FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Asylum Seekers

Asylum Seekers

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

People illegally crossing the channel to get into the UK to claim asylum is a very emotive and difficult topic that is more complex than simple black & white. The Home Affairs Select Committee have been asking the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office about it today...

Q. If I am a young person escaping religious persecution who has an aunt in the UK or distant relative in the UK what is my best, safe and legal route to get into the UK?

A. There is no dedicated safe and legal routes for those conflicts!

Q. Why isn’t there?

A. The [UK] Government has not set that up.

Q. So to clarify, someone with links to the UK would not have a safe route to get to the UK!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Even if they have family here why should that automatically let them in unless they bring some skills we need then no in my opinion.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Even if they have family here why should that automatically let them in unless they bring some skills we need then no in my opinion."

Does that include Ukrainian refugees

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"Even if they have family here why should that automatically let them in unless they bring some skills we need then no in my opinion."

It's not about automatically letting "them" in. It's about allowing people to claim asylum.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The old religious persecution argument. These people have left their countries and travelled through many EU countries which are not exactly rife with such persecution.

There are many perfectly legal ways of coming into this country. If they are not prepared to follow the longer legal process that doesn't mean we should let them in anyway.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"The old religious persecution argument. These people have left their countries and travelled through many EU countries which are not exactly rife with such persecution.

There are many perfectly legal ways of coming into this country. If they are not prepared to follow the longer legal process that doesn't mean we should let them in anyway.

So much confusion in one post. It's actually impressive.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The old religious persecution argument. These people have left their countries and travelled through many EU countries which are not exactly rife with such persecution.

There are many perfectly legal ways of coming into this country. If they are not prepared to follow the longer legal process that doesn't mean we should let them in anyway.

Where to start with this , so the only refugees we can ever ‘accept’ are French or Irish?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The old religious persecution argument. These people have left their countries and travelled through many EU countries which are not exactly rife with such persecution.

There are many perfectly legal ways of coming into this country. If they are not prepared to follow the longer legal process that doesn't mean we should let them in anyway.

One of us has a mother who is a US citizen. Just because a relative lives in a country is no justification for jumping the queue and abusing the system. All this does is hold up genuine asylum seekers."
what are the legal ways? Amd what if you never had a passport. Or your passport provider is as quick as the UKs...

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So much confusion in one post. It's actually impressive. "

Personal attacks without countering the points. Predictable.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So much confusion in one post. It's actually impressive.

Personal attacks without countering

the points. Predictable. "

What is your point, there are no direct travel routes from Afghanistan, Syria etc etc , do how do they get here without passing through these ‘safe countries’

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Where to start with this , so the only refugees we can ever ‘accept’ are French or Irish? "

You could start by using a reasonable argument to counter the point instead of trying to suggest racism is the motivation.

No, if an Irish person arrives illegally they should be removed, as should a Fench person.

If you circumvent the system you are already giving a bad first impression to the community you are looking to enter. This is especially true of those who deliberately destroy their documents.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Where to start with this , so the only refugees we can ever ‘accept’ are French or Irish?

You could start by using a reasonable argument to counter the point instead of trying to suggest racism is the motivation.

No, if an Irish person arrives illegally they should be removed, as should a Fench person.

If you circumvent the system you are already giving a bad first impression to the community you are looking to enter. This is especially true of those who deliberately destroy their documents."

How many people ‘deliberately destroy ‘ their documents? Do you have the figures?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"Even if they have family here why should that automatically let them in unless they bring some skills we need then no in my opinion."

There's crops being left to rot in the fields, there's 1.3 million vacant job positions..

Revenue to the Exchequer etc..

Is it idealogical self harm or the current government are clueless?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Where to start with this , so the only refugees we can ever ‘accept’ are French or Irish?

You could start by using a reasonable argument to counter the point instead of trying to suggest racism is the motivation.

No, if an Irish person arrives illegally they should be removed, as should a Fench person.

If you circumvent the system you are already giving a bad first impression to the community you are looking to enter. This is especially true of those who deliberately destroy their documents."

And how do people fleeing Afghanistan get here?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"And how do people fleeing Afghanistan get here? "

You aren't suggesting we let them in simply because they travelled a long way?

Why are you not concerned about who they are, where they've come from, or what their motivations are?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

So much confusion in one post. It's actually impressive.

Personal attacks without countering the points. Predictable. "

Where was the personal attack?

I merely commented on the confusion you posted. It could be satire for all I know.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"And how do people fleeing Afghanistan get here?

You aren't suggesting we let them in simply because they travelled a long way?

Why are you not concerned about who they are, where they've come from, or what their motivations are?"

Try answering the question? How do people fleeing persecution, many of whom supported the British , get here

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So much confusion in one post. It's actually impressive.

Personal attacks without countering the points. Predictable.

Where was the personal attack?

I merely commented on the confusion you posted. It could be satire for all I know."

I hope it is, it is difficult to tell though,

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"And how do people fleeing Afghanistan get here?

You aren't suggesting we let them in simply because they travelled a long way?

Why are you not concerned about who they are, where they've come from, or what their motivations are?"

You seem to be confusing, let "them" in, with, let "them" apply for asylum.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"And how do people fleeing Afghanistan get here?

You aren't suggesting we let them in simply because they travelled a long way?

Why are you not concerned about who they are, where they've come from, or what their motivations are?"

Btw, we don’t ‘let them in’ they are legally entitled to apply for asylum here, the sooner you realise this the sooner you will stop getting angry and confused

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"Where to start with this , so the only refugees we can ever ‘accept’ are French or Irish?

You could start by using a reasonable argument to counter the point instead of trying to suggest racism is the motivation.

No, if an Irish person arrives illegally they should be removed, as should a Fench person.

If you circumvent the system you are already giving a bad first impression to the community you are looking to enter. This is especially true of those who deliberately destroy their documents.

How many people ‘deliberately destroy ‘ their documents? Do you have the figures? "

The figure is approx:

Number of Daily Mail readers X 1,000

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"And how do people fleeing Afghanistan get here?

You aren't suggesting we let them in simply because they travelled a long way?

Why are you not concerned about who they are, where they've come from, or what their motivations are?"

Sadly for some of them their motivation is to avoid being hunted down by the Taliban as they used to work for us and were left high and dry by this government..

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"Btw, we don’t ‘let them in’ they are legally entitled to apply for asylum here, the sooner you realise this the sooner you will stop getting angry and confused "

That's inaccurate. They are legally entitled to apply for asylum, they are not legally entitled to apply here.

That is, they can apply for asylum in any country, once they have arrived there. The Convention does not stop them from travelling through safe countries, but it also does not give them rights to do so.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Btw, we don’t ‘let them in’ they are legally entitled to apply for asylum here, the sooner you realise this the sooner you will stop getting angry and confused

That's inaccurate. They are legally entitled to apply for asylum, they are not legally entitled to apply here.

Wrong, they are legally entitled to ‘apply’ for asylum here .

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"Btw, we don’t ‘let them in’ they are legally entitled to apply for asylum here, the sooner you realise this the sooner you will stop getting angry and confused

That's inaccurate. They are legally entitled to apply for asylum, they are not legally entitled to apply here.

So in the anti-immigrant camp there seems to be two schools of thought.

1. Everything is fine, as long as it's legal.

2. Don't want "them" coming here.

Is that about right?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"And how do people fleeing Afghanistan get here?

You aren't suggesting we let them in simply because they travelled a long way?

Why are you not concerned about who they are, where they've come from, or what their motivations are?

Try answering the question? How do people fleeing persecution, many of whom supported the British , get here "

Why are you so keen that they do?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Btw, we don’t ‘let them in’ they are legally entitled to apply for asylum here, the sooner you realise this the sooner you will stop getting angry and confused

That's inaccurate. They are legally entitled to apply for asylum, they are not legally entitled to apply here.

So in the anti-immigrant camp there seems to be two schools of thought.

1. Everything is fine, as long as it's legal.

2. Don't want "them" coming here.

Is that about right?"

It has amazing how they are so keen to uphold ‘their version’ of the law but are happy to break international law by sending them to Rwanda

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"And how do people fleeing Afghanistan get here?

You aren't suggesting we let them in simply because they travelled a long way?

Why are you not concerned about who they are, where they've come from, or what their motivations are?

Try answering the question? How do people fleeing persecution, many of whom supported the British , get here

Why are you so keen that they do? "

I wasn’t taking to you , unless you can answer my question

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Immigration is actually a wonderful thing (not being sarcastic) but only when it is controlled. Just making that clear as it seems some have got the wrong end of the stick.

Any "anti-immigrant" camp is likely to consist of folk who are simply concerned about the wellbeing of their own communities safety and access to services. You need to get this Tory voting, Sun/DailyFail reading, uneducated, van driver caricature out of your head.

