FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Rwanda plan unlawful
Rwanda plan unlawful
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The court of appeal has ruled that the Rwanda resettlement scheme is unlawful - per Sky news." O dear, what a shame , never mind | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How wonderful. " I expect to read the following on here Lefty Lawyers We need to leave the ECHR How many would you house Etc etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How wonderful. I expect to read the following on here Lefty Lawyers We need to leave the ECHR How many would you house Etc etc " It’s the Court of Appeal that made the decision not ECHR. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How wonderful. I expect to read the following on here Lefty Lawyers We need to leave the ECHR How many would you house Etc etc It’s the Court of Appeal that made the decision not ECHR." The sort of folk who will rant about this won’t even know who or what the ECHR is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How wonderful. I expect to read the following on here Lefty Lawyers We need to leave the ECHR How many would you house Etc etc It’s the Court of Appeal that made the decision not ECHR." I know, I was talking the piss out of the halfwits who don’t know this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How wonderful. I expect to read the following on here Lefty Lawyers We need to leave the ECHR How many would you house Etc etc " I missed the most obvious one, what is your solution then instead  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can anyone direct me to the ruling that the plan is 'unlawful' I'm seeing plenty of headlines using this word but in reading the detail it just states the earlier ruling has been overturned. Those are 2 different things so I'd like to see what the ruling actually is." “The result is that the high court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful” That’s from Adam Wagner on twitter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure the Gov will appeal the decision so its not over yet. Can't say I was comfortable with this policy but at least it was an attempt to do something as doing nothing isn't an option. I dont have very much sympathy for people who can pay criminal gangs multiple thousands of pounds to access the UK. This is purely economic migration and not true asylum seeking." That’s for the asylum process to decide, not you or anyone else here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure the Gov will appeal the decision so its not over yet. Can't say I was comfortable with this policy but at least it was an attempt to do something as doing nothing isn't an option. I dont have very much sympathy for people who can pay criminal gangs multiple thousands of pounds to access the UK. This is purely economic migration and not true asylum seeking." Yes they will appeal, costing more millions, if this is their only solution then maybe, just maybe they haven’t got a clue what they are doing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can anyone direct me to the ruling that the plan is 'unlawful' I'm seeing plenty of headlines using this word but in reading the detail it just states the earlier ruling has been overturned. Those are 2 different things so I'd like to see what the ruling actually is. “The result is that the high court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful” That’s from Adam Wagner on twitter." Cheers. It's hard to find information on breaking stories. I found this which matches your statement. "Announcing the ruling, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnet said he does not accept that migrants would be at risk of removal to their home countries from Rwanda - but it is not a safe country for them to housed in while their asylum claims are processed. The judge concluded: "The result is that the High Court's decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed, and unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum process are corrected, removal of asylum seekers will be unlawful."" Looks like there's a difference of opinion on what 'safe' is. This is a massive blow after the Lords issues the other day, I don't expect its done yet though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure the Gov will appeal the decision so its not over yet. Can't say I was comfortable with this policy but at least it was an attempt to do something as doing nothing isn't an option. I dont have very much sympathy for people who can pay criminal gangs multiple thousands of pounds to access the UK. This is purely economic migration and not true asylum seeking. That’s for the asylum process to decide, not you or anyone else here. " Thats correct. What we post on here is our opinions regardless of how well informed they may or may not be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I imagine off to the supreme Court we go. Or a change of the agreement." Or scrap the stupid idea and find something that is lawful | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's nothing on the merits of tbe plan. Just whether there's a risk of re deporation. Easily sorted out." Easily? When was the scheme first introduced? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? " It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. " All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? " Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts." So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?)" That is exactly what should be done imo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo." Ok (continuing to play devil’s advocate), using Syria as the example, are Turkey and Lebanon happy/willing to have Syrian people living within their borders while they go through the process of applying for asylum in the UK via the Embassy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo." What happens when the massy rejected the claim? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory?" That's not true. Embassies don't count as sovereign territory for the purposes of the 1951 convention, and they can, and do, regularly refuse to consider asylum applications. If you are someone useful to the UK, like a spy, or a weapon scientist, or a renowned artist, the embassy might protect you and smuggle you out of the country to the UK. But they aren't required to do so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. What happens when the massy rejected the claim?" Same as would happen now, it’s about stopping dangerous boat crossings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. Ok (continuing to play devil’s advocate), using Syria as the example, are Turkey and Lebanon happy/willing to have Syrian people living within their borders while they go through the process of applying for asylum in the UK via the Embassy?" They could always apply for asylum to those countries. Being completely honest, I care about the UK much more than I do about Turkey or Lebanon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? That's not true. Embassies don't count as sovereign territory for the purposes of the 1951 convention, and they can, and do, regularly refuse to consider asylum applications. If you are someone useful to the UK, like a spy, or a weapon scientist, or a renowned artist, the embassy might protect you and smuggle you out of the country to the UK. But they aren't required to do so." Thanks for clarification. So an Embassy is NOT sovereign UK territory meaning even if you get past security and reception, you cannot claim asylum. Is that the case with all embassies of all countries? So do we change that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. What happens when the massy rejected the claim?" Same as would happen now. I'd argue that asylum has already been refused so they would be breaking visa laws and could be detained and deported. Identity taken in embassies including facial recognition and fingerprints would make it easy to identify. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. Ok (continuing to play devil’s advocate), using Syria as the example, are Turkey and Lebanon happy/willing to have Syrian people living within their borders while they go through the process of applying for asylum in the UK via the Embassy? They could always apply for asylum to those countries. Being completely honest, I care about the UK much more than I do about Turkey or Lebanon." Turkey already take in an enormous number of Syrian refugees - it would fall on the home office to strike a deal to give shelter to more who’d sit under U.K processing whilst abroad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. Ok (continuing to play devil’s advocate), using Syria as the example, are Turkey and Lebanon happy/willing to have Syrian people living within their borders while they go through the process of applying for asylum in the UK via the Embassy? They could always apply for asylum to those countries. Being completely honest, I care about the UK much more than I do about Turkey or Lebanon. Turkey already take in an enormous number of Syrian refugees - it would fall on the home office to strike a deal to give shelter to more who’d sit under U.K processing whilst abroad." I know. The question was would those countries be happy to have people within their borders. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. Ok (continuing to play devil’s advocate), using Syria as the example, are Turkey and Lebanon happy/willing to have Syrian people living within their borders while they go through the process of applying for asylum in the UK via the Embassy? They could always apply for asylum to those countries. Being completely honest, I care about the UK much more than I do about Turkey or Lebanon." Yes but the question stands. If we do change things so a person (Syrian in this example) can claim asylum and start the process in the British Embassy in Ankara or Beirut, while they are part of that process they need to live somewhere. So are Turkey or Lebanon going to allow that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. Ok (continuing to play devil’s advocate), using Syria as the example, are Turkey and Lebanon happy/willing to have Syrian people living within their borders while they go through the process of applying for asylum in the UK via the Embassy? They could always apply for asylum to those countries. Being completely honest, I care about the UK much more than I do about Turkey or Lebanon. Yes but the question stands. If we do change things so a person (Syrian in this example) can claim asylum and start the process in the British Embassy in Ankara or Beirut, while they are part of that process they need to live somewhere. So are Turkey or Lebanon going to allow that?" You'll have to ask Turkey or Lebanon the answer to that. No one here will be able to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. Ok (continuing to play devil’s advocate), using Syria as the example, are Turkey and Lebanon happy/willing to have Syrian people living within their borders while they go through the process of applying for asylum in the UK via the Embassy? They could always apply for asylum to those countries. Being completely honest, I care about the UK much more than I do about Turkey or Lebanon. Yes but the question stands. If we do change things so a person (Syrian in this example) can claim