Do the Tories really want to get the refugee ‘crisis’ under control?
it's not really a crisis for the UK in the grand scheme of things. It's a crisis for those trying to come here, a crisis for people living in the Dover area and a crisis for the immigration service but not a big deal for the country as a whole given the other issues we face at the moment.
If the government really wanted to sort out asylum seekers we'd build fit for purpose centres to house and support people whilst their asylum claims are processed in a humanitarian, professional and timely manner. Those with asylum granted would then be supported into society, those that were not would be promptly removed or placed in longer term detention facilities if that's not possible. None of that makes good headlines and will be costly and difficult to do so no they don't have any motivation to get it under control.
It's ironic the last we got excited by small boats crossing the channel they were heros.
That's some great whataboutery there ernie
Since Brexit & exiting Dublin agreement migrants can no longer be returned to France
France has offered several times to allow UK to set up processing centres to examine claims in France, UK gov refused several times, theres no way that this can be fixed without better cooperation France & the EU, but thats anathema to the brexiteers.
I see Sunak is going to Dover to show he's 'serious' about it, tories just hoping that they can use this as a stick to beat labour when they vote against it
Cruella spouting more evil rhetoric in the HoC right now.
"Almost all past through France". So ****ing what?
Don’t try and put words into someone else’s mouth… and then call them out on it then.
I haven't put words in anyone's mouth, I copied and pasted someone else's word's and asked a question. If I misunderstood their point then it is clear for everyone to see and the person can correct me.
This pathetic attempt to blame absolutely everything on brexit is becoming evermore tedious. As is this pretence that asylum seekers aren't demonized throughout the EU and that it is some sort of unique UK/Tory issue.
this pretence that asylum seekers aren’t demonized throughout the EU
Who said that?
Did anyone else read the bit about placing a "duty on the home secretary to deport them "as soon as reasonably practicable"" and think it's Sunak setting up Braverman and the loons to fail?
That’s some great whataboutery there ernie
The issue of the demonization of desperate people in leaky unseaworthy vessels is one that goes way beyond the UK. But you repeatedly project it as something unique to the UK. It isn't even unique to the Tories - don't expect anything dramatically different with the next Labour government.
Some great hypocrisy there kimbers.
I remember how we were an immigrant's utopia before 2016. People weren't being locked up in places like Campsfield House and Yarl's Wood before then and we didn't force asylum seekers into poverty by barring them from working. I also remember how the labour party didn't disgrace itself with slogans like "British jobs for british people' or make mugs boasting about how tough they were. 🙄
Did anyone else read the bit about placing a “duty on the home secretary to deport them “as soon as reasonably practicable”” and think it’s Sunak setting up Braverman and the loons to fail?
I think I read that as "...one shall cover one's own arse just in case..."
“Almost all past through France”. So **** what?
Maybe her understanding of geography is about the same as Raabs and so considers this to be an evil plot rather than just wheres closest.
They really are just making it up as they go along now. Just chucking out any old hysterical nonsense…
Braverman claims 100m people could qualify for asylum without law change
Would your parents have qualified Suella? Rishi’s folks? Priti’s?
I can’t see how the bile she’s presently spouting differs in any way to this
Since Brexit, the Tory’s rapidly morphed into UKIP and now they’re well on their way to becoming the National Front
Having made an unpopular comment on a political thread on here before and being called all sorts of names....flame resistant coat donned.
I do think this policy is barking......
However I do see there is an absolute pressing need to stop small boats and hearing horror stories about kids drowning at sea. The only positive I can see is that they are trying to completely remove this as a way to get into the country, and therefore I would hope stopping the people traffickers
I cannot think of any other way to stop those traffickers and it looks like the situation will just get worse without action.
I also thought the point of asylum was the first safe country not the final one. I am not anti asylum. One of the main reasons people voted for brexit was controlling of borders, so you can absolutely see why the conservatives are pushing this. Rightly or wrongly.
I wouldn't like to call how Labour would tackle this if they were actually having to try to sort it out, rather than just in opposition. My crystal ball isn't as good as others on here
Would your parents have qualified Suella? Rishi’s folks? Priti’s?
I do sometimes think thats one way they could persuade more people to support their hate campaign. Something like "What if the current potential immigrants have children like us? Is it worth the risk? Ban them all".