If folk stopped fighting amongst each other using straw man arguments maybe people would focus their disdain on those who deserve it. The civil service pillocks who clearly arent doing a good enough job for how much they're paid would be a good start. Why is there such a process backlog in the first place?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

Any "anti-immigrant" camp is likely to consist of folk who are simply concerned about the wellbeing of their own communities safety and access to services.

This is the import part. Why do people blame immigrants (who have no power and influence) for problems in their communities, instead of the government (who have all the power and influence)?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This is the import part. Why do people blame immigrants (who have no power and influence) for problems in their communities, instead of the government (who have all the power and influence)?"

Who knows, maybe folk should listen a bit more to them? Maybe it's footage of immigrants rioting that scares them? The claims from groups like ISIS that they Will hide among them?

A few weeks ago there were massive riots in Sweden with a hoard of young men chasing police through the streets. You can find the footage if you Google it.

People see stuff like that and worry that they are all like that, hence why controlled immigration is important. Greet them, vet/process them, help them integrate.

The civil service and government are failing on that front and this whole pro-immigrant anti-immigrant argument just detracts from that, as it is intended to do.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"This is the import part. Why do people blame immigrants (who have no power and influence) for problems in their communities, instead of the government (who have all the power and influence)?

Who knows, maybe folk should listen a bit more to them? Maybe it's footage of immigrants rioting that scares them? The claims from groups like ISIS that they Will hide among them?

A few weeks ago there were massive riots in Sweden with a hoard of young men chasing police through the streets. You can find the footage if you Google it.

People see stuff like that and worry that they are all like that, hence why controlled immigration is important. Greet them, vet/process them, help them integrate.

The civil service and government are failing on that front and this whole pro-immigrant anti-immigrant argument just detracts from that, as it is intended to do."

Now we're getting closer to agreement.

The media hypes beyond all reason things like "Maybe it's footage of immigrants rioting that scares them? The claims from groups like ISIS that they Will hide among them?". To cause people to have these blanket anti-immigrant opinions instead of looking at the real causes of the problems, and pointing the finger at those who could do something but don't (IE the government).

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"Btw, we don’t ‘let them in’ they are legally entitled to apply for asylum here, the sooner you realise this the sooner you will stop getting angry and confused "

"That's inaccurate. They are legally entitled to apply for asylum, they are not legally entitled to apply here.

"Wrong, they are legally entitled to ‘apply’ for asylum here ."

I'm sorry, this just isn't true. There's nothing in any law which states that an asylum-seeker has the right to apply for asylum in a country of their choice.

Where do you get this idea?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Btw, we don’t ‘let them in’ they are legally entitled to apply for asylum here, the sooner you realise this the sooner you will stop getting angry and confused

That's inaccurate. They are legally entitled to apply for asylum, they are not legally entitled to apply here.

Wrong, they are legally entitled to ‘apply’ for asylum here .

I'm sorry, this just isn't true. There's nothing in any law which states that an asylum-seeker has the right to apply for asylum in a country of their choice.

Where do you get this idea?"

It is international law, where do you get the idea that it is illegal to apply for asylum in the UK?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"Btw, we don’t ‘let them in’ they are legally entitled to apply for asylum here, the sooner you realise this the sooner you will stop getting angry and confused"

"That's inaccurate. They are legally entitled to apply for asylum, they are not legally entitled to apply here.

"Wrong, they are legally entitled to ‘apply’ for asylum here ."

"I'm sorry, this just isn't true. There's nothing in any law which states that an asylum-seeker has the right to apply for asylum in a country of their choice.

Where do you get this idea?"

"It is international law, where do you get the idea that it is illegal to apply for asylum in the UK? "

Which international law?

I've not said that it's illegal to apply for asylum in the UK. What I said was that an asylum-seeker must be within the UK (or at an international arrival point) to make a claim. The UK does not permit claims to be made from abroad (I'm not aware of any country that allows asylum claims to be made from abroad).

Here's the official government advice page - https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum

That page says that "You should apply when you arrive in the UK ...".

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Btw, we don’t ‘let them in’ they are legally entitled to apply for asylum here, the sooner you realise this the sooner you will stop getting angry and confused

That's inaccurate. They are legally entitled to apply for asylum, they are not legally entitled to apply here.

Wrong, they are legally entitled to ‘apply’ for asylum here .

I'm sorry, this just isn't true. There's nothing in any law which states that an asylum-seeker has the right to apply for asylum in a country of their choice.

Where do you get this idea?

It is international law, where do you get the idea that it is illegal to apply for asylum in the UK?

Which international law?

Here's the official government advice page - https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum

That page says that "You should apply when you arrive in the UK ..."."

PMSL, are you being deliberately contrary ? Is it illegal to apply for asylum in the UK? No. What is the opposite of illegal? Legal. So it is legal for an asylum

seeker to apply for asylum in the UK .

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"Btw, we don’t ‘let them in’ they are legally entitled to apply for asylum here, the sooner you realise this the sooner you will stop getting angry and confused"

"That's inaccurate. They are legally entitled to apply for asylum, they are not legally entitled to apply here.

"Wrong, they are legally entitled to ‘apply’ for asylum here ."

"I'm sorry, this just isn't true. There's nothing in any law which states that an asylum-seeker has the right to apply for asylum in a country of their choice.

Where do you get this idea?"

"It is international law, where do you get the idea that it is illegal to apply for asylum in the UK?"

"Which international law?

Here's the official government advice page - https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum

That page says that "You should apply when you arrive in the UK ..."."

"PMSL, are you being deliberately contrary ? Is it illegal to apply for asylum in the UK? No. What is the opposite of illegal? Legal. So it is legal for an asylum seeker to apply for asylum in the UK . "

I can't help thinking that we're arguing at crossed purposes here. I'll try to make myself clearer.

You originally said "they are legally entitled to apply for asylum here". I read that as meaning "they have a legally enforceable right to travel here in order to claim asylum". I have been trying to say that it is fine for them to claim asylum in the UK, but they do not have an enforceable right to come to the UK.

So:

Refugees have a right to asylum in one of the countries that are signatories to the 1951 Convention.

Refugees do not have a right to travel to a specific country to claim asylum (and here when I say 'do not have the right, I mean that they are legally allowed to, but they do not have an enforceable right).

I hope that makes my postings clearer.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Btw, we don’t ‘let them in’ they are legally entitled to apply for asylum here, the sooner you realise this the sooner you will stop getting angry and confused

That's inaccurate. They are legally entitled to apply for asylum, they are not legally entitled to apply here.

Wrong, they are legally entitled to ‘apply’ for asylum here .

I'm sorry, this just isn't true. There's nothing in any law which states that an asylum-seeker has the right to apply for asylum in a country of their choice.

Where do you get this idea?

It is international law, where do you get the idea that it is illegal to apply for asylum in the UK?

Which international law?

Here's the official government advice page - https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum

That page says that "You should apply when you arrive in the UK ...".

PMSL, are you being deliberately contrary ? Is it illegal to apply for asylum in the UK? No. What is the opposite of illegal? Legal. So it is legal for an asylum seeker to apply for asylum in the UK .

I can't help thinking that we're arguing at crossed purposes here. I'll try to make myself clearer.

So:

Refugees have a right to asylum in one of the countries that are signatories to the 1951 Convention.

I hope that makes my postings clearer."

Ah yes, that is correct

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

This whole topic is just people chasing tails and interpreting legal frameworks and agreements to better suit their agenda.

Bottom line is surely:

1. Some poor sods live in dangerous places.

2. They need to escape those dangerous places.

3. They have a preference for which country they want to live in normally based on factors such as 2nd language, post colonial ties, relatives already settled, promises (explicit or implied) made by a Govt during a crisis situation when the individual helped said Govt.

4. Some are only economic migrants but most are legitimate asylum seekers (Govt own stats).

5. The whole “first safe country argument” means that a handful of countries would have to house the majority of asylum seekers (borders and all that).

6. The UK is an island and has not provided any legal channel for people to seek asylum in the UK before they arrive here.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

Could UK embassy's or consulates around the world be used to asses asylum eligibility and if that person qualifies for asylum, be given a temporary visa allowing them to enter the UK under conditions.

What is stopping that from happening?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"Could UK embassy's or consulates around the world be used to asses asylum eligibility and if that person qualifies for asylum, be given a temporary visa allowing them to enter the UK under conditions.

What is stopping that from happening?"

The only thing stopping that from happening is that the UK doesn't want to do it.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

What is stopping that from happening?

The only thing stopping that from happening is that the UK doesn't want to do it."

Correction. The current UK Govt doesn’t want to do it not the UK. Semantics and pedantic I know but it does matter.