asylum and start the process in the British Embassy in Ankara or Beirut, while they are part of that process they need to live somewhere. So are Turkey or Lebanon going to allow that? You'll have to ask Turkey or Lebanon the answer to that. No one here will be able to." In reality yes I know but we are trying to work through some solutions based purely on facts rather than emotions here. People want to stop the small boat crossings. Data shows that many of those who get processed turn out to be granted asylum. So how do we tackle this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. Ok (continuing to play devil’s advocate), using Syria as the example, are Turkey and Lebanon happy/willing to have Syrian people living within their borders while they go through the process of applying for asylum in the UK via the Embassy? They could always apply for asylum to those countries. Being completely honest, I care about the UK much more than I do about Turkey or Lebanon. Yes but the question stands. If we do change things so a person (Syrian in this example) can claim asylum and start the process in the British Embassy in Ankara or Beirut, while they are part of that process they need to live somewhere. So are Turkey or Lebanon going to allow that? You'll have to ask Turkey or Lebanon the answer to that. No one here will be able to. In reality yes I know but we are trying to work through some solutions based purely on facts rather than emotions here. People want to stop the small boat crossings. Data shows that many of those who get processed turn out to be granted asylum. So how do we tackle this?" How about they cross the border, get into an Embassy (any one), claim asylum, go back home and await the results of said claim? People will argue that would be unsafe but people will argue there is no perfect solution. Even if we were to set up in Damascus, what's to stop ISIS from setting up watch outside and dealing with anyone who they see enter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. What happens when the massy rejected the claim? Same as would happen now, it’s about stopping dangerous boat crossings." So those rejected for still take boats? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. What happens when the massy rejected the claim? Same as would happen now. I'd argue that asylum has already been refused so they would be breaking visa laws and could be detained and deported. Identity taken in embassies including facial recognition and fingerprints would make it easy to identify." Ypid be hoping they didn't drastically change their look. And that they made themselves known om the beach. We've already lost 20p Albanians who claimed to be under 16 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. What happens when the massy rejected the claim? Same as would happen now. I'd argue that asylum has already been refused so they would be breaking visa laws and could be detained and deported. Identity taken in embassies including facial recognition and fingerprints would make it easy to identify. Ypid be hoping they didn't drastically change their look. And that they made themselves known om the beach. We've already lost 20p Albanians who claimed to be under 16" Very hard to change your look enough to fool retina. Even take DNA samples. They don't need to make themselves known, everyone crossing in a boat could be classed as illegal if we had open channels. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ay risk of starting another branch in this discussion... International Law says a person can claim asylum in any country they choose. There is no requirement to claim asylum in the first safe country you enter. Should that law be changed? Would that be accepted by the countries bordering most of the world’s hotspots?" A problem with this would be how a nation like Turkey would cope with taking even more Syrian refugees than they already do, whilst comparatively wealthy nations like Germany, France, The U.K shoulder no burden. If I was fleeing war in nation x, and I had family on the other side of the continent in country z, I’d head there rather than be alone in country y. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. What happens when the massy rejected the claim? Same as would happen now, it’s about stopping dangerous boat crossings. So those rejected for still take boats?" They’d be less inclined to pay a people trafficker and risk their lives if they knew they’d just be arrested and deported as soon as they arrive, no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. What happens when the massy rejected the claim? Same as would happen now, it’s about stopping dangerous boat crossings. So those rejected for still take boats? They’d be less inclined to pay a people trafficker and risk their lives if they knew they’d just be arrested and deported as soon as they arrive, no? " Possibly, there's no guarantee they wouldn't just go underground. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. Ok (continuing to play devil’s advocate), using Syria as the example, are Turkey and Lebanon happy/willing to have Syrian people living within their borders while they go through the process of applying for asylum in the UK via the Embassy? They could always apply for asylum to those countries. Being completely honest, I care about the UK much more than I do about Turkey or Lebanon. Yes but the question stands. If we do change things so a person (Syrian in this example) can claim asylum and start the process in the British Embassy in Ankara or Beirut, while they are part of that process they need to live somewhere. So are Turkey or Lebanon going to allow that? You'll have to ask Turkey or Lebanon the answer to that. No one here will be able to. In reality yes I know but we are trying to work through some solutions based purely on facts rather than emotions here. People want to stop the small boat crossings. Data shows that many of those who get processed turn out to be granted asylum. So how do we tackle this? How about they cross the border, get into an Embassy (any one), claim asylum, go back home and await the results of said claim? People will argue that would be unsafe but people will argue there is no perfect solution. Even if we were to set up in Damascus, what's to stop ISIS from setting up watch outside and dealing with anyone who they see enter?" If it was safe for them to “go back home” then they wouldn’t need/want/be able to claim asylum? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Keep letting them in ad infinitum and fail to address the cost of living problems and you'll start seeing more productive folk going the other way. As in emmigrating to places with better quality of life." Refugees, asylum seekers and cost of living are very separate and unrelated issues. What would your solution be to stop the small bot crossings and still protect asylum seekers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. Ok (continuing to play devil’s advocate), using Syria as the example, are Turkey and Lebanon happy/willing to have Syrian people living within their borders while they go through the process of applying for asylum in the UK via the Embassy? They could always apply for asylum to those countries. Being completely honest, I care about the UK much more than I do about Turkey or Lebanon. Yes but the question stands. If we do change things so a person (Syrian in this example) can claim asylum and start the process in the British Embassy in Ankara or Beirut, while they are part of that process they need to live somewhere. So are Turkey or Lebanon going to allow that? You'll have to ask Turkey or Lebanon the answer to that. No one here will be able to. In reality yes I know but we are trying to work through some solutions based purely on facts rather than emotions here. People want to stop the small boat crossings. Data shows that many of those who get processed turn out to be granted asylum. So how do we tackle this? How about they cross the border, get into an Embassy (any one), claim asylum, go back home and await the results of said claim? People will argue that would be unsafe but people will argue there is no perfect solution. Even if we were to set up in Damascus, what's to stop ISIS from setting up watch outside and dealing with anyone who they see enter? If it was safe for them to “go back home” then they wouldn’t need/want/be able to claim asylum?" That proves the point I made. There is no perfect solution | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. Ok (continuing to play devil’s advocate), using Syria as the example, are Turkey and Lebanon happy/willing to have Syrian people living within their borders while they go through the process of applying for asylum in the UK via the Embassy? They could always apply for asylum to those countries. Being completely honest, I care about the UK much more than I do about Turkey or Lebanon. Yes but the question stands. If we do change things so a person (Syrian in this example) can claim asylum and start the process in the British Embassy in Ankara or Beirut, while they are part of that process they need to live somewhere. So are Turkey or Lebanon going to allow that? You'll have to ask Turkey or Lebanon the answer to that. No one here will be able to. In reality yes I know but we are trying to work through some solutions based purely on facts rather than emotions here. People want to stop the small boat crossings. Data shows that many of those who get processed turn out to be granted asylum. So how do we tackle this? How about they cross the border, get into an Embassy (any one), claim asylum, go back home and await the results of said claim? People will argue that would be unsafe but people will argue there is no perfect solution. Even if we were to set up in Damascus, what's to stop ISIS from setting up watch outside and dealing with anyone who they see enter? If it was safe for them to “go back home” then they wouldn’t need/want/be able to claim asylum? That proves the point I made. There is no perfect solution" Of course but there must be SOMETHING that can be done? How about the Govt compulsorily purchases the Isle of Wight and moves everyone out. Then all those claiming asylum or trying to enter the UK can be put there until they have processed! I jest! Seriously though, putting politics and emotions aside, we have some smart people in these forums. Surely we can brainstorm ideas snd find a solution that satisfies the majority? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. Ok (continuing to play devil’s advocate), using Syria as the example, are Turkey and Lebanon happy/willing to have Syrian people living within their borders while they go through the process of applying for asylum in the UK via the Embassy? They could always apply for asylum to those countries. Being completely honest, I care about the UK much more than I do about Turkey or Lebanon. Yes but the question stands. If we do change things so a person (Syrian in this example) can claim asylum and start the process in the British Embassy in Ankara or Beirut, while they are part of that process they need to live somewhere. So are Turkey or Lebanon going to allow that? You'll have to ask Turkey or Lebanon the answer to that. No one here will be able to. In reality yes I know but we are trying to work through some solutions based purely on facts rather than emotions here. People want to stop the small boat crossings. Data shows that many of those who get processed turn out to be granted asylum. So how do we tackle this? How about they cross the border, get into an Embassy (any one), claim asylum, go back home and await the results of said claim? People will argue that would be unsafe but people will argue there is no perfect solution. Even if we were to set up in Damascus, what's to stop ISIS from setting up watch outside and dealing with anyone who they see enter? If it was safe for them to “go back home” then they wouldn’t need/want/be able to claim asylum? That proves the point I made. There is no perfect solution Of course but there must be SOMETHING that can be done? How about the Govt compulsorily purchases the Isle of Wight and moves everyone out. Then all those claiming asylum or trying to enter the UK can be put there until they have processed! I jest! Seriously though, putting politics and emotions aside, we have some smart people in these forums. Surely we can brainstorm ideas snd find a solution that satisfies the majority?" I've given one solution, it would never be agreed. You've given another, just take an island. What do we do with the residents? Maybe we just commandeer an area around our Embassies, say 2 sqm?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. Ok (continuing to play devil’s advocate), using Syria as the example, are Turkey and Lebanon happy/willing to have Syrian people living within their borders while they go through the process of applying for asylum in the UK via the Embassy? They could always apply for asylum to those countries. Being completely honest, I care about the UK much more than I do about Turkey or Lebanon. Yes but the question stands. If we do change things so a person (Syrian in this example) can claim asylum and start the process in the British Embassy in Ankara or Beirut, while they are part of that process they need to live somewhere. So are Turkey or Lebanon going to allow that? You'll have to ask Turkey or Lebanon the answer to that. No one here will be able to. In reality yes I know but we are trying to work through some solutions based purely on facts rather than emotions here. People want to stop the small boat crossings. Data shows that many of those who get processed turn out to be granted asylum. So how do we tackle this? How about they cross the border, get into an Embassy (any one), claim asylum, go back home and await the results of said claim? People will argue that would be unsafe but people will argue there is no perfect solution. Even if we were to set up in Damascus, what's to stop ISIS from setting up watch outside and dealing with anyone who they see enter? If it was safe for them to “go back home” then they wouldn’t need/want/be able to claim asylum? That proves the point I made. There is no perfect solution Of course but there must be SOMETHING that can be done? How about the Govt compulsorily purchases the Isle of Wight and moves everyone out. Then all those claiming asylum or trying to enter the UK can be put there until they have processed! I jest! Seriously though, putting politics and emotions aside, we have some smart people in these forums. Surely we can brainstorm ideas snd find a solution that satisfies the majority? I've given one solution, it would never be agreed. You've given another, just take an island. What do we do with the residents? Maybe we just commandeer an area around our Embassies, say 2 sqm? "Well the people currently living on IoW could claim persecution by the UK Govt, jump on some yachts in Cowes and try to claim asylum in France maybe? Joking! Remember I am playing Devil’s advocate. Not seeing any solutions from the normally outspoken anti-illegals folks (not conflating immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, illegals)? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. Ok (continuing to play devil’s advocate), using Syria as the example, are Turkey and Lebanon happy/willing to have Syrian people living within their borders while they go through the process of applying for asylum in the UK via the Embassy? They could always apply for asylum to those countries. Being completely honest, I care about the UK much more than I do about Turkey or Lebanon. Yes but the question stands. If we do change things so a person (Syrian in this example) can claim asylum and start the process in the British Embassy in Ankara or Beirut, while they are part of that process they need to live somewhere. So are Turkey or Lebanon going to allow that? You'll have to ask Turkey or Lebanon the answer to that. No one here will be able to. In reality yes I know but we are trying to work through some solutions based purely on facts rather than emotions here. People want to stop the small boat crossings. Data shows that many of those who get processed turn out to be granted asylum. So how do we tackle this? How about they cross the border, get into an Embassy (any one), claim asylum, go back home and await the results of said claim? People will argue that would be unsafe but people will argue there is no perfect solution. Even if we were to set up in Damascus, what's to stop ISIS from setting up watch outside and dealing with anyone who they see enter? If it was safe for them to “go back home” then they wouldn’t need/want/be able to claim asylum? That proves the point I made. There is no perfect solution Of course but there must be SOMETHING that can be done? How about the Govt compulsorily purchases the Isle of Wight and moves everyone out. Then all those claiming asylum or trying to enter the UK can be put there until they have processed! I jest! Seriously though, putting politics and emotions aside, we have some smart people in these forums. Surely we can brainstorm ideas snd find a solution that satisfies the majority? I've given one solution, it would never be agreed. You've given another, just take an island. What do we do with the residents? Maybe we just commandeer an area around our Embassies, say 2 sqm?
Well the people currently living on IoW could claim persecution by the UK Govt, jump on some yachts in Cowes and try to claim asylum in France maybe?
Joking!
Remember I am playing Devil’s advocate.
Not seeing any solutions from the normally outspoken anti-illegals folks (not conflating immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, illegals)?"I'd live on the yacht in cowes tbf. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. Ok (continuing to play devil’s advocate), using Syria as the example, are Turkey and Lebanon happy/willing to have Syrian people living within their borders while they go through the process of applying for asylum in the UK via the Embassy? They could always apply for asylum to those countries. Being completely honest, I care about the UK much more than I do about Turkey or Lebanon. Yes but the question stands. If we do change things so a person (Syrian in this example) can claim asylum and start the process in the British Embassy in Ankara or Beirut, while they are part of that process they need to live somewhere. So are Turkey or Lebanon going to allow that? You'll have to ask Turkey or Lebanon the answer to that. No one here will be able to. In reality yes I know but we are trying to work through some solutions based purely on facts rather than emotions here. People want to stop the small boat crossings. Data shows that many of those who get processed turn out to be granted asylum. So how do we tackle this? How about they cross the border, get into an Embassy (any one), claim asylum, go back home and await the results of said claim? People will argue that would be unsafe but people will argue there is no perfect solution. Even if we were to set up in Damascus, what's to stop ISIS from setting up watch outside and dealing with anyone who they see enter? If it was safe for them to “go back home” then they wouldn’t need/want/be able to claim asylum? That proves the point I made. There is no perfect solution Of course but there must be SOMETHING that can be done? How about the Govt compulsorily purchases the Isle of Wight and moves everyone out. Then all those claiming asylum or trying to enter the UK can be put there until they have processed! I jest! Seriously though, putting politics and emotions aside, we have some smart people in these forums. Surely we can brainstorm ideas snd find a solution that satisfies the majority? I've given one solution, it would never be agreed. You've given another, just take an island. What do we do with the residents? Maybe we just commandeer an area around our Embassies, say 2 sqm?
Well the people currently living on IoW could claim persecution by the UK Govt, jump on some yachts in Cowes and try to claim asylum in France maybe?
Joking!
Remember I am playing Devil’s advocate.
Not seeing any solutions from the normally outspoken anti-illegals folks (not conflating immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, illegals)?"I've given mine before. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Off to the supreme Court we go by the looks of things." Hopefully they lose that aswell | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Off to the supreme Court we go by the looks of things." More tax payers money wasted | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. Ok (continuing to play devil’s advocate), using Syria as the example, are Turkey and Lebanon happy/willing to have Syrian people living within their borders while they go through the process of applying for asylum in the UK via the Embassy? They could always apply for asylum to those countries. Being completely honest, I care about the UK much more than I do about Turkey or Lebanon. Yes but the question stands. If we do change things so a person (Syrian in this example) can claim asylum and start the process in the British Embassy in Ankara or Beirut, while they are part of that process they need to live somewhere. So are Turkey or Lebanon going to allow that? You'll have to ask Turkey or Lebanon the answer to that. No one here will be able to. In reality yes I know but we are trying to work through some solutions based purely on facts rather than emotions here. People want to stop the small boat crossings. Data shows that many of those who get processed turn out to be granted asylum. So how do we tackle this? How about they cross the border, get into an Embassy (any one), claim asylum, go back home and await the results of said claim? People will argue that would be unsafe but people will argue there is no perfect solution. Even if we were to set up in Damascus, what's to stop ISIS from setting up watch outside and dealing with anyone who they see enter? If it was safe for them to “go back home” then they wouldn’t need/want/be able to claim asylum? That proves the point I made. There is no perfect solution Of course but there must be SOMETHING that can be done? How about the Govt compulsorily purchases the Isle of Wight and moves everyone out. Then all those claiming asylum or trying to enter the UK can be put there until they have processed! I jest! Seriously though, putting politics and emotions aside, we have some smart people in these forums. Surely we can brainstorm ideas snd find a solution that satisfies the majority? I've given one solution, it would never be agreed. You've given another, just take an island. What do we do with the residents? Maybe we just commandeer an area around our Embassies, say 2 sqm?
