I’m not arguing that the system is adequate or fair, just pointing out that legal routes do exist for those with relatives already in the UK.
Not to claim asylum which is what this is all about
TJ,I only watched this clip which is about joining a sibling and not about the person applying for asylum for themselves from overseas. I assumed that's what everyone else is referring to.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1595379341218942977
Tory MP Tim Loughton asks Suella Braverman how an asylum seeker from East Africa could apply for asylum in the UK.
He makes it quite clear he is talking about someone seeking asylum who wants to get asylum in the UK because he has a sibling here
I only watched this clip which is about joining a sibling and not about the person applying for asylum for themselves from overseas.
He makes it quite clear he is talking about someone seeking asylum who wants to get asylum in the UK because he has a sibling here
Dancing on the head of a pin but he doesn't specifically say 'asylum seeking' in his preamble, he details circumstances that clearly point to it without using the words. But there's no confusion because in her response:
From 47s
Bravermann: "Well, we have an asylum system and people can put in applications for asylum"
Loughton: "How would I do that?"
Bravermann...... etc (you know the rest)
If that's meant to be a defence, that Loughton only actually mentioned travel it's a pretty weak one
I should have learned from others not to get drawn into a discussion with TJ! If you listen to the question actually posed, he does not ask how the person can claim asylum from overseas, he asks how he can join his sibling who is in the UK legally. Unfortunately the caption they used misrepresents what he actually asked.
If he'd asked, a person is overseas, can they claim asylum in the UK? the simple answer is no. But that's not what he asked.
Nope, listen to the rest or my short transcript. In his response to Braverman he specifically asks how he would do that, 'that' being "we have an asylum system and people can put in applications for asylum"
God this is exhausting so I'll make it my last contribution. I was referring only to the question he initially posed, to make the point that if Braverman was actually knowledgeable she could have answered properly and provided details of the available routes for that hypothetical scenario.
I appreciate it then develops to how do they claim asylum from overseas, but that wasn't the initial question.
Lesson learned for me, don't join in the discussion 🤦
Right, so, we're all agreed that they can't claim asylum without first getting here... now to your other route...
A reminder that the example was a 16 year old orphan with a sibling here… who applies for them within the UK? Why do you assume they have anyone to look after them back in the country they are fleeing?
You've pointed us to a route that looks at first glance to rely entirely on third parties acting on behalf of the child and their sibling both in the UK and in the country being fled. Will the 16 year old REALLY have access to this route? How long would it take? What could happen to them while they wait it out? Who keeps them safe? Why wouldn't they do everything they can to escape and be with their brother/sister? A genuine and actually usable safe route is needed, rather than hiding behind home office bureaucracy to keep them out.
He doesn’t sp3cifically state the word asylum, but he does say his hypothetical 16yo is being persecuted in their own country.
Kelvin, as above, it's not a quick process. It could take a year to get an initial decision then months more for an appeal if needed. So it's a long time to wait in desperate circumstances living alone or with a neighbor, family friend or extended relative in a refugee camp or elsewhere. So the appeal of the clandestine routes is obvious. Plus, it clearly has a very high success rate using the current small boat method. Why wait and potentially waste your money on an application which gets refused when you can pay people smugglers to fast track you?
But lots of people do still apply and succeed under the legal routes.
Plus, it clearly has a very high success rate using the current small boat method.
Not for children fleeing African states it isn’t. Lives are lost or destroyed for most before they get anywhere near the English Channel. For those travelling so far, especially unaccompanied minors, it is a desperate dangerous route that we push people into by removing and complicating all other routes.
But lots of people do still apply and succeed under the legal routes.
Apply for what, asylum? From within an African state? While under age? Not really.
You're pushing against an open door Kelvin. I'm not saying that it's not dangerous. Obviously huge numbers of lives have been lost in the med and elsewhere (I should have made clear I was referring to the channel crossing stage rather than the whole journey). Nor am I saying that the current approach and availablity of legal routes are adequate for a nation like the UK.
No, I wasn't referring to applying for asylum from abroad, I was referring to routes for children overseas to join relatives in the UK. As I've stated many times above, you can't claim asylum from overseas.
tjagain
Full MemberKarma will get her – she will come back as a cockroach or similar
She already has tbh
I had thought of Buddhism as a more moral religion
You might want to explain that to the Rohingya.
You might want to explain that to the Rohingya.