Good luck with maintaining an Embassy/Consulate in the countries in question though and even if there is one then good luck to someone who is at risk and needs asylum travelling to and entering a British Embassy/Consulate.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

What is stopping that from happening?

The only thing stopping that from happening is that the UK doesn't want to do it.

Correction. The current UK Govt doesn’t want to do it not the UK. Semantics and pedantic I know but it does matter.

To add by way of example from GOV.UK

“The British Embassy in Kabul has suspended in-country operations: all UK diplomatic and consular staff have been temporarily withdrawn from Afghanistan. The UK government does not provide consular support within Afghanistan.“

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

Seems quite a lot of confusion between seeking asylum, refugees seeking a safe haven and immigration and not really any solutions being offered beyond moaning about what is currently happening.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

What is stopping that from happening?"

"The only thing stopping that from happening is that the UK doesn't want to do it."

"Correction. The current UK Govt doesn’t want to do it not the UK. Semantics and pedantic I know but it does matter."

You are technically correct, which is the best kind of being correct.

Though in this case I suspect that the majority of the UK population might be quietly in agreement with the government.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

What is stopping that from happening?

The only thing stopping that from happening is that the UK doesn't want to do it.

Correction. The current UK Govt doesn’t want to do it not the UK. Semantics and pedantic I know but it does matter.

To add by way of example from GOV.UK

If someone has managed to get to the shores of France to cross the Channel, they must have travelled through many countries that have an embassy?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What is stopping that from happening?

The only thing stopping that from happening is that the UK doesn't want to do it.

Correction. The current UK Govt doesn’t want to do it not the UK. Semantics and pedantic I know but it does matter.

To add by way of example from GOV.UK

If someone has managed to get to the shores of France to cross the Channel, they must have travelled through many countries that have an embassy?"
you still can't claim asylum at a British Embassy. But maybe we could change that law ...

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The immigration and asylum system is broken,

Stupid gimmicks which pander to the catheter brigade and waste taxpayers money is absolutely ridiculous.

Priti Patel is an utter fuckwit, she has no sense, and for the slob enough said.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

What the fuck is ‘ the catheter brigade’?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"What the fuck is ‘ the catheter brigade’?"

It's his new hip-n-trendy cool slang word for 'old people'.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

"The immigration and asylum system is broken,

Stupid gimmicks which pander to the catheter brigade and waste taxpayers money is absolutely ridiculous.

Priti Patel is an utter fuckwit, she has no sense, and for the slob enough said."

Fine words. What would you do to fix it?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

What is stopping that from happening?

The only thing stopping that from happening is that the UK doesn't want to do it.

Correction. The current UK Govt doesn’t want to do it not the UK. Semantics and pedantic I know but it does matter.

To add by way of example from GOV.UK

If someone has managed to get to the shores of France to cross the Channel, they must have travelled through many countries that have an embassy?"

Shhh

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ayturners turn hayMan over a year ago

Wellingborugh

"The immigration and asylum system is broken,

Stupid gimmicks which pander to the catheter brigade and waste taxpayers money is absolutely ridiculous.

Priti Patel is an utter fuckwit, she has no sense, and for the slob enough said."
. If you believe the system to be broken you should address your concerns to the various lawyers who are attempting to make it impossible when we wish to deport those who have no right to reside in the UK. They are simply milking the system. Just as well that we have Priti Patel trying to do a very difficult job and is an elected MP and cabinet minister . I prefer to respect the wishes of the majority , not that of a vocal monitority . Likewise Boris Johnson represents the wishes of the majority. That is why we elected him though a vocal minority try to represent a different picture

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

"The immigration and asylum system is broken,

Stupid gimmicks which pander to the catheter brigade and waste taxpayers money is absolutely ridiculous.

Priti Patel is an utter fuckwit, she has no sense, and for the slob enough said.. If you believe the system to be broken you should address your concerns to the various lawyers who are attempting to make it impossible when we wish to deport those who have no right to reside in the UK. They are simply milking the system. Just as well that we have Priti Patel trying to do a very difficult job and is an elected MP and cabinet minister . I prefer to respect the wishes of the majority , not that of a vocal monitority . Likewise Boris Johnson represents the wishes of the majority. That is why we elected him though a vocal minority try to represent a different picture "

“monitority” good word. What does it mean?

BTW how do YOU know what the majority wants? Please supply evidence from reputable sources. Thanks.

If you are basing that opinion then my opinion is that the majority are actually confused and unsure with two vocal minorities on either side of the argument!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

"The immigration and asylum system is broken,

Stupid gimmicks which pander to the catheter brigade and waste taxpayers money is absolutely ridiculous.

“monitority” good word. What does it mean?

BTW how do YOU know what the majority wants? Please supply evidence from reputable sources. Thanks.

If you are basing that opinion then my opinion is that the majority are actually confused and unsure with two vocal minorities on either side of the argument!"

There are very few people offering any suggestions of how it should be done. Whatever "done" actually means. But presumably including integration, values, health, education, housing, security, employment amongst the very many areas impacted.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The immigration and asylum system is broken,

Stupid gimmicks which pander to the catheter brigade and waste taxpayers money is absolutely ridiculous.

Priti Patel is an utter fuckwit, she has no sense, and for the slob enough said.

Fine words. What would you do to fix it? "

Employ a better Home Secretary, next question?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"The immigration and asylum system is broken,

Stupid gimmicks which pander to the catheter brigade and waste taxpayers money is absolutely ridiculous.

I dunno if this is a parody account or not. If you're for real, no one has as much distain for British people as you.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The immigration and asylum system is broken,

Stupid gimmicks which pander to the catheter brigade and waste taxpayers money is absolutely ridiculous.

I dunno if this is a parody account or not. If you're for real, no one has as much distain for British people as you."

It is a Tory boy parody that definitely hates Britain and the British people

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

"The immigration and asylum system is broken,

Stupid gimmicks which pander to the catheter brigade and waste taxpayers money is absolutely ridiculous.

Priti Patel is an utter fuckwit, she has no sense, and for the slob enough said.

Fine words. What would you do to fix it?

Employ a better Home Secretary, next question? "

Not really an answer. What would you do to improve it?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The immigration and asylum system is broken,

Stupid gimmicks which pander to the catheter brigade and waste taxpayers money is absolutely ridiculous.

Priti Patel is an utter fuckwit, she has no sense, and for the slob enough said.

Fine words. What would you do to fix it?

Employ a better Home Secretary, next question?

Not really an answer. What would you do to improve it? "

It is not my job to find cost effective , workable and legal solutions , I pay her wages. She promised it was legal, it wasn’t, incompetence

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *itzi999Woman over a year ago

Slough

"And how do people fleeing Afghanistan get here?

You aren't suggesting we let them in simply because they travelled a long way?

Why are you not concerned about who they are, where they've come from, or what their motivations are?

Try answering the question? How do people fleeing persecution, many of whom supported the British , get here "

The foreign office do and are trying to get Afghans who helped the allied forces and members of the judiciary etc out of Afghanistan by helping them cross the borders into countries like Pakistan and then a flight to Britain.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

"The immigration and asylum system is broken,

Stupid gimmicks which pander to the catheter brigade and waste taxpayers money is absolutely ridiculous.

Priti Patel is an utter fuckwit, she has no sense, and for the slob enough said.

Fine words. What would you do to fix it?

Employ a better Home Secretary, next question?

Not really an answer. What would you do to improve it?

It is not my job to find cost effective , workable and legal solutions , I pay her wages. She promised it was legal, it wasn’t, incompetence "

So you have no solutions just criticism of others answers.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The immigration and asylum system is broken,

Stupid gimmicks which pander to the catheter brigade and waste taxpayers money is absolutely ridiculous.

Priti Patel is an utter fuckwit, she has no sense, and for the slob enough said.

Fine words. What would you do to fix it?

Employ a better Home Secretary, next question?

Not really an answer. What would you do to improve it?

It is not my job to find cost effective , workable and legal solutions , I pay her wages. She promised it was legal, it wasn’t, incompetence

So you have no solutions just criticism of others answers. "

I have given you a solution, employ a better Home Secretary, if you devise a solution , tell everyone that it is legal then it turns out that it isn’t then you are either a liar or incompetent or both, either way your not fit for the job . Have you never complained about bad service or incompetence or something that you have purchased that was faulty?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The immigration and asylum system is broken,

Stupid gimmicks which pander to the catheter brigade and waste taxpayers money is absolutely ridiculous.

“monitority” good word. What does it mean?

BTW how do YOU know what the majority wants? Please supply evidence from reputable sources. Thanks.

If you are basing that opinion then my opinion is that the majority are actually confused and unsure with two vocal minorities on either side of the argument!