Well the people currently living on IoW could claim persecution by the UK Govt, jump on some yachts in Cowes and try to claim asylum in France maybe?
Joking!
Remember I am playing Devil’s advocate.
Not seeing any solutions from the normally outspoken anti-illegals folks (not conflating immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, illegals)?
I've given mine before."That assumes anybody remembers them so please post again. Ta | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The court of appeal has ruled that the Rwanda resettlement scheme is unlawful - per Sky news." . However the House of Lords is totally out of touch with reality. Hopefully we can just ignore their advice and let the Home Secretary resolve the matter. At least she was elected by the electorate and put in place a procedure to try and reduce numbers. What right does the House of Lords have to overrule the will of the people.? Last time I checked most people supported that Rwanda plan. Maybe it is time to have a referendum on the issue. Democracy in action . People would be unable to argue with the result | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. " I think the “you need your ID otherwise we can’t process you” is a fair request. Will it stop the small boats though? Will it decrease the numbers? I see merit in combining this with being able to start the asylum process at an Embassy rather than cross through Europe and then the channel in debt to criminal gangs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. " Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. I think the “you need your ID otherwise we can’t process you” is a fair request. Will it stop the small boats though? Will it decrease the numbers? I see merit in combining this with being able to start the asylum process at an Embassy rather than cross through Europe and then the channel in debt to criminal gangs." For me yes. They are spending 5k to come here without ID. If they realise that's a 1 way ticket to Rwanda. They will need their ID to prove a genuine claim or get good fake ones. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. I think the “you need your ID otherwise we can’t process you” is a fair request. Will it stop the small boats though? Will it decrease the numbers? I see merit in combining this with being able to start the asylum process at an Embassy rather than cross through Europe and then the channel in debt to criminal gangs. For me yes. They are spending 5k to come here without ID. If they realise that's a 1 way ticket to Rwanda. They will need their ID to prove a genuine claim or get good fake ones. " What about the second point re Embassies? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The court of appeal has ruled that the Rwanda resettlement scheme is unlawful - per Sky news.. However the House of Lords is totally out of touch with reality. Hopefully we can just ignore their advice and let the Home Secretary resolve the matter. At least she was elected by the electorate and put in place a procedure to try and reduce numbers. What right does the House of Lords have to overrule the will of the people.? Last time I checked most people supported that Rwanda plan. Maybe it is time to have a referendum on the issue. Democracy in action . People would be unable to argue with the result " Hello there, I am afraid you are not living in the real world,last time I checked people wanted to know why £140 million (and rising) has been wasted on an unlawful scheme. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? " I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe?" I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. I think the “you need your ID otherwise we can’t process you” is a fair request. Will it stop the small boats though? Will it decrease the numbers? I see merit in combining this with being able to start the asylum process at an Embassy rather than cross through Europe and then the channel in debt to criminal gangs. For me yes. They are spending 5k to come here without ID. If they realise that's a 1 way ticket to Rwanda. They will need their ID to prove a genuine claim or get good fake ones. What about the second point re Embassies?" I have no problem with processing statuses abroad. The problem with embassies is that any one in any country could apply. Youd have countries in Africa Middle East where people could just apply and clog up a system with millions of application simply to just come live here. I am not sure how you equip the staff there to deal with that workload. Typically people were facing persecution and left and couldn't staying the country. But the you'd get claimants claiming persecution in their own country You couldn't then send them out of the embassy. Back into their own country So you'd have to make the embassies HUGE. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? " Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland." You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. I think the “you need your ID otherwise we can’t process you” is a fair request. Will it stop the small boats though? Will it decrease the numbers? I see merit in combining this with being able to start the asylum process at an Embassy rather than cross through Europe and then the channel in debt to criminal gangs. For me yes. They are spending 5k to come here without ID. If they realise that's a 1 way ticket to Rwanda. They will need their ID to prove a genuine claim or get good fake ones. What about the second point re Embassies? I have no problem with processing statuses abroad. The problem with embassies is that any one in any country could apply. Youd have countries in Africa Middle East where people could just apply and clog up a system with millions of application simply to just come live here. I am not sure how you equip the staff there to deal with that workload. Typically people were facing persecution and left and couldn't staying the country. But the you'd get claimants claiming persecution in their own country You couldn't then send them out of the embassy. Back into their own country So you'd have to make the embassies HUGE." But how does it work with the legal routes you have told us about? Remind us where they are operating and who they are for please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? " The shortest point is only about a mile. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure the Gov will appeal the decision so its not over yet. Can't say I was comfortable with this policy but at least it was an attempt to do something as doing nothing isn't an option. I dont have very much sympathy for people who can pay criminal gangs multiple thousands of pounds to access the UK. This is purely economic migration and not true asylum seeking." Very well put sum how we need to be able to difriensuate between the 2 groups some how. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile." Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work?" Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. I think the “you need your ID otherwise we can’t process you” is a fair request. Will it stop the small boats though? Will it decrease the numbers? I see merit in combining this with being able to start the asylum process at an Embassy rather than cross through Europe and then the channel in debt to criminal gangs. For me yes. They are spending 5k to come here without ID. If they realise that's a 1 way ticket to Rwanda. They will need their ID to prove a genuine claim or get good fake ones. What about the second point re Embassies? I have no problem with processing statuses abroad. The problem with embassies is that any one in any country could apply. Youd have countries in Africa Middle East where people could just apply and clog up a system with millions of application simply to just come live here. I am not sure how you equip the staff there to deal with that workload. Typically people were facing persecution and left and couldn't staying the country. But the you'd get claimants claiming persecution in their own country You couldn't then send them out of the embassy. Back into their own country So you'd have to make the embassies HUGE. But how does it work with the legal routes you have told us about? Remind us where they are operating and who they are for please." I am not explaining again. This gets tiresome. Feel free to remember in future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed?" You can't leave the embassy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure the Gov will appeal the decision so its not over yet. Can't say I was comfortable with this policy but at least it was an attempt to do something as doing nothing isn't an option. I dont have very much sympathy for people who can pay criminal gangs multiple thousands of pounds to access the UK. This is purely economic migration and not true asylum seeking. Very well put sum how we need to be able to difriensuate between the 2 groups some how. " How about some kind of asylum checking process? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy " Why not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not?" Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. " You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas "But you claim asylum because of persecution. You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't. You can go in there and say. You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted."Eh? So you have to wait to be persecuted? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted."You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed. Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7? If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. I think the “you need your ID otherwise we can’t process you” is a fair request. Will it stop the small boats though? Will it decrease the numbers? I see merit in combining this with being able to start the asylum process at an Embassy rather than cross through Europe and then the channel in debt to criminal gangs. For me yes. They are spending 5k to come here without ID. If they realise that's a 1 way ticket to Rwanda. They will need their ID to prove a genuine claim or get good fake ones. What about the second point re Embassies? I have no problem with processing statuses abroad. The problem with embassies is that any one in any country could apply. Youd have countries in Africa Middle East where people could just apply and clog up a system with millions of application simply to just come live here. I am not sure how you equip the staff there to deal with that workload. Typically people were facing persecution and left and couldn't staying the country. But the you'd get claimants claiming persecution in their own country You couldn't then send them out of the embassy. Back into their own country So you'd have to make the embassies HUGE. But how does it work with the legal routes you have told us about? Remind us where they are operating and who they are for please. I am not explaining again. This gets tiresome. Feel free to remember in future." That is not a satisfactory answer Morley. Very naughty for not entering into the spirit of this discussion. We need the information in this thread not one that has possibly been archived and none of us can remember the title of. Pretty sure you have all this info at your fingertips do can’t be THAT hard. Now can you please share again, here in this thread, so we can weigh up the merits and include in the discussion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.""You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed." Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in? Why would they go to an Embassy? Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger."I think Morely isn’t following the thread... We have already discussed further up the merits of people seeking asylum escaping their country and going to the British Embassy in the first safe country. Example was Syrians going to Ankara or Beirut. So Feisty doesn’t see why they can’t leave the Embassy once application process is underway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