Fair point. The actions of repressive governments frequently fail to accord with the majority religious belief in their country; there's a lot of nationalism, racist and politics there. I don't know what ordinary Buddhist citizens think of the genocide. It's not quite the same as a self identified practicing Buddhist in a non-Buddhist country (so not driven by conformism) acting in the way Braverman does.
She already has tbh
If ever we needed a Like button
. It’s not quite the same as a self identified practicing Buddhist in a non-Buddhist country (so not driven by conformism) acting in the way Braverman does.
That's the weird thing about it for me, as far as I am aware Braverman is a convert to Buddhism - a Western form of Buddhism. I don't doubt their authenticity as Buddhists btw.
If she had been brought up by Buddhist parents and still identified as Buddhist you might not be totally surprised if she wasn't the best example.
But that's not the case, presumably she actively embraced Buddhism at some point, and apparently still does.
Having said that the founder of the Triratna Buddhist Order that Braverman is a member of was accused of some pretty serious sexual abuse allegations.
Something which I am loathed to draw attention to because I know a few Triratna Buddhists, including several women, and they are all truly lovely and kind people.
But it is a reminder that all humans should be judged as individuals, not by their race, creed, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, etc, etc
Or "by the content of their character", to paraphrase the great Martin Luther King.
She already has tbh
Harsh on cockroaches
"The Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, says her heartfelt thoughts are with all those involved. Those words ring utterly hollow when she has spent her time as Home Secretary vilifying and demonising the very people she now feigns sympathy with. She should resign in disgrace.
PCS wrote to the home secretary only last week providing her with a ready-made solution to these dangerous crossings".
Her supporters will regard this as a result, not a tragedy.
There’s something uniquely dispiriting about her crocodile tears yesterday, given that she and Sunak (and Patel before her) - all the children of immigrants - spend their time demonising these people as little better than vermin. All for their own personal political gain.
It’s an obscenity. Their casual inhumanity and complete absence of compassion really is disgusting to witness
The fact that they’re so enthusiastically pulling the ladder up behind themselves makes them even worse than the Farages of this world IMHO
I had thought of Buddhism as a more moral religion – but she’s changed that opinion.
Know your place, be good and you may have better luck next time around? She can probably square it.
be good
Yes, there's quite a lot of that in Buddhism, even against animals.
And there is the requirement for metta bhavana, which is the Buddhist meditative practice of cultivating loving-kindness toward all sentient beings.
But no, I have no idea how Braverman squares her religious requirement to show loving-kindness towards all human beings, including those which are considered "difficult", with the obvious lack of humanity which she appears to show as Home Secretary.
crocodile tears
Easy when you have made a conscious decision to leave your core human decency behind in order to progress up the ladder. My contempt for them is total.
But no, I have no idea how Braverman squares her religious requirement to show loving-kindness towards all human beings, including those which are considered “difficult”, with the obvious lack of humanity which she appears to show as Home Secretary.
There's a few "Christian" Home Secretarys have struggled with that, to be fair.
Doesn't Rees-Mogg always bang on about his christian 'faith'?
Obviously not the bit in the bible that says that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of A needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God
Like most things in the life of a Tory MP, even the word of god is taken as advisory rather than mandatory
There’s a few “Christian” Home Secretarys have struggled with that, to be fair.
I don't think they struggled as such. Religion is pretty adaptable to this sort of thing. Take the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa. You will never see a better example of supposed piety in theory combined with selectivity and utter hypocrisy in practice.
And the theory isn't what matters. It is the practice.
Take the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa.
I generally find that when religion and beards collide it turns nasty.
Is ^^ that a dig at Muslims?
Yes in the case of the South African Dutch Reformed Church Christian teachings were deliberately distorted to justify racism and injustice.
But it should also be remembered the deeply held religious commitment and religious motivation of someone such as Bishop Desmond Tutu who courageously devoted himself fighting racism and injustice.
Also Nelson Mandela claimed that during his darkest moments of incarceration it was his Christian faith which sustained him.
Plus for me the most inspirational fighter for justice and against racism, in modern times, was Martin Luther King, an American Baptist minister whose religious convictions went to the very heart of his being.
I think the issue with our clean-shaven Home Secretary is how can she behave in the manner that she does despite her stated religious beliefs, rather than whether her religion plays a part - it obviously doesn't.
<dang it, double post>
binners
Full MemberDoesn’t Rees-Mogg always bang on about his christian ‘faith’?
