FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Legally seeking asylum
Legally seeking asylum
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK?" She can't, she'll have to get out of Iran and travel to the UK. It's exactly the same if she wanted to apply for asylum in any other country that has signed the convention. If you're talking about a specific person, the UK could grant her asylum in absentia, but that wouldn't help her at all. The Iranian authorities still won't let her leave. What help do you think the UK government should offer her? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK?" She could try to get herself smuggled out of Iran into one of the neighbouring countries. Afghanistan is probably not a good idea, so perhaps Pakistan, Iraq, Turkmenistan or Azerbaijan but probably Turkey is best bet. Once there she needs to make her way to the British Embassy in Ankara where she can apply for Asylum through legal channels... Oh wait, er she can’t because there aren’t any! Oh well she’ll have to stay in Turkey like everyone else (seems fair to Turkey). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? She could try to get herself smuggled out of Iran into one of the neighbouring countries. Afghanistan is probably not a good idea, so perhaps Pakistan, Iraq, Turkmenistan or Azerbaijan but probably Turkey is best bet. Once there she needs to make her way to the British Embassy in Ankara where she can apply for Asylum through legal channels... Oh wait, er she can’t because there aren’t any! Oh well she’ll have to stay in Turkey like everyone else (seems fair to Turkey). " What would stop her boarding a flight to the UK from Turkey? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? She could try to get herself smuggled out of Iran into one of the neighbouring countries. Afghanistan is probably not a good idea, so perhaps Pakistan, Iraq, Turkmenistan or Azerbaijan but probably Turkey is best bet. Once there she needs to make her way to the British Embassy in Ankara where she can apply for Asylum through legal channels... Oh wait, er she can’t because there aren’t any! Oh well she’ll have to stay in Turkey like everyone else (seems fair to Turkey). What would stop her boarding a flight to the UK from Turkey? " 1. Airlines are forbidden from transiting passengers who are suspected of travelling for a purpose other than holiday or work and are required to repatriate at their own expense if they fail to carry out sufficient checks. 2. As an Iranian she would need a Visa to travel to the UK for business or pleasure so couldn’t board the plane anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? She could try to get herself smuggled out of Iran into one of the neighbouring countries. Afghanistan is probably not a good idea, so perhaps Pakistan, Iraq, Turkmenistan or Azerbaijan but probably Turkey is best bet. Once there she needs to make her way to the British Embassy in Ankara where she can apply for Asylum through legal channels... Oh wait, er she can’t because there aren’t any! Oh well she’ll have to stay in Turkey like everyone else (seems fair to Turkey). What would stop her boarding a flight to the UK from Turkey? 1. Airlines are forbidden from transiting passengers who are suspected of travelling for a purpose other than holiday or work and are required to repatriate at their own expense if they fail to carry out sufficient checks. 2. As an Iranian she would need a Visa to travel to the UK for business or pleasure so couldn’t board the plane anyway. " Is the assumption that no contact has been made at all? Is there no contact available to discuss asylum via a call, internet etc? I would hope that exists so the government could make amends to the travel restriction and allow her to fly. She would obviously need to leave her country to begin with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK?" They could go to a British embassy in the nearest country. Why UK, why not go to the nearest country where people have the same language and speak Farsi? If a person fears for their life the next safest country that has the same language is a bonus. Asylum shopping is an abuse of the system, which is what many of these people do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? She could try to get herself smuggled out of Iran into one of the neighbouring countries. Afghanistan is probably not a good idea, so perhaps Pakistan, Iraq, Turkmenistan or Azerbaijan but probably Turkey is best bet. Once there she needs to make her way to the British Embassy in Ankara where she can apply for Asylum through legal channels... Oh wait, er she can’t because there aren’t any! Oh well she’ll have to stay in Turkey like everyone else (seems fair to Turkey). What would stop her boarding a flight to the UK from Turkey? 1. Airlines are forbidden from transiting passengers who are suspected of travelling for a purpose other than holiday or work and are required to repatriate at their own expense if they fail to carry out sufficient checks. 2. As an Iranian she would need a Visa to travel to the UK for business or pleasure so couldn’t board the plane anyway. Is the assumption that no contact has been made at all? Is there no contact available to discuss asylum via a call, internet etc? I would hope that exists so the government could make amends to the travel restriction and allow her to fly. She would obviously need to leave her country to begin with. " No idea but yes you would hope so. However, as per my points in above two posts, this whole asylum seeker/illegal immigrants thing is an impossible circle to square unless the UK Govt is prepared to create legal routes. Instead they seem to be doubling down on making it even more illegal! You cannot claim asylum unless you are physically in the UK but it is illegal to enter the UK so you cannot be in the UK to claim asylum. Neat isn’t it! There are a handful of legal schemes I think. The one I am aware of was set up for Afghans when we pulled out. Last I knew nobody had been granted asylum via the scheme despite 000s of applicants (and they can only apply having already escaped Afghanistan and now living in refugee camps in places like Pakistan - I think). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They could go to a British embassy in the nearest country. Why UK, why not go to the nearest country where people have the same language and speak Farsi? If a person fears for their life the next safest country that has the same language is a bonus. Asylum shopping is an abuse of the system, which is what many of these people do." On your Embassy point = NO, see my posts. On your other point, I get the sentiment but where else speaks Farsi? As most of the countries where their are regimes people want to escape from and get asylum are in the Middle East, do you think only other Middle Eastern countries should deal with the problem? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They could go to a British embassy in the nearest country. Why UK, why not go to the nearest country where people have the same language and speak Farsi? If a person fears for their life the next safest country that has the same language is a bonus. Asylum shopping is an abuse of the system, which is what many of these people do." What is ‘asylum shopping’ ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To add, they don't go to embassies because they would be REFUSED asylum, not because they cannot apply!" NOT TRUE. There are no legal routes. Also, you cannot simply walk into an Embassy either. You will not get passed armed security and will not therefore be on/in UK sovereign territory. You will be standing outside looking at a gated entrance! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They could go to a British embassy in the nearest country. Why UK, why not go to the nearest country where people have the same language and speak Farsi? If a person fears for their life the next safest country that has the same language is a bonus. Asylum shopping is an abuse of the system, which is what many of these people do. On your Embassy point = NO, see my posts. On your other point, I get the sentiment but where else speaks Farsi? As most of the countries where their are regimes people want to escape from and get asylum are in the Middle East, do you think only other Middle Eastern countries should deal with the problem? " *there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They could go to a British embassy in the nearest country. Why UK, why not go to the nearest country where people have the same language and speak Farsi? If a person fears for their life the next safest country that has the same language is a bonus. Asylum shopping is an abuse of the system, which is what many of these people do." They all want to flock to the Uk for the benefits | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They could go to a British embassy in the nearest country. Why UK, why not go to the nearest country where people have the same language and speak Farsi? If a person fears for their life the next safest country that has the same language is a bonus. Asylum shopping is an abuse of the system, which is what many of these people do. They all want to flock to the Uk for the benefits " What benefits? And if that’s the case why do the overwhelming majority stay in mainland Europe??  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They could go to a British embassy in the nearest country. Why UK, why not go to the nearest country where people have the same language and speak Farsi? If a person fears for their life the next safest country that has the same language is a bonus. Asylum shopping is an abuse of the system, which is what many of these people do. They all want to flock to the Uk for the benefits What benefits? And if that’s the case why do the overwhelming majority stay in mainland Europe?? "Because they have started to realise what a shitfest Brexit is and that they will have a better lifs in an EU country  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They could go to a British embassy in the nearest country. Why UK, why not go to the nearest country where people have the same language and speak Farsi? If a person fears for their life the next safest country that has the same language is a bonus. Asylum shopping is an abuse of the system, which is what many of these people do. They all want to flock to the Uk for the benefits What benefits? And if that’s the case why do the overwhelming majority stay in mainland Europe?? "Not a bad deal if you have come from a complete shit hole with nothing to offer. From the GOV website- What you'll get You can ask for somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both as an asylum seeker. Housing You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast. You cannot choose where you live. It’s unlikely you’ll get to live in London or south-east England. Cash support You’ll usually get £45 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries. Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. You’ll be able to use the card to get cash from a cash machine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They could go to a British embassy in the nearest country. Why UK, why not go to the nearest country where people have the same language and speak Farsi? If a person fears for their life the next safest country that has the same language is a bonus. Asylum shopping is an abuse of the system, which is what many of these people do. They all want to flock to the Uk for the benefits What benefits? And if that’s the case why do the overwhelming majority stay in mainland Europe??
Not a bad deal if you have come from a complete shit hole with nothing to offer.
From the GOV website-
What you'll get
You can ask for somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both as an asylum seeker.
Housing
You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast.
You cannot choose where you live. It’s unlikely you’ll get to live in London or south-east England.
Cash support
You’ll usually get £45 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries.
Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. You’ll be able to use the card to get cash from a cash machine."You can get that and more in mainland Europe | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They could go to a British embassy in the nearest country. Why UK, why not go to the nearest country where people have the same language and speak Farsi? If a person fears for their life the next safest country that has the same language is a bonus. Asylum shopping is an abuse of the system, which is what many of these people do. They all want to flock to the Uk for the benefits What benefits? And if that’s the case why do the overwhelming majority stay in mainland Europe??
Not a bad deal if you have come from a complete shit hole with nothing to offer.
From the GOV website-
What you'll get
You can ask for somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both as an asylum seeker.
Housing
You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast.
You cannot choose where you live. It’s unlikely you’ll get to live in London or south-east England.
Cash support
You’ll usually get £45 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries.
Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. You’ll be able to use the card to get cash from a cash machine."What a shame all this is not offered to all the homeless Uk citizens! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They could go to a British embassy in the nearest country. Why UK, why not go to the nearest country where people have the same language and speak Farsi? If a person fears for their life the next safest country that has the same language is a bonus. Asylum shopping is an abuse of the system, which is what many of these people do. They all want to flock to the Uk for the benefits What benefits? And if that’s the case why do the overwhelming majority stay in mainland Europe??
Not a bad deal if you have come from a complete shit hole with nothing to offer.
From the GOV website-
What you'll get
You can ask for somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both as an asylum seeker.
Housing
You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast.
You cannot choose where you live. It’s unlikely you’ll get to live in London or south-east England.
Cash support
You’ll usually get £45 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries.
Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. You’ll be able to use the card to get cash from a cash machine.
What a shame all this is not offered to all the homeless Uk citizens! "Why isn’t it offered to all the homeless in the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They could go to a British embassy in the nearest country. Why UK, why not go to the nearest country where people have the same language and speak Farsi? If a person fears for their life the next safest country that has the same language is a bonus. Asylum shopping is an abuse of the system, which is what many of these people do. They all want to flock to the Uk for the benefits What benefits? And if that’s the case why do the overwhelming majority stay in mainland Europe??
Not a bad deal if you have come from a complete shit hole with nothing to offer.
From the GOV website-
What you'll get
You can ask for somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both as an asylum seeker.
Housing
You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast.
You cannot choose where you live. It’s unlikely you’ll get to live in London or south-east England.
Cash support
You’ll usually get £45 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries.
Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. You’ll be able to use the card to get cash from a cash machine.
You can get that and more in mainland Europe "Who would want to stay in Europe. Everyone knows the UK is the place to be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK?" . ,,, ,,, Very unfair for you to expect someone on FAB to have a solution to this problem . During a Select Committee in Parliament a Tory MP posed a similar scenario to our Home Secretary who quite simply didn't know . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They could go to a British embassy in the nearest country. Why UK, why not go to the nearest country where people have the same language and speak Farsi? If a person fears for their life the next safest country that has the same language is a bonus. Asylum shopping is an abuse of the system, which is what many of these people do. They all want to flock to the Uk for the benefits What benefits? And if that’s the case why do the overwhelming majority stay in mainland Europe??
Not a bad deal if you have come from a complete shit hole with nothing to offer.
From the GOV website-
What you'll get
You can ask for somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both as an asylum seeker.
Housing
You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast.
You cannot choose where you live. It’s unlikely you’ll get to live in London or south-east England.
Cash support
You’ll usually get £45 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries.
Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. You’ll be able to use the card to get cash from a cash machine.
What a shame all this is not offered to all the homeless Uk citizens!
Why isn’t it offered to all the homeless in the UK? "Are you suggesting the government doesn't give a shit about British homeless people.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They could go to a British embassy in the nearest country. Why UK, why not go to the nearest country where people have the same language and speak Farsi? If a person fears for their life the next safest country that has the same language is a bonus. Asylum shopping is an abuse of the system, which is what many of these people do. They all want to flock to the Uk for the benefits What benefits? And if that’s the case why do the overwhelming majority stay in mainland Europe??
Not a bad deal if you have come from a complete shit hole with nothing to offer.
From the GOV website-
What you'll get
You can ask for somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both as an asylum seeker.
Housing
You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast.
You cannot choose where you live. It’s unlikely you’ll get to live in London or south-east England.
Cash support
You’ll usually get £45 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries.
Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. You’ll be able to use the card to get cash from a cash machine.
What a shame all this is not offered to all the homeless Uk citizens!
Why isn’t it offered to all the homeless in the UK?
