base my conclusions on things such as w general election result which saw support for the Tories collapse to the lowest level in 200 years despite them making stopping the boats a central election issue. And the 3000% rise in RNLI donations after it was critised for saving the lives of asylum seekers.
A few hundred rioted, polls show that they do not enjoy public sympathy at all, and eventually thousands came out to oppose them.
I do accept that London is different to much of the rest of the country, there were no riots, but it has a population larger than Scotland's, so hardly a small untypical example.
I base my conclusions on things such as w general election result which saw support for the Tories collapse to the lowest level in 200 years
And Reform getting 15% of the national vote (despite getting bugger all support in London & Scotland).
it has a population larger than Scotland’s, so hardly a small untypical example
The attitude of the populations of both are quite atypical on this issue (and I hope more of the rest of the UK can be moved towards the example they set).
Now what I don’t understand is why some people create such a fuss about asylum applications from people arriving in small boats when we are in fact talking about such piddling small numbers – 2% of the total immigration into the UK apparently.
I think it’s the optics of a boatload of people turning up on the coast makes for more dramatic visuals for the ‘invasion’ scare mongering.
I’ve noticed the hate factory on Facebook seems to be stepping up a notch with more anti Muslim/immigrant rhetoric.
More ai pictures under the guise of humour.
Also seem to also have a bloke visiting a 5 star asylum hotel and trying to portray it as some £165 a night dream stay and seems unhappy that they actually feed the residents, considering they aren’t allowed to work and I’m not sure of how many 5 star hotel rooms have a kitchen.
The Muslims which dominate the WhatsApp groups I am on seem mostly convinced that everyone blames and hates Muslims
Not really the point I was making, in fact that rather illustrates that you may not move in white working class circles, obviously this is the internet so I'm basing this completely on your posts so could be completely wrong.
I think the Tories getting their arse handed to them was much more about the statements economy and people struggling to make ends meet rather than a rejection of Tory anti immigration messaging, which lets be honest wasn't delivered either. The rise of reform though at 15% was IMO purely down to racial hate and 15% from a standing start is quite frightening.
I think we need to accept there are a lot of rather small minded people out there, the solution though is to make their lives better so they are not so bitter and looking for scape goats.
in fact that rather illustrates that you may not move in white working class circles
I am white working-class. As a carpenter I have worked on building sites most of my life, they tend to be a predominantly white-working class environment. And I fit extremely comfortably into that environment, certainly more comfortably than I do in a middle-class environment where I feel that I have behave and speak in a manner which doesn't come naturally to me.
Most of my day-to-day contact with the affluent middle-classes is here on stw. I am not as posh as I presumably appear to be:)
All this completely misses the point, my comments regarding public opinions are not based simply on anecdotal evidence, that would be daft. You shouldn't either. They are based on provable facts. The Tories tried to save their sorry arses by making "stopping the boats" a central election issue, it failed miserably and a party who did not make stopping the boats a central election issue won a landslide. The Tories completely misjudged the importance of the issue to ordinary working people, a mistake which you appear to be also making.
Sure, it is very important for some people, bigots and racists, but they do not represent the large majority of the population. Same goes for the rioting, the rioters do not represent a significant majority of the population, they were eventually defeated by the decency of the majority, and they are now being condemned and punished with the full backing of the vast majority.
If your anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise I would suggest that you try moving in different circles 😉
If your anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise I would suggest that you try moving in different circles 😉
I live where I live because I like the hills, the locals come with the location, it's a take it or leave it kind of deal.
Absolutely the Tories failed in their desperate attempts to stoke up hate. That doesn't mean the people who turned away from them rejected the message they were shouting, the financial pressures were just louder. Even Tory voters can be nuanced. In fact for quite a chunk of the population (15% based on who they voted for) the immigration even topped the financial squeeze.
How integrated are the different ethnic communities in London, up here along the M65 corridor despite being a lot of diversity it's pretty insular, Burnley being a good (bad) example with different ethnic groups dominating different parts of the town. A lot of money was spent after the minor troubles in 2000 to try and get more integration, particularly through the schools. It was a good idea but failed pretty spectacularly.
The Tories tried to save their sorry arses by making “stopping the boats” a central election issue, it failed miserably and a party who did not make stopping the boats a central election issue won a landslide. The Tories completely misjudged the importance of the issue to ordinary working people, a mistake which you appear to be also making.
If you think that's why Labour won you are deluded. All that was for was an attempt to lure back the voters they feared they'd lose to Reform.
I am white working-class. As a carpenter I have worked on building sites most of my life
You might identify as working class, but as a (presumably) skilled tradesman you probably earned more than a lot of the people you feel uncomfortable around. The people you take so much pleasure in seeing jailed are not working class, not even close.