Yeah but he likes fanfic jesus not canon jesus. Like Johnson and Churchill. Emulating the real thing would be hard, so just make up your own.
Rees-Mogg possibly doesn't realise supply side jesus is satire
There’s something uniquely dispiriting about her crocodile tears yesterday, given that she and Sunak (and Patel before her) – all the children of immigrants – spend their time demonising these people as little better than vermin. All for their own personal political gain.
It’s an obscenity. Their casual inhumanity and complete absence of compassion really is disgusting to witness
The fact that they’re so enthusiastically pulling the ladder up behind themselves makes them even worse than the Farages of this world IMHO
That's veering dangerously close to pre-ascribing views onto people because of their background, appearance etc.
A bit like the tendency for people to think the rotund chap in the pub is going to be 'cheerful' just because - then getting miffed when he turns out to be just as likely to be a miserable sod as anyone else.
On the flip side, though, I can obviously see what would lead the likes of Sunak, Patel and Braverman to over-compensate to be accepted (tolerated?) by the old skool Tory faithful. What does piss me off is that they give an easy out for the "I'm not racist, but" brigade.
Two more years of this shit. They're going to take what's left of the family silver, leave our international reputation even more shredded and **** off into the sunset laughing.
It makes me quite cross.
Is ^^ that a dig at Muslims?
Nope ,every single religion on the planet.
Like most things in the life of a Tory MP, even the word of god is taken as advisory rather than mandatory
A few pinpoint lightening bolts might make them reconsider....
Doesn’t Rees-Mogg always bang on about his christian ‘faith’?
The handy thing about pretty much every religion is they have accumulated quite a lot of documentation and so with a bit of picking and careful interpreting you can ensure pretty much any of your preconceived opinions has gods personal agreement.
When that fails eg his companies funds ownership of shares in a company which sold abortion pills it was quickly squared away in his mind and its time for the legal arguments.
Its a variation on Groucho Marx “Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.”
"Those are my principles, and if I cant profit from them/stir up hate, well, I have others".
A few pinpoint lightening bolts might make them reconsider….
Nah they would just declare her a heretic and terrorist.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/19/asylum-seekers-rwanda-uk-plan-legal-high-court
The government’s highly controversial plan to send asylum seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda is legal, the high court has ruled.
In a judgment that could have major ramifications for Rishi Sunak’s government, judges have dismissed an application from asylum seekers, aid groups and a border officials’ union to stop the Conservative government from acting on a deportation agreement with the central African country.
Under the deal, the UK would send some people who arrive in the UK as stowaways or in boats to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be processed. Those granted asylum would stay in Rwanda rather than returning to the UK.
What a time to be alive...
Disgusting.
Pissing away millions to appease racists - and the horrendous thing is that their analysis of us as an electorate is that we would want this.
We are pariahs and we deserve it.
We are pariahs and some of us
wedeserve it.
I refuse to be dragged down to the point where I become one of them
Full judgement is a bit more nuanced. Looks like every case needs to be taken on merit… by the Home Secretary… which opens every attempted deportation (and denial of the right to begin a claim for asylum) up to a legal challenge. I think.
https://twitter.com/sianushka/status/1604791728174780416?s=21
It says everything about this government that the single solitary consideration on whether they do something or not is 'is it legal?'
Not 'is it right?' or is it morally defensible?', simply 'can we get away with it under international law?'
Brexit Britain summed up.
I note they still won't commit to any of the logistics, numbers or timescales
I still don't think more than a handful of people, if anyone, will ever end up being deported to Rwanda. This is simply the opposite of virtue-signalling, designed purely as a dog whistle to their racist base.
What I find the most depressing thing of all is seeing 2nd generation immigrants/refugees now committing all their efforts to denying to others all the advantages that this country has afforded them
And then there's the obvious next question... how much is all this nonsense costing? Has anyone put in a Freedom of Information request to see the legal fees for the Home Office? It must be racking up quite significantly.
Ooof... this has given airtime to Jonathan Gullis... currently on Radio4 bashing bishops and telling us that this is all about honouring the Brexit vote and anyone talking against this policy should shut up because of that vote.
That High Court ruling means that no-one will probably ever be deported to Rwanda.
Doesn't look like a success if every case has to be evaluated which will lead to every one going to appeal 😉 Oh deep joy to see the government fighting each one. Sadly we will be paying for the legal bill though for the government that is, even though I fundamentally disagree with it having refugee parents...
JeZ