Are you suggesting the government doesn't give a shit about British homeless people. "Indeed. Have you noticed the argument is always: We don’t get it so they shouldn’t get it. Rather than. We should all get it. You can apply that to pensions, wage increases, ability to strike etc etc. The argument is always levelling down rather than levelling up. It’s as if the propaganda has done its job! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure that I read that, to be considered for asylum in the USA, then you must have made an online application before entering the country. No application, removed immediately." And that is what the Uk should do! Or better still turn the boats around mid crossing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure that I read that, to be considered for asylum in the USA, then you must have made an online application before entering the country. No application, removed immediately. And that is what the Uk should do! Or better still turn the boats around mid crossing " I thought they were sending them to Rwanda?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? She can't, she'll have to get out of Iran and travel to the UK. It's exactly the same if she wanted to apply for asylum in any other country that has signed the convention. If you're talking about a specific person, the UK could grant her asylum in absentia, but that wouldn't help her at all. The Iranian authorities still won't let her leave. What help do you think the UK government should offer her?" Your point seems to be being ignored | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK?" "She can't, she'll have to get out of Iran and travel to the UK. It's exactly the same if she wanted to apply for asylum in any other country that has signed the convention. If you're talking about a specific person, the UK could grant her asylum in absentia, but that wouldn't help her at all. The Iranian authorities still won't let her leave. What help do you think the UK government should offer her?" "Your point seems to be being ignored " It does. Unusual that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? She can't, she'll have to get out of Iran and travel to the UK. It's exactly the same if she wanted to apply for asylum in any other country that has signed the convention. If you're talking about a specific person, the UK could grant her asylum in absentia, but that wouldn't help her at all. The Iranian authorities still won't let her leave. What help do you think the UK government should offer her?" If she can escape Iran should she have a means of claiming asylum either from abroad or if she reaches the UK? Making the asylum application from abroad would end the smuggling of anyone not seeking asylum. They simply wouldn't need to travel. As she cannot, currently, apply for asylum unless she reaches the UK, should it be Government policy to deport her to another country and make every effort to deny her asylum in the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? She could try to get herself smuggled out of Iran into one of the neighbouring countries. Afghanistan is probably not a good idea, so perhaps Pakistan, Iraq, Turkmenistan or Azerbaijan but probably Turkey is best bet. Once there she needs to make her way to the British Embassy in Ankara where she can apply for Asylum through legal channels... Oh wait, er she can’t because there aren’t any! Oh well she’ll have to stay in Turkey like everyone else (seems fair to Turkey). What would stop her boarding a flight to the UK from Turkey? " Money, passport, visa... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They could go to a British embassy in the nearest country. Why UK, why not go to the nearest country where people have the same language and speak Farsi? If a person fears for their life the next safest country that has the same language is a bonus. Asylum shopping is an abuse of the system, which is what many of these people do. They all want to flock to the Uk for the benefits " Who is "flocking"? Were they "flocking" five years ago? Why are they "flocking" now and how has Government policy helped? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure that I read that, to be considered for asylum in the USA, then you must have made an online application before entering the country. No application, removed immediately. And that is what the Uk should do! Or better still turn the boats around mid crossing " Not something that can be done for the UK, I believe. Why not, do you think? Would this process be acceptable to you? It would to me, but perhaps a hand written application handed to the embassy might also be considered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK?" They can’t. The boat crossings are a direct consequence of the immigration reduction policies of the Conservative Government. Ideologically, they are committed to reduce immigration numbers and the hope was that by closing down safe and legal routes, the numbers of people successfully seeking asylum would fall and this, alongside the reduced number of EU migrants would contribute to the reduction in the number of immigrants arriving in the U.K. What they didn’t foresee was how their action to close down safe and legal routes would consequentially result in a new a much higher profile problem of people making crossings to the U.K. by boat now that there was no other way to claim asylum other than by claiming it on U.K. soil. As ever, criminal enterprise saw an opportunity and the boat crossing business developed offering passage to the U.K. for anyone.. for a fee. Make no mistake, this high profile problem was created by the actions of this Government and it is farcical that so many people are now cheering on cruel snd unnecessary policies. Sadly the Conservatives know that by keeping this in the news and appearing to be tough it will give them a political advantage with the ever increasing number of racists and bigots that seem to now populate this country. Not in my name though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure that I read that, to be considered for asylum in the USA, then you must have made an online application before entering the country. No application, removed immediately. And that is what the Uk should do! Or better still turn the boats around mid crossing " Yup, simple, straightforward and easy to legislate for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK?" Why the UK and not a closer country? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They can’t. The boat crossings are a direct consequence of the immigration reduction policies of the Conservative Government. Ideologically, they are committed to reduce immigration numbers and the hope was that by closing down safe and legal routes, the numbers of people successfully seeking asylum would fall and this, alongside the reduced number of EU migrants would contribute to the reduction in the number of immigrants arriving in the U.K. What they didn’t foresee was how their action to close down safe and legal routes would consequentially result in a new a much higher profile problem of people making crossings to the U.K. by boat now that there was no other way to claim asylum other than by claiming it on U.K. soil. As ever, criminal enterprise saw an opportunity and the boat crossing business developed offering passage to the U.K. for anyone.. for a fee. Make no mistake, this high profile problem was created by the actions of this Government and it is farcical that so many people are now cheering on cruel snd unnecessary policies. Sadly the Conservatives know that by keeping this in the news and appearing to be tough it will give them a political advantage with the ever increasing number of racists and bigots that seem to now populate this country. Not in my name though. " So wanting immigration controlled make someone a racist / Bigot does it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure that I read that, to be considered for asylum in the USA, then you must have made an online application before entering the country. No application, removed immediately. And that is what the Uk should do! Or better still turn the boats around mid crossing Yup, simple, straightforward and easy to legislate for." Or use the Greek Coastguard method | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country?" why does that matter ? We have signed up to a treaty that says they have the right to request asylum in the UK. If you were forced out of the UK, where would you choose and why ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They can’t. The boat crossings are a direct consequence of the immigration reduction policies of the Conservative Government. Ideologically, they are committed to reduce immigration numbers and the hope was that by closing down safe and legal routes, the numbers of people successfully seeking asylum would fall and this, alongside the reduced number of EU migrants would contribute to the reduction in the number of immigrants arriving in the U.K. What they didn’t foresee was how their action to close down safe and legal routes would consequentially result in a new a much higher profile problem of people making crossings to the U.K. by boat now that there was no other way to claim asylum other than by claiming it on U.K. soil. As ever, criminal enterprise saw an opportunity and the boat crossing business developed offering passage to the U.K. for anyone.. for a fee. Make no mistake, this high profile problem was created by the actions of this Government and it is farcical that so many people are now cheering on cruel snd unnecessary policies. Sadly the Conservatives know that by keeping this in the news and appearing to be tough it will give them a political advantage with the ever increasing number of racists and bigots that seem to now populate this country. Not in my name though. So wanting immigration controlled make someone a racist / Bigot does it? " No it doesn’t. Some are some aren’t. The debate is so polarising that both sides need to cool down a bit so we can have a sensible discussion. However, the current govt doesn’t want to rhetoric to cool down as they fear a sensible debate. They have weaponised the issue as a distraction for all the other shit going on. Any sensible person would ask: 1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure that I read that, to be considered for asylum in the USA, then you must have made an online application before entering the country. No application, removed immediately. And that is what the Uk should do! Or better still turn the boats around mid crossing Yup, simple, straightforward and easy to legislate for. Or use the Greek Coastguard method " The one where they used sticks to hit the occupants of a small boat and a child drowned? Or where they opened fire as a deterrent? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They can’t. The boat crossings are a direct consequence of the immigration reduction policies of the Conservative Government. Ideologically, they are committed to reduce immigration numbers and the hope was that by closing down safe and legal routes, the numbers of people successfully seeking asylum would fall and this, alongside the reduced number of EU migrants would contribute to the reduction in the number of immigrants arriving in the U.K. What they didn’t foresee was how their action to close down safe and legal routes would consequentially result in a new a much higher profile problem of people making crossings to the U.K. by boat now that there was no other way to claim asylum other than by claiming it on U.K. soil. As ever, criminal enterprise saw an opportunity and the boat crossing business developed offering passage to the U.K. for anyone.. for a fee. Make no mistake, this high profile problem was created by the actions of this Government and it is farcical that so many people are now cheering on cruel snd unnecessary policies. Sadly the Conservatives know that by keeping this in the news and appearing to be tough it will give them a political advantage with the ever increasing number of racists and bigots that seem to now populate this country. Not in my name though. So wanting immigration controlled make someone a racist / Bigot does it? No it doesn’t. Some are some aren’t. The debate is so polarising that both sides need to cool down a bit so we can have a sensible discussion. However, the current govt doesn’t want to rhetoric to cool down as they fear a sensible debate. They have weaponised the issue as a distraction for all the other shit going on. Any sensible person would ask: 1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU?" I think it’s fair to say we have never agreed on any post on any thread and we never will, you dislike me and what I believe and I feel the same with yourself so it’s easier to not comment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They can’t. The boat crossings are a direct consequence of the immigration reduction policies of the Conservative Government. Ideologically, they are committed to reduce immigration numbers and the hope was that by closing down safe and legal routes, the numbers of people successfully seeking asylum would fall and this, alongside the reduced number of EU migrants would contribute to the reduction in the number of immigrants arriving in the U.K. What they didn’t foresee was how their action to close down safe and legal routes would consequentially result in a new a much higher profile problem of people making crossings to the U.K. by boat now that there was no other way to claim asylum other than by claiming it on U.K. soil. As ever, criminal enterprise saw an opportunity and the boat crossing business developed offering passage to the U.K. for anyone.. for a fee. Make no mistake, this high profile problem was created by the actions of this Government and it is farcical that so many people are now cheering on cruel snd unnecessary policies. Sadly the Conservatives know that by keeping this in the news and appearing to be tough it will give them a political advantage with the ever increasing number of racists and bigots that seem to now populate this country. Not in my name though. So wanting immigration controlled make someone a racist / Bigot does it? No it doesn’t. Some are some aren’t. The debate is so polarising that both sides need to cool down a bit so we can have a sensible discussion. However, the current govt doesn’t want to rhetoric to cool down as they fear a sensible debate. They have weaponised the issue as a distraction for all the other shit going on. Any sensible person would ask: 1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU? I think it’s fair to say we have never agreed on any post on any thread and we never will, you dislike me and what I believe and I feel the same with yourself so it’s easier to not comment " They asked some pretty clear questions, though. You could try to answer them if you wanted to. The Tories have made the small boats situation far more pronounced than it used to be. Now they seem more interested in weaponising the issue for a section of voters than actually trying to tackle it. Based on your posts, the tactic is working depressingly well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure that I read that, to be considered for asylum in the USA, then you must have made an online application before entering the country. No application, removed immediately. And that is what the Uk should do! Or better still turn the boats around mid crossing Yup, simple, straightforward and easy to legislate for." So why is it not being done? Why headlines on being tough on "illegal" immigrants? Imprisoning them etc. etc. Why not just do what has already been suggested? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country?" Most refugees and those being persecuted do try and stay close to home. Some have family and connections in other countries. They speak the language or the culture is familiar. At a certain point when it becomes clear that their situation is not temporary they look further ahead and further away. Alternatively they try to get directly to a viable final destination. If you were in the same situation and had to leave the UK, what would your thought process be? Where would you go and why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure that I read that, to be considered for asylum in the USA, then you must have made an online application before entering the country. No application, removed immediately. And that is what the Uk should do! Or better still turn the boats around mid crossing Yup, simple, straightforward and easy to legislate for. So why is it not being done? Why headlines on being tough on "illegal" immigrants? Imprisoning them etc. etc. Why not just do what has already been suggested?" I'm not even sure of the poster has it correct. US immigration site says you may only file if physically present in the United States. You can now do this online... But it doesn't seem like you can do it while outside tej US. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country? Most refugees and those being persecuted do try and stay close to home. Some have family and connections in other countries. They speak the language or the culture is familiar. At a certain point when it becomes clear that their situation is not temporary they look further ahead and further away. Alternatively they try to get directly to a viable final destination. If you were in the same situation and had to leave the UK, what would your thought process be? Where would you go and why?" I'm not sure if you'll know the answer here but: If someone has escaped persecution and has landed somewhere closer to home, they're good there but realise at some point their situation is not temporary so then look further afield. Are they still classed as asylum seekers? The reason I ask this is because they were closer to home and safe. Surely if they're safe then they wouldn't be seeking asylum? I do understand them wanting to come to the UK for Language or family connections, but I'm not sure they're actually asylum seekers if this was the case. Please don't reply in your usual condescending manner, let's try open dialogue for a change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country?" We both know they they are flooding to the Uk ! ££££££ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country? We both know they they are flooding to the Uk ! ££££££" if you were forced out the UK, would that be what you look for... Which country pays the most benefits ? And would you take a dinghy across the channel to get that money versus choosing an easier but less profitable country ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country? We both know they they are flooding to the Uk ! ££££££" The main problem here is that you seem to believe lies. On refugees, from Refugee Action: The vast majority of refugees globally – four out of every five – stay in their region of displacement, and consequently are hosted by developing countries. Turkey now hosts the highest number of refugees with 3.7?million, followed by Colombia with 1.7 million. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country? Most refugees and those being persecuted do try and stay close to home. Some have family and connections in other countries. They speak the language or the culture is familiar. At a certain point when it becomes clear that their situation is not temporary they look further ahead and further away. Alternatively they try to get directly to a viable final destination. If you were in the same situation and had to leave the UK, what would your thought process be? Where would you go and why? I'm not sure if you'll know the answer here but: If someone has escaped persecution and has landed somewhere closer to home, they're good there but realise at some point their situation is not temporary so then look further afield. Are they still classed as asylum seekers? The reason I ask this is because they were closer to home and safe. Surely if they're safe then they wouldn't be seeking asylum? I do understand them wanting to come to the UK for Language or family connections, but I'm not sure they're actually asylum seekers if this was the case. Please don't reply in your usual condescending manner, let's try open dialogue for a change." Wow. You can't help but open with confrontation. I will reply as I would have replied regardless. Refugee camps and being in a country that may view you with suspicion or hostility are not necessarily "safe". Their plan may always have been to head for a destination where they have a link without a transient period. An escape to somewhere known. What would you do if you had to flee the UK? Also, the implication is that the only place where anyone can be considered for asylum is the country next door. Is that the legal position and do you think that's an appropriate moral position? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country? Most refugees and those being persecuted do try and stay close to home. Some have family and connections in other countries. They speak the language or the culture is familiar. At a certain point when it becomes clear that their situation is not temporary they look further ahead and further away. Alternatively they try to get directly to a viable final destination. If you were in the same situation and had to leave the UK, what would your thought process be? Where would you go and why? I'm not sure if you'll know the answer here but: If someone has escaped persecution and has landed somewhere closer to home, they're good there but realise at some point their situation is not temporary so then look further afield. Are they still classed as asylum seekers? The reason I ask this is because they were closer to home and safe. Surely if they're safe then they wouldn't be seeking asylum? I do understand them wanting to come to the UK for Language or family connections, but I'm not sure they're actually asylum seekers if this was the case. Please don't reply in your usual condescending manner, let's try open dialogue for a change. Wow. You can't help but open with confrontation. I will reply as I would have replied regardless. Refugee camps and being in a country that may view you with suspicion or hostility are not necessarily "safe". Their plan may always have been to head for a destination where they have a link without a transient period. An escape to somewhere known. What would you do if you had to flee the UK? Also, the implication is that the only place where anyone can be considered for asylum is the country next door. Is that the legal position and do you think that's an appropriate moral position?" I asked one question. If they are 'settled' in a country. Then choose to look further afield, are they still asylum seekers? It doesn't matter whether it's an appropriate moral position, I was trying to see if you could garner an answer. You obviously couldn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country?why does that matter ? We have signed up to a treaty that says they have the right to request asylum in the UK. If you were forced out of the UK, where would you choose and why ? " Yes it does matter. I would never be forced out of the UK because I would stay and fight.! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country?why does that matter ? We have signed up to a treaty that says they have the right to request asylum in the UK. If you were forced out of the UK, where would you choose and why ? Yes it does matter. I would never be forced out of the UK because I would stay and fight.!" Fight against your own government? You would stay and let your family be slaughtered? Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, is the only way that this woman in Iran can request asylum in the UK to do so "illegally"?" No, that woman in Iran can't claim asylum in any country, until she gets out of Iran. The asylum rules apply only to people who have escaped persecution. They don't apply to people who are living in a country that's persecuting them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They can’t. The boat crossings are a direct consequence of the immigration reduction policies of the Conservative Government. Ideologically, they are committed to reduce immigration numbers and the hope was that by closing down safe and legal routes, the numbers of people successfully seeking asylum would fall and this, alongside the reduced number of EU migrants would contribute to the reduction in the number of immigrants arriving in the U.K. What they didn’t foresee was how their action to close down safe and legal routes would consequentially result in a new a much higher profile problem of people making crossings to the U.K. by boat now that there was no other way to claim asylum other than by claiming it on U.K. soil. As ever, criminal enterprise saw an opportunity and the boat crossing business developed offering passage to the U.K. for anyone.. for a fee. Make no mistake, this high profile problem was created by the actions of this Government and it is farcical that so many people are now cheering on cruel snd unnecessary policies. Sadly the Conservatives know that by keeping this in the news and appearing to be tough it will give them a political advantage with the ever increasing number of racists and bigots that seem to now populate this country. Not in my name though. So wanting immigration controlled make someone a racist / Bigot does it? No it doesn’t. Some are some aren’t. The debate is so polarising that both sides need to cool down a bit so we can have a sensible discussion. However, the current govt doesn’t want to rhetoric to cool down as they fear a sensible debate. They have weaponised the issue as a distraction for all the other shit going on. Any sensible person would ask: 1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU? I think it’s fair to say we have never agreed on any post on any thread and we never will, you dislike me and what I believe and I feel the same with yourself so it’s easier to not comment " I don’t dislike you. I don’t even know you. I disagree with most of your opinions regarding politics but that isn’t personal! I actually agreed with you on that post saying not everyone concerned about immigration is a racist / bigot. I think it is a grown up and mature behaviour to be able to have robust debate and to do so without resorting to getting personal. So I am genuinely interested in your views on the three points I raised? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country? Most refugees and those being persecuted do try and stay close to home. Some have family and connections in other countries. They speak the language or the culture is familiar. At a certain point when it becomes clear that their situation is not temporary they look further ahead and further away. Alternatively they try to get directly to a viable final destination. If you were in the same situation and had to leave the UK, what would your thought process be? Where would you go and why? I'm not sure if you'll know the answer here but: If someone has escaped persecution and has landed somewhere closer to home, they're good there but realise at some point their situation is not temporary so then look further afield. Are they still classed as asylum seekers? The reason I ask this is because they were closer to home and safe. Surely if they're safe then they wouldn't be seeking asylum? I do understand them wanting to come to the UK for Language or family connections, but I'm not sure they're actually asylum seekers if this was the case. Please don't reply in your usual condescending manner, let's try open dialogue for a change. Wow. You can't help but open with confrontation. I will reply as I would have replied regardless. Refugee camps and being in a country that may view you with suspicion or hostility are not necessarily "safe". Their plan may always have been to head for a destination where they have a link without a transient period. An escape to somewhere known. What would you do if you had to flee the UK? Also, the implication is that the only place where anyone can be considered for asylum is the country next door. Is that the legal position and do you think that's an appropriate moral position? I asked one question. If they are 'settled' in a country. Then choose to look further afield, are they still asylum seekers? It doesn't matter whether it's an appropriate moral position, I was trying to see if you could garner an answer. You obviously couldn't." I answered your actual question and asked how you would behave under the same circumstances. You didn't write "settled" you wrote "landed". That is not the same thing at all. Being in a refugee camp or living precariously is also not "settled" from my perspective. If they were actually "settled" somewhere else then no, they would not be seeking asylum unless they suffered from persecution in their new home too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, is the only way that this woman in Iran can request asylum in the UK to do so "illegally"? No, that woman in Iran can't claim asylum in any country, until she gets out of Iran. The asylum rules apply only to people who have escaped persecution. They don't apply to people who are living in a country that's persecuting them." She cannot come to the UK "legally" so she cannot apply for asylum "legally". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She,s fucked then" Is that legal speak.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She,s fucked then Is that legal speak.." it's called common sense speak | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country?why does that matter ? We have signed up to a treaty that says they have the right to request asylum in the UK. If you were forced out of the UK, where would you choose and why ? Yes it does matter. I would never be forced out of the UK because I would stay and fight.! Fight against your own government? You would stay and let your family be slaughtered? Why? " Why did we have a civil war here? Why didn't everyone just bugger off to Iran instead of staying and fighting? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country?why does that matter ? We have signed up to a treaty that says they have the right to request asylum in the UK. If you were forced out of the UK, where would you choose and why ? Yes it does matter. I would never be forced out of the UK because I would stay and fight.! Fight against your own government? You would stay and let your family be slaughtered? Why? Why did we have a civil war here? Why didn't everyone just bugger off to Iran instead of staying and fighting?" Did you fight in the civil war? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country?why does that matter ? We have signed up to a treaty that says they have the right to request asylum in the UK. If you were forced out of the UK, where would you choose and why ? Yes it does matter. I would never be forced out of the UK because I would stay and fight.!" let's say you face the death penalty for being a swinger. Who are you fighting? The courts ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, is the only way that this woman in Iran can request asylum in the UK to do so "illegally"? No, that woman in Iran can't claim asylum in any country, until she gets out of Iran. The asylum rules apply only to people who have escaped persecution. They don't apply to people who are living in a country that's persecuting them. She cannot come to the UK "legally" so she cannot apply for asylum "legally"." If she was granted asylum in another country, could she travel to the UK by normal means? If she then decided the UK was for her, could she apply for residency? What would be the hurdles in the above? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country?why does that matter ? We have signed up to a treaty that says they have the right to request asylum in the UK. If you were forced out of the UK, where would you choose and why ? Yes it does matter. I would never be forced out of the UK because I would stay and fight.!let's say you face the death penalty for being a swinger. Who are you fighting? The courts ? " That's just stupid. We can all come up with fantasy stories can't we.! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK?" "Why the UK and not a closer country?" "why does that matter ? We have signed up to a treaty that says they have the right to request asylum in the UK." No we haven't. We've signed a treaty that says that if a genuine applicant makes an application to the UK, we *must* grant them asylum. There's nothing in the treaty that grants applicants any rights to apply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, is the only way that this woman in Iran can request asylum in the UK to do so "illegally"? No, that woman in Iran can't claim asylum in any country, until she gets out of Iran. The asylum rules apply only to people who have escaped persecution. They don't apply to people who are living in a country that's persecuting them. She cannot come to the UK "legally" so she cannot apply for asylum "legally". If she was granted asylum in another country, could she travel to the UK by normal means? If she then decided the UK was for her, could she apply for residency? What would be the hurdles in the above? " This is a very specific scenario. You are implying that someone been given asylum in one country and "fancying" going somewhere else. Do you think or know that this is a typical or widespread scenario? Political asylum is a broadly "Western" concept due mainly to their ability to provide some form of welfare which requires a legal status. Most refugees or those fleeing persecution are not formally granted any legal status in the countries which they flee to. They are likely to have relatively few possessions and little documentation or money. It may not be your intent, but I don't think that it's quite the relaxed, genteel process that you implied. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country?why does that matter ? We have signed up to a treaty that says they have the right to request asylum in the UK. If you were forced out of the UK, where would you choose and why ? Yes it does matter. I would never be forced out of the UK because I would stay and fight.!let's say you face the death penalty for being a swinger. Who are you fighting? The courts ? That's just stupid. We can all come up with fantasy stories can't we.!" Fantasies like "fighting" the Police or secret services or armed forces or religious police or a homophobic society, or armed militia or terrorists? With your family at home? You do realise that these are the realities that are actually being faced, don't you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country? why does that matter ? We have signed up to a treaty that says they have the right to request asylum in the UK. No we haven't. We've signed a treaty that says that if a genuine applicant makes an application to the UK, we *must* grant them asylum. There's nothing in the treaty that grants applicants any rights to apply." Our Government is saying that is not the case. Correct? We don't have to honour treaties anymore anyway. Our previous Prime Minister and current Parliament said so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, is the only way that this woman in Iran can request asylum in the UK to do so "illegally"?" "No, that woman in Iran can't claim asylum in any country, until she gets out of Iran. The asylum rules apply only to people who have escaped persecution. They don't apply to people who are living in a country that's persecuting them." "She cannot come to the UK "legally" so she cannot apply for asylum "legally"." You need to re-read what you and I have said above. She can't come to the UK at all, legally or not, because her authorities won't let her out of the country. It's not the UK which is forcing that woman to live in fear of persecution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have signed up to a treaty that says they have the right to request asylum in the UK." "No we haven't. We've signed a treaty that says that if a genuine applicant makes an application to the UK, we *must* grant them asylum. There's nothing in the treaty that grants applicants any rights to apply." "Our Government is saying that is not the case. Correct? We don't have to honour treaties anymore anyway. Our previous Prime Minister and current Parliament said so." No, that's completely untrue. I don't know where you would get that idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, is the only way that this woman in Iran can request asylum in the UK to do so "illegally"? No, that woman in Iran can't claim asylum in any country, until she gets out of Iran. The asylum rules apply only to people who have escaped persecution. They don't apply to people who are living in a country that's persecuting them. She cannot come to the UK "legally" so she cannot apply for asylum "legally". You need to re-read what you and I have said above. She can't come to the UK at all, legally or not, because her authorities won't let her out of the country. It's not the UK which is forcing that woman to live in fear of persecution." Nobody except you would try to apply that obscure logic. Inappropriately too. You can be persecuted and able to leave or escape. They are not mutually exclusive. Most people would accept that the discussion on this topic begins once you have actually left... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have signed up to a treaty that says they have the right to request asylum in the UK. No we haven't. We've signed a treaty that says that if a genuine applicant makes an application to the UK, we *must* grant them asylum. There's nothing in the treaty that grants applicants any rights to apply. Our Government is saying that is not the case. Correct? We don't have to honour treaties anymore anyway. Our previous Prime Minister and current Parliament said so. No, that's completely untrue. I don't know where you would get that idea." Current Government policy on "illegal" immigrants and legislation on the Northern Ireland protocol as part of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most people would accept that the discussion on this topic begins once you have actually left..." Except when the original post explicitly states that the person is "in Iran". Or was that not what you meant? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, is the only way that this woman in Iran can request asylum in the UK to do so "illegally"? No, that woman in Iran can't claim asylum in any country, until she gets out of Iran. The asylum rules apply only to people who have escaped persecution. They don't apply to people who are living in a country that's persecuting them. She cannot come to the UK "legally" so she cannot apply for asylum "legally". If she was granted asylum in another country, could she travel to the UK by normal means? If she then decided the UK was for her, could she apply for residency? What would be the hurdles in the above? This is a very specific scenario. You are implying that someone been given asylum in one country and "fancying" going somewhere else. Do you think or know that this is a typical or widespread scenario? Political asylum is a broadly "Western" concept due mainly to their ability to provide some form of welfare which requires a legal status. Most refugees or those fleeing persecution are not formally granted any legal status in the countries which they flee to. They are likely to have relatively few possessions and little documentation or money. It may not be your intent, but I don't think that it's quite the relaxed, genteel process that you implied." Not “fancying” going somewhere else, applying for asylum in the first safe country giving the support and safety I would imagine I would want. Once life settles making life choices. I would think this way, wouldn’t you or the woman in question? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country? Most refugees and those being persecuted do try and stay close to home. Some have family and connections in other countries. They speak the language or the culture is familiar. At a certain point when it becomes clear that their situation is not temporary they look further ahead and further away. Alternatively they try to get directly to a viable final destination. If you were in the same situation and had to leave the UK, what would your thought process be? Where would you go and why? I'm not sure if you'll know the answer here but: If someone has escaped persecution and has landed somewhere closer to home, they're good there but realise at some point their situation is not temporary so then look further afield. Are they still classed as asylum seekers? The reason I ask this is because they were closer to home and safe. Surely if they're safe then they wouldn't be seeking asylum? I do understand them wanting to come to the UK for Language or family connections, but I'm not sure they're actually asylum seekers if this was the case. Please don't reply in your usual condescending manner, let's try open dialogue for a change. Wow. You can't help but open with confrontation. I will reply as I would have replied regardless. Refugee camps and being in a country that may view you with suspicion or hostility are not necessarily "safe". Their plan may always have been to head for a destination where they have a link without a transient period. An escape to somewhere known. What would you do if you had to flee the UK? Also, the implication is that the only place where anyone can be considered for asylum is the country next door. Is that the legal position and do you think that's an appropriate moral position? I asked one question. If they are 'settled' in a country. Then choose to look further afield, are they still asylum seekers? It doesn't matter whether it's an appropriate moral position, I was trying to see if you could garner an answer. You obviously couldn't. I answered your actual question and asked how you would behave under the same circumstances. You didn't write "settled" you wrote "landed". That is not the same thing at all. Being in a refugee camp or living precariously is also not "settled" from my perspective. If they were actually "settled" somewhere else then no, they would not be seeking asylum unless they suffered from persecution in their new home too." I also wrote they were good and safe in said new country. I guess you decided to ignore that part. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country?why does that matter ? We have signed up to a treaty that says they have the right to request asylum in the UK. If you were forced out of the UK, where would you choose and why ? Yes it does matter. I would never be forced out of the UK because I would stay and fight.!let's say you face the death penalty for being a swinger. Who are you fighting? The courts ? That's just stupid. We can all come up with fantasy stories can't we.!" it's more to illustrate that asylum seekers are more than just those facing wars they can fight in. It can include those persecuted by sexuality. I changed it to swingers to try and help with the empathy. Also, I wouldn't suggest swinging in Saudi Arabia say. Not openly ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've signed a treaty that says that if a genuine applicant makes an application to the UK, we *must* grant them asylum. There's nothing in the treaty that grants applicants any rights to apply." "Our Government is saying that is not the case. Correct? We don't have to honour treaties anymore anyway. Our previous Prime Minister and current Parliament said so." "No, that's completely untrue. I don't know where you would get that idea." "Current Government policy on "illegal" immigrants and legislation on the Northern Ireland protocol as part of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement." The current government policy is to create a new law in the belief that it is compatible with international law. The Home Secretary has said in the house that she believes it to be legal, and that she expects that it will be looked at by the ECHR. As for the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, that was just one man's blustering. The proposed law was never enacted, or even passed by the houses. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most people would accept that the discussion on this topic begins once you have actually left... Except when the original post explicitly states that the person is "in Iran". Or was that not what you meant?" Again, as an example. Are you really unable to interpret the intention of the question? Regardless, people are still able to escape Iran walking across a border. It is not sealed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, is the only way that this woman in Iran can request asylum in the UK to do so "illegally"? No, that woman in Iran can't claim asylum in any country, until she gets out of Iran. The asylum rules apply only to people who have escaped persecution. They don't apply to people who are living in a country that's persecuting them. She cannot come to the UK "legally" so she cannot apply for asylum "legally". If she was granted asylum in another country, could she travel to the UK by normal means? If she then decided the UK was for her, could she apply for residency? What would be the hurdles in the above? This is a very specific scenario. You are implying that someone been given asylum in one country and "fancying" going somewhere else. Do you think or know that this is a typical or widespread scenario? Political asylum is a broadly "Western" concept due mainly to their ability to provide some form of welfare which requires a legal status. Most refugees or those fleeing persecution are not formally granted any legal status in the countries which they flee to. They are likely to have relatively few possessions and little documentation or money. It may not be your intent, but I don't think that it's quite the relaxed, genteel process that you implied. Not “fancying” going somewhere else, applying for asylum in the first safe country giving the support and safety I would imagine I would want. Once life settles making life choices. I would think this way, wouldn’t you or the woman in question? " She wouldn't be applying for asylum then, would she? As I stated, very few countries formally offer that status so the most likely scenario in neighbouring stars is a tenuous existence. Again, it seems like you are implying that she would be leaving one comfortable existence for one more comfortable. Like an episode of Downton Abbey. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country?why does that matter ? We have signed up to a treaty that says they have the right to request asylum in the UK. If you were forced out of the UK, where would you choose and why ? Yes it does matter. I would never be forced out of the UK because I would stay and fight.! Fight against your own government? You would stay and let your family be slaughtered? Why? Why did we have a civil war here? Why didn't everyone just bugger off to Iran instead of staying and fighting?" Pretty safe to say that the majority of people in the 17th century had no idea there was a country called Persia (not Iran back then). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most people would accept that the discussion on this topic begins once you have actually left... Except when the original post explicitly states that the person is "in Iran". Or was that not what you meant? Again, as an example. Are you really unable to interpret the intention of the question? Regardless, people are still able to escape Iran walking across a border. It is not sealed." Didn't you just pick me up for yourself not being able to interpret what I was saying?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country? Most refugees and those being persecuted do try and stay close to home. Some have family and connections in other countries. They speak the language or the culture is familiar. At a certain point when it becomes clear that their situation is not temporary they look further ahead and further away. Alternatively they try to get directly to a viable final destination. If you were in the same situation and had to leave the UK, what would your thought process be? Where would you go and why? I'm not sure if you'll know the answer here but: If someone has escaped persecution and has landed somewhere closer to home, they're good there but realise at some point their situation is not temporary so then look further afield. Are they still classed as asylum seekers? The reason I ask this is because they were closer to home and safe. Surely if they're safe then they wouldn't be seeking asylum? I do understand them wanting to come to the UK for Language or family connections, but I'm not sure they're actually asylum seekers if this was the case. Please don't reply in your usual condescending manner, let's try open dialogue for a change. Wow. You can't help but open with confrontation. I will reply as I would have replied regardless. Refugee camps and being in a country that may view you with suspicion or hostility are not necessarily "safe". Their plan may always have been to head for a destination where they have a link without a transient period. An escape to somewhere known. What would you do if you had to flee the UK? Also, the implication is that the only place where anyone can be considered for asylum is the country next door. Is that the legal position and do you think that's an appropriate moral position? I asked one question. If they are 'settled' in a country. Then choose to look further afield, are they still asylum seekers? It doesn't matter whether it's an appropriate moral position, I was trying to see if you could garner an answer. You obviously couldn't. I answered your actual question and asked how you would behave under the same circumstances. You didn't write "settled" you wrote "landed". That is not the same thing at all. Being in a refugee camp or living precariously is also not "settled" from my perspective. If they were actually "settled" somewhere else then no, they would not be seeking asylum unless they suffered from persecution in their new home too. I also wrote they were good and safe in said new country. I guess you decided to ignore that part." So your question, apparently, is if they fled to somewhere where they were perfectly content should they be allowed to apply for asylum? No. If they were unable to stay or suffered persecution there? Yes. Why choose this edge case to ask a question about? What point are you trying to make? Is it not more likely that they are living hand to mouth in a refugee camp or scratching a living in a neighbouring country? Should they be considered for asylum? What if they only stay there long enough to steady themselves before heading directly here? Again, how would you behave given those circumstances? You could start to answer your own questions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country? Most refugees and those being persecuted do try and stay close to home. Some have family and connections in other countries. They speak the language or the culture is familiar. At a certain point when it becomes clear that their situation is not temporary they look further ahead and further away. Alternatively they try to get directly to a viable final destination. If you were in the same situation and had to leave the UK, what would your thought process be? Where would you go and why? I'm not sure if you'll know the answer here but: If someone has escaped persecution and has landed somewhere closer to home, they're good there but realise at some point their situation is not temporary so then look further afield. Are they still classed as asylum seekers? The reason I ask this is because they were closer to home and safe. Surely if they're safe then they wouldn't be seeking asylum? I do understand them wanting to come to the UK for Language or family connections, but I'm not sure they're actually asylum seekers if this was the case. Please don't reply in your usual condescending manner, let's try open dialogue for a change. Wow. You can't help but open with confrontation. I will reply as I would have replied regardless. Refugee camps and being in a country that may view you with suspicion or hostility are not necessarily "safe". Their plan may always have been to head for a destination where they have a link without a transient period. An escape to somewhere known. What would you do if you had to flee the UK? Also, the implication is that the only place where anyone can be considered for asylum is the country next door. Is that the legal position and do you think that's an appropriate moral position? I asked one question. If they are 'settled' in a country. Then choose to look further afield, are they still asylum seekers? It doesn't matter whether it's an appropriate moral position, I was trying to see if you could garner an answer. You obviously couldn't. I answered your actual question and asked how you would behave under the same circumstances. You didn't write "settled" you wrote "landed". That is not the same thing at all. Being in a refugee camp or living precariously is also not "settled" from my perspective. If they were actually "settled" somewhere else then no, they would not be seeking asylum unless they suffered from persecution in their new home too. I also wrote they were good and safe in said new country. I guess you decided to ignore that part. So your question, apparently, is if they fled to somewhere where they were perfectly content should they be allowed to apply for asylum? No. If they were unable to stay or suffered persecution there? Yes. Why choose this edge case to ask a question about? What point are you trying to make? Is it not more likely that they are living hand to mouth in a refugee camp or scratching a living in a neighbouring country? Should they be considered for asylum? What if they only stay there long enough to steady themselves