This pathetic attempt to blame absolutely everything on brexit is becoming evermore tedious. As is this pretence that asylum seekers aren’t demonized throughout the EU and that it is some sort of unique UK/Tory
Sigh
Brexit has made the small boats problem worse, exactly as Cameron warned during the ref campaign
And its possible to find Italys treatment of migrants abhorrent and acknowledged that Brexit has increased boat crossings in the Channel
I remember how we were an immigrant’s utopia before 2016.
Likewise no one said that
In fact the main backlash against Camerons comments at the time was that he described migrants as a swarm,
tragically that kind of dehumanising language seems pretty normalised by the right these days
I cannot think of any other way to stop those traffickers
I wonder if they've tried making it illegal? 🙄
Seriously, the only way to prevent the problem of small boats is to make them unnecessary by allowing people to come here legally. Much like the war on drugs, the prohibition of the activity is what makes it the playground of gangsters and criminals.
What Dazh said.
First set of rolled eyes I see
remember that thread about echo chamber?
there are legal channels for people to come here.
maybe threads should have a warning at the top saying "must only have the same frothing viewpoint as big hitters to join in, debate and seeing from others viewpoints not accepted here"
to be fair, that's the unwritten rule on this forum and politic threads
If everyone arriving in the UK to claim asylum (by the only route they can find) are to be denied the right to claim asylum and taken out of the country … where will they be going? Without a return agreement with EU countries, what’s the plan? Illegally smuggle them into France? Pay third countries to take them? It all smells of getting out the vote in May, doesn’t it. Actual implementation would prove to be a nightmare for all involved.
others viewpoints not accepted here
All viewpoints accepted (as in you can post them and they won’t be removed). Agreement not guaranteed. Disagreement likely. Otherwise it would be an echo chamber.
I also thought the point of asylum was the first safe country not the final one.
Not really. Someone fleeing Afghanistan (for example) speaks English and has relatives in the UK is obviously going to want to cross Europe to come to the UK. It simply makes sense - it wouldn't make sense to force them to stay in Italy because that's where their small boat had eventually ran aground.
Also there is no reason why certain countries such as Italy or Greece should disproportionately carry the burden of providing asylum simply because of their geographical locations.
There is quite a relaxed attitude towards providing refuge to Ukrainians fleeing war, no one suggests that only countries such as Poland should provide refuge, I can't see why it should be different for non-Europeans.
What Ernie said.
Some refugee stats for you DT78 …
https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/
69%
hosted in neighbouring countries
74%
hosted in low- and middle-income countries
36%
hosted in five countriesTürkiye 3.7 million
Colombia 2.5 million
Germany 2.2 million
****stan 1.5 million
Uganda 1.5 million
its possible to find Italys treatment of migrants abhorrent
And yet never mention it whilst banging on endlessly about the UK's treatment of migrants?
The reality is that Europe's widespread racism and its treatment of desperate people, fleeing desperate situations, invariably created by European governments, is shameful.
And it is hardly unique to the UK and the Tory Party - who aren't even the worse offenders. Not that anyone reading just your posts would ever know.
I'm disinheriting my parents, as those traitors didn't stay in London during the blitz ,they went off through numerous safe counties and ended up in Devon.
The little ****ers should have stayed and fought the Nazis.
there are legal channels for people to come here.
I seem to recall Suella being unable to name any when challenged on it in a recent parliamentary hearing.
maybe threads should have a warning at the top saying “must only have the same frothing viewpoint as big hitters to join in, debate and seeing from others viewpoints not accepted here”
If you're going to regurgitate ignorant daily mail talking points then expect to be called out for it. If you have a sensible point to make about the small boats problem lets have it, but punishing the victims of racist UK policy and criminal people traffickers is clearly 'anti-asylum' which you say you're not.
This law wont stop a single boat coming here.
If anything, it's a marketing opportunity for the people smugglers, "get over there before this new law comes into effect!"
It's just more demonisation fron a morally bankrupt, malignant Tory party.
It's all they have left.
I didn't say I agreed with the policy. I said I can see why they are doing it. to stop boats and gain votes
that is different.
I also said I can't see what else they can do. it is a right mess.
if you guys have such stunning plans to solve the issues why aren't you up there sorting it?
eye rolling and calling people ignorant isn't helpful if you want a genuine debate, but you don't really want a debate do you....