It's never clear what the concerns are that need solving.

But here is a starter for ten

Temporary processing sites near humanitarian hot spots (removes trafficking and also gives better certainty of where people are coming from)

Processing site on France for other cases.

Those who go to France buy should have gone to a hotspot one are returned (no queue jumping)

Given legal means entering illegally counts against your claim

-----

A long term quota flexed for crises

Set up an internationa refugee system to work with other countries

----

Recognise out demographics mean we likely need more immigration and plan infrastructure acorodingly.

----+

Review why claims take so long.

Review why the courts find against HMG so often and learn some lessons

----

Now I am sure there are holes here. I've done this in my 20 Mon commute. Give me staff an time and I reckon I could mould this into something better than ship them off to Rwanda

Although maybe I'm solving the working problem. And the real problem is "we are starting to look unelectable"

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ostafunMan over a year ago

near ipswich

Or we could have just paid Turkey to keep them I’m sure a few more to the EU,s 3million won’t bother them.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *uddy laneMan over a year ago

dudley

Hashtag# ...

great whites seen swimming in the english channel.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Or we could have just paid Turkey to keep them I’m sure a few more to the EU,s 3million won’t bother them."
the EU turkey scheme involvea taking on refugees ... Just not those who arrived irregularly.

Visa free travel for Turkish nationals are also part of the deal. I'm not sure ppl would be happy with a free travel area with 77 million people and rising fast in Turkey....

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"It's never clear what the concerns are that need solving.

But here is a starter for ten

...

Given legal means entering illegally counts against your claim"

This bit needs to go as the 1951 Convention says that you can't punish a genuine asylum seeker for illegally entering your country.

However, I suspect that the biggest problem with your plan is that it allows some people in. It seems that the quiet majority of the British public don't want these people here. If you proposed such a plan, I don't think you would get voted in to implement it.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"It's never clear what the concerns are that need solving.

But here is a starter for ten

...

Given legal means entering illegally counts against your claim

This bit needs to go as the 1951 Convention says that you can't punish a genuine asylum seeker for illegally entering your country.

I don't think they're "quiet". Many people express their anti-immigrant views loudly.

We'll get nowhere while people continue to blame immigrants for the all the things the government fails to tackle.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"It's never clear what the concerns are that need solving.

But here is a starter for ten

...

Given legal means entering illegally counts against your claim

This bit needs to go as the 1951 Convention says that you can't punish a genuine asylum seeker for illegally entering your country.

I don't think they're "quiet". Many people express their anti-immigrant views loudly.

We'll get nowhere while people continue to blame immigrants for the all the things the government fails to tackle."

Again a nonsense claim, who are the people that blame immigrants for all the government failings?

Pro immigration hypocrites - plenty of those the other day. On a March in London a guy with a clipboard asked those marching “can I put you on a list to house an immigrant”?

They all replied “I can’t as I don’t have room”.

But they all had a nice day out in London.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"It's never clear what the concerns are that need solving.

But here is a starter for ten

...

Given legal means entering illegally counts against your claim

This bit needs to go as the 1951 Convention says that you can't punish a genuine asylum seeker for illegally entering your country.

I don't think they're "quiet". Many people express their anti-immigrant views loudly.

We'll get nowhere while people continue to blame immigrants for the all the things the government fails to tackle.

Again a nonsense claim, who are the people that blame immigrants for all the government failings?

Pro immigration hypocrites - plenty of those the other day. On a March in London a guy with a clipboard asked those marching “can I put you on a list to house an immigrant”?

They all replied “I can’t as I don’t have room”.

But they all had a nice day out in London. "

Ah the classic anti-immigrant line of "house them in your place" as if it's the only option.

Good to see this lowest common denominator being dusted off and rolled out still in 2022.

But yes. Just read these threads in fab. So many people with anti-immigrant views. It's horrific really.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's never clear what the concerns are that need solving.

But here is a starter for ten

...

Given legal means entering illegally counts against your claim

This bit needs to go as the 1951 Convention says that you can't punish a genuine asylum seeker for illegally entering your country.

But maybe saying it counts against you is something the convention says you can't do.

I'm basing my belief on the bold belief that the UK oneys the convention.

https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility

Your claim might not be considered if you:

...

travelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"It's never clear what the concerns are that need solving.

But here is a starter for ten

...

Given legal means entering illegally counts against your claim

This bit needs to go as the 1951 Convention says that you can't punish a genuine asylum seeker for illegally entering your country.

I don't think they're "quiet". Many people express their anti-immigrant views loudly.

We'll get nowhere while people continue to blame immigrants for the all the things the government fails to tackle.

Again a nonsense claim, who are the people that blame immigrants for all the government failings?

Pro immigration hypocrites - plenty of those the other day. On a March in London a guy with a clipboard asked those marching “can I put you on a list to house an immigrant”?

They all replied “I can’t as I don’t have room”.

But they all had a nice day out in London.

Ah the classic anti-immigrant line of "house them in your place" as if it's the only option.

Good to see this lowest common denominator being dusted off and rolled out still in 2022.

But yes. Just read these threads in fab. So many people with anti-immigrant views. It's horrific really."

Why is it horrific?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"It's never clear what the concerns are that need solving.

But here is a starter for ten

...

Given legal means entering illegally counts against your claim

This bit needs to go as the 1951 Convention says that you can't punish a genuine asylum seeker for illegally entering your country.

I don't think they're "quiet". Many people express their anti-immigrant views loudly.

We'll get nowhere while people continue to blame immigrants for the all the things the government fails to tackle.

Again a nonsense claim, who are the people that blame immigrants for all the government failings?

Pro immigration hypocrites - plenty of those the other day. On a March in London a guy with a clipboard asked those marching “can I put you on a list to house an immigrant”?

They all replied “I can’t as I don’t have room”.

But they all had a nice day out in London.

Ah the classic anti-immigrant line of "house them in your place" as if it's the only option.

Good to see this lowest common denominator being dusted off and rolled out still in 2022.

But yes. Just read these threads in fab. So many people with anti-immigrant views. It's horrific really.

Why is it horrific? "

Promotes hate and fear towards a group of people, meanwhile the government can crack on not doing anything useful for Britain.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"It's never clear what the concerns are that need solving.

But here is a starter for ten

...

Given legal means entering illegally counts against your claim

This bit needs to go as the 1951 Convention says that you can't punish a genuine asylum seeker for illegally entering your country.

I don't think they're "quiet". Many people express their anti-immigrant views loudly.

We'll get nowhere while people continue to blame immigrants for the all the things the government fails to tackle.

Again a nonsense claim, who are the people that blame immigrants for all the government failings?

Pro immigration hypocrites - plenty of those the other day. On a March in London a guy with a clipboard asked those marching “can I put you on a list to house an immigrant”?

They all replied “I can’t as I don’t have room”.

But they all had a nice day out in London.

Ah the classic anti-immigrant line of "house them in your place" as if it's the only option.

Good to see this lowest common denominator being dusted off and rolled out still in 2022.

But yes. Just read these threads in fab. So many people with anti-immigrant views. It's horrific really.

Why is it horrific?

Promotes hate and fear towards a group of people, meanwhile the government can crack on not doing anything useful for Britain. "

You have a very low opinion of people in this country.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"It's never clear what the concerns are that need solving.

But here is a starter for ten

...

Given legal means entering illegally counts against your claim

This bit needs to go as the 1951 Convention says that you can't punish a genuine asylum seeker for illegally entering your country.

I don't think they're "quiet". Many people express their anti-immigrant views loudly.

We'll get nowhere while people continue to blame immigrants for the all the things the government fails to tackle.

Again a nonsense claim, who are the people that blame immigrants for all the government failings?

Pro immigration hypocrites - plenty of those the other day. On a March in London a guy with a clipboard asked those marching “can I put you on a list to house an immigrant”?

They all replied “I can’t as I don’t have room”.

But they all had a nice day out in London.

Ah the classic anti-immigrant line of "house them in your place" as if it's the only option.

Good to see this lowest common denominator being dusted off and rolled out still in 2022.

But yes. Just read these threads in fab. So many people with anti-immigrant views. It's horrific really.

Why is it horrific?

Promotes hate and fear towards a group of people, meanwhile the government can crack on not doing anything useful for Britain.

You have a very low opinion of people in this country. "

What on earth makes you say that?

I have an opinion that British people deserve better than this government, and deserve not to be saturated with anti-immigrant propaganda.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"I'm basing my belief on the bold belief that the UK oneys the convention.

https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility

Your claim might not be considered if you:

...

travelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’"

It's all based on article 31 which says:

The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

So the arguments are based on whether people travelled 'directly', and whether they have 'good cause for illegal entry'. It's easy to interpret those words both for and against allowing people in.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"It's never clear what the concerns are that need solving.