"How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK? How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted? You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to understand how the UNHCR can be against the UK government in this case whilst sending asylum seekers to... Rwanda of all places. It would also appear that this process has been extended until 2026" That is interesting. Can you provide a link or specific search term (if the link is not permitted) so we can read that. Thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to understand how the UNHCR can be against the UK government in this case whilst sending asylum seekers to... Rwanda of all places. It would also appear that this process has been extended until 2026" Refugees, not asylum seekers, in that instance. Legally allowed to work and integrate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to understand how the UNHCR can be against the UK government in this case whilst sending asylum seekers to... Rwanda of all places. It would also appear that this process has been extended until 2026 Refugees, not asylum seekers, in that instance. Legally allowed to work and integrate." somehow Rwanda is safe enough for those the UNHCR send there… crazy isn’t it? Those that Rwanda are skilling up and arranging new lives in places like Canada, pesky Rwandan government can’t be trusted apparently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to understand how the UNHCR can be against the UK government in this case whilst sending asylum seekers to... Rwanda of all places. It would also appear that this process has been extended until 2026 Refugees, not asylum seekers, in that instance. Legally allowed to work and integrate." If you read the article it refers to both refugees and asylum seekers. In fact it states some 1600 have been sent there between 2019 and march this year | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to understand how the UNHCR can be against the UK government in this case whilst sending asylum seekers to... Rwanda of all places. It would also appear that this process has been extended until 2026 Refugees, not asylum seekers, in that instance. Legally allowed to work and integrate. somehow Rwanda is safe enough for those the UNHCR send there… crazy isn’t it? Those that Rwanda are skilling up and arranging new lives in places like Canada, pesky Rwandan government can’t be trusted apparently. " So we should accept and upskill asylum seekers? Great idea. Then we can scrap the Rwanda scheme. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
"Wait so now they are in their own country? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to understand how the UNHCR can be against the UK government in this case whilst sending asylum seekers to... Rwanda of all places. It would also appear that this process has been extended until 2026 Refugees, not asylum seekers, in that instance. Legally allowed to work and integrate. If you read the article it refers to both refugees and asylum seekers. In fact it states some 1600 have been sent there between 2019 and march this year" The daily Mail article? Yes, their conflicting of the two terms is suggestive of them not understanding that there’s a difference. It’s a very badly worded piece. From what I can gather (and I’m open to being proved wrong) is that the UNHCR scheme is refugees, not asylum seekers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to understand how the UNHCR can be against the UK government in this case whilst sending asylum seekers to... Rwanda of all places. It would also appear that this process has been extended until 2026 Refugees, not asylum seekers, in that instance. Legally allowed to work and integrate. If you read the article it refers to both refugees and asylum seekers. In fact it states some 1600 have been sent there between 2019 and march this year The daily Mail article? Yes, their conflicting of the two terms is suggestive of them not understanding that there’s a difference. It’s a very badly worded piece. From what I can gather (and I’m open to being proved wrong) is that the UNHCR scheme is refugees, not asylum seekers." The solicitor that featured on the sky news article made no such distinction so I'm happy to go with him on that point. Also the issue is whether Rwanda is a safe country. If it's safe to receive refugees, surely it follows that it's safe to receive asylum seekers? I would also make the point that the High Court found it to bea safe country. I note that 1 of the 3 court of appeal judges agreed with that assessment so don't be surprised if the supreme court overrules again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to understand how the UNHCR can be against the UK government in this case whilst sending asylum seekers to... Rwanda of all places. It would also appear that this process has been extended until 2026 Refugees, not asylum seekers, in that instance. Legally allowed to work and integrate. If you read the article it refers to both refugees and asylum seekers. In fact it states some 1600 have been sent there between 2019 and march this year The daily Mail article? Yes, their conflicting of the two terms is suggestive of them not understanding that there’s a difference. It’s a very badly worded piece. From what I can gather (and I’m open to being proved wrong) is that the UNHCR scheme is refugees, not asylum seekers. The solicitor that featured on the sky news article made no such distinction so I'm happy to go with him on that point. Also the issue is whether Rwanda is a safe country. If it's safe to receive refugees, surely it follows that it's safe to receive asylum seekers? I would also make the point that the High Court found it to bea safe country. I note that 1 of the 3 court of appeal judges agreed with that assessment so don't be surprised if the supreme court overrules again " 2 of the judges disagreed . You are completely missing the point, they deemed it unsafe because Rwanda couldn’t assure the judges that the asylum seekers wouldn’t be forced back (wrongly ) to the country where they were fleeing from. If the government can prove this isn’t the case then the scheme will go ahead , up to now its cost over £140 million, no one has been deported and no one has been deterred from making the channel crossings. A total shambles | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?"Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said... “Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.” I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to understand how the UNHCR can be against the UK government in this case whilst sending asylum seekers to... Rwanda of all places. It would also appear that this process has been extended until 2026 Refugees, not asylum seekers, in that instance. Legally allowed to work and integrate. If you read the article it refers to both refugees and asylum seekers. In fact it states some 1600 have been sent there between 2019 and march this year The daily Mail article? Yes, their conflicting of the two terms is suggestive of them not understanding that there’s a difference. It’s a very badly worded piece. From what I can gather (and I’m open to being proved wrong) is that the UNHCR scheme is refugees, not asylum seekers. The solicitor that featured on the sky news article made no such distinction so I'm happy to go with him on that point. Also the issue is whether Rwanda is a safe country. If it's safe to receive refugees, surely it follows that it's safe to receive asylum seekers? I would also make the point that the High Court found it to bea safe country. I note that 1 of the 3 court of appeal judges agreed with that assessment so don't be surprised if the supreme court overrules again 2 of the judges disagreed . You are completely missing the point, they deemed it unsafe because Rwanda couldn’t assure the judges that the asylum seekers wouldn’t be forced back (wrongly ) to the country where they were fleeing from. If the government can prove this isn’t the case then the scheme will go ahead , up to now its cost over £140 million, no one has been deported and no one has been deterred from making the channel crossings. A total shambles "No, you are missing the point. The high court ruled lawful, the court of appeal ruled unlawful by a majority so the point is that this is down to the interpretation of the judge(s). It's gone both ways so there's clearly a difference of opinion between the wigs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to understand how the UNHCR can be against the UK government in this case whilst sending asylum seekers to... Rwanda of all places. It would also appear that this process has been extended until 2026 Refugees, not asylum seekers, in that instance. Legally allowed to work and integrate. If you read the article it refers to both refugees and asylum seekers. In fact it states some 1600 have been sent there between 2019 and march this year The daily Mail article? Yes, their conflicting of the two terms is suggestive of them not understanding that there’s a difference. It’s a very badly worded piece. From what I can gather (and I’m open to being proved wrong) is that the UNHCR scheme is refugees, not asylum seekers. The solicitor that featured on the sky news article made no such distinction so I'm happy to go with him on that point. Also the issue is whether Rwanda is a safe country. If it's safe to receive refugees, surely it follows that it's safe to receive asylum seekers? I would also make the point that the High Court found it to bea safe country. I note that 1 of the 3 court of appeal judges agreed with that assessment so don't be surprised if the supreme court overrules again " Maybe it’s because voluntary refugees with rights are deemed less at risk than involuntary asylum seekers for some reason. Who knows? It doesn’t change todays ruling, and we’re not sticking asylum seekers on planes. That’s the main thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to understand how the UNHCR can be against the UK government in this case whilst sending asylum seekers to... Rwanda of all places. It would also appear that this process has been extended until 2026 Refugees, not asylum seekers, in that instance. Legally allowed to work and integrate. If you read the article it refers to both refugees and asylum seekers. In fact it states some 1600 have been sent there between 2019 and march this year The daily Mail article? Yes, their conflicting of the two terms is suggestive of them not understanding that there’s a difference. It’s a very badly worded piece. From what I can gather (and I’m open to being proved wrong) is that the UNHCR scheme is refugees, not asylum seekers. The solicitor that featured on the sky news article made no such distinction so I'm happy to go with him on that point. Also the issue is whether Rwanda is a safe country. If it's safe to receive refugees, surely it follows that it's safe to receive asylum seekers? I would also make the point that the High Court found it to bea safe country. I note that 1 of the 3 court of appeal judges agreed with that assessment so don't be surprised if the supreme court overrules again 2 of the judges disagreed . You are completely missing the point, they deemed it unsafe because Rwanda couldn’t assure the judges that the asylum seekers wouldn’t be forced back (wrongly ) to the country where they were fleeing from. If the government can prove this isn’t the case then the scheme will go ahead , up to now its cost over £140 million, no one has been deported and no one has been deterred from making the channel crossings. A total shambles
No, you are missing the point. The high court ruled lawful, the court of appeal ruled unlawful by a majority so the point is that this is down to the interpretation of the judge(s). It's gone both ways so there's clearly a difference of opinion between the wigs. "2 to 1 are against the lawfulness of the scheme, wether you agree with the Rwanda plan or not, the government have had over a year to get it right, they failed, they are conning us, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to understand how the UNHCR can be against the UK government in this case whilst sending asylum seekers to... Rwanda of all places. It would also appear that this process has been extended until 2026 Refugees, not asylum seekers, in that instance. Legally allowed to work and integrate. If you read the article it refers to both refugees and asylum seekers. In fact it states some 1600 have been sent there between 2019 and march this year The daily Mail article? Yes, their conflicting of the two terms is suggestive of them not understanding that there’s a difference. It’s a very badly worded piece. From what I can gather (and I’m open to being proved wrong) is that the UNHCR scheme is refugees, not asylum seekers. The solicitor that featured on the sky news article made no such distinction so I'm happy to go with him on that point. Also the issue is whether Rwanda is a safe country. If it's safe to receive refugees, surely it follows that it's safe to receive asylum seekers? I would also make the point that the High Court found it to bea safe country. I note that 1 of the 3 court of appeal judges agreed with that assessment so don't be surprised if the supreme court overrules again 2 of the judges disagreed . You are completely missing the point, they deemed it unsafe because Rwanda couldn’t assure the judges that the asylum seekers wouldn’t be forced back (wrongly ) to the country where they were fleeing from. If the government can prove this isn’t the case then the scheme will go ahead , up to now its cost over £140 million, no one has been deported and no one has been deterred from making the channel crossings. A total shambles
No, you are missing the point. The high court ruled lawful, the court of appeal ruled unlawful by a majority so the point is that this is down to the interpretation of the judge(s). It's gone both ways so there's clearly a difference of opinion between the wigs.