I seem to recall Suella being unable to name any when challenged on it in a recent parliamentary hearing.
The legal methods are on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard”
It is clearly the immigrants own fault for not appraising themselves of the correct handshake, dance and passphrase required to enter the country legally before embarking on their journey.
I also said I can’t see what else they can do. it is a right mess.
It is a rather small problem for the nation, being blown out of all proportion as a distraction to 13 disastrous years of tory rule and 50 years of damaging neoliberalism. What they could do is take the heat out of the situation and stop appealing to racist tendencies.
FFS Google:
Section 19b statement.
MPs are going to be warned that the proposed legislation might be incompatible with people's basic rights as human beings and therefore illegal!
I also said I can’t see what else they can do.
I just gave you a solution as to what else they can do and you haven't responded. Instead of having a debate you're moaning because no one agrees with your opinion.
I said I can see why they are doing it. to stop boats and gain votes
It won't stop a single boat and is quite probably illegal on various grounds. If anything, I'm willing to bet it'll make the next few weeks even worse as everyone tries to beat the deadline, even though the Tories tried to backdate the policy.
I also said I can’t see what else they can do. it is a right mess.
They could have accepted France's post-Brexit offer of setting up a migrant processing centre in Calais, removing at a stroke the opportunity for people smugglers to be transporting them across the Channel. UK declined.
Brexit means the Dublin Protocol no longer applies so ironically it's now more difficult to send migrants back to a "the first safe country" - hence the appalling attempts to ship them off to Rwanda and forget about them.
The fact remains that most people arriving here by whatever means DO actually have a legal right to asylum once their application has been processed. The UK just doesn't like to admit that and makes the whole thing as difficult, dangerous and expensive as possible.
if you guys have such stunning plans to solve the issues why aren’t you up there sorting it?
These are the people elected to serve the country and paid a great deal of money to do that.
The fact that we've ended up with a corrupt bunch of self-serving grifters and racists is very unfortunate but it's still not something that any of us can "just get up and sort".
@DT78 I'd give up now, there's no point in trying to have nuanced debate about the practicalities of immigration. I've just deleted the rest of my post as I really can't be bothered arguing with the lefties.
I also said I can’t see what else they can do.
The obvious solution is to not insist that people get their arses over here before even considering their asylum application.
There are no people traffickers associated with Ukrainian refugees, why do you think that might be?
Fill yer boots up:
I’ve just deleted the rest of my post as I really can’t be bothered arguing with the lefties.
And then you complain about the echo chamber. Honestly you guys! 😀
And then you complain about the echo chamber. Honestly you guys! 😀
Oh dear, there goes the irony meter.
take a look at your aggressive and condescending responses, the reason you guys aren't up there sorting it out is because you wouldn't last 10minutes in the real world of politics. And I also agree the tories are a complete shit show, however I do not have red tinted glasses which makes me believe labour would somehow magically make all this go away. Nor do I own a time machine to go back and right wrongs of past decisions.
You have to move forward, with what is achievable now, and sadly, what the majority of people will agree with. If you are in the minority the point of democracy is you accept it, you can challenge and debate (and if you want to your points to land, ideally without insulting). If you the decisions don't go your way, its how democracy works
'just make it legal to apply' if so simple why hasn't it happened? Because its not that easy, and because whether you guys like it, it is not likely to be supported by the majority of voters.
I do think shipping people off to rwanda is ridiculous on so many levels and I would not be surprised if it is upheld as illegal. Would love to see the whatsapp messages from the legal advice the tories must have sort before they announced these policies
I don't think I agree, though can be convinced either way, that 'choice' should be part of asylum. I do understand that puts undue burden on countries closer to conflict and completely understand why those claiming asylum would have preferences. But then again I don't agree with 'choice' for people on lots of subjects, giving people choice is what has got us into several messes....
I didn’t say I agreed with the policy. I said I can see why they are doing it. to stop boats and gain votes
It won't stop the boats. They won't gain votes by stopping the boats anyway - people only believed immigration was a major issue because that is what they were told to believe.
I also said I can’t see what else they can do. it is a right mess.
There's quite a few things they could do:
1. Allow anyone to go to the British Embassy in the first country they arrive in and request asylum, or special permission to travel.