But here is a starter for ten

...

Given legal means entering illegally counts against your claim

This bit needs to go as the 1951 Convention says that you can't punish a genuine asylum seeker for illegally entering your country.

I don't think they're "quiet". Many people express their anti-immigrant views loudly.

We'll get nowhere while people continue to blame immigrants for the all the things the government fails to tackle.

Again a nonsense claim, who are the people that blame immigrants for all the government failings?

Pro immigration hypocrites - plenty of those the other day. On a March in London a guy with a clipboard asked those marching “can I put you on a list to house an immigrant”?

They all replied “I can’t as I don’t have room”.

But they all had a nice day out in London.

Ah the classic anti-immigrant line of "house them in your place" as if it's the only option.

Good to see this lowest common denominator being dusted off and rolled out still in 2022.

But yes. Just read these threads in fab. So many people with anti-immigrant views. It's horrific really.

Why is it horrific?

Promotes hate and fear towards a group of people, meanwhile the government can crack on not doing anything useful for Britain.

You have a very low opinion of people in this country.

What on earth makes you say that?

I have an opinion that British people deserve better than this government, and deserve not to be saturated with anti-immigrant propaganda."

No words.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"It's never clear what the concerns are that need solving.

But here is a starter for ten

...

Given legal means entering illegally counts against your claim

This bit needs to go as the 1951 Convention says that you can't punish a genuine asylum seeker for illegally entering your country.

I don't think they're "quiet". Many people express their anti-immigrant views loudly.

We'll get nowhere while people continue to blame immigrants for the all the things the government fails to tackle.

Again a nonsense claim, who are the people that blame immigrants for all the government failings?

Pro immigration hypocrites - plenty of those the other day. On a March in London a guy with a clipboard asked those marching “can I put you on a list to house an immigrant”?

They all replied “I can’t as I don’t have room”.

But they all had a nice day out in London.

Ah the classic anti-immigrant line of "house them in your place" as if it's the only option.

Good to see this lowest common denominator being dusted off and rolled out still in 2022.

But yes. Just read these threads in fab. So many people with anti-immigrant views. It's horrific really.

Why is it horrific?

Promotes hate and fear towards a group of people, meanwhile the government can crack on not doing anything useful for Britain.

You have a very low opinion of people in this country.

What on earth makes you say that?

I have an opinion that British people deserve better than this government, and deserve not to be saturated with anti-immigrant propaganda.

No words."

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'm basing my belief on the bold belief that the UK oneys the convention.

https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility

Your claim might not be considered if you:

...

travelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’

It's all based on article 31 which says:

So the arguments are based on whether people travelled 'directly', and whether they have 'good cause for illegal entry'. It's easy to interpret those words both for and against allowing people in."
I'm not disagreeing if I'm honest. I'm simply building on exististing .gov wording.

I'd also argue (if asked) you'd struggle to argue good cause if there was an alternative processing site in France.

But like I said. It was a quick answer because people like to position "if you don't have a better solution, then Rwanda is a good solution".

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *amish SMan over a year ago

Eastleigh

Many different topics it seems, refugee, asylum, immigration all different. Those coming here rarely claim asylum because they know they can be returned in future to where they came from, those that do rarely abide to the terms. Many places refugees are kept in camps so much like prison.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Maybe Brexit was a sign of our lack of self worth, self respect and dignity, and we project this onto asylum seekers.

After all, we did vote for economic sanctions and removal of our freedom of movement. "Treat others how you'd like yourself to be treated"...

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *inkywife1981Couple over a year ago

A town near you

"The old religious persecution argument. These people have left their countries and travelled through many EU countries which are not exactly rife with such persecution.

There are many perfectly legal ways of coming into this country. If they are not prepared to follow the longer legal process that doesn't mean we should let them in anyway.

Where to start with this , so the only refugees we can ever ‘accept’ are French or Irish? "

Were (Irish) not refugees and come and go as we please between England and Ireland.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"The old religious persecution argument. These people have left their countries and travelled through many EU countries which are not exactly rife with such persecution.

There are many perfectly legal ways of coming into this country. If they are not prepared to follow the longer legal process that doesn't mean we should let them in anyway.

Where to start with this , so the only refugees we can ever ‘accept’ are French or Irish?

Were (Irish) not refugees and come and go as we please between England and Ireland.

The point being made is if Ireland or France were being invaded and people needed to escape then they would of course find safe haven in the UK.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The old religious persecution argument. These people have left their countries and travelled through many EU countries which are not exactly rife with such persecution.

There are many perfectly legal ways of coming into this country. If they are not prepared to follow the longer legal process that doesn't mean we should let them in anyway.

Where to start with this , so the only refugees we can ever ‘accept’ are French or Irish?

Were (Irish) not refugees and come and go as we please between England and Ireland.

The point being made is if Ireland or France were being invaded and people needed to escape then they would of course find safe haven in the UK.

Huge difference to the ongoing invasion from Africa where a staggering population growth has led to millions of young men realising they have little hope and seek a better life abroad. Guess where many wish to come? "
do you think the bar for accepting someone is an asylum seeker is too low ? Or that the UK is letting in ppl without a valid case ?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ornucopiaMan over a year ago

Bexley

"... do you think the bar for accepting someone is an asylum seeker is too low ? Or that the UK is letting in ppl without a valid case ?"

As far as this government is concerned, the valid case is that they will all be helping to move money around and, thus, paying VAT and probably other taxes which will swell the coffers of the exchequer.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *oubleswing2019Man over a year ago

Colchester

Ditch borders and nonsense immigration rules across the world, full stop.

Let people move to where they want to move to.

Animals don't have "border crossings".

It's only humans who erect these fanciful make-believe borders and then enact controls to restrict our own movement, and that of others.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

Interesting skimming this thread.

Nobody was actually able to answer what the safe and legal routes to applying for asylum in the UK were.

The topic was changed, as it always is with emotive accusations of "wanting" uncontrolled immigration and being "invaded".

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"Ditch borders and nonsense immigration rules across the world, full stop.

Let people move to where they want to move to.

Animals don't have "border crossings".

It's only humans who erect these fanciful make-believe borders and then enact controls to restrict our own movement, and that of others.

In my heart I agree with this sentiment. In practice though? All round to your house later, leave the door open please.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"Ditch borders and nonsense immigration rules across the world, full stop.

Let people move to where they want to move to.

Animals don't have "border crossings".

It's only humans who erect these fanciful make-believe borders and then enact controls to restrict our own movement, and that of others.

Fanciful and romantic but not realistic, I'm afraid.

Animals provide their own needs for food, shelter, heat, illness, death, birth, childcare and education.

Humans need all of the above and more with a finite amount of resource, so when humans find a place that provides most of their resource needs, they don't want to share.

Which leads to borders that people / governments want to protect, to allow their tribe to become prosperous and healthy, oh and as an offshoot more money in the gov coffers.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"Interesting skimming this thread.

Nobody was actually able to answer what the safe and legal routes to applying for asylum in the UK were.

The topic was changed, as it always is with emotive accusations of "wanting" uncontrolled immigration and being "invaded"."

The two are intertwined I guess? And as long as some people choose to take advantage as a means of reaching our shores they always will be. As an island and given that none of our close neighbours are in conflict, militarily or ideologically then nobody needs to seek refuge or asylum here. They may well choose to of course but we don’t have to agree. We do have a long history of providing safety to those in danger of which we should be very proud.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Interesting skimming this thread.

Nobody was actually able to answer what the safe and legal routes to applying for asylum in the UK were.

The topic was changed, as it always is with emotive accusations of "wanting" uncontrolled immigration and being "invaded".

You still haven't managed it seems.

What are the safe and legal routes for applying for asylum in the UK?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"Interesting skimming this thread.

Nobody was actually able to answer what the safe and legal routes to applying for asylum in the UK were.

The topic was changed, as it always is with emotive accusations of "wanting" uncontrolled immigration and being "invaded".

You still haven't managed it seems.

What are the safe and legal routes for applying for asylum in the UK?"

Safe & Legal route would be: A legal means of transport into the country, with the correct documentation, visa (maybe) and passport to enter.

Is that not the answer?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Interesting skimming this thread.

Nobody was actually able to answer what the safe and legal routes to applying for asylum in the UK were.

The topic was changed, as it always is with emotive accusations of "wanting" uncontrolled immigration and being "invaded".

You still haven't managed it seems.

What are the safe and legal routes for applying for asylum in the UK?

Safe & Legal route would be: A legal means of transport into the country, with the correct documentation, visa (maybe) and passport to enter.

Is that not the answer?"
what visa do they come in under ? As I'm assuming they need some form of visa to be here legally ...?