2 to 1 are against the lawfulness of the scheme, wether you agree with the Rwanda plan or not, the government have had over a year to get it right, they failed, they are conning us, "3 to 2 are for the lawfulness if you really wanna be pedantic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies."Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them. They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to understand how the UNHCR can be against the UK government in this case whilst sending asylum seekers to... Rwanda of all places. It would also appear that this process has been extended until 2026 Refugees, not asylum seekers, in that instance. Legally allowed to work and integrate. If you read the article it refers to both refugees and asylum seekers. In fact it states some 1600 have been sent there between 2019 and march this year The daily Mail article? Yes, their conflicting of the two terms is suggestive of them not understanding that there’s a difference. It’s a very badly worded piece. From what I can gather (and I’m open to being proved wrong) is that the UNHCR scheme is refugees, not asylum seekers. The solicitor that featured on the sky news article made no such distinction so I'm happy to go with him on that point. Also the issue is whether Rwanda is a safe country. If it's safe to receive refugees, surely it follows that it's safe to receive asylum seekers? I would also make the point that the High Court found it to bea safe country. I note that 1 of the 3 court of appeal judges agreed with that assessment so don't be surprised if the supreme court overrules again 2 of the judges disagreed . You are completely missing the point, they deemed it unsafe because Rwanda couldn’t assure the judges that the asylum seekers wouldn’t be forced back (wrongly ) to the country where they were fleeing from. If the government can prove this isn’t the case then the scheme will go ahead , up to now its cost over £140 million, no one has been deported and no one has been deterred from making the channel crossings. A total shambles
No, you are missing the point. The high court ruled lawful, the court of appeal ruled unlawful by a majority so the point is that this is down to the interpretation of the judge(s). It's gone both ways so there's clearly a difference of opinion between the wigs.
2 to 1 are against the lawfulness of the scheme, wether you agree with the Rwanda plan or not, the government have had over a year to get it right, they failed, they are conning us, "It's not the lawfulness of the scheme. Read the judgement. It's about whether the uk government could address their safety concerns as att he attempted date of deportstion. There's no judgement on the scheme. just these specific 10 individuals and the concerns about their re deportation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place."They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?"You can get a visa if you have a passport. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport."A holiday visa? With a return ticket? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to understand how the UNHCR can be against the UK government in this case whilst sending asylum seekers to... Rwanda of all places. It would also appear that this process has been extended until 2026 Refugees, not asylum seekers, in that instance. Legally allowed to work and integrate. If you read the article it refers to both refugees and asylum seekers. In fact it states some 1600 have been sent there between 2019 and march this year The daily Mail article? Yes, their conflicting of the two terms is suggestive of them not understanding that there’s a difference. It’s a very badly worded piece. From what I can gather (and I’m open to being proved wrong) is that the UNHCR scheme is refugees, not asylum seekers. The solicitor that featured on the sky news article made no such distinction so I'm happy to go with him on that point. Also the issue is whether Rwanda is a safe country. If it's safe to receive refugees, surely it follows that it's safe to receive asylum seekers? I would also make the point that the High Court found it to bea safe country. I note that 1 of the 3 court of appeal judges agreed with that assessment so don't be surprised if the supreme court overrules again 2 of the judges disagreed . You are completely missing the point, they deemed it unsafe because Rwanda couldn’t assure the judges that the asylum seekers wouldn’t be forced back (wrongly ) to the country where they were fleeing from. If the government can prove this isn’t the case then the scheme will go ahead , up to now its cost over £140 million, no one has been deported and no one has been deterred from making the channel crossings. A total shambles
No, you are missing the point. The high court ruled lawful, the court of appeal ruled unlawful by a majority so the point is that this is down to the interpretation of the judge(s). It's gone both ways so there's clearly a difference of opinion between the wigs.
2 to 1 are against the lawfulness of the scheme, wether you agree with the Rwanda plan or not, the government have had over a year to get it right, they failed, they are conning us,
It's not the lawfulness of the scheme.
Read the judgement.
It's about whether the uk government could address their safety concerns as att he attempted date of deportstion.
There's no judgement on the scheme. just these specific 10 individuals and the concerns about their re deportation.
"Wrong, Rwanda is deemed unsafe and deportation there is unlawful | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport.
A holiday visa? With a return ticket?"Yes if you have your passport. You can withdraw cash. Yravel agents can submit visa applications for you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport.
A holiday visa? With a return ticket?
Yes if you have your passport.
You can withdraw cash.
Yravel agents can submit visa applications for you
"Why buy a return ticket with no intention of returning? I'd like to know they're coming with the intention of claiming asylum rather than under false pretences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to understand how the UNHCR can be against the UK government in this case whilst sending asylum seekers to... Rwanda of all places. It would also appear that this process has been extended until 2026 Refugees, not asylum seekers, in that instance. Legally allowed to work and integrate. If you read the article it refers to both refugees and asylum seekers. In fact it states some 1600 have been sent there between 2019 and march this year The daily Mail article? Yes, their conflicting of the two terms is suggestive of them not understanding that there’s a difference. It’s a very badly worded piece. From what I can gather (and I’m open to being proved wrong) is that the UNHCR scheme is refugees, not asylum seekers. The solicitor that featured on the sky news article made no such distinction so I'm happy to go with him on that point. Also the issue is whether Rwanda is a safe country. If it's safe to receive refugees, surely it follows that it's safe to receive asylum seekers? I would also make the point that the High Court found it to bea safe country. I note that 1 of the 3 court of appeal judges agreed with that assessment so don't be surprised if the supreme court overrules again 2 of the judges disagreed . You are completely missing the point, they deemed it unsafe because Rwanda couldn’t assure the judges that the asylum seekers wouldn’t be forced back (wrongly ) to the country where they were fleeing from. If the government can prove this isn’t the case then the scheme will go ahead , up to now its cost over £140 million, no one has been deported and no one has been deterred from making the channel crossings. A total shambles
No, you are missing the point. The high court ruled lawful, the court of appeal ruled unlawful by a majority so the point is that this is down to the interpretation of the judge(s). It's gone both ways so there's clearly a difference of opinion between the wigs.
