Bad actors stoking hate again (Southport Stabbings)

i listed on the previous page the safe routes i believe the UK has

there are no real safe routes to claim asylum in the UK

also we have a large cohort of asylum seekers who can NOT be processed leagally nor legally returned.  they are in indefinite limbo.  arrive irregularly then under they tory laws you cannot claim asylum.  But neither can they be deported so they just sit in limbo

there are no real safe routes to claim asylum in the UK

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes

Back to the rioters now, good to see the prison sentences rolling on, with the overcrowding issues and the previous weeks promise regarding prisons, it could’ve been possible to have a lot of light sentences, but this is a proper round em up and throw them in prison exercise, must be nice for the police who were on riot duty to go around the houses and get those who thought they were invulnerable a week previous.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes

That was published when Suella Braverman was Home Secretary. You need to accept Suella Braverman’s and Rishi Sunak’s narrative concerning people arriving on small boats if you believe the claims it makes.

Do you argee? You should say so if you do.

I’d imagine that’s a quite satisfying knock on the door.

“Good afternoon sir. Remember me? You may not recognise me as I had my riot gear on at the time but you were throwing bricks at me. Would you care to accompany me down to the station?”

That was published when Suella Braverman was Home Secretary. You need to accept Suella Braverman’s and Rishi Sunak’s narrative concerning people arriving on small boats if you believe the claims it makes.

Those agreements have been in place longer than the published date of the website, also remember, it’s a government department, not just Suella’s private memo board, these are the same agreement with the UNHCR and other agencies that other European nations have, so not sure i’m accepting Suella and Rishi’s narrative.

These have nothing to do with small boats either.

For a nice chat

Those agreements have been in place longer than the published date of the website

Since 2015 apparently…… and?

These have nothing to do with small boats either.

So why post it? The claim is that people are arriving in small boats to the UK because of the lack of safe routes. The government itself claims that approximately 75% of asylum applications from people arriving in small boats are successful.

Why would people make a dangerous and completely unnecessary crossing in a leaking inflatable if a safe route was available?

Edit: I already pointed out that most asylum applications from those arriving in small boats were successful. From two pages ago on this thread:

we know that Albanians more generally had been less likely to be granted asylum than other nationalities with the current grant rate 53% compared to 76% for all nationalities.

Sauce:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/factsheet-small-boat-crossings-since-july-2022/factsheet-small-boat-crossings-since-july-2022

So why post it? The claim is that people are arriving in small boats to the UK because of the lack of safe routes. The government itself claims that approximately 75% of asylum applications from people arriving in small boats are successful.

Because people were claiming there were no safe asylum routes, which there are, as stated earlier, those crossing either don’t fall under any of the legal routes, or are illegal migrants rather than asylum seekers, again, as stated earlier, how do you deal with this, and how do other nations deal with it, as the UK is not alone in having a dangerous crossing that migrants use, but how do you reduce this risk the best way is the big question.

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.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/hull-riot-grandmother-locked-up-9505972#amp-readmore-target

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.

@msp

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, Pakistan, 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.

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

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/dad-three-touched-down-manchester-29787359

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.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-march-2024/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-march-2024#:~:text=In%20the%20year%20ending%20March%202024%2C%2031%2C079%20people%20arrived%20by,peak%20of%2045%2C774%20in%202022).

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.