It's far from easy to return people to places like Afghanistan, partly because of a series of "messy situations" we've left behind.
Probably need some actual evidence to back up what you say since you have outed yourself as someone who just makes stuff up, i.e. border posts for asylum claimants. Just a link to wherever you got the numbers that "half of them are" will do it.
Not quite half way down the page. 48% of those refused asylum between 2010-2020 had been removed by June 2024. Caveats to that number are at the bottom, but I doubt Oxford University are in the habit of releasing dodgy analysis.
Can you remind me what that legal route is for someone with no passport? How do they get here, where do they go if they could even arrive etc,
You can also apply at any of our embassies round the world and there are hundreds of them. Uk law requires you to apply on arrival on uk soil. All uk embassies are legally on uk soil.
It is not true that you can apply for asylum in the UK at a UK embassy (or high commission):
It is not true that UK embassies are legally on UK soil - this is a myth and a misunderstanding of the principle that host countries do not (generally) enter foreign representations without the consent of the diplomatic mission in question: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/diplomatic-immunity-and-diplomatic-premises
well half of them are. The rest who have exhausted their appeal process are still here with no right to be here and not returned. That’s wrong and an easy win
Probably need some actual evidence to back up what you say since you have outed yourself as someone who just makes stuff up, i.e. border posts for asylum claimants. Just a link to wherever you got the numbers that "half of them are" will do it.
I’ve already provided the link to the migration observatory further up the page which is my source But just for you here it is again https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/returns-of-unauthorised-migrants-from-the-uk/
That 48% is also misleading. Further down the page there's a chart that shows that bluntly, removing failed asylum seekers takes time, not least due to the time taken in getting the recipient country to agree to the return and come up with the paperwork to facilitate it. The data shows that returns are much more like 70+% IF you allow time for the return to happen.
OK, two counters would still be what about the other 30%, fair. And also how can we speed up the process so there isn't such a delay. But "well half of them are. The rest who have exhausted their appeal process are still here with no right to be here and not returned. That’s wrong and an easy win" isn't particularly true either....if it was easy the numbers would be higher.
I too have 'concerns about immigration', that would be fair to say. But mine are about we need more of the right type, of people that add to our culture and economy and yes, less of the ones that have no intent to do that. But to me having concerns means I find out about it and decide a reasoned position...not repeating lies that are fed to me by fascists on social media. You can draw your own opinion on whether it takes a certain level of education or understanding to be able to be 'do your own research' but I know a few very educated people that are happily parroting SM lies. And it's not because they don't know better, it's because they're racists and they know that reposting these lies adds weight to them.
Where out of interest did you get your info from that you can apply for asylum at the french border?
Good video covering some of the issues raised in the debate and including an interesting take I wasn't aware of linking the rise of immigration to the restriction of movement started in the 70s (when immigration was more stable). TLDR - seasonal / temporary workers applying for permanent residency for fear of not being able to come back.