before heading directly here? Again, how would you behave given those circumstances? You could start to answer your own questions." It was actually a fairly simple question which you have now answered. Not sure why you need to make a big meal out of every question asked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've signed a treaty that says that if a genuine applicant makes an application to the UK, we *must* grant them asylum. There's nothing in the treaty that grants applicants any rights to apply. Our Government is saying that is not the case. Correct? We don't have to honour treaties anymore anyway. Our previous Prime Minister and current Parliament said so. No, that's completely untrue. I don't know where you would get that idea. Current Government policy on "illegal" immigrants and legislation on the Northern Ireland protocol as part of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement. The current government policy is to create a new law in the belief that it is compatible with international law. The Home Secretary has said in the house that she believes it to be legal, and that she expects that it will be looked at by the ECHR. As for the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, that was just one man's blustering. The proposed law was never enacted, or even passed by the houses." Except that it has a less than 50% chance of passing according to the Government. So, what what does that say about our Home Secretary's words? The enabling act was passed by Parliament and many of the current Cabinet supported the policy, including the current Prime Minister and Home Secretary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country? Most refugees and those being persecuted do try and stay close to home. Some have family and connections in other countries. They speak the language or the culture is familiar. At a certain point when it becomes clear that their situation is not temporary they look further ahead and further away. Alternatively they try to get directly to a viable final destination. If you were in the same situation and had to leave the UK, what would your thought process be? Where would you go and why? I'm not sure if you'll know the answer here but: If someone has escaped persecution and has landed somewhere closer to home, they're good there but realise at some point their situation is not temporary so then look further afield. Are they still classed as asylum seekers? The reason I ask this is because they were closer to home and safe. Surely if they're safe then they wouldn't be seeking asylum? I do understand them wanting to come to the UK for Language or family connections, but I'm not sure they're actually asylum seekers if this was the case. Please don't reply in your usual condescending manner, let's try open dialogue for a change. Wow. You can't help but open with confrontation. I will reply as I would have replied regardless. Refugee camps and being in a country that may view you with suspicion or hostility are not necessarily "safe". Their plan may always have been to head for a destination where they have a link without a transient period. An escape to somewhere known. What would you do if you had to flee the UK? Also, the implication is that the only place where anyone can be considered for asylum is the country next door. Is that the legal position and do you think that's an appropriate moral position? I asked one question. If they are 'settled' in a country. Then choose to look further afield, are they still asylum seekers? It doesn't matter whether it's an appropriate moral position, I was trying to see if you could garner an answer. You obviously couldn't. I answered your actual question and asked how you would behave under the same circumstances. You didn't write "settled" you wrote "landed". That is not the same thing at all. Being in a refugee camp or living precariously is also not "settled" from my perspective. If they were actually "settled" somewhere else then no, they would not be seeking asylum unless they suffered from persecution in their new home too. I also wrote they were good and safe in said new country. I guess you decided to ignore that part. So your question, apparently, is if they fled to somewhere where they were perfectly content should they be allowed to apply for asylum? No. If they were unable to stay or suffered persecution there? Yes. Why choose this edge case to ask a question about? What point are you trying to make? Is it not more likely that they are living hand to mouth in a refugee camp or scratching a living in a neighbouring country? Should they be considered for asylum? What if they only stay there long enough to steady themselves before heading directly here? Again, how would you behave given those circumstances? You could start to answer your own questions. It was actually a fairly simple question which you have now answered. Not sure why you need to make a big meal out of every question asked." It was an answer to a pointless and poorly worded question, it seems. Shame that you are unable to answer at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, is the only way that this woman in Iran can request asylum in the UK to do so "illegally"? No, that woman in Iran can't claim asylum in any country, until she gets out of Iran. The asylum rules apply only to people who have escaped persecution. They don't apply to people who are living in a country that's persecuting them. She cannot come to the UK "legally" so she cannot apply for asylum "legally". If she was granted asylum in another country, could she travel to the UK by normal means? If she then decided the UK was for her, could she apply for residency? What would be the hurdles in the above? This is a very specific scenario. You are implying that someone been given asylum in one country and "fancying" going somewhere else. Do you think or know that this is a typical or widespread scenario? Political asylum is a broadly "Western" concept due mainly to their ability to provide some form of welfare which requires a legal status. Most refugees or those fleeing persecution are not formally granted any legal status in the countries which they flee to. They are likely to have relatively few possessions and little documentation or money. It may not be your intent, but I don't think that it's quite the relaxed, genteel process that you implied. Not “fancying” going somewhere else, applying for asylum in the first safe country giving the support and safety I would imagine I would want. Once life settles making life choices. I would think this way, wouldn’t you or the woman in question? She wouldn't be applying for asylum then, would she? As I stated, very few countries formally offer that status so the most likely scenario in neighbouring stars is a tenuous existence. Again, it seems like you are implying that she would be leaving one comfortable existence for one more comfortable. Like an episode of Downton Abbey." I’m not understanding why you are comparing my scenario to Downton Abbey, nothing I said would warrant that.. I believe going from the horror and fear to her life to safety, would be a priority, Is that agreed or not? once she has left her originating country, I would expect she would try to find a safe country as a matter of urgency to protect herself, would you agree with this? Once settled, she would then have less urgency and more time to consider her future, agreed? From that point she may wish to consider another country of residence or make a life in the country that granted her asylum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country? Most refugees and those being persecuted do try and stay close to home. Some have family and connections in other countries. They speak the language or the culture is familiar. At a certain point when it becomes clear that their situation is not temporary they look further ahead and further away. Alternatively they try to get directly to a viable final destination. If you were in the same situation and had to leave the UK, what would your thought process be? Where would you go and why? I'm not sure if you'll know the answer here but: If someone has escaped persecution and has landed somewhere closer to home, they're good there but realise at some point their situation is not temporary so then look further afield. Are they still classed as asylum seekers? The reason I ask this is because they were closer to home and safe. Surely if they're safe then they wouldn't be seeking asylum? I do understand them wanting to come to the UK for Language or family connections, but I'm not sure they're actually asylum seekers if this was the case. Please don't reply in your usual condescending manner, let's try open dialogue for a change. Wow. You can't help but open with confrontation. I will reply as I would have replied regardless. Refugee camps and being in a country that may view you with suspicion or hostility are not necessarily "safe". Their plan may always have been to head for a destination where they have a link without a transient period. An escape to somewhere known. What would you do if you had to flee the UK? Also, the implication is that the only place where anyone can be considered for asylum is the country next door. Is that the legal position and do you think that's an appropriate moral position? I asked one question. If they are 'settled' in a country. Then choose to look further afield, are they still asylum seekers? It doesn't matter whether it's an appropriate moral position, I was trying to see if you could garner an answer. You obviously couldn't. I answered your actual question and asked how you would behave under the same circumstances. You didn't write "settled" you wrote "landed". That is not the same thing at all. Being in a refugee camp or living precariously is also not "settled" from my perspective. If they were actually "settled" somewhere else then no, they would not be seeking asylum unless they suffered from persecution in their new home too. I also wrote they were good and safe in said new country. I guess you decided to ignore that part. So your question, apparently, is if they fled to somewhere where they were perfectly content should they be allowed to apply for asylum? No. If they were unable to stay or suffered persecution there? Yes. Why choose this edge case to ask a question about? What point are you trying to make? Is it not more likely that they are living hand to mouth in a refugee camp or scratching a living in a neighbouring country? Should they be considered for asylum? What if they only stay there long enough to steady themselves before heading directly here? Again, how would you behave given those circumstances? You could start to answer your own questions. It was actually a fairly simple question which you have now answered. Not sure why you need to make a big meal out of every question asked. It was an answer to a pointless and poorly worded question, it seems. Shame that you are unable to answer at all." Poorly worded because you chose not to read it properly? I don't need to answer your 20 questions, I asked youbone question which I now have an answer for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, is the only way that this woman in Iran can request asylum in the UK to do so "illegally"? No, that woman in Iran can't claim asylum in any country, until she gets out of Iran. The asylum rules apply only to people who have escaped persecution. They don't apply to people who are living in a country that's persecuting them. She cannot come to the UK "legally" so she cannot apply for asylum "legally". If she was granted asylum in another country, could she travel to the UK by normal means? If she then decided the UK was for her, could she apply for residency? What would be the hurdles in the above? This is a very specific scenario. You are implying that someone been given asylum in one country and "fancying" going somewhere else. Do you think or know that this is a typical or widespread scenario? Political asylum is a broadly "Western" concept due mainly to their ability to provide some form of welfare which requires a legal status. Most refugees or those fleeing persecution are not formally granted any legal status in the countries which they flee to. They are likely to have relatively few possessions and little documentation or money. It may not be your intent, but I don't think that it's quite the relaxed, genteel process that you implied. Not “fancying” going somewhere else, applying for asylum in the first safe country giving the support and safety I would imagine I would want. Once life settles making life choices. I would think this way, wouldn’t you or the woman in question? She wouldn't be applying for asylum then, would she? As I stated, very few countries formally offer that status so the most likely scenario in neighbouring stars is a tenuous existence. Again, it seems like you are implying that she would be leaving one comfortable existence for one more comfortable. Like an episode of Downton Abbey. I’m not understanding why you are comparing my scenario to Downton Abbey, nothing I said would warrant that.. I believe going from the horror and fear to her life to safety, would be a priority, Is that agreed or not? once she has left her originating country, I would expect she would try to find a safe country as a matter of urgency to protect herself, would you agree with this? Once settled, she would then have less urgency and more time to consider her future, agreed? From that point she may wish to consider another country of residence or make a life in the country that granted her asylum. " You keep writing "settled". Why this odd edge case where you are saying asking if someone who is perfectly content and safe in another country should be given asylum because they fancy it? I've said no twice already to someone else. Why is this particular scenario relevant? Is this a common scenario in your experience? What's your answer? What if they are living precariously hand-to-mouth in a refugee camp? Should they be eligible for asylum? What if | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, is the only way that this woman in Iran can request asylum in the UK to do so "illegally"? No, that woman in Iran can't claim asylum in any country, until she gets out of Iran. The asylum rules apply only to people who have escaped persecution. They don't apply to people who are living in a country that's persecuting them. She cannot come to the UK "legally" so she cannot apply for asylum "legally". If she was granted asylum in another country, could she travel to the UK by normal means? If she then decided the UK was for her, could she apply for residency? What would be the hurdles in the above? This is a very specific scenario. You are implying that someone been given asylum in one country and "fancying" going somewhere else. Do you think or know that this is a typical or widespread scenario? Political asylum is a broadly "Western" concept due mainly to their ability to provide some form of welfare which requires a legal status. Most refugees or those fleeing persecution are not formally granted any legal status in the countries which they flee to. They are likely to have relatively few possessions and little documentation or money. It may not be your intent, but I don't think that it's quite the relaxed, genteel process that you implied. Not “fancying” going somewhere else, applying for asylum in the first safe country giving the support and safety I would imagine I would want. Once life settles making life choices. I would think this way, wouldn’t you or the woman in question? She wouldn't be applying for asylum then, would she? As I stated, very few countries formally offer that status so the most likely scenario in neighbouring stars is a tenuous existence. Again, it seems like you are implying that she would be leaving one comfortable existence for one more comfortable. Like an episode of Downton Abbey. I’m not understanding why you are comparing my scenario to Downton Abbey, nothing I said would warrant that.. I believe going from the horror and fear to her life to safety, would be a priority, Is that agreed or not? once she has left her originating country, I would expect she would try to find a safe country as a matter of urgency to protect herself, would you agree with this? Once settled, she would then have less urgency and more time to consider her future, agreed? From that point she may wish to consider another country of residence or make a life in the country that granted her asylum. You keep writing "settled". Why this odd edge case where you are saying asking if someone who is perfectly content and safe in another country should be given asylum because they fancy it? I've said no twice already to someone else. Why is this particular scenario relevant? Is this a common scenario in your experience? What's your answer? What if they are living precariously hand-to-mouth in a refugee camp? Should they be eligible for asylum? What if " I’m afraid the what if’s are very much loaded from your side. The simple answer to your original question is she does not need to come to the UK for her safety. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? They can’t. The boat crossings are a direct consequence of the immigration reduction policies of the Conservative Government. Ideologically, they are committed to reduce immigration numbers and the hope was that by closing down safe and legal routes, the numbers of people successfully seeking asylum would fall and this, alongside the reduced number of EU migrants would contribute to the reduction in the number of immigrants arriving in the U.K. What they didn’t foresee was how their action to close down safe and legal routes would consequentially result in a new a much higher profile problem of people making crossings to the U.K. by boat now that there was no other way to claim asylum other than by claiming it on U.K. soil. As ever, criminal enterprise saw an opportunity and the boat crossing business developed offering passage to the U.K. for anyone.. for a fee. Make no mistake, this high profile problem was created by the actions of this Government and it is farcical that so many people are now cheering on cruel snd unnecessary policies. Sadly the Conservatives know that by keeping this in the news and appearing to be tough it will give them a political advantage with the ever increasing number of racists and bigots that seem to now populate this country. Not in my name though. So wanting immigration controlled make someone a racist / Bigot does it? " The post didn’t say that, you chose to interpret it that way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes?" Because the UK doesn't want there to be safe and legal routes. If we created safe and legal routes, then more people would use them to enter, and the UK doesn't want more unvetted people to arrive. "2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process?" We could. But that would make them safe and legal routes. "3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU?" It did, but the EU held it back as a bargaining chip for use later on in the divorce process, and both sides ran of of time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, is the only way that this woman in Iran can request asylum in the UK to do so "illegally"? No, that woman in Iran can't claim asylum in any country, until she gets out of Iran. The asylum rules apply only to people who have escaped persecution. They don't apply to people who are living in a country that's persecuting them. She cannot come to the UK "legally" so she cannot apply for asylum "legally". If she was granted asylum in another country, could she travel to the UK by normal means? If she then decided the UK was for her, could she apply for residency? What would be the hurdles in the above? This is a very specific scenario. You are implying that someone been given asylum in one country and "fancying" going somewhere else. Do you think or know that this is a typical or widespread scenario? Political asylum is a broadly "Western" concept due mainly to their ability to provide some form of welfare which requires a legal status. Most refugees or those fleeing persecution are not formally granted any legal status in the countries which they flee to. They are likely to have relatively few possessions and little documentation or money. It may not be your intent, but I don't think that it's quite the relaxed, genteel process that you implied. Not “fancying” going somewhere else, applying for asylum in the first safe country giving the support and safety I would imagine I would want. Once life settles making life choices. I would think this way, wouldn’t you or the woman in question? She wouldn't be applying for asylum then, would she? As I stated, very few countries formally offer that status so the most likely scenario in neighbouring stars is a tenuous existence. Again, it seems like you are implying that she would be leaving one comfortable existence for one more comfortable. Like an episode of Downton Abbey. I’m not understanding why you are comparing my scenario to Downton Abbey, nothing I said would warrant that.. I believe going from the horror and fear to her life to safety, would be a priority, Is that agreed or not? once she has left her originating country, I would expect she would try to find a safe country as a matter of urgency to protect herself, would you agree with this? Once settled, she would then have less urgency and more time to consider her future, agreed? From that point she may wish to consider another country of residence or make a life in the country that granted her asylum. You keep writing "settled". Why this odd edge case where you are saying asking if someone who is perfectly content and safe in another country should be given asylum because they fancy it? I've said no twice already to someone else. Why is this particular scenario relevant? Is this a common scenario in your experience? What's your answer? What if they are living precariously hand-to-mouth in a refugee camp? Should they be eligible for asylum? What if I’m afraid the what if’s are very much loaded from your side. The simple answer to your original question is she does not need to come to the UK for her safety. " What if she wants to? What if she has some connection to the UK (large ex pat Persian community in UK that came here in 1979 when the Shah was toppled)? What if she believes the UK may give her the best platform for raising awareness of the issues being faced by women in Iran? What if she believes the UK has been the bastion and trailblazer for human rights historically? What if she wants to use international law and claim asylum in whatever country she chooses? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? Because the UK doesn't want there to be safe and legal routes. If we created safe and legal routes, then more people would use them to enter, and the UK doesn't want more unvetted people to arrive. 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? We could. But that would make them safe and legal routes. 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU? It did, but the EU held it back as a bargaining chip for use later on in the divorce process, and both sides ran of of time." I am going to be pedantic (you’ll appreciate that). You cannot claim what the “UK” wants, only what the current Govt of the UK wants. 1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process! 2) Exactly but as demonstrated on this thread, plenty of people think you can just walk into an embassy and claim asylum. You can’t. 3) Is that right? Are you sure? Do you have a source? If so then what is stopping that being renegotiated? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, is the only way that this woman in Iran can request asylum in the UK to do so "illegally"? No, that woman in Iran can't claim asylum in any country, until she gets out of Iran. The asylum rules apply only to people who have escaped persecution. They don't apply to people who are living in a country that's persecuting them. She cannot come to the UK "legally" so she cannot apply for asylum "legally". If she was granted asylum in another country, could she travel to the UK by normal means? If she then decided the UK was for her, could she apply for residency? What would be the hurdles in the above? This is a very specific scenario. You are implying that someone been given asylum in one country and "fancying" going somewhere else. Do you think or know that this is a typical or widespread scenario? Political asylum is a broadly "Western" concept due mainly to their ability to provide some form of welfare which requires a legal status. Most refugees or those fleeing persecution are not formally granted any legal status in the countries which they flee to. They are likely to have relatively few possessions and little documentation or money. It may not be your intent, but I don't think that it's quite the relaxed, genteel process that you implied. Not “fancying” going somewhere else, applying for asylum in the first safe country giving the support and safety I would imagine I would want. Once life settles making life choices. I would think this way, wouldn’t you or the woman in question? She wouldn't be applying for asylum then, would she? As I stated, very few countries formally offer that status so the most likely scenario in neighbouring stars is a tenuous existence. Again, it seems like you are implying that she would be leaving one comfortable existence for one more comfortable. Like an episode of Downton Abbey. I’m not understanding why you are comparing my scenario to Downton Abbey, nothing I said would warrant that.. I believe going from the horror and fear to her life to safety, would be a priority, Is that agreed or not? once she has left her originating country, I would expect she would try to find a safe country as a matter of urgency to protect herself, would you agree with this? Once settled, she would then have less urgency and more time to consider her future, agreed? From that point she may wish to consider another country of residence or make a life in the country that granted her asylum. You keep writing "settled". Why this odd edge case where you are saying asking if someone who is perfectly content and safe in another country should be given asylum because they fancy it? I've said no twice already to someone else. Why is this particular scenario relevant? Is this a common scenario in your experience? What's your answer? What if they are living precariously hand-to-mouth in a refugee camp? Should they be eligible for asylum? What if I’m afraid the what if’s are very much loaded from your side. The simple answer to your original question is she does not need to come to the UK for her safety. What if she wants to? What if she has some connection to the UK (large ex pat Persian community in UK that came here in 1979 when the Shah was toppled)? What if she believes the UK may give her the best platform for raising awareness of the issues being faced by women in Iran? What if she believes the UK has been the bastion and trailblazer for human rights historically? What if she wants to use international law and claim asylum in whatever country she chooses?" I’m going to give you the what if trophy