Also, what if they don't have a passport. Not everyone goes abroad on holiday ...

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"Interesting skimming this thread.

Nobody was actually able to answer what the safe and legal routes to applying for asylum in the UK were.

The topic was changed, as it always is with emotive accusations of "wanting" uncontrolled immigration and being "invaded".

You still haven't managed it seems.

What are the safe and legal routes for applying for asylum in the UK?

Safe & Legal route would be: A legal means of transport into the country, with the correct documentation, visa (maybe) and passport to enter.

Is that not the answer?what visa do they come in under ? As I'm assuming they need some form of visa to be here legally ...?

Also, what if they don't have a passport. Not everyone goes abroad on holiday ..."

The correct visa for entry to the UK, if one is needed that is. There is a chance some people may not have passport, but if they get to Europe and seek asylum there, can they not then get a relevant document or passport to travel?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Interesting skimming this thread.

Nobody was actually able to answer what the safe and legal routes to applying for asylum in the UK were.

The topic was changed, as it always is with emotive accusations of "wanting" uncontrolled immigration and being "invaded".

You still haven't managed it seems.

What are the safe and legal routes for applying for asylum in the UK?

Safe & Legal route would be: A legal means of transport into the country, with the correct documentation, visa (maybe) and passport to enter.

Is that not the answer?"

No.

You have to apply for a visa as a tourist or for business.

You will be lying to obtain this if your intent is not to do either.

You cannot do this at all without a passport. How do you obtain that as a refugee with documents burned in your shelled home?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Interesting skimming this thread.

Nobody was actually able to answer what the safe and legal routes to applying for asylum in the UK were.

The topic was changed, as it always is with emotive accusations of "wanting" uncontrolled immigration and being "invaded".

You still haven't managed it seems.

What are the safe and legal routes for applying for asylum in the UK?

Safe & Legal route would be: A legal means of transport into the country, with the correct documentation, visa (maybe) and passport to enter.

Is that not the answer?what visa do they come in under ? As I'm assuming they need some form of visa to be here legally ...?

Also, what if they don't have a passport. Not everyone goes abroad on holiday ...

"
there's not an asylum seeker visa. So which is it ?

And if you are in France without a passport, where do you send your passport application to ?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"Interesting skimming this thread.

Nobody was actually able to answer what the safe and legal routes to applying for asylum in the UK were.

The topic was changed, as it always is with emotive accusations of "wanting" uncontrolled immigration and being "invaded".

You still haven't managed it seems.

What are the safe and legal routes for applying for asylum in the UK?

Safe & Legal route would be: A legal means of transport into the country, with the correct documentation, visa (maybe) and passport to enter.

Is that not the answer?

No.

You have to apply for a visa as a tourist or for business.

You will be lying to obtain this if your intent is not to do either.

You cannot do this at all without a passport. How do you obtain that as a refugee with documents burned in your shelled home?"

You crawl to the nearest point of safety to seek refuge from your shelled home. With what family you have left.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Interesting skimming this thread.

Nobody was actually able to answer what the safe and legal routes to applying for asylum in the UK were.

The topic was changed, as it always is with emotive accusations of "wanting" uncontrolled immigration and being "invaded".

You still haven't managed it seems.

What are the safe and legal routes for applying for asylum in the UK?

Safe & Legal route would be: A legal means of transport into the country, with the correct documentation, visa (maybe) and passport to enter.

Is that not the answer?

No.

You have to apply for a visa as a tourist or for business.

You will be lying to obtain this if your intent is not to do either.

You cannot do this at all without a passport. How do you obtain that as a refugee with documents burned in your shelled home?

You crawl to the nearest point of safety to seek refuge from your shelled home. With what family you have left. "

That's am unpleasant thing to write and question still not answered.

What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?"

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

Does that answer your question?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ovebjsMan over a year ago

Bristol

"Interesting skimming this thread.

Nobody was actually able to answer what the safe and legal routes to applying for asylum in the UK were.

The topic was changed, as it always is with emotive accusations of "wanting" uncontrolled immigration and being "invaded"."

But surely if someone is in france and wanted to come to the UK they should be able to apply in france ?

The onlt problem is the frencg will not let the uk set up an immmagration center in france to do this.

Why is that?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Interesting skimming this thread.

Nobody was actually able to answer what the safe and legal routes to applying for asylum in the UK were.

The topic was changed, as it always is with emotive accusations of "wanting" uncontrolled immigration and being "invaded".

But surely if someone is in france and wanted to come to the UK they should be able to apply in france ?

The onlt problem is the frencg will not let the uk set up an immmagration center in france to do this.

Why is that?

"
any evidence for this claim ? I thought a request could only be made once in the UK, not before

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

Does that answer your question?"

Marty! You’re not thinking 4 dimensionally!

And where regimes in countries restrict passport access, or its unaffordable, or have has their passports taken from them by traffickers?

How do they sort that out then?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Interesting skimming this thread.

Nobody was actually able to answer what the safe and legal routes to applying for asylum in the UK were.

The topic was changed, as it always is with emotive accusations of "wanting" uncontrolled immigration and being "invaded".

But surely if someone is in france and wanted to come to the UK they should be able to apply in france ?

The onlt problem is the frencg will not let the uk set up an immmagration center in france to do this.

Why is that?

any evidence for this claim ? I thought a request could only be made once in the UK, not before"

If it was an embassy, then it’s considered British soil, or this processing places were considered British soil. Duh.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"But surely if someone is in france and wanted to come to the UK they should be able to apply in france ?

The onlt problem is the french will not let the uk set up an immmagration center in france to do this.

Why is that?"

I'm not aware of any attempt by the UK government to set up an asylum processing centre in France. In theory the UK government could do that, but they don't want to.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Interesting skimming this thread.

Nobody was actually able to answer what the safe and legal routes to applying for asylum in the UK were.

The topic was changed, as it always is with emotive accusations of "wanting" uncontrolled immigration and being "invaded".

But surely if someone is in france and wanted to come to the UK they should be able to apply in france ?

The onlt problem is the frencg will not let the uk set up an immmagration center in france to do this.

Why is that?

any evidence for this claim ? I thought a request could only be made once in the UK, not before

If it was an embassy, then it’s considered British soil, or this processing places were considered British soil. Duh."
even if the idea that an embassy is British soil (it isn't) is true, you can't claim asylum in the UK at an embassy

3.1 in the below.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9000/CBP-9000.pdf

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

Does that answer your question?"

That certainly seems to be the only way though to be picky is it legal to come as a tourist and then claim asylum meaning you must have lied on your visa?. Apart from that it does seem the legal route. There was an article a couple of weeks ago where the government said 20,000 had arrived legally over the years, so maybe they do overlook what you put on you visa.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

Does that answer your question?"

No.

You believe that it is legal to lie on a Visa application, or is there an "asylum visa" that you can apply for?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Boarders are man made lines drawn on a map, its purpose is to keep people in cages, to trap them for economic reasons.

I believe that if I wanted to this morning go to say Mexico, I shouldn't need a passport I should just say I am off to Mexico and go there, but without boarders there'll be no Mexico just planet earth.

And freedom to travel.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"Interesting skimming this thread.

Nobody was actually able to answer what the safe and legal routes to applying for asylum in the UK were.

The topic was changed, as it always is with emotive accusations of "wanting" uncontrolled immigration and being "invaded".

You still haven't managed it seems.

What are the safe and legal routes for applying for asylum in the UK?

Safe & Legal route would be: A legal means of transport into the country, with the correct documentation, visa (maybe) and passport to enter.

Is that not the answer?

No.

You have to apply for a visa as a tourist or for business.

You will be lying to obtain this if your intent is not to do either.

You cannot do this at all without a passport. How do you obtain that as a refugee with documents burned in your shelled home?

You crawl to the nearest point of safety to seek refuge from your shelled home. With what family you have left.

That's am unpleasant thing to write and question still not answered.

What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?"

Then don’t give the false impression about bombed out houses.

Are you suggesting that the UK taxpayers fund centres around the World to enable anyone that chooses to come to the UK to claim asylum?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?"

"The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum."

"You believe that it is legal to lie on a Visa application ..."

It is not illegal to lie on a visa application, however doing so can get your visa revoked. That wouldn't be a problem for a qualifying refugee, as they are protected from deportation by the 1951 Convention.

"...or is there an "asylum visa" that you can apply for?"

Of course there isn't an asylum visa.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"Interesting skimming this thread.

Nobody was actually able to answer what the safe and legal routes to applying for asylum in the UK were.

The topic was changed, as it always is with emotive accusations of "wanting" uncontrolled immigration and being "invaded".

You still haven't managed it seems.

What are the safe and legal routes for applying for asylum in the UK?