2 to 1 are against the lawfulness of the scheme, wether you agree with the Rwanda plan or not, the government have had over a year to get it right, they failed, they are conning us,
It's not the lawfulness of the scheme.
Read the judgement.
It's about whether the uk government could address their safety concerns as att he attempted date of deportstion.
There's no judgement on the scheme. just these specific 10 individuals and the concerns about their re deportation.
Wrong, Rwanda is deemed unsafe and deportation there is unlawful "Again the judgement The decision of the majority – the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, and Lord Justice Underhill (the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)) – is that the deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda are such that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact, they have a good claim for asylum. In that sense Rwanda is not a “safe third country”. That conclusion is founded on the evidence which was before the High Court that Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims was, in the period up to the conclusion of the Rwanda agreement, inadequate. The Court is unanimous in accepting that the assurances given by the Rwandan government were made in good faith and were intended to address any defects in its asylum processes. However, the majority believes that the evidence does not establish that the necessary changes had by then been reliably effected or would have been at the time of the proposed removals See bit on the " timing of removals" There is no judgement on Rwanda the country itself. But that they may again be moved on. You do not understand the judgement | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport.
A holiday visa? With a return ticket?
Yes if you have your passport.
You can withdraw cash.
Yravel agents can submit visa applications for you
Why buy a return ticket with no intention of returning?
I'd like to know they're coming with the intention of claiming asylum rather than under false pretences."It does not matter. They will be entering her elegantly and with ID and we can verify them. I am not bothered that they had no intention of returning. All genuine asylum seekers are welcome here as far as I am concerned. Them buying s return ticket with no intention of returning has no baring on my view of them as asylum seekers. Their honesty in landing at these shores with their ID does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport.
A holiday visa? With a return ticket?
Yes if you have your passport.
You can withdraw cash.
Yravel agents can submit visa applications for you
Why buy a return ticket with no intention of returning?
I'd like to know they're coming with the intention of claiming asylum rather than under false pretences.
It does not matter. They will be entering her elegantly and with ID and we can verify them.
I am not bothered that they had no intention of returning.
All genuine asylum seekers are welcome here as far as I am concerned. Them buying s return ticket with no intention of returning has no baring on my view of them as asylum seekers.
Their honesty in landing at these shores with their ID does."Fair enough. Seems a waste of money on their part though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place."You said just jump on a plane and I explained why that is probably not possible for someone who needs to claim asylum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to understand how the UNHCR can be against the UK government in this case whilst sending asylum seekers to... Rwanda of all places. It would also appear that this process has been extended until 2026 Refugees, not asylum seekers, in that instance. Legally allowed to work and integrate. If you read the article it refers to both refugees and asylum seekers. In fact it states some 1600 have been sent there between 2019 and march this year The daily Mail article? Yes, their conflicting of the two terms is suggestive of them not understanding that there’s a difference. It’s a very badly worded piece. From what I can gather (and I’m open to being proved wrong) is that the UNHCR scheme is refugees, not asylum seekers. The solicitor that featured on the sky news article made no such distinction so I'm happy to go with him on that point. Also the issue is whether Rwanda is a safe country. If it's safe to receive refugees, surely it follows that it's safe to receive asylum seekers? I would also make the point that the High Court found it to bea safe country. I note that 1 of the 3 court of appeal judges agreed with that assessment so don't be surprised if the supreme court overrules again 2 of the judges disagreed . You are completely missing the point, they deemed it unsafe because Rwanda couldn’t assure the judges that the asylum seekers wouldn’t be forced back (wrongly ) to the country where they were fleeing from. If the government can prove this isn’t the case then the scheme will go ahead , up to now its cost over £140 million, no one has been deported and no one has been deterred from making the channel crossings. A total shambles
No, you are missing the point. The high court ruled lawful, the court of appeal ruled unlawful by a majority so the point is that this is down to the interpretation of the judge(s). It's gone both ways so there's clearly a difference of opinion between the wigs.
2 to 1 are against the lawfulness of the scheme, wether you agree with the Rwanda plan or not, the government have had over a year to get it right, they failed, they are conning us,
It's not the lawfulness of the scheme.
Read the judgement.
It's about whether the uk government could address their safety concerns as att he attempted date of deportstion.
There's no judgement on the scheme. just these specific 10 individuals and the concerns about their re deportation.
Wrong, Rwanda is deemed unsafe and deportation there is unlawful
Again the judgement
The decision of the majority – the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos,
and Lord Justice Underhill (the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)) – is that the deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda
are such that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real
risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries
where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact,
they have a good claim for asylum. In that sense Rwanda is not a “safe
third country”. That conclusion is founded on the evidence which was
before the High Court that Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims
was, in the period up to the conclusion of the Rwanda agreement,
inadequate. The Court is unanimous in accepting that the assurances given
by the Rwandan government were made in good faith and were intended
to address any defects in its asylum processes. However, the majority
believes that the evidence does not establish that the necessary changes had
by then been reliably effected or would have been at the time of the
proposed removals
See bit on the " timing of removals"
There is no judgement on Rwanda the country itself. But that they may again be moved on.
You do not understand the judgement "Wrong, Rwanda is deemed unsafe and deportation there is unlawful. Btw, why are they now going to the Supreme Court | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport.
A holiday visa? With a return ticket?
Yes if you have your passport.
You can withdraw cash.
Yravel agents can submit visa applications for you
Why buy a return ticket with no intention of returning?
I'd like to know they're coming with the intention of claiming asylum rather than under false pretences.
It does not matter. They will be entering her elegantly and with ID and we can verify them.
I am not bothered that they had no intention of returning.
All genuine asylum seekers are welcome here as far as I am concerned. Them buying s return ticket with no intention of returning has no baring on my view of them as asylum seekers.
Their honesty in landing at these shores with their ID does."So a person who is being persecuted in Syria is unlikely to be able to get through immigration at Damascus Airport so how do they get here? Can they cross the border into Turkey and fly from their? Won’t the Turkish authorities ve suspicious and want to know why they aren’t flying from Turkey? What about the airline? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure the Gov will appeal the decision so its not over yet. Can't say I was comfortable with this policy but at least it was an attempt to do something as doing nothing isn't an option. I dont have very much sympathy for people who can pay criminal gangs multiple thousands of pounds to access the UK. This is purely economic migration and not true asylum seeking." Yeah … the uk seems to waste an awful lot of tax payers money to keep some of the worlds worst criminals here. Surely it would be easier and cheaper to just abolish ID, citizenship and border control, allow free movement and spend the savings on the NHS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport.
A holiday visa? With a return ticket?
Yes if you have your passport.
You can withdraw cash.
Yravel agents can submit visa applications for you
Why buy a return ticket with no intention of returning?
I'd like to know they're coming with the intention of claiming asylum rather than under false pretences.
It does not matter. They will be entering her elegantly and with ID and we can verify them.
I am not bothered that they had no intention of returning.
All genuine asylum seekers are welcome here as far as I am concerned. Them buying s return ticket with no intention of returning has no baring on my view of them as asylum seekers.
Their honesty in landing at these shores with their ID does.
So a person who is being persecuted in Syria is unlikely to be able to get through immigration at Damascus Airport so how do they get here? Can they cross the border into Turkey and fly from their? Won’t the Turkish authorities ve suspicious and want to know why they aren’t flying from Turkey? What about the airline?"Who is being persecuted? Have you seen the movie the swimmers ? They literally pay criminals thousands to bring them across dozens of countries to the dumb fuckers that work immigration in the UK because they are stupidest | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport.
A holiday visa? With a return ticket?
Yes if you have your passport.
You can withdraw cash.
Yravel agents can submit visa applications for you
Why buy a return ticket with no intention of returning?
I'd like to know they're coming with the intention of claiming asylum rather than under false pretences.
It does not matter. They will be entering her elegantly and with ID and we can verify them.
I am not bothered that they had no intention of returning.
All genuine asylum seekers are welcome here as far as I am concerned. Them buying s return ticket with no intention of returning has no baring on my view of them as asylum seekers.