The simple question and one avoided so far, what is wrong with another country offering her asylum? Is it best to take safety or go down a path of resistance? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country? Most refugees and those being persecuted do try and stay close to home. Some have family and connections in other countries. They speak the language or the culture is familiar. At a certain point when it becomes clear that their situation is not temporary they look further ahead and further away. Alternatively they try to get directly to a viable final destination. If you were in the same situation and had to leave the UK, what would your thought process be? Where would you go and why? I'm not sure if you'll know the answer here but: If someone has escaped persecution and has landed somewhere closer to home, they're good there but realise at some point their situation is not temporary so then look further afield. Are they still classed as asylum seekers? The reason I ask this is because they were closer to home and safe. Surely if they're safe then they wouldn't be seeking asylum? I do understand them wanting to come to the UK for Language or family connections, but I'm not sure they're actually asylum seekers if this was the case. Please don't reply in your usual condescending manner, let's try open dialogue for a change. Wow. You can't help but open with confrontation. I will reply as I would have replied regardless. Refugee camps and being in a country that may view you with suspicion or hostility are not necessarily "safe". Their plan may always have been to head for a destination where they have a link without a transient period. An escape to somewhere known. What would you do if you had to flee the UK? Also, the implication is that the only place where anyone can be considered for asylum is the country next door. Is that the legal position and do you think that's an appropriate moral position? I asked one question. If they are 'settled' in a country. Then choose to look further afield, are they still asylum seekers? It doesn't matter whether it's an appropriate moral position, I was trying to see if you could garner an answer. You obviously couldn't. I answered your actual question and asked how you would behave under the same circumstances. You didn't write "settled" you wrote "landed". That is not the same thing at all. Being in a refugee camp or living precariously is also not "settled" from my perspective. If they were actually "settled" somewhere else then no, they would not be seeking asylum unless they suffered from persecution in their new home too. I also wrote they were good and safe in said new country. I guess you decided to ignore that part. So your question, apparently, is if they fled to somewhere where they were perfectly content should they be allowed to apply for asylum? No. If they were unable to stay or suffered persecution there? Yes. Why choose this edge case to ask a question about? What point are you trying to make? Is it not more likely that they are living hand to mouth in a refugee camp or scratching a living in a neighbouring country? Should they be considered for asylum? What if they only stay there long enough to steady themselves before heading directly here? Again, how would you behave given those circumstances? You could start to answer your own questions. It was actually a fairly simple question which you have now answered. Not sure why you need to make a big meal out of every question asked. It was an answer to a pointless and poorly worded question, it seems. Shame that you are unable to answer at all. Poorly worded because you chose not to read it properly? I don't need to answer your 20 questions, I asked youbone question which I now have an answer for." I have to answer your questions precisely without question but you cannot be bothered to reciprocate? You really don't see that as worth some thought on your part? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country? Most refugees and those being persecuted do try and stay close to home. Some have family and connections in other countries. They speak the language or the culture is familiar. At a certain point when it becomes clear that their situation is not temporary they look further ahead and further away. Alternatively they try to get directly to a viable final destination. If you were in the same situation and had to leave the UK, what would your thought process be? Where would you go and why? I'm not sure if you'll know the answer here but: If someone has escaped persecution and has landed somewhere closer to home, they're good there but realise at some point their situation is not temporary so then look further afield. Are they still classed as asylum seekers? The reason I ask this is because they were closer to home and safe. Surely if they're safe then they wouldn't be seeking asylum? I do understand them wanting to come to the UK for Language or family connections, but I'm not sure they're actually asylum seekers if this was the case. Please don't reply in your usual condescending manner, let's try open dialogue for a change. Wow. You can't help but open with confrontation. I will reply as I would have replied regardless. Refugee camps and being in a country that may view you with suspicion or hostility are not necessarily "safe". Their plan may always have been to head for a destination where they have a link without a transient period. An escape to somewhere known. What would you do if you had to flee the UK? Also, the implication is that the only place where anyone can be considered for asylum is the country next door. Is that the legal position and do you think that's an appropriate moral position? I asked one question. If they are 'settled' in a country. Then choose to look further afield, are they still asylum seekers? It doesn't matter whether it's an appropriate moral position, I was trying to see if you could garner an answer. You obviously couldn't. I answered your actual question and asked how you would behave under the same circumstances. You didn't write "settled" you wrote "landed". That is not the same thing at all. Being in a refugee camp or living precariously is also not "settled" from my perspective. If they were actually "settled" somewhere else then no, they would not be seeking asylum unless they suffered from persecution in their new home too. I also wrote they were good and safe in said new country. I guess you decided to ignore that part. So your question, apparently, is if they fled to somewhere where they were perfectly content should they be allowed to apply for asylum? No. If they were unable to stay or suffered persecution there? Yes. Why choose this edge case to ask a question about? What point are you trying to make? Is it not more likely that they are living hand to mouth in a refugee camp or scratching a living in a neighbouring country? Should they be considered for asylum? What if they only stay there long enough to steady themselves before heading directly here? Again, how would you behave given those circumstances? You could start to answer your own questions. It was actually a fairly simple question which you have now answered. Not sure why you need to make a big meal out of every question asked. It was an answer to a pointless and poorly worded question, it seems. Shame that you are unable to answer at all. Poorly worded because you chose not to read it properly? I don't need to answer your 20 questions, I asked youbone question which I now have an answer for. I have to answer your questions precisely without question but you cannot be bothered to reciprocate? You really don't see that as worth some thought on your part?" I really don't. I asked one simple question. You asked 20 as you always do. Feel free not to engage if it bothers you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, is the only way that this woman in Iran can request asylum in the UK to do so "illegally"? No, that woman in Iran can't claim asylum in any country, until she gets out of Iran. The asylum rules apply only to people who have escaped persecution. They don't apply to people who are living in a country that's persecuting them. She cannot come to the UK "legally" so she cannot apply for asylum "legally". If she was granted asylum in another country, could she travel to the UK by normal means? If she then decided the UK was for her, could she apply for residency? What would be the hurdles in the above? This is a very specific scenario. You are implying that someone been given asylum in one country and "fancying" going somewhere else. Do you think or know that this is a typical or widespread scenario? Political asylum is a broadly "Western" concept due mainly to their ability to provide some form of welfare which requires a legal status. Most refugees or those fleeing persecution are not formally granted any legal status in the countries which they flee to. They are likely to have relatively few possessions and little documentation or money. It may not be your intent, but I don't think that it's quite the relaxed, genteel process that you implied. Not “fancying” going somewhere else, applying for asylum in the first safe country giving the support and safety I would imagine I would want. Once life settles making life choices. I would think this way, wouldn’t you or the woman in question? She wouldn't be applying for asylum then, would she? As I stated, very few countries formally offer that status so the most likely scenario in neighbouring stars is a tenuous existence. Again, it seems like you are implying that she would be leaving one comfortable existence for one more comfortable. Like an episode of Downton Abbey. I’m not understanding why you are comparing my scenario to Downton Abbey, nothing I said would warrant that.. I believe going from the horror and fear to her life to safety, would be a priority, Is that agreed or not? once she has left her originating country, I would expect she would try to find a safe country as a matter of urgency to protect herself, would you agree with this? Once settled, she would then have less urgency and more time to consider her future, agreed? From that point she may wish to consider another country of residence or make a life in the country that granted her asylum. You keep writing "settled". Why this odd edge case where you are saying asking if someone who is perfectly content and safe in another country should be given asylum because they fancy it? I've said no twice already to someone else. Why is this particular scenario relevant? Is this a common scenario in your experience? What's your answer? What if they are living precariously hand-to-mouth in a refugee camp? Should they be eligible for asylum? What if I’m afraid the what if’s are very much loaded from your side. The simple answer to your original question is she does not need to come to the UK for her safety. " You have created a fictional scenario, that someone leaves a state where they are being persecuted and moves somewhere where they have a perfectly pleasant life. At this point they decide over their coffee that they would have an even more lovely time in London and decide to "apply for asylum" here. Under these circumstances, you are quite correct, I would not expect her to need to apply for asylum in the UK. You are also perfectly aware that this is not what the situation is. So, I ask again, why are using this as your baseline case for discussion? Why not the far more likely scenario of either intending to travel directly here because you have personal connections, speak the language etc. or move from circumstances of difficulty in or outside a refugee camp? Would people in those circumstances be "worthy" of asylum in your eyes? What are the circumstances that we should allow it and how would they get here to obtain it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, is the only way that this woman in Iran can request asylum in the UK to do so "illegally"? No, that woman in Iran can't claim asylum in any country, until she gets out of Iran. The asylum rules apply only to people who have escaped persecution. They don't apply to people who are living in a country that's persecuting them. She cannot come to the UK "legally" so she cannot apply for asylum "legally". If she was granted asylum in another country, could she travel to the UK by normal means? If she then decided the UK was for her, could she apply for residency? What would be the hurdles in the above? This is a very specific scenario. You are implying that someone been given asylum in one country and "fancying" going somewhere else. Do you think or know that this is a typical or widespread scenario? Political asylum is a broadly "Western" concept due mainly to their ability to provide some form of welfare which requires a legal status. Most refugees or those fleeing persecution are not formally granted any legal status in the countries which they flee to. They are likely to have relatively few possessions and little documentation or money. It may not be your intent, but I don't think that it's quite the relaxed, genteel process that you implied. Not “fancying” going somewhere else, applying for asylum in the first safe country giving the support and safety I would imagine I would want. Once life settles making life choices. I would think this way, wouldn’t you or the woman in question? She wouldn't be applying for asylum then, would she? As I stated, very few countries formally offer that status so the most likely scenario in neighbouring stars is a tenuous existence. Again, it seems like you are implying that she would be leaving one comfortable existence for one more comfortable. Like an episode of Downton Abbey. I’m not understanding why you are comparing my scenario to Downton Abbey, nothing I said would warrant that.. I believe going from the horror and fear to her life to safety, would be a priority, Is that agreed or not? once she has left her originating country, I would expect she would try to find a safe country as a matter of urgency to protect herself, would you agree with this? Once settled, she would then have less urgency and more time to consider her future, agreed? From that point she may wish to consider another country of residence or make a life in the country that granted her asylum. You keep writing "settled". Why this odd edge case where you are saying asking if someone who is perfectly content and safe in another country should be given asylum because they fancy it? I've said no twice already to someone else. Why is this particular scenario relevant? Is this a common scenario in your experience? What's your answer? What if they are living precariously hand-to-mouth in a refugee camp? Should they be eligible for asylum? What if I’m afraid the what if’s are very much loaded from your side. The simple answer to your original question is she does not need to come to the UK for her safety. What if she wants to? What if she has some connection to the UK (large ex pat Persian community in UK that came here in 1979 when the Shah was toppled)? What if she believes the UK may give her the best platform for raising awareness of the issues being faced by women in Iran? What if she believes the UK has been the bastion and trailblazer for human rights historically? What if she wants to use international law and claim asylum in whatever country she chooses? I’m going to give you the what if trophy
The simple question and one avoided so far, what is wrong with another country offering her asylum? Is it best to take safety or go down a path of resistance?"One would hope any civilised country would offer her asylum so why shouldn’t the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, is the only way that this woman in Iran can request asylum in the UK to do so "illegally"? No, that woman in Iran can't claim asylum in any country, until she gets out of Iran. The asylum rules apply only to people who have escaped persecution. They don't apply to people who are living in a country that's persecuting them. She cannot come to the UK "legally" so she cannot apply for asylum "legally". If she was granted asylum in another country, could she travel to the UK by normal means? If she then decided the UK was for her, could she apply for residency? What would be the hurdles in the above? This is a very specific scenario. You are implying that someone been given asylum in one country and "fancying" going somewhere else. Do you think or know that this is a typical or widespread scenario? Political asylum is a broadly "Western" concept due mainly to their ability to provide some form of welfare which requires a legal status. Most refugees or those fleeing persecution are not formally granted any legal status in the countries which they flee to. They are likely to have relatively few possessions and little documentation or money. It may not be your intent, but I don't think that it's quite the relaxed, genteel process that you implied. Not “fancying” going somewhere else, applying for asylum in the first safe country giving the support and safety I would imagine I would want. Once life settles making life choices. I would think this way, wouldn’t you or the woman in question? She wouldn't be applying for asylum then, would she? As I stated, very few countries formally offer that status so the most likely scenario in neighbouring stars is a tenuous existence. Again, it seems like you are implying that she would be leaving one comfortable existence for one more comfortable. Like an episode of Downton Abbey. I’m not understanding why you are comparing my scenario to Downton Abbey, nothing I said would warrant that.. I believe going from the horror and fear to her life to safety, would be a priority, Is that agreed or not? once she has left her originating country, I would expect she would try to find a safe country as a matter of urgency to protect herself, would you agree with this? Once settled, she would then have less urgency and more time to consider her future, agreed? From that point she may wish to consider another country of residence or make a life in the country that granted her asylum. You keep writing "settled". Why this odd edge case where you are saying asking if someone who is perfectly content and safe in another country should be given asylum because they fancy it? I've said no twice already to someone else. Why is this particular scenario relevant? Is this a common scenario in your experience? What's your answer? What if they are living precariously hand-to-mouth in a refugee camp? Should they be eligible for asylum? What if I’m afraid the what if’s are very much loaded from your side. The simple answer to your original question is she does not need to come to the UK for her safety. What if she wants to? What if she has some connection to the UK (large ex pat Persian community in UK that came here in 1979 when the Shah was toppled)? What if she believes the UK may give her the best platform for raising awareness of the issues being faced by women in Iran? What if she believes the UK has been the bastion and trailblazer for human rights historically? What if she wants to use international law and claim asylum in whatever country she chooses? I’m going to give you the what if trophy
The simple question and one avoided so far, what is wrong with another country offering her asylum? Is it best to take safety or go down a path of resistance?
One would hope any civilised country would offer her asylum so why shouldn’t the UK?"That wasn’t the question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country?why does that matter ? We have signed up to a treaty that says they have the right to request asylum in the UK. If you were forced out of the UK, where would you choose and why ? Yes it does matter. I would never be forced out of the UK because I would stay and fight.!let's say you face the death penalty for being a swinger. Who are you fighting? The courts ? That's just stupid. We can all come up with fantasy stories can't we.!it's more to illustrate that asylum seekers are more than just those facing wars they can fight in. It can include those persecuted by sexuality. I changed it to swingers to try and help with the empathy. Also, I wouldn't suggest swinging in Saudi Arabia say. Not openly ... " So basically you are saying anyone who does not agree with the rules of the country they were born and live in should be entitled to move to the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country?why does that matter ? We have signed up to a treaty that says they have the right to request asylum in the UK. If you were forced out of the UK, where would you choose and why ? Yes it does matter. I would never be forced out of the UK because I would stay and fight.!let's say you face the death penalty for being a swinger. Who are you fighting? The courts ? That's just stupid. We can all come up with fantasy stories can't we.!it's more to illustrate that asylum seekers are more than just those facing wars they can fight in. It can include those persecuted by sexuality. I changed it to swingers to try and help with the empathy. Also, I wouldn't suggest swinging in Saudi Arabia say. Not openly ... So basically you are saying anyone who does not agree with the rules of the country they were born and live in should be entitled to move to the UK." Nobody except a British Citizen is entitled to move to the UK. International Law states that everyone is entitled to claim asylum in any country in the world. Doesn’t mean they have to be granted asylum. It is the responsibility of the state you claim asylum in to establish whether your claim is legitimate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country?why does that matter ? We have signed up to a treaty that says they have the right to request asylum in the UK. If you were forced out of the UK, where would you choose and why ? Yes it does matter. I would never be forced out of the UK because I would stay and fight.!let's say you face the death penalty for being a swinger. Who are you fighting? The courts ? That's just stupid. We can all come up with fantasy stories can't we.!it's more to illustrate that asylum seekers are more than just those facing wars they can fight in. It can include those persecuted by sexuality. I changed it to swingers to try and help with the empathy. Also, I wouldn't suggest swinging in Saudi Arabia say. Not openly ... So basically you are saying anyone who does not agree with the rules of the country they were born and live in should be entitled to move to the UK." Anyone who is persecuted for their behaviour views should be able to find safety in another country. As should those driven from their homes by conflict as refugees. The UK is very wealthy with a diverse population by international standards so should be better able to offer this. It is not for us alone, not should we shirk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case" The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. " Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power?" Not as far as I know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know." I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them." Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. " He's clearly talking about governments who seem to manage it well. 'What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so.' Ids not difficult to understand | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. " Exactly , our government is currently using similar language and rhetoric as the Nazis | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. He's clearly talking about governments who seem to manage it well. 'What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so.' Ids not difficult to understand " I answered that. The UK benefits greatly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. He's clearly talking about governments who seem to manage it well. 'What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so.' Ids not difficult to understand I answered that. The UK benefits greatly." He didn't ask about the UK. He asked about other countries. Once again, it's not hard to understand. I do notice no one has been able to answer... Is the UK unique in its approach? Could you possibly help him out? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. " Perhaps my wording was not great. For the part about other countries attitudes it was two separate questions. First is the UK unique in its approach to this issue. In other words where does the UK stand compared to other countries that have this issue. Are we stricter or less strict or about average? Second what countries can we learn from that take asylum seekers in similar numbers but can show positive benefits from doing so. When I say positive benefits I'm talking specifically in regards to asylum seekers and not immigration overall. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. He's clearly talking about governments who seem to manage it well. 'What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so.' Ids not difficult to understand I answered that. The UK benefits greatly. He didn't ask about the UK. He asked about other countries. Once again, it's not hard to understand. I do notice no one has been able to answer... Is the UK unique in its approach? Could you possibly help him out?" He said "What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so". At no point did he say "excluding the uk". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. He's clearly talking about governments who seem to manage it well. 'What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so.' Ids not difficult to understand I answered that. The UK benefits greatly. He didn't ask about the UK. He asked about other countries. Once again, it's not hard to understand. I do notice no one has been able to answer... Is the UK unique in its approach? Could you possibly help him out? He said "What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so". At no point did he say "excluding the uk". " Really?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. Perhaps my wording was not great. For the part about other countries attitudes it was two separate questions. First is the UK unique in its approach to this issue. In other words where does the UK stand compared to other countries that have this issue. Are we stricter or less strict or about average? Second what countries can we learn from that take asylum seekers in similar numbers but can show positive benefits from doing so. When I say positive benefits I'm talking specifically in regards to asylum seekers and not immigration overall. "
I honestly don't know which countries use immigration to sway voters more, or less than the UK. It feels like we're at the nastier end of the spectrum. But I don't know.