Safe & Legal route would be: A legal means of transport into the country, with the correct documentation, visa (maybe) and passport to enter.

Is that not the answer?

No.

You have to apply for a visa as a tourist or for business.

You will be lying to obtain this if your intent is not to do either.

You cannot do this at all without a passport. How do you obtain that as a refugee with documents burned in your shelled home?

You crawl to the nearest point of safety to seek refuge from your shelled home. With what family you have left.

That's am unpleasant thing to write and question still not answered.

What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

Then don’t give the false impression about bombed out houses.

Are you suggesting that the UK taxpayers fund centres around the World to enable anyone that chooses to come to the UK to claim asylum? "

It's not a false impression is it? It's a reasonable example.

Yes, I do suggest that's what the UK taxpayer does or contributes to an international scheme.

Then at least, those who are most vulnerable or with family connections can be properly processed and safely transported and the trafficking model dies as nobody arriving irregularly would have had to do it.

What you wrote was genuinely deplorable, but gives a fair idea about your attitude. That lack of empathy is not uncommon it seems, just difficult to understand for someone like me who you appear to scorn.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

You believe that it is legal to lie on a Visa application ...

...or is there an "asylum visa" that you can apply for?

Of course there isn't an asylum visa."

Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

You believe that it is legal to lie on a Visa application ...

...or is there an "asylum visa" that you can apply for?

Of course there isn't an asylum visa.

Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?"

A hypothetical response to you exaggerating for effect. While I am very empathetic to anyone suffering I don’t see it as the responsibility of the UK or taxpayers to fund anyone to come here. You know as well as me they come here to settle not seek refuge until they can return home.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?"

It's not the UK's fault that it is a collection of islands, and therefore difficult to enter without documentation. It isn't like the UK government sets up barriers to immigration that are any higher than other countries.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?

Bit just because it's harder to get in doesn't make it more illegal. Maybe because it is more dangerous to get in, we should be more innovative than other countries in allowing ppl to claim asylum here ?

We are also privalages we are far away from any trouble spots.

To me, it boils down to a couple of questions.

Firstly, do we ignore any refugee crisis because of our geographical privalage? Let the few countries next to war zones pick up all the mess?

If you feel that we should share part of the burden, then how can we do this is a way that remiwvs trafficking, and reduces the risk of death.

I suspect many who focus on debating the second question actually want to say "not our problem" to the first question.

Rwanda is poor answer to managing trafficking and boat crossings, assuming you are okay with taking on refugees.

It is an attempt to dissuade refugees full stop. It's effectively saying you can't apply for asylum in the UK because you will be given to Rwanda. That will be your new home (if successful)

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

"Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?

That makes me wonder how other countries deal with this. Are the rules the same in European countries regarding the legality of entering a country. I know many are simple land borders but they are still crossing boarders and possibly illegally. Have other countries set up places around the world where an asylum seeker can apply. It would be interesting if another country does do this so we could see the impact

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"To me, it boils down to a couple of questions.

Firstly, do we ignore any refugee crisis because of our geographical privalage? Let the few countries next to war zones pick up all the mess?

If you feel that we should share part of the burden, then how can we do this is a way that remiwvs trafficking, and reduces the risk of death."

I disagree with your phrasing, but yes, those are the important questions. It seems the UK government doesn't need to answer the second question, because its answer to the first is 'those people are not our problem'.

"Rwanda ... is an attempt to dissuade refugees full stop."

I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you there. Even Priti Patel has said that the implementation of the Rwanda plan will dissuade immigrants from coming here. That is the point of the plan.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

I suppose refugees and asylum seekers want to come here. So we must have something going for us.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *inkywife1981Couple over a year ago

A town near you

"I suppose refugees and asylum seekers want to come here. So we must have something going for us. "

I often wondered whats the appeal with the UK for all those asylum seekers

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"I suppose refugees and asylum seekers want to come here. So we must have something going for us.

I often wondered whats the appeal with the UK for all those asylum seekers"

Not a warzone.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

You believe that it is legal to lie on a Visa application ...

...or is there an "asylum visa" that you can apply for?

Of course there isn't an asylum visa.

Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?

You are not empathetic or you wouldn't have written that.

It's everyone's responsibility. Particularly as we have created much of this historically and more recently.

We chose to cut foreign aid which reduces the chance to solve or avoid the problem at source. Far more expensive to pay for Border Force and Navy patrols, French Police, and legal appeals in the UK.

Think small nd you create bigger problems.

Have a read.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/uk-child-refugee-turning-against-1697776

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"I often wondered whats the appeal with the UK for all those asylum seekers"

"Not a warzone."

Neither is France.

Well OK, I wouldn't want to live in France either, but Germany is very nice. Spain seems quite pleasant too. There are lots of European countries that have better weather than the UK.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"I often wondered whats the appeal with the UK for all those asylum seekers

Not a warzone.

Neither is France.

Well OK, I wouldn't want to live in France either, but Germany is very nice. Spain seems quite pleasant too. There are lots of European countries that have better weather than the UK."

Yep. Plenty of refugees try to seek asylum there too.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I suppose refugees and asylum seekers want to come here. So we must have something going for us.

I often wondered whats the appeal with the UK for all those asylum seekers"

Sunlit uplands?

They are anti EU?

They speak English

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"I often wondered whats the appeal with the UK for all those asylum seekers

Not a warzone.

Neither is France.

Well OK, I wouldn't want to live in France either, but Germany is very nice. Spain seems quite pleasant too. There are lots of European countries that have better weather than the UK."

They speak English as a second language and/or they have family here.

Empathy?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

You believe that it is legal to lie on a Visa application ...

...or is there an "asylum visa" that you can apply for?

Of course there isn't an asylum visa.

Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?

You are not empathetic or you wouldn't have written that.

It's everyone's responsibility. Particularly as we have created much of this historically and more recently.

We chose to cut foreign aid which reduces the chance to solve or avoid the problem at source. Far more expensive to pay for Border Force and Navy patrols, French Police, and legal appeals in the UK.

Think small nd you create bigger problems.

Have a read.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/uk-child-refugee-turning-against-1697776"

Let’s think big. Create a United States of North Africa - resettle all immigrants from Europe there and help them to nation build. Problem solved.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

You believe that it is legal to lie on a Visa application ...

...or is there an "asylum visa" that you can apply for?

Of course there isn't an asylum visa.

Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?

You are not empathetic or you wouldn't have written that.

It's everyone's responsibility. Particularly as we have created much of this historically and more recently.

We chose to cut foreign aid which reduces the chance to solve or avoid the problem at source. Far more expensive to pay for Border Force and Navy patrols, French Police, and legal appeals in the UK.

Think small nd you create bigger problems.

Have a read.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/uk-child-refugee-turning-against-1697776

Let’s think big. Create a United States of North Africa - resettle all immigrants from Europe there and help them to nation build. Problem solved. "

Who is going to do this ??

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *wisted999Man over a year ago

North Bucks

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

You believe that it is legal to lie on a Visa application ...

...or is there an "asylum visa" that you can apply for?

Of course there isn't an asylum visa.

Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?

You are not empathetic or you wouldn't have written that.

It's everyone's responsibility. Particularly as we have created much of this historically and more recently.

We chose to cut foreign aid which reduces the chance to solve or avoid the problem at source. Far more expensive to pay for Border Force and Navy patrols, French Police, and legal appeals in the UK.

Think small nd you create bigger problems.

Have a read.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/uk-child-refugee-turning-against-1697776

Let’s think big. Create a United States of North Africa - resettle all immigrants from Europe there and help them to nation build. Problem solved. "
. The nation building has been tried already. Never seems to go to plan.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

You believe that it is legal to lie on a Visa application ...

...or is there an "asylum visa" that you can apply for?

Of course there isn't an asylum visa.

Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?

You are not empathetic or you wouldn't have written that.

It's everyone's responsibility. Particularly as we have created much of this historically and more recently.

We chose to cut foreign aid which reduces the chance to solve or avoid the problem at source. Far more expensive to pay for Border Force and Navy patrols, French Police, and legal appeals in the UK.

Think small nd you create bigger problems.

Have a read.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/uk-child-refugee-turning-against-1697776

Let’s think big. Create a United States of North Africa - resettle all immigrants from Europe there and help them to nation build. Problem solved.

Who is going to do this ??

The only tribe that has the ability

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

You believe that it is legal to lie on a Visa application ...

...or is there an "asylum visa" that you can apply for?

Of course there isn't an asylum visa.

Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?

You are not empathetic or you wouldn't have written that.

It's everyone's responsibility. Particularly as we have created much of this historically and more recently.

We chose to cut foreign aid which reduces the chance to solve or avoid the problem at source. Far more expensive to pay for Border Force and Navy patrols, French Police, and legal appeals in the UK.