2. Open processing centres in France or other third countries, nobody had to cross the channel in small boats.
3. Provide employment visas for those who wish to come through a structured scheme to make up for the EU fruit pickers etc we blocked with Brexit; both helping people come AND blocking the gangs
4. Make it easier for asylum seekers to work whilst their application is processed - many of the gangs have people on the hook because there is no viable way for them to survive outside the gang-supported illegal work.
5. Speed up the processing of applications - that removes the risk of losing people to the system, and minimises the opportunities for the gangs to profit when people have little other choice
6. Fund asylum support for councils so that it is not a burden on local communities and maybe you'll find public opinion turning.
if you guys have such stunning plans to solve the issues why aren’t you up there sorting it?
It may have escaped your notice, but I'm not a tory politician... therefore I can make all the noise I want but it won't be "sorting it". They aren't sorting it themselves because ideologically they don't want it sorted, in fact if the problem didn't exist at all they'd have a bigger problem as possibly their only selling point to angry votes is "but we are tough on immigration - let the other lot in at your peril".
eye rolling and calling people ignorant isn’t helpful if you want a genuine debate, but you don’t really want a debate do you….
I'm happy for debate - so go on, since you said there were legal routes for people to come - what is the safe and legal route for say a 15 year old Somalian orphan to get to the UK where he has an Aunt and Uncle with permanent leave to remain? Indeed there's no safe and "legal" route open to anyone except some Afghans and Ukrainians, unless you qualify as a spouse or are sponsored by an employer etc. (Technically its not illegal to cross in a small boat and claim asylum either).
"Since Brexit, the Tory’s rapidly morphed into UKIP and now they’re well on their way to becoming the National Front"
If there was ever any confusion about this then Sunak's appointment of Lee Anderson erases any doubt.
take a look at your aggressive and condescending responses
To be honest I very much agree with that comment. You did take some unjustifiable flak imo. You didn't exactly go into a racist rant over the issue.
And as apparently expressing a minority point of view, ie, "what else can the government do?" everyone piling onto you isn't exactly going to help the debate.
I guess that for some people it is quite an emotive issue, I know it can be for me despite the fact that on pretty much everything else I am always totally chilled - I very rarely take anything very seriously on here, including myself!
It always seemed absurd to me to punish the people on the boats. They get told by the smugglers that everything's legit, so they're acting in good faith. Punishing them when they get here is nonsensical. Are we running campaigns in their countries of origin telling them not to trust people smugglers?
people only believed immigration was a major issue because that is what they were told to believe.
This is a very good point imo.
Edit: It reminds me of when there were 3 million unemployed in the UK and all the opinion polls showed that voters considered unemployment to be the biggest issue.
And yet when exactly the same people were asked the question "what is the most important issue to you and your family?" unemployment didn't rank very high.
Most people weren't unemployed so they didn't feel that it affected them directly, although it probably did in terms of wages, level of crime locally, etc.
People try to give the "correct answer" when asked by pollsters. It doesn't however always provide evidence of how they will vote.
I don’t think I agree, though can be convinced either way, that ‘choice’ should be part of asylum. I do understand that puts undue burden on countries closer to conflict and completely understand why those claiming asylum would have preferences. But then again I don’t agree with ‘choice’ for people on lots of subjects, giving people choice is what has got us into several messes….
Its easy to work out if there should be choice or not. Lets imagine there's a massive shit storm in the UK. Say some political rioting goes crazy, Russia pumps some money to the right people the government collapses and the organised crime gangs basically rule the roost and suddenly we aren't worrying about whether e-bikes should have 15 kph speed limits but about where your next meal is coming from. A friend calls you to say that because of who your last employer was your name is now on a hit list. They know where you live and who your family are. So your choice is simple, stay here under constant threat or flee the country. Because everyone else is doing the same there are no flights so you manage to get a lift for you and your family on a boat to France. None of you speak French. You can stay in France basically begging from the state - but you've got cousins in Canada and New Zealand. They speak English there. Your job skills should be relevant there even if you might need to get recertified for some parts. Should you be able to go to a country where you feel safe, have connections and potentially prospects or should you be compelled to stay in France because that was the closest border? Isn't it better for the whole world if we all share the problems?
@poly in answer to your scenario, the child could apply to join their settled aunt/uncle under paragraph 297 of the rules.
Or if their relatives aren't settled but do have leave to remain as refugees, they could apply under paragraph 319x.