I don't know if there are any stats that separate immigrants from asylum seekers. I should imagine that after being granted asylum, they fall under the banner of "immigrants" for official statistics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. He's clearly talking about governments who seem to manage it well. 'What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so.' Ids not difficult to understand I answered that. The UK benefits greatly. He didn't ask about the UK. He asked about other countries. Once again, it's not hard to understand. I do notice no one has been able to answer... Is the UK unique in its approach? Could you possibly help him out? He said "What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so". At no point did he say "excluding the uk". Really?? "Yep. Anyway, semantic arguments are not very interesting, so if you feel like you want to win this. I'm happy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. He's clearly talking about governments who seem to manage it well. 'What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so.' Ids not difficult to understand " It's lucky that your replies aren't ever in "condescending manner" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. He's clearly talking about governments who seem to manage it well. 'What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so.' Ids not difficult to understand It's lucky that your replies aren't ever in "condescending manner"" Oh I was being condescending, there's no doubting that. It's hard not to be when don't read what is written and instead answer what they want. Especially when my children could've perfectly understood what was being asked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case" I don't know about asylum policy in other countries in any detail. Australia has been pretty brutal and that is, apparently, what the UK Government is modelling. Historically they have not been very good at coping with any form of diversity, whatever the form of immigration or if you were there first. The European border states often have a hard line because they genuinely are hard pressed. Italy, Greece and Hungary. Although Hungary has a particularly nasty Government. Our numbers are tiny compared to many European countries. There are lots of economic migrants, no doubt. I have sympathy for them, but they shouldn't expect to come here. I would argue that we need many people who do not meet the salary and qualifications criteria for work visas though. Interesting LSE IQ podcast: How can we solve the refugee crisis? Worth a listen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. He's clearly talking about governments who seem to manage it well. 'What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so.' Ids not difficult to understand It's lucky that your replies aren't ever in "condescending manner" Oh I was being condescending, there's no doubting that. It's hard not to be when don't read what is written and instead answer what they want. Especially when my children could've perfectly understood what was being asked." Again, worth meditating on what you demand of others relative to how you behave yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. He's clearly talking about governments who seem to manage it well. 'What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so.' Ids not difficult to understand It's lucky that your replies aren't ever in "condescending manner" Oh I was being condescending, there's no doubting that. It's hard not to be when don't read what is written and instead answer what they want. Especially when my children could've perfectly understood what was being asked." At least I was addressing the topic. There's a bunch of people who just come on here to have a pop at people they don't like. I don't really know what you get out of it. But hey, it's a free forum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. He's clearly talking about governments who seem to manage it well. 'What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so.' Ids not difficult to understand It's lucky that your replies aren't ever in "condescending manner" Oh I was being condescending, there's no doubting that. It's hard not to be when don't read what is written and instead answer what they want. Especially when my children could've perfectly understood what was being asked. At least I was addressing the topic. There's a bunch of people who just come on here to have a pop at people they don't like. I don't really know what you get out of it. But hey, it's a free forum. " It's no good 'addressing the topic' if you don't answer the words that are written. What I get out of it? I don't come on here to 'have a pop at people I don't like', as I've already stated, the questions weren't difficult to understand. If you deliberately want to misunderstand them, then we won't agree. I do note though, we've agreed on quite a few things, does that mean when I agree with you I'm OK but when I don't you think I don't like you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. He's clearly talking about governments who seem to manage it well. 'What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so.' Ids not difficult to understand It's lucky that your replies aren't ever in "condescending manner" Oh I was being condescending, there's no doubting that. It's hard not to be when don't read what is written and instead answer what they want. Especially when my children could've perfectly understood what was being asked. Again, worth meditating on what you demand of others relative to how you behave yourself." You keep telling me how to behave around here? Are you the forum police? I did notice you yourself just managed to understand the poster and have provide your answers/opinion. We'll done for taking the time to read what he wrote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. He's clearly talking about governments who seem to manage it well. 'What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so.' Ids not difficult to understand It's lucky that your replies aren't ever in "condescending manner" Oh I was being condescending, there's no doubting that. It's hard not to be when don't read what is written and instead answer what they want. Especially when my children could've perfectly understood what was being asked. At least I was addressing the topic. There's a bunch of people who just come on here to have a pop at people they don't like. I don't really know what you get out of it. But hey, it's a free forum. It's no good 'addressing the topic' if you don't answer the words that are written. What I get out of it? I don't come on here to 'have a pop at people I don't like', as I've already stated, the questions weren't difficult to understand. If you deliberately want to misunderstand them, then we won't agree. I do note though, we've agreed on quite a few things, does that mean when I agree with you I'm OK but when I don't you think I don't like you?" If you don't like the way I answered the question, it's possible to address that without being insulting or condescending. It's just not very interesting. I have no opinion on if you're "ok" or not. I don't know anything about you. I'm happy for you to use the forums in any way you wish. I'm attempting to explain why I can't be arsed continuing when instead of talking the post, you tackle the poster. I'm not saying you're along the lines of the bloke who doesn't know what "socialist" means, or the semantic arguments guy. So apologies if I made it sound like I was. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. He's clearly talking about governments who seem to manage it well. 'What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so.' Ids not difficult to understand It's lucky that your replies aren't ever in "condescending manner" Oh I was being condescending, there's no doubting that. It's hard not to be when don't read what is written and instead answer what they want. Especially when my children could've perfectly understood what was being asked. At least I was addressing the topic. There's a bunch of people who just come on here to have a pop at people they don't like. I don't really know what you get out of it. But hey, it's a free forum. It's no good 'addressing the topic' if you don't answer the words that are written. What I get out of it? I don't come on here to 'have a pop at people I don't like', as I've already stated, the questions weren't difficult to understand. If you deliberately want to misunderstand them, then we won't agree. I do note though, we've agreed on quite a few things, does that mean when I agree with you I'm OK but when I don't you think I don't like you? If you don't like the way I answered the question, it's possible to address that without being insulting or condescending. It's just not very interesting. I have no opinion on if you're "ok" or not. I don't know anything about you. I'm happy for you to use the forums in any way you wish. I'm attempting to explain why I can't be arsed continuing when instead of talking the post, you tackle the poster. I'm not saying you're along the lines of the bloke who doesn't know what "socialist" means, or the semantic arguments guy. So apologies if I made it sound like I was. " I wasn't condescending until my third reply to you. I'm not sure why you seem to think otherwise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. He's clearly talking about governments who seem to manage it well. 'What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so.' Ids not difficult to understand It's lucky that your replies aren't ever in "condescending manner" Oh I was being condescending, there's no doubting that. It's hard not to be when don't read what is written and instead answer what they want. Especially when my children could've perfectly understood what was being asked. At least I was addressing the topic. There's a bunch of people who just come on here to have a pop at people they don't like. I don't really know what you get out of it. But hey, it's a free forum. It's no good 'addressing the topic' if you don't answer the words that are written. What I get out of it? I don't come on here to 'have a pop at people I don't like', as I've already stated, the questions weren't difficult to understand. If you deliberately want to misunderstand them, then we won't agree. I do note though, we've agreed on quite a few things, does that mean when I agree with you I'm OK but when I don't you think I don't like you? If you don't like the way I answered the question, it's possible to address that without being insulting or condescending. It's just not very interesting. I have no opinion on if you're "ok" or not. I don't know anything about you. I'm happy for you to use the forums in any way you wish. I'm attempting to explain why I can't be arsed continuing when instead of talking the post, you tackle the poster. I'm not saying you're along the lines of the bloke who doesn't know what "socialist" means, or the semantic arguments guy. So apologies if I made it sound like I was. I wasn't condescending until my third reply to you. I'm not sure why you seem to think otherwise." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. Perhaps my wording was not great. For the part about other countries attitudes it was two separate questions. First is the UK unique in its approach to this issue. In other words where does the UK stand compared to other countries that have this issue. Are we stricter or less strict or about average? Second what countries can we learn from that take asylum seekers in similar numbers but can show positive benefits from doing so. When I say positive benefits I'm talking specifically in regards to asylum seekers and not immigration overall.
I honestly don't know which countries use immigration to sway voters more, or less than the UK. It feels like we're at the nastier end of the spectrum. But I don't know.
I don't know if there are any stats that separate immigrants from asylum seekers. I should imagine that after being granted asylum, they fall under the banner of "immigrants" for official statistics. "Thank you for having a go at it. I was not really referring to how governments try to sway their voters with policy just purely comparing UK policy to others. My reason for asking what level of contribution asylum seekers make on their own (not being included with regular immigration) is that maybe a more positive case needs to be put forward. If we knew that on average each of these people will go onto contribute £xxx over the next few years and help grow the economy then I think it's worth knowing. If it turns out to be a negative impact then again it should not be hidden, though I hope its a positive impact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. Are all of those parties who stoke fear in power? Not as far as I know. I'd say he asked what countries can we learn from so if they're not in power then we can dismiss them. Okay. Personally, I don't think we need to learn from other countries whose governments stoke fear of immigrants. Our own government does that just fine. Perhaps my wording was not great. For the part about other countries attitudes it was two separate questions. First is the UK unique in its approach to this issue. In other words where does the UK stand compared to other countries that have this issue. Are we stricter or less strict or about average? Second what countries can we learn from that take asylum seekers in similar numbers but can show positive benefits from doing so. When I say positive benefits I'm talking specifically in regards to asylum seekers and not immigration overall.
I honestly don't know which countries use immigration to sway voters more, or less than the UK. It feels like we're at the nastier end of the spectrum. But I don't know.
I don't know if there are any stats that separate immigrants from asylum seekers. I should imagine that after being granted asylum, they fall under the banner of "immigrants" for official statistics.
Thank you for having a go at it. I was not really referring to how governments try to sway their voters with policy just purely comparing UK policy to others.
My reason for asking what level of contribution asylum seekers make on their own (not being included with regular immigration) is that maybe a more positive case needs to be put forward. If we knew that on average each of these people will go onto contribute £xxx over the next few years and help grow the economy then I think it's worth knowing. If it turns out to be a negative impact then again it should not be hidden, though I hope its a positive impact."I would imagine that it is not much different to any lower paid immigrant, on average. So a net positive after a little while. That is not taking into account how their better established children will contribute... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes?" "Because the UK doesn't want there to be safe and legal routes. If we created safe and legal routes, then more people would use them to enter, and the UK doesn't want more unvetted people to arrive." "2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process?" "We could. But that would make them safe and legal routes." "3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU?" "It did, but the EU held it back as a bargaining chip for use later on in the divorce process, and both sides ran of of time." "I am going to be pedantic (you’ll appreciate that). You cannot claim what the “UK” wants, only what the current Govt of the UK wants." That's true, but the Tories obviously think it's a vote winner, and they're not stupid. From reading the papers, I think that the majority (i.e. more than 50%) of the population would prefer to see fewer asylum seekers arriving here. We'll be able to find out in 18 months when it becomes a focus of the election campaigns. "1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process!" It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. "2) Exactly but as demonstrated on this thread, plenty of people think you can just walk into an embassy and claim asylum. You can’t." You can if you're famous, or a top ranking member of the government. But yes, normal people can't. "3) Is that right? Are you sure? Do you have a source? If so then what is stopping that being renegotiated?" https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/ There's nothing to stop the UK entering negotiations, but the EU has no incentive to help us out, and every incentive to link the issue to other things that they want. If Friday's visit by Macron isn't to announce that a bi-partisan deal has been struck, then I doubt that we will be able to negotiate anything useful with the EU this decade. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? Because the UK doesn't want there to be safe and legal routes. If we created safe and legal routes, then more people would use them to enter, and the UK doesn't want more unvetted people to arrive. 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? We could. But that would make them safe and legal routes. 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU? It did, but the EU held it back as a bargaining chip for use later on in the divorce process, and both sides ran of of time. I am going to be pedantic (you’ll appreciate that). You cannot claim what the “UK” wants, only what the current Govt of the UK wants. That's true, but the Tories obviously think it's a vote winner, and they're not stupid. From reading the papers, I think that the majority (i.e. more than 50%) of the population would prefer to see fewer asylum seekers arriving here. We'll be able to find out in 18 months when it becomes a focus of the election campaigns. 1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process! It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. 2) Exactly but as demonstrated on this thread, plenty of people think you can just walk into an embassy and claim asylum. You can’t. You can if you're famous, or a top ranking member of the government. But yes, normal people can't. 3) Is that right? Are you sure? Do you have a source? If so then what is stopping that being renegotiated? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/ There's nothing to stop the UK entering negotiations, but the EU has no incentive to help us out, and every incentive to link the issue to other things that they want. If Friday's visit by Macron isn't to announce that a bi-partisan deal has been struck, then I doubt that we will be able to negotiate anything useful with the EU this decade." The majority of asylum seekers right now are not legitimate. That is because the Government have forced genuine asylum seekers and refugees into a people smuggling route which once established has grown to include many multiples than there ever were before. They have created the problem which they are failing to solve. I can understand why this makes people angry and why this is good for the party in power of it is a distraction and an opportunity to look "tough". I don't understand why the Government continues to demonise and effectively punish and blame those in genuine need by wrapping them up together. There is no "Plan B" if the asylum process has been adhered to as it would be in the UK together with the appeals process. Anyone choosing to come here through by irregular means would already have failed the process and would not have grounds to remain. The Government could have negotiated calmly and in good faith at the outset and we would not be where we are today. Rishi Sunak has at least demonstrated how much more actual diplomacy achieves over rhetoric. Even if it is still turd polishing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? Because the UK doesn't want there to be safe and legal routes. If we created safe and legal routes, then more people would use them to enter, and the UK doesn't want more unvetted people to arrive. 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? We could. But that would make them safe and legal routes. 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU? It did, but the EU held it back as a bargaining chip for use later on in the divorce process, and both sides ran of of time. I am going to be pedantic (you’ll appreciate that). You cannot claim what the “UK” wants, only what the current Govt of the UK wants. That's true, but the Tories obviously think it's a vote winner, and they're not stupid. From reading the papers, I think that the majority (i.e. more than 50%) of the population would prefer to see fewer asylum seekers arriving here. We'll be able to find out in 18 months when it becomes a focus of the election campaigns. 1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process! It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. 2) Exactly but as demonstrated on this thread, plenty of people think you can just walk into an embassy and claim asylum. You can’t. You can if you're famous, or a top ranking member of the government. But yes, normal people can't. 3) Is that right? Are you sure? Do you have a source? If so then what is stopping that being renegotiated? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/ There's nothing to stop the UK entering negotiations, but the EU has no incentive to help us out, and every incentive to link the issue to other things that they want. If Friday's visit by Macron isn't to announce that a bi-partisan deal has been struck, then I doubt that we will be able to negotiate anything useful with the EU this decade. The majority of asylum seekers right now are not legitimate. That is because the Government have forced genuine asylum seekers and refugees into a people smuggling route which once established has grown to include many multiples than there ever were before. They have created the problem which they are failing to solve. I can understand why this makes people angry and why this is good for the party in power of it is a distraction and an opportunity to look "tough". I don't understand why the Government continues to demonise and effectively punish and blame those in genuine need by wrapping them up together. There is no "Plan B" if the asylum process has been adhered to as it would be in the UK together with the appeals process. Anyone choosing to come here through by irregular means would already have failed the process and would not have grounds to remain. The Government could have negotiated calmly and in good faith at the outset and we would not be where we are today. Rishi Sunak has at least demonstrated how much more actual diplomacy achieves over rhetoric. Even if it is still turd polishing. " You talk shit...but it's your right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? Because the UK doesn't want there to be safe and legal routes. If we created safe and legal routes, then more people would use them to enter, and the UK doesn't want more unvetted people to arrive. 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? We could. But that would make them safe and legal routes. 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU? It did, but the EU held it back as a bargaining chip for use later on in the divorce process, and both sides ran of of time. I am going to be pedantic (you’ll appreciate that). You cannot claim what the “UK” wants, only what the current Govt of the UK wants. That's true, but the Tories obviously think it's a vote winner, and they're not stupid. From reading the papers, I think that the majority (i.e. more than 50%) of the population would prefer to see fewer asylum seekers arriving here. We'll be able to find out in 18 months when it becomes a focus of the election campaigns. 1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process! It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. 2) Exactly but as demonstrated on this thread, plenty of people think you can just walk into an embassy and claim asylum. You can’t. You can if you're famous, or a top ranking member of the government. But yes, normal people can't. 3) Is that right? Are you sure? Do you have a source? If so then what is stopping that being renegotiated? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/ There's nothing to stop the UK entering negotiations, but the EU has no incentive to help us out, and every incentive to link the issue to other things that they want. If Friday's visit by Macron isn't to announce that a bi-partisan deal has been struck, then I doubt that we will be able to negotiate anything useful with the EU this decade. The majority of asylum seekers right now are not legitimate. That is because the Government have forced genuine asylum seekers and refugees into a people smuggling route which once established has grown to include many multiples than there ever were before. They have created the problem which they are failing to solve. I can understand why this makes people angry and why this is good for the party in power of it is a distraction and an opportunity to look "tough". I don't understand why the Government continues to demonise and effectively punish and blame those in genuine need by wrapping them up together. There is no "Plan B" if the asylum process has been adhered to as it would be in the UK together with the appeals process. Anyone choosing to come here through by irregular means would already have failed the process and would not have grounds to remain. The Government could have negotiated calmly and in good faith at the outset and we would not be where we are today. Rishi Sunak has at least demonstrated how much more actual diplomacy achieves over rhetoric. Even if it is still turd polishing. You talk shit...but it's your right" Child | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? Because the UK doesn't want there to be safe and legal routes. If we created safe and legal routes, then more people would use them to enter, and the UK doesn't want more unvetted people to arrive. 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? We could. But that would make them safe and legal routes. 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU? It did, but the EU held it back as a bargaining chip for use later on in the divorce process, and both sides ran of of time. I am going to be pedantic (you’ll appreciate that). You cannot claim what the “UK” wants, only what the current Govt of the UK wants. That's true, but the Tories obviously think it's a vote winner, and they're not stupid. From reading the papers, I think that the majority (i.e. more than 50%) of the population would prefer to see fewer asylum seekers arriving here. We'll be able to find out in 18 months when it becomes a focus of the election campaigns. 1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process! It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. 2) Exactly but as demonstrated on this thread, plenty of people think you can just walk into an embassy and claim asylum. You can’t. You can if you're famous, or a top ranking member of the government. But yes, normal people can't. 3) Is that right? Are you sure? Do you have a source? If so then what is stopping that being renegotiated? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/ There's nothing to stop the UK entering negotiations, but the EU has no incentive to help us out, and every incentive to link the issue to other things that they want. If Friday's visit by Macron isn't to announce that a bi-partisan deal has been struck, then I doubt that we will be able to negotiate anything useful with the EU this decade. The majority of asylum seekers right now are not legitimate. That is because the Government have forced genuine asylum seekers and refugees into a people smuggling route which once established has grown to include many multiples than there ever were before. They have created the problem which they are failing to solve. I can understand why this makes people angry and why this is good for the party in power of it is a distraction and an opportunity to look "tough". I don't understand why the Government continues to demonise and effectively punish and blame those in genuine need by wrapping them up together. There is no "Plan B" if the asylum process has been adhered to as it would be in the UK together with the appeals process. Anyone choosing to come here through by irregular means would already have failed the process and would not have grounds to remain. The Government could have negotiated calmly and in good faith at the outset and we would not be where we are today. Rishi Sunak has at least demonstrated how much more actual diplomacy achieves over rhetoric. Even if it is still turd polishing. You talk shit...but it's your right" He does  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? Because the UK doesn't want there to be safe and legal routes. If we created safe and legal routes, then more people would use them to enter, and the UK doesn't want more unvetted people to arrive. 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? We could. But that would make them safe and legal routes. 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU? It did, but the EU held it back as a bargaining chip for use later on in the divorce process, and both sides ran of of time. I am going to be pedantic (you’ll appreciate that). You cannot claim what the “UK” wants, only what the current Govt of the UK wants. That's true, but the Tories obviously think it's a vote winner, and they're not stupid. From reading the papers, I think that the majority (i.e. more than 50%) of the population would prefer to see fewer asylum seekers arriving here. We'll be able to find out in 18 months when it becomes a focus of the election campaigns. 1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process! It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. 2) Exactly but as demonstrated on this thread, plenty of people think you can just walk into an embassy and claim asylum. You can’t. You can if you're famous, or a top ranking member of the government. But yes, normal people can't. 3) Is that right? Are you sure? Do you have a source? If so then what is stopping that being renegotiated? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/ There's nothing to stop the UK entering negotiations, but the EU has no incentive to help us out, and every incentive to link the issue to other things that they want. If Friday's visit by Macron isn't to announce that a bi-partisan deal has been struck, then I doubt that we will be able to negotiate anything useful with the EU this decade. The majority of asylum seekers right now are not legitimate. That is because the Government have forced genuine asylum seekers and refugees into a people smuggling route which once established has grown to include many multiples than there ever were before. They have created the problem which they are failing to solve. I can understand why this makes people angry and why this is good for the party in power of it is a distraction and an opportunity to look "tough". I don't understand why the Government continues to demonise and effectively punish and blame those in genuine need by wrapping them up together. There is no "Plan B" if the asylum process has been adhered to as it would be in the UK together with the appeals process. Anyone choosing to come here through by irregular means would already have failed the process and would not have grounds to remain. The Government could have negotiated calmly and in good faith at the outset and we would not be where we are today. Rishi Sunak has at least demonstrated how much more actual diplomacy achieves over rhetoric. Even if it is still turd polishing. You talk shit...but it's your right He does "...and you are now reduced to being nothing but a plus one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? Because the UK doesn't want there to be safe and legal routes. If we created safe and legal routes, then more people would use them to enter, and the UK doesn't want more unvetted people to arrive. 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? We could. But that would make them safe and legal routes. 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU? It did, but the EU held it back as a bargaining chip for use later on in the divorce process, and both sides ran of of time. I am going to be pedantic (you’ll appreciate that). You cannot claim what the “UK” wants, only what the current Govt of the UK wants. That's true, but the Tories obviously think it's a vote winner, and they're not stupid. From reading the papers, I think that the majority (i.e. more than 50%) of the population would prefer to see fewer asylum seekers arriving here. We'll be able to find out in 18 months when it becomes a focus of the election campaigns. 1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process! It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. 2) Exactly but as demonstrated on this thread, plenty of people think you can just walk into an embassy and claim asylum. You can’t. You can if you're famous, or a top ranking member of the government. But yes, normal people can't. 3) Is that right? Are you sure? Do you have a source? If so then what is stopping that being renegotiated? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/ There's nothing to stop the UK entering negotiations, but the EU has no incentive to help us out, and every incentive to link the issue to other things that they want. If Friday's visit by Macron isn't to announce that a bi-partisan deal has been struck, then I doubt that we will be able to negotiate anything useful with the EU this decade. The majority of asylum seekers right now are not legitimate. That is because the Government have forced genuine asylum seekers and refugees into a people smuggling route which once established has grown to include many multiples than there ever were before. They have created the problem which they are failing to solve. I can understand why this makes people angry and why this is good for the party in power of it is a distraction and an opportunity to look "tough". I don't understand why the Government continues to demonise and effectively punish and blame those in genuine need by wrapping them up together. There is no "Plan B" if the asylum process has been adhered to as it would be in the UK together with the appeals process. Anyone choosing to come here through by irregular means would already have failed the process and would not have grounds to remain. The Government could have negotiated calmly and in good faith at the outset and we would not be where we are today. Rishi Sunak has at least demonstrated how much more actual diplomacy achieves over rhetoric. Even if it is still turd polishing. You talk shit...but it's your right He does
...and you are now reduced to being nothing but a plus one."Relax I not the one posting dissertations just trying to feel special. clearly the evidence points that way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? Because the UK doesn't want there to be safe and legal routes. If we created safe and legal routes, then more people would use them to enter, and the UK doesn't want more unvetted people to arrive. 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? We could. But that would make them safe and legal routes. 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU? It did, but the EU held it back as a bargaining chip for use later on in the divorce process, and both sides ran of of time. I am going to be pedantic (you’ll appreciate that). You cannot claim what the “UK” wants, only what the current Govt of the UK wants. That's true, but the Tories obviously think it's a vote winner, and they're not stupid. From reading the papers, I think that the majority (i.e. more than 50%) of the population would prefer to see fewer asylum seekers arriving here. We'll be able to find out in 18 months when it becomes a focus of the election campaigns. 1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process! It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. 2) Exactly but as demonstrated on this thread, plenty of people think you can just walk into an embassy and claim asylum. You can’t. You can if you're famous, or a top ranking member of the government. But yes, normal people can't. 3) Is that right? Are you sure? Do you have a source? If so then what is stopping that being renegotiated? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/ There's nothing to stop the UK entering negotiations, but the EU has no incentive to help us out, and every incentive to link the issue to other things that they want. If Friday's visit by Macron isn't to announce that a bi-partisan deal has been struck, then I doubt that we will be able to negotiate anything useful with the EU this decade. The majority of asylum seekers right now are not legitimate. That is because the Government have forced genuine asylum seekers and refugees into a people smuggling route which once established has grown to include many multiples than there ever were before. They have created the problem which they are failing to solve. I can understand why this makes people angry and why this is good for the party in power of it is a distraction and an opportunity to look "tough". I don't understand why the Government continues to demonise and effectively punish and blame those in genuine need by wrapping them up together. There is no "Plan B" if the asylum process has been adhered to as it would be in the UK together with the appeals process. Anyone choosing to come here through by irregular means would already have failed the process and would not have grounds to remain. The Government could have negotiated calmly and in good faith at the outset and we would not be where we are today. Rishi Sunak has at least demonstrated how much more actual diplomacy achieves over rhetoric. Even if it is still turd polishing. You talk shit...but it's your right He does
...and you are now reduced to being nothing but a plus one."What does this mean??? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? Because the UK doesn't want there to be safe and legal routes. If we created safe and legal routes, then more people would use them to enter, and the UK doesn't want more unvetted people to arrive. 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? We could. But that would make them safe and legal routes. 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU? It did, but the EU held it back as a bargaining chip for use later on in the divorce process, and both sides ran of of time. I am going to be pedantic (you’ll appreciate that). You cannot claim what the “UK” wants, only what the current Govt of the UK wants. That's true, but the Tories obviously think it's a vote winner, and they're not stupid. From reading the papers, I think that the majority (i.e. more than 50%) of the population would prefer to see fewer asylum seekers arriving here. We'll be able to find out in 18 months when it becomes a focus of the election campaigns. 1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process! It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. 2) Exactly but as demonstrated on this thread, plenty of people think you can just walk into an embassy and claim asylum. You can’t. You can if you're famous, or a top ranking member of the government. But yes, normal people can't. 3) Is that right? Are you sure? Do you have a source? If so then what is stopping that being renegotiated? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/ There's nothing to stop the UK entering negotiations, but the EU has no incentive to help us out, and every incentive to link the issue to other things that they want. If Friday's visit by Macron isn't to announce that a bi-partisan deal has been struck, then I doubt that we will be able to negotiate anything useful with the EU this decade. The majority of asylum seekers right now are not legitimate. That is because the Government have forced genuine asylum seekers and refugees into a people smuggling route which once established has grown to include many multiples than there ever were before. They have created the problem which they are failing to solve. I can understand why this makes people angry and why this is good for the party in power of it is a distraction and an opportunity to look "tough". I don't understand why the Government continues to demonise and effectively punish and blame those in genuine need by wrapping them up together. There is no "Plan B" if the asylum process has been adhered to as it would be in the UK together with the appeals process. Anyone choosing to come here through by irregular means would already have failed the process and would not have grounds to remain. The Government could have negotiated calmly and in good faith at the outset and we would not be where we are today. Rishi Sunak has at least demonstrated how much more actual diplomacy achieves over rhetoric. Even if it is still turd polishing. You talk shit...but it's your right He does
...and you are now reduced to being nothing but a plus one.
What does this mean??? "On several occasions now, this poster pops up and agrees with an abusive comment towards me. Just along for the ride to be rude. Again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? Because the UK doesn't want there to be safe and legal routes. If we created safe and legal routes, then more people would use them to enter, and the UK doesn't want more unvetted people to arrive. 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? We could. But that would make them safe and legal routes. 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU? It did, but the EU held it back as a bargaining chip for use later on in the divorce process, and both sides ran of of time. I am going to be pedantic (you’ll appreciate that). You cannot claim what the “UK” wants, only what the current Govt of the UK wants. That's true, but the Tories obviously think it's a vote winner, and they're not stupid. From reading the papers, I think that the majority (i.e. more than 50%) of the population would prefer to see fewer asylum seekers arriving here. We'll be able to find out in 18 months when it becomes a focus of the election campaigns. 1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process! It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. 2) Exactly but as demonstrated on this thread, plenty of people think you can just walk into an embassy and claim asylum. You can’t. You can if you're famous, or a top ranking member of the government. But yes, normal people can't. 3) Is that right? Are you sure? Do you have a source? If so then what is stopping that being renegotiated? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/ There's nothing to stop the UK entering negotiations, but the EU has no incentive to help us out, and every incentive to link the issue to other things that they want. If Friday's visit by Macron isn't to announce that a bi-partisan deal has been struck, then I doubt that we will be able to negotiate anything useful with the EU this decade. The majority of asylum seekers right now are not legitimate. That is because the Government have forced genuine asylum seekers and refugees into a people smuggling route which once established has grown to include many multiples than there ever were before. They have created the problem which they are failing to solve. I can understand why this makes people angry and why this is good for the party in power of it is a distraction and an opportunity to look "tough". I don't understand why the Government continues to demonise and effectively punish and blame those in genuine need by wrapping them up together. There is no "Plan B" if the asylum process has been adhered to as it would be in the UK together with the appeals process. Anyone choosing to come here through by irregular means would already have failed the process and would not have grounds to remain. The Government could have negotiated calmly and in good faith at the outset and we would not be where we are today. Rishi Sunak has at least demonstrated how much more actual diplomacy achieves over rhetoric. Even if it is still turd polishing. You talk shit...but it's your right He does
...and you are now reduced to being nothing but a plus one. Relax I not the one posting dissertations just trying to feel special. clearly the evidence points that way. "Yet here you are, yet again contributing nothing to the topic except unoriginal abuse. Thank you for your service | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? Because the UK doesn't want there to be safe and legal routes. If we created safe and legal routes, then more people would use them to enter, and the UK doesn't want more unvetted people to arrive. 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? We could. But that would make them safe and legal routes. 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU? It did, but the EU held it back as a bargaining chip for use later on in the divorce process, and both sides ran of of time. I am going to be pedantic (you’ll appreciate that). You cannot claim what the “UK” wants, only what the current Govt of the UK wants. That's true, but the Tories obviously think it's a vote winner, and they're not stupid. From reading the papers, I think that the majority (i.e. more than 50%) of the population would prefer to see fewer asylum seekers arriving here. We'll be able to find out in 18 months when it becomes a focus of the election campaigns. 1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process! It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. 2) Exactly but as demonstrated on this thread, plenty of people think you can just walk into an embassy and claim asylum. You can’t. You can if you're famous, or a top ranking member of the government. But yes, normal people can't. 3) Is that right? Are you sure? Do you have a source? If so then what is stopping that being renegotiated? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/ There's nothing to stop the UK entering negotiations, but the EU has no incentive to help us out, and every incentive to link the issue to other things that they want. If Friday's visit by Macron isn't to announce that a bi-partisan deal has been struck, then I doubt that we will be able to negotiate anything useful with the EU this decade. The majority of asylum seekers right now are not legitimate. That is because the Government have forced genuine asylum seekers and refugees into a people smuggling route which once established has grown to include many multiples than there ever were before. They have created the problem which they are failing to solve. I can understand why this makes people angry and why this is good for the party in power of it is a distraction and an opportunity to look "tough". I don't understand why the Government continues to demonise and effectively punish and blame those in genuine need by wrapping them up together. There is no "Plan B" if the asylum process has been adhered to as it would be in the UK together with the appeals process. Anyone choosing to come here through by irregular means would already have failed the process and would not have grounds to remain. The Government could have negotiated calmly and in good faith at the outset and we would not be where we are today. Rishi Sunak has at least demonstrated how much more actual diplomacy achieves over rhetoric. Even if it is still turd polishing. You talk shit...but it's your right He does
...and you are now reduced to being nothing but a plus one.
What does this mean???
On several occasions now, this poster pops up and agrees with an abusive comment towards me.
Just along for the ride to be rude. Again."Understood | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? Because the UK doesn't want there to be safe and legal routes. If we created safe and legal routes, then more people would use them to enter, and the UK doesn't want more unvetted people to arrive. 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? We could. But that would make them safe and legal routes. 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU? It did, but the EU held it back as a bargaining chip for use later on in the divorce process, and both sides ran of of time. I am going to be pedantic (you’ll appreciate that). You cannot claim what the “UK” wants, only what the current Govt of the UK wants. That's true, but the Tories obviously think it's a vote winner, and they're not stupid. From reading the papers, I think that the majority (i.e. more than 50%) of the population would prefer to see fewer asylum seekers arriving here. We'll be able to find out in 18 months when it becomes a focus of the election campaigns. 1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process! It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. 2) Exactly but as demonstrated on this thread, plenty of people think you can just walk into an embassy and claim asylum. You can’t. You can if you're famous, or a top ranking member of the government. But yes, normal people can't. 3) Is that right? Are you sure? Do you have a source? If so then what is stopping that being renegotiated? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/ There's nothing to stop the UK entering negotiations, but the EU has no incentive to help us out, and every incentive to link the issue to other things that they want. If Friday's visit by Macron isn't to announce that a bi-partisan deal has been struck, then I doubt that we will be able to negotiate anything useful with the EU this decade. The majority of asylum seekers right now are not legitimate. That is because the Government have forced genuine asylum seekers and refugees into a people smuggling route which once established has grown to include many multiples than there ever were before. They have created the problem which they are failing to solve. I can understand why this makes people angry and why this is good for the party in power of it is a distraction and an opportunity to look "tough". I don't understand why the Government continues to demonise and effectively punish and blame those in genuine need by wrapping them up together. There is no "Plan B" if the asylum process has been adhered to as it would be in the UK together with the appeals process. Anyone choosing to come here through by irregular means would already have failed the process and would not have grounds to remain. The Government could have negotiated calmly and in good faith at the outset and we would not be where we are today. Rishi Sunak has at least demonstrated how much more actual diplomacy achieves over rhetoric. Even if it is still turd polishing. You talk shit...but it's your right He does
...and you are now reduced to being nothing but a plus one.
What does this mean???
On several occasions now, this poster pops up and agrees with an abusive comment towards me.
Just along for the ride to be rude. Again."How am I being rude if I in agreement? I didn't make the statement. It's a observation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? Because the UK doesn't want there to be safe and legal routes. If we created safe and legal routes, then more people would use them to enter, and the UK doesn't want more unvetted people to arrive. 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? We could. But that would make them safe and legal routes. 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU? It did, but the EU held it back as a bargaining chip for use later on in the divorce process, and both sides ran of of time. I am going to be pedantic (you’ll appreciate that). You cannot claim what the “UK” wants, only what the current Govt of the UK wants. That's true, but the Tories obviously think it's a vote winner, and they're not stupid. From reading the papers, I think that the majority (i.e. more than 50%) of the population would prefer to see fewer asylum seekers arriving here. We'll be able to find out in 18 months when it becomes a focus of the election campaigns. 1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process! It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. 2) Exactly but as demonstrated on this thread, plenty of people think you can just walk into an embassy and claim asylum. You can’t. You can if you're famous, or a top ranking member of the government. But yes, normal people can't. 3) Is that right? Are you sure? Do you have a source? If so then what is stopping that being renegotiated? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/ There's nothing to stop the UK entering negotiations, but the EU has no incentive to help us out, and every incentive to link the issue to other things that they want. If Friday's visit by Macron isn't to announce that a bi-partisan deal has been struck, then I doubt that we will be able to negotiate anything useful with the EU this decade. The majority of asylum seekers right now are not legitimate. That is because the Government have forced genuine asylum seekers and refugees into a people smuggling route which once established has grown to include many multiples than there ever were before. They have created the problem which they are failing to solve. I can understand why this makes people angry and why this is good for the party in power of it is a distraction and an opportunity to look "tough". I don't understand why the Government continues to demonise and effectively punish and blame those in genuine need by wrapping them up together. There is no "Plan B" if the asylum process has been adhered to as it would be in the UK together with the appeals process. Anyone choosing to come here through by irregular means would already have failed the process and would not have grounds to remain. The Government could have negotiated calmly and in good faith at the outset and we would not be where we are today. Rishi Sunak has at least demonstrated how much more actual diplomacy achieves over rhetoric. Even if it is still turd polishing. You talk shit...but it's your right He does
...and you are now reduced to being nothing but a plus one. Relax I not the one posting dissertations just trying to feel special. clearly the evidence points that way. "There are a few of them who do the same | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"”1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process!” It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem." I don’t get that and I think you are making an unfounded assumption. Clearly if, for example, asylum seeker A was in Turkey in a refugee camp and was able to start their asylum application via the British Embassy (not physically, a team could visit the camp) that process would be able to undertake vetting and establish legitimate cases. If they are legitimate they enter next stage of process and so on but while still in Turkey. However, if their case is found to not be legitimate then they get rejected. All intel about the person (inc photos) can be shared with Border Force so that if that person still tried to enter the UK we would already know they have no legitimate case and could be ejected. Basically start the processing closer to where the people are from and collect intel and make it clear the ramifications if rejected and they still try to enter UK. No more hotel accommodation in UK while processing. Exponential decrease in overall costs (as increase in consular/embassy costs). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"”1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process!” It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. I don’t get that and I think you are making an unfounded assumption. Clearly if, for example, asylum seeker A was in Turkey in a refugee camp and was able to start their asylum application via the British Embassy (not physically, a team could visit the camp) that process would be able to undertake vetting and establish legitimate cases. If they are legitimate they enter next stage of process and so on but while still in Turkey. However, if their case is found to not be legitimate then they get rejected. All intel about the person (inc photos) can be shared with Border Force so that if that person still tried to enter the UK we would already know they have no legitimate case and could be ejected. Basically start the processing closer to where the people are from and collect intel and make it clear the ramifications if rejected and they still try to enter UK. No more hotel accommodation in UK while processing. Exponential decrease in overall costs (as increase in consular/embassy costs)." I agree with you in this, for me it's the best option. However, I do understand what MrD is saying, if people are rejected closer to home, they will just go for the illegal route. Most probably go underground and we wouldn't even know half of them were here. I feel it would stop 90% of the ones currently using that route though, which for me is a huge win. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1) Why aren’t their safe and legal routes? Because the UK doesn't want there to be safe and legal routes. If we created safe and legal routes, then more people would use them to enter, and the UK doesn't want more unvetted people to arrive. 2) Why can’t we use our Embassies to be an entry point for the asylum process? We could. But that would make them safe and legal routes. 3) Why did the UK not try to maintain involvement of the Dublin Regulation when we left the EU? It did, but the EU held it back as a bargaining chip for use later on in the divorce process, and both sides ran of of time. I am going to be pedantic (you’ll appreciate that). You cannot claim what the “UK” wants, only what the current Govt of the UK wants. That's true, but the Tories obviously think it's a vote winner, and they're not stupid. From reading the papers, I think that the majority (i.e. more than 50%) of the population would prefer to see fewer asylum seekers arriving here. We'll be able to find out in 18 months when it becomes a focus of the election campaigns. 1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process! It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. 2) Exactly but as demonstrated on this thread, plenty of people think you can just walk into an embassy and claim asylum. You can’t. You can if you're famous, or a top ranking member of the government. But yes, normal people can't. 3) Is that right? Are you sure? Do you have a source? If so then what is stopping that being renegotiated? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/ There's nothing to stop the UK entering negotiations, but the EU has no incentive to help us out, and every incentive to link the issue to other things that they want. If Friday's visit by Macron isn't to announce that a bi-partisan deal has been struck, then I doubt that we will be able to negotiate anything useful with the EU this decade. The majority of asylum seekers right now are not legitimate. That is because the Government have forced genuine asylum seekers and refugees into a people smuggling route which once established has grown to include many multiples than there ever were before. They have created the problem which they are failing to solve. I can understand why this makes people angry and why this is good for the party in power of it is a distraction and an opportunity to look "tough". I don't understand why the Government continues to demonise and effectively punish and blame those in genuine need by wrapping them up together. There is no "Plan B" if the asylum process has been adhered to as it would be in the UK together with the appeals process. Anyone choosing to come here through by irregular means would already have failed the process and would not have grounds to remain. The Government could have negotiated calmly and in good faith at the outset and we would not be where we are today. Rishi Sunak has at least demonstrated how much more actual diplomacy achieves over rhetoric. Even if it is still turd polishing. You talk shit...but it's your right He does
...and you are now reduced to being nothing but a plus one. Relax I not the one posting dissertations just trying to feel special. clearly the evidence points that way.