Think small nd you create bigger problems.

Have a read.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/uk-child-refugee-turning-against-1697776

Let’s think big. Create a United States of North Africa - resettle all immigrants from Europe there and help them to nation build. Problem solved.

Who is going to do this ??

The only tribe that has the ability "

Which tribe? Do they have any tribes in Egypt ? Morocco ? Algeria ? Etc etc

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

You believe that it is legal to lie on a Visa application ...

...or is there an "asylum visa" that you can apply for?

Of course there isn't an asylum visa.

Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?

You are not empathetic or you wouldn't have written that.

It's everyone's responsibility. Particularly as we have created much of this historically and more recently.

We chose to cut foreign aid which reduces the chance to solve or avoid the problem at source. Far more expensive to pay for Border Force and Navy patrols, French Police, and legal appeals in the UK.

Think small nd you create bigger problems.

Have a read.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/uk-child-refugee-turning-against-1697776

Let’s think big. Create a United States of North Africa - resettle all immigrants from Europe there and help them to nation build. Problem solved.

Who is going to do this ??

The only tribe that has the ability

Which tribe? Do they have any tribes in Egypt ? Morocco ? Algeria ? Etc etc "

The free & democratic West.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

You believe that it is legal to lie on a Visa application ...

...or is there an "asylum visa" that you can apply for?

Of course there isn't an asylum visa.

Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?

You are not empathetic or you wouldn't have written that.

It's everyone's responsibility. Particularly as we have created much of this historically and more recently.

We chose to cut foreign aid which reduces the chance to solve or avoid the problem at source. Far more expensive to pay for Border Force and Navy patrols, French Police, and legal appeals in the UK.

Think small nd you create bigger problems.

Have a read.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/uk-child-refugee-turning-against-1697776

Let’s think big. Create a United States of North Africa - resettle all immigrants from Europe there and help them to nation build. Problem solved.

Who is going to do this ??

The only tribe that has the ability

Which tribe? Do they have any tribes in Egypt ? Morocco ? Algeria ? Etc etc

The free & democratic West."

I haven’t heard of this tribe, who is their leader?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

You believe that it is legal to lie on a Visa application ...

...or is there an "asylum visa" that you can apply for?

Of course there isn't an asylum visa.

Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?

You are not empathetic or you wouldn't have written that.

It's everyone's responsibility. Particularly as we have created much of this historically and more recently.

We chose to cut foreign aid which reduces the chance to solve or avoid the problem at source. Far more expensive to pay for Border Force and Navy patrols, French Police, and legal appeals in the UK.

Think small nd you create bigger problems.

Have a read.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/uk-child-refugee-turning-against-1697776

Let’s think big. Create a United States of North Africa - resettle all immigrants from Europe there and help them to nation build. Problem solved.

Who is going to do this ??

The only tribe that has the ability

Which tribe? Do they have any tribes in Egypt ? Morocco ? Algeria ? Etc etc

The free & democratic West.

I haven’t heard of this tribe, who is their leader? "
the west is democratic. Also let's leave the EU (a huge part of the west). It's undemocratic.

Is Russia part of the west ?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *inkywife1981Couple over a year ago

A town near you

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

You believe that it is legal to lie on a Visa application ...

...or is there an "asylum visa" that you can apply for?

Of course there isn't an asylum visa.

Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?

You are not empathetic or you wouldn't have written that.

It's everyone's responsibility. Particularly as we have created much of this historically and more recently.

We chose to cut foreign aid which reduces the chance to solve or avoid the problem at source. Far more expensive to pay for Border Force and Navy patrols, French Police, and legal appeals in the UK.

Think small nd you create bigger problems.

Have a read.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/uk-child-refugee-turning-against-1697776

Let’s think big. Create a United States of North Africa - resettle all immigrants from Europe there and help them to nation build. Problem solved. "

Gaddafi had similar notions and look where that got him

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

You believe that it is legal to lie on a Visa application ...

...or is there an "asylum visa" that you can apply for?

Of course there isn't an asylum visa.

Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?

You are not empathetic or you wouldn't have written that.

It's everyone's responsibility. Particularly as we have created much of this historically and more recently.

We chose to cut foreign aid which reduces the chance to solve or avoid the problem at source. Far more expensive to pay for Border Force and Navy patrols, French Police, and legal appeals in the UK.

Think small nd you create bigger problems.

Have a read.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/uk-child-refugee-turning-against-1697776

Let’s think big. Create a United States of North Africa - resettle all immigrants from Europe there and help them to nation build. Problem solved. "

...or let's read the article and behave like a human being.

You're moving on very quickly from your appealing attempt at minimising suffering, I see.

You do understand that this is not an abstract concept of a film, right?

Describing it as an "invasion" from Africa or pretending that we are incapable of helping and then distracting with a "plan" to tell "Africa" what they should do.

It's the ages old arrogance of from living in a safe and stable part of the world with no land borders.

"Not our problem, mate" Except for when it is.

Stop demonising people in difficulty who literally are having their homes destroyed.

Rather than that how about discussing like adults how much help we are able to afford to extend? We know the resources are finite, so who can we help? Then wrap them in the kindness which we should, but choose not to, extend to those in need here.

Alternatively, just be nasty. Much easier to look "tough" but solve nothing and help no one.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

You believe that it is legal to lie on a Visa application ...

...or is there an "asylum visa" that you can apply for?

Of course there isn't an asylum visa.

Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?

You are not empathetic or you wouldn't have written that.

It's everyone's responsibility. Particularly as we have created much of this historically and more recently.

We chose to cut foreign aid which reduces the chance to solve or avoid the problem at source. Far more expensive to pay for Border Force and Navy patrols, French Police, and legal appeals in the UK.

Think small nd you create bigger problems.

Have a read.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/uk-child-refugee-turning-against-1697776

Let’s think big. Create a United States of North Africa - resettle all immigrants from Europe there and help them to nation build. Problem solved.

...or let's read the article and behave like a human being.

You're moving on very quickly from your appealing attempt at minimising suffering, I see.

You do understand that this is not an abstract concept of a film, right?

Describing it as an "invasion" from Africa or pretending that we are incapable of helping and then distracting with a "plan" to tell "Africa" what they should do.

It's the ages old arrogance of from living in a safe and stable part of the world with no land borders.

"Not our problem, mate" Except for when it is.

Stop demonising people in difficulty who literally are having their homes destroyed.

Alternatively, just be nasty. Much easier to look "tough" but solve nothing and help no one."

How dare you! You condescending prick. I have not been nasty at all. Grow up.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"What legal routes are there to apply for asylum in the UK?

The legal route for anyone with a passport is to apply for a tourist visa, come to the UK by plane, ship, or train, and then claim asylum on arrival.

If they don't have a passport, they don't have a legal route to apply for asylum.

You believe that it is legal to lie on a Visa application ...

...or is there an "asylum visa" that you can apply for?

Of course there isn't an asylum visa.

Visa applications are not granted without means of financial support. So, reserved for the wealthy and those with a passport.

Difficult for a refugee with little money and no documentation.

So, essentially, the only legal routes are not accessible to the majority of those who need it. Neat little trick, eh?

You are not empathetic or you wouldn't have written that.

It's everyone's responsibility. Particularly as we have created much of this historically and more recently.

We chose to cut foreign aid which reduces the chance to solve or avoid the problem at source. Far more expensive to pay for Border Force and Navy patrols, French Police, and legal appeals in the UK.

Think small nd you create bigger problems.

Have a read.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/uk-child-refugee-turning-against-1697776

Let’s think big. Create a United States of North Africa - resettle all immigrants from Europe there and help them to nation build. Problem solved.

...or let's read the article and behave like a human being.

You're moving on very quickly from your appealing attempt at minimising suffering, I see.

You do understand that this is not an abstract concept of a film, right?

Describing it as an "invasion" from Africa or pretending that we are incapable of helping and then distracting with a "plan" to tell "Africa" what they should do.

It's the ages old arrogance of from living in a safe and stable part of the world with no land borders.

"Not our problem, mate" Except for when it is.

Stop demonising people in difficulty who literally are having their homes destroyed.

Alternatively, just be nasty. Much easier to look "tough" but solve nothing and help no one.

How dare you! You condescending prick. I have not been nasty at all. Grow up."

I will call you out for what you have actually written.

If you do not conceive of these words as nasty then very little is:

"Huge difference to the ongoing invasion from Africa"

"You crawl to the nearest point of safety to seek refuge from your shelled home. With what family you have left."

You are perfectly capable of choosing whatever language that you want you chose this, deliberately, to dehumanise and "other" people so that you can treat them without regard.

Own what you say and take responsibility for it. Don't pretend something else and abuse me for what you have expressed.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)