There are a few of them who do the same"...and yet another member of the trolling gang. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"”1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process!” It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. I don’t get that and I think you are making an unfounded assumption. Clearly if, for example, asylum seeker A was in Turkey in a refugee camp and was able to start their asylum application via the British Embassy (not physically, a team could visit the camp) that process would be able to undertake vetting and establish legitimate cases. If they are legitimate they enter next stage of process and so on but while still in Turkey. However, if their case is found to not be legitimate then they get rejected. All intel about the person (inc photos) can be shared with Border Force so that if that person still tried to enter the UK we would already know they have no legitimate case and could be ejected. Basically start the processing closer to where the people are from and collect intel and make it clear the ramifications if rejected and they still try to enter UK. No more hotel accommodation in UK while processing. Exponential decrease in overall costs (as increase in consular/embassy costs). I agree with you in this, for me it's the best option. However, I do understand what MrD is saying, if people are rejected closer to home, they will just go for the illegal route. Most probably go underground and we wouldn't even know half of them were here. I feel it would stop 90% of the ones currently using that route though, which for me is a huge win. " Precisely. Also don’t forget that many of the asylum seekers resorting to small boats (genuine or bogus) have been “groomed” by the criminal gangs to believe the UK is a land of gold and honey. If their first contact is via consular staff in a nearby country where the process reveals legitimacy, those who are not can be given a reality check. ie. You are rejected for asylum and we now know who you are. If you try to now enter the UK by any other means you will be illegal and committing a crime and will be treated accordingly etc etc. It is a face-to-face deterrent with clear consequences. But it also means the legit cases avoid criminal gangs and exploitation and can be treated compassionately. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"”1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process!” It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. I don’t get that and I think you are making an unfounded assumption. Clearly if, for example, asylum seeker A was in Turkey in a refugee camp and was able to start their asylum application via the British Embassy (not physically, a team could visit the camp) that process would be able to undertake vetting and establish legitimate cases. If they are legitimate they enter next stage of process and so on but while still in Turkey. However, if their case is found to not be legitimate then they get rejected. All intel about the person (inc photos) can be shared with Border Force so that if that person still tried to enter the UK we would already know they have no legitimate case and could be ejected. Basically start the processing closer to where the people are from and collect intel and make it clear the ramifications if rejected and they still try to enter UK. No more hotel accommodation in UK while processing. Exponential decrease in overall costs (as increase in consular/embassy costs). I agree with you in this, for me it's the best option. However, I do understand what MrD is saying, if people are rejected closer to home, they will just go for the illegal route. Most probably go underground and we wouldn't even know half of them were here. I feel it would stop 90% of the ones currently using that route though, which for me is a huge win. Precisely. Also don’t forget that many of the asylum seekers resorting to small boats (genuine or bogus) have been “groomed” by the criminal gangs to believe the UK is a land of gold and honey. If their first contact is via consular staff in a nearby country where the process reveals legitimacy, those who are not can be given a reality check. ie. You are rejected for asylum and we now know who you are. If you try to now enter the UK by any other means you will be illegal and committing a crime and will be treated accordingly etc etc. It is a face-to-face deterrent with clear consequences. But it also means the legit cases avoid criminal gangs and exploitation and can be treated compassionately. " Again I agree. This appears to be the help needed for those who are in genuine need. A lot of people are angry at the demographic though, so it won't help to appease those people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"”1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process!” It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. I don’t get that and I think you are making an unfounded assumption. Clearly if, for example, asylum seeker A was in Turkey in a refugee camp and was able to start their asylum application via the British Embassy (not physically, a team could visit the camp) that process would be able to undertake vetting and establish legitimate cases. If they are legitimate they enter next stage of process and so on but while still in Turkey. However, if their case is found to not be legitimate then they get rejected. All intel about the person (inc photos) can be shared with Border Force so that if that person still tried to enter the UK we would already know they have no legitimate case and could be ejected. Basically start the processing closer to where the people are from and collect intel and make it clear the ramifications if rejected and they still try to enter UK. No more hotel accommodation in UK while processing. Exponential decrease in overall costs (as increase in consular/embassy costs)." This is absolutely correct. When a person is rejected overseas, they will be aware of the futility of trying to turn up anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"”1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process!”" "It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem." "I don’t get that and I think you are making an unfounded assumption. Clearly if, for example, asylum seeker A was in Turkey in a refugee camp and was able to start their asylum application via the British Embassy (not physically, a team could visit the camp) that process would be able to undertake vetting and establish legitimate cases. If they are legitimate they enter next stage of process and so on but while still in Turkey. However, if their case is found to not be legitimate then they get rejected. All intel about the person (inc photos) can be shared with Border Force so that if that person still tried to enter the UK we would already know they have no legitimate case and could be ejected." Photos would not be useful. It's simple enough to change your appearance and claim to be a different person. We'd need to take DNA samples, and I can't see that going well in the Middle East. But let's assume that we have a foolproof identification method, and we start sending denied applicants back home. Word will soon get around that if you go to the processing centre, you will have less chance of getting into the UK. People will then once more turn to small boats, because they still want to come here, and that's their best option. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"”1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process!” It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. I don’t get that and I think you are making an unfounded assumption. Clearly if, for example, asylum seeker A was in Turkey in a refugee camp and was able to start their asylum application via the British Embassy (not physically, a team could visit the camp) that process would be able to undertake vetting and establish legitimate cases. If they are legitimate they enter next stage of process and so on but while still in Turkey. However, if their case is found to not be legitimate then they get rejected. All intel about the person (inc photos) can be shared with Border Force so that if that person still tried to enter the UK we would already know they have no legitimate case and could be ejected. Photos would not be useful. It's simple enough to change your appearance and claim to be a different person. We'd need to take DNA samples, and I can't see that going well in the Middle East. But let's assume that we have a foolproof identification method, and we start sending denied applicants back home. Word will soon get around that if you go to the processing centre, you will have less chance of getting into the UK. People will then once more turn to small boats, because they still want to come here, and that's their best option." Why did this not happen before the safe and legal routes were closed? You have an opinion that cannot be backed up by evidence. For decades we had safe and legal routes and the number of people trying to enter the UK illegally was miniscule. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"”1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process!” It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. I don’t get that and I think you are making an unfounded assumption. Clearly if, for example, asylum seeker A was in Turkey in a refugee camp and was able to start their asylum application via the British Embassy (not physically, a team could visit the camp) that process would be able to undertake vetting and establish legitimate cases. If they are legitimate they enter next stage of process and so on but while still in Turkey. However, if their case is found to not be legitimate then they get rejected. All intel about the person (inc photos) can be shared with Border Force so that if that person still tried to enter the UK we would already know they have no legitimate case and could be ejected. Photos would not be useful. It's simple enough to change your appearance and claim to be a different person. We'd need to take DNA samples, and I can't see that going well in the Middle East. But let's assume that we have a foolproof identification method, and we start sending denied applicants back home. Word will soon get around that if you go to the processing centre, you will have less chance of getting into the UK. People will then once more turn to small boats, because they still want to come here, and that's their best option." the way i see it... Person A goes to the local processing site. You get as much information as possible (I don't follow your DNA point tbh) but let's say name, age, fingerprints. They get rejected. They try and get in Via a boat. They say they are person B. Presumably B backstory is fleeing from the same country. Question one: why didn't you go to the local processing site. The fact you didn't counts against you and so the burden of proof is on you to explain why. We then check photos, fingers prints etc. As well as check into this new, fictional backstory, which you'd imagine is easier to show to be false. Stick another processing site in Calais and there's next to no resown for getting into a boat if you are legitimate. And therefore we set a higher bar for any irregular entries. Safe and easy approaches for this with valid claims can lead to harsher approaches for irregular entry as you have created a natural filter. Atm everyone is forced down the same irregular route. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"”1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process!” It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. I don’t get that and I think you are making an unfounded assumption. Clearly if, for example, asylum seeker A was in Turkey in a refugee camp and was able to start their asylum application via the British Embassy (not physically, a team could visit the camp) that process would be able to undertake vetting and establish legitimate cases. If they are legitimate they enter next stage of process and so on but while still in Turkey. However, if their case is found to not be legitimate then they get rejected. All intel about the person (inc photos) can be shared with Border Force so that if that person still tried to enter the UK we would already know they have no legitimate case and could be ejected. Photos would not be useful. It's simple enough to change your appearance and claim to be a different person. We'd need to take DNA samples, and I can't see that going well in the Middle East. But let's assume that we have a foolproof identification method, and we start sending denied applicants back home. Word will soon get around that if you go to the processing centre, you will have less chance of getting into the UK. People will then once more turn to small boats, because they still want to come here, and that's their best option." I disagree. Illegitimate asylum seekers yes. But according to the Govt stats the majority are granted asylum (after prolonged processing) meaning they must be legitimate. So the legitimate ones will use the safe legal routes meaning it is easier to identify the illegals. As for ID. Photo plus fingerprints. Currently already do that for Biometric Residents Permits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"”1) Why would a safe legal route mean they are unvetted? Surely if you create a safe legal route there would be appropriate processes in place to protect the UK? There would still need to be an application process!” It would have to be unvetted to work. We're talking about people that are willing to travel across continents, and make dangerous sea crossings to get here. If we denied them asylum via the legal route, they would just go to plan B, and get on a small boat to try the illegal route. If we deny any significant number, we won't be solving the small boat problem. I don’t get that and I think you are making an unfounded assumption. Clearly if, for example, asylum seeker A was in Turkey in a refugee camp and was able to start their asylum application via the British Embassy (not physically, a team could visit the camp) that process would be able to undertake vetting and establish legitimate cases. If they are legitimate they enter next stage of process and so on but while still in Turkey. However, if their case is found to not be legitimate then they get rejected. All intel about the person (inc photos) can be shared with Border Force so that if that person still tried to enter the UK we would already know they have no legitimate case and could be ejected. Photos would not be useful. It's simple enough to change your appearance and claim to be a different person. We'd need to take DNA samples, and I can't see that going well in the Middle East. But let's assume that we have a foolproof identification method, and we start sending denied applicants back home. Word will soon get around that if you go to the processing centre, you will have less chance of getting into the UK. People will then once more turn to small boats, because they still want to come here, and that's their best option.the way i see it... Person A goes to the local processing site. You get as much information as possible (I don't follow your DNA point tbh) but let's say name, age, fingerprints. They get rejected. They try and get in Via a boat. They say they are person B. Presumably B backstory is fleeing from the same country. Question one: why didn't you go to the local processing site. The fact you didn't counts against you and so the burden of proof is on you to explain why. We then check photos, fingers prints etc. As well as check into this new, fictional backstory, which you'd imagine is easier to show to be false. Stick another processing site in Calais and there's next to no resown for getting into a boat if you are legitimate. And therefore we set a higher bar for any irregular entries. Safe and easy approaches for this with valid claims can lead to harsher approaches for irregular entry as you have created a natural filter. Atm everyone is forced down the same irregular route. " Maybe we should stop with all this “Common Sense” stuff? Far easier to just be angry at everyone who wants to come to the UK! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But let's assume that we have a foolproof identification method, and we start sending denied applicants back home. Word will soon get around that if you go to the processing centre, you will have less chance of getting into the UK. People will then once more turn to small boats, because they still want to come here, and that's their best option." "Why did this not happen before the safe and legal routes were closed?" Which safe and legal routes are you talking about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the way i see it... Person A goes to the local processing site. You get as much information as possible (I don't follow your DNA point tbh) but let's say name, age, fingerprints. They get rejected. They try and get in Via a boat. They say they are person B. Presumably B backstory is fleeing from the same country. Question one: why didn't you go to the local processing site. The fact you didn't counts against you and so the burden of proof is on you to explain why." I'd like to see you try that argument in a court. The list of legitimate excuses is endless. "I didn't know it existed", "I was being followed by my family", "I was in imminent danger", "A relative works there and I would have been discovered", "I escaped through a different country and couldn't get to it", "I was smuggled out and they didn't let me free till France", etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the way i see it... Person A goes to the local processing site. You get as much information as possible (I don't follow your DNA point tbh) but let's say name, age, fingerprints. They get rejected. They try and get in Via a boat. They say they are person B. Presumably B backstory is fleeing from the same country. Question one: why didn't you go to the local processing site. The fact you didn't counts against you and so the burden of proof is on you to explain why. I'd like to see you try that argument in a court. The list of legitimate excuses is endless. "I didn't know it existed", "I was being followed by my family", "I was in imminent danger", "A relative works there and I would have been discovered", "I escaped through a different country and couldn't get to it", "I was smuggled out and they didn't let me free till France", etc." Reasons, not excuses | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the way i see it... Person A goes to the local processing site. You get as much information as possible (I don't follow your DNA point tbh) but let's say name, age, fingerprints. They get rejected. They try and get in Via a boat. They say they are person B. Presumably B backstory is fleeing from the same country. Question one: why didn't you go to the local processing site. The fact you didn't counts against you and so the burden of proof is on you to explain why." "I'd like to see you try that argument in a court. The list of legitimate excuses is endless. "I didn't know it existed", "I was being followed by my family", "I was in imminent danger", "A relative works there and I would have been discovered", "I escaped through a different country and couldn't get to it", "I was smuggled out and they didn't let me free till France", etc." "Reasons, not excuses" Good point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the way i see it... Person A goes to the local processing site. You get as much information as possible (I don't follow your DNA point tbh) but let's say name, age, fingerprints. They get rejected. They try and get in Via a boat. They say they are person B. Presumably B backstory is fleeing from the same country. Question one: why didn't you go to the local processing site. The fact you didn't counts against you and so the burden of proof is on you to explain why. I'd like to see you try that argument in a court. The list of legitimate excuses is endless. "I didn't know it existed", "I was being followed by my family", "I was in imminent danger", "A relative works there and I would have been discovered", "I escaped through a different country and couldn't get to it", "I was smuggled out and they didn't let me free till France", etc." You’re a glass half empty kind if guy aren’t you? Personally I’d like to believe that the majority of people are good and have good intentions. If you provide them with an easier, less perilous, less likely to be exploited, path to achieving their aims, most will take it. You seem very resistant to actually trying to solve this issue? I take it you prefer the status quo? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You’re a glass half empty kind if guy aren’t you?" I don't think so. I like to think that I'm an optimist. But I'm also a cynic. "Personally I’d like to believe that the majority of people are good and have good intentions. If you provide them with an easier, less perilous, less likely to be exploited, path to achieving their aims, most will take it." It would be lovely to believe that most people act with good intentions, and if that were true, then obviously making life easier for them would be a good thing. But the cynic in me believes that more than 50% of those applying are doing so for economic betterment reasons. We shouldn't be encouraging that. "You seem very resistant to actually trying to solve this issue? I take it you prefer the status quo?" For me the issue is that too many people are applying for asylum, and our system takes too long to sort through all of the claims. I'd love to see both of those issues sorted out. I'd be happy if the government implemented your 'apply from abroad' scheme as long as there was a check after a defined period to see whether the numbers admitted to the UK had gone up or down. Obviously, I think they would go up, but I'm happy to see the experiment tried. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You’re a glass half empty kind if guy aren’t you? I don't think so. I like to think that I'm an optimist. But I'm also a cynic. Personally I’d like to believe that the majority of people are good and have good intentions. If you provide them with an easier, less perilous, less likely to be exploited, path to achieving their aims, most will take it. It would be lovely to believe that most people act with good intentions, and if that were true, then obviously making life easier for them would be a good thing. But the cynic in me believes that more than 50% of those applying are doing so for economic betterment reasons. We shouldn't be encouraging that. You seem very resistant to actually trying to solve this issue? I take it you prefer the status quo? For me the issue is that too many people are applying for asylum, and our system takes too long to sort through all of the claims. I'd love to see both of those issues sorted out. I'd be happy if the government implemented your 'apply from abroad' scheme as long as there was a check after a defined period to see whether the numbers admitted to the UK had gone up or down. Obviously, I think they would go up, but I'm happy to see the experiment tried." A cynical optimist | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country? We both know they they are flooding to the Uk ! ££££££if you were forced out the UK, would that be what you look for... Which country pays the most benefits ? And would you take a dinghy across the channel to get that money versus choosing an easier but less profitable country ? " If you where leaving the UK you would need to take a dinghy? You do know its an island right. And a small one at that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does an advocate for women's rights in Iran, now hunted for by the Morality Police, apply for asylum in the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country? We both know they they are flooding to the Uk ! ££££££if you were forced out the UK, would that be what you look for... Which country pays the most benefits ? And would you take a dinghy across the channel to get that money versus choosing an easier but less profitable country ? If you where leaving the UK you would need to take a dinghy? You do know its an island right. And a small one at that." with limited housing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some thoughts / questions on the topic. Is the UK unique in its approach to asylum seekers. I recall some incidents in Italy with a ship full of people that was not allowed to dock. Not sure if they were asylum seekers or what but it seemed to create a stir. What countries can we learn from that take in these people and can show positive benefits in doing so. Are all these people fleeing war and persecution. The ones that have escaped, are they all in refugee camps. Is it possible to prove their case The UK benefits greatly from immigration. That would be a good place to look. How. Limited housing, Broken NHS, over crowded roads I think people think the UK is rich and massive. It is a small island and it s braking. Water shortage, Waste being dumped in the sea, high tax, people not working due to child care cost. And dose immigration drive wages down. Cheep labour. But you're right, pretty much every country has political parties that stoke fear of immigrants, and then uses it to gain support and votes. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