Their honesty in landing at these shores with their ID does.
So a person who is being persecuted in Syria is unlikely to be able to get through immigration at Damascus Airport so how do they get here? Can they cross the border into Turkey and fly from their? Won’t the Turkish authorities ve suspicious and want to know why they aren’t flying from Turkey? What about the airline?
Who is being persecuted? Have you seen the movie the swimmers ? They literally pay criminals thousands to bring them across dozens of countries to the dumb fuckers that work immigration in the UK because they are stupidest "That made me laugh, because it is true. I can’t understand how we have so many gullible people in the UK, and nor can those that enter our country illegally. I want us to protect those that need protecting, and that also includes our citizens who work hard only to have money taken off them to pay for the upkeep of people who choose to play the system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport.
A holiday visa? With a return ticket?
Yes if you have your passport.
You can withdraw cash.
Yravel agents can submit visa applications for you
Why buy a return ticket with no intention of returning?
I'd like to know they're coming with the intention of claiming asylum rather than under false pretences.
It does not matter. They will be entering her elegantly and with ID and we can verify them.
I am not bothered that they had no intention of returning.
All genuine asylum seekers are welcome here as far as I am concerned. Them buying s return ticket with no intention of returning has no baring on my view of them as asylum seekers.
Their honesty in landing at these shores with their ID does.
So a person who is being persecuted in Syria is unlikely to be able to get through immigration at Damascus Airport so how do they get here? Can they cross the border into Turkey and fly from their? Won’t the Turkish authorities ve suspicious and want to know why they aren’t flying from Turkey? What about the airline?
Who is being persecuted? Have you seen the movie the swimmers ? They literally pay criminals thousands to bring them across dozens of countries to the dumb fuckers that work immigration in the UK because they are stupidest
That made me laugh, because it is true.
I can’t understand how we have so many gullible people in the UK, and nor can those that enter our country illegally.
I want us to protect those that need protecting, and that also includes our citizens who work hard only to have money taken off them to pay for the upkeep of people who choose to play the system.
"...like a percentage of UK citizens who have never worked in their life and have no intention of doing so as it is easier to get a council house and benefits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport.
A holiday visa? With a return ticket?
Yes if you have your passport.
You can withdraw cash.
Yravel agents can submit visa applications for you
Why buy a return ticket with no intention of returning?
I'd like to know they're coming with the intention of claiming asylum rather than under false pretences.
It does not matter. They will be entering her elegantly and with ID and we can verify them.
I am not bothered that they had no intention of returning.
All genuine asylum seekers are welcome here as far as I am concerned. Them buying s return ticket with no intention of returning has no baring on my view of them as asylum seekers.
Their honesty in landing at these shores with their ID does.
So a person who is being persecuted in Syria is unlikely to be able to get through immigration at Damascus Airport so how do they get here? Can they cross the border into Turkey and fly from their? Won’t the Turkish authorities ve suspicious and want to know why they aren’t flying from Turkey? What about the airline?
Who is being persecuted? Have you seen the movie the swimmers ? They literally pay criminals thousands to bring them across dozens of countries to the dumb fuckers that work immigration in the UK because they are stupidest
That made me laugh, because it is true.
I can’t understand how we have so many gullible people in the UK, and nor can those that enter our country illegally.
I want us to protect those that need protecting, and that also includes our citizens who work hard only to have money taken off them to pay for the upkeep of people who choose to play the system.
...like a percentage of UK citizens who have never worked in their life and have no intention of doing so as it is easier to get a council house and benefits."What’s the comparison here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. What happens when the massy rejected the claim? Same as would happen now, it’s about stopping dangerous boat crossings. So those rejected for still take boats? They’d be less inclined to pay a people trafficker and risk their lives if they knew they’d just be arrested and deported as soon as they arrive, no? " From my understanding that is actually the government thinking behind the Rwanda plan. In other words why pay thousands to cross the channel, risk your life if when you get to the UK you will just be sent to Rwanda instead. That's just my interpretation I should like to add | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The sort of folk who will rant about this won’t even know who or what the ECHR is" Nor that it was mostly written by an Englishman! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still think we should just Chuck them on a plane anyway what's worse can happen we get a fine cheaper than letting them in " Chuck them on a plane? Get a fine Is this satire | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. What happens when the massy rejected the claim? Same as would happen now, it’s about stopping dangerous boat crossings. So those rejected for still take boats? They’d be less inclined to pay a people trafficker and risk their lives if they knew they’d just be arrested and deported as soon as they arrive, no? From my understanding that is actually the government thinking behind the Rwanda plan. In other words why pay thousands to cross the channel, risk your life if when you get to the UK you will just be sent to Rwanda instead. That's just my interpretation I should like to add" True, but there is no evidence that it will work as a deterrent, they should be chasing and prosecuting the criminal gangs that are profiteering from this , you will never stop this from happening until you do that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport.
A holiday visa? With a return ticket?
Yes if you have your passport.
You can withdraw cash.
Yravel agents can submit visa applications for you
Why buy a return ticket with no intention of returning?
I'd like to know they're coming with the intention of claiming asylum rather than under false pretences.
It does not matter. They will be entering her elegantly and with ID and we can verify them.
I am not bothered that they had no intention of returning.
All genuine asylum seekers are welcome here as far as I am concerned. Them buying s return ticket with no intention of returning has no baring on my view of them as asylum seekers.
Their honesty in landing at these shores with their ID does.
So a person who is being persecuted in Syria is unlikely to be able to get through immigration at Damascus Airport so how do they get here? Can they cross the border into Turkey and fly from their? Won’t the Turkish authorities ve suspicious and want to know why they aren’t flying from Turkey? What about the airline?
Who is being persecuted? Have you seen the movie the swimmers ? They literally pay criminals thousands to bring them across dozens of countries to the dumb fuckers that work immigration in the UK because they are stupidest
That made me laugh, because it is true.
I can’t understand how we have so many gullible people in the UK, and nor can those that enter our country illegally.
I want us to protect those that need protecting, and that also includes our citizens who work hard only to have money taken off them to pay for the upkeep of people who choose to play the system.
...like a percentage of UK citizens who have never worked in their life and have no intention of doing so as it is easier to get a council house and benefits.
What’s the comparison here? "Being a burden on society, I’d imagine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. What happens when the massy rejected the claim? Same as would happen now, it’s about stopping dangerous boat crossings. So those rejected for still take boats? They’d be less inclined to pay a people trafficker and risk their lives if they knew they’d just be arrested and deported as soon as they arrive, no? From my understanding that is actually the government thinking behind the Rwanda plan. In other words why pay thousands to cross the channel, risk your life if when you get to the UK you will just be sent to Rwanda instead. That's just my interpretation I should like to add" It is one of the stated objectives. Use the threat of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport.
A holiday visa? With a return ticket?
Yes if you have your passport.
You can withdraw cash.
Yravel agents can submit visa applications for you
Why buy a return ticket with no intention of returning?
I'd like to know they're coming with the intention of claiming asylum rather than under false pretences.
It does not matter. They will be entering her elegantly and with ID and we can verify them.
I am not bothered that they had no intention of returning.
All genuine asylum seekers are welcome here as far as I am concerned. Them buying s return ticket with no intention of returning has no baring on my view of them as asylum seekers.
Their honesty in landing at these shores with their ID does.
So a person who is being persecuted in Syria is unlikely to be able to get through immigration at Damascus Airport so how do they get here? Can they cross the border into Turkey and fly from their? Won’t the Turkish authorities ve suspicious and want to know why they aren’t flying from Turkey? What about the airline?
Who is being persecuted? Have you seen the movie the swimmers ? They literally pay criminals thousands to bring them across dozens of countries to the dumb fuckers that work immigration in the UK because they are stupidest
That made me laugh, because it is true.
I can’t understand how we have so many gullible people in the UK, and nor can those that enter our country illegally.
I want us to protect those that need protecting, and that also includes our citizens who work hard only to have money taken off them to pay for the upkeep of people who choose to play the system.
"Surprisingly vitriolic of you there NotMe! I am all for establishing legitimate asylum claims and distinguishing those from people who are actually trying to game the system. This is one area where I agree with Morley. Make it clear they need to have ID so we can establish right and process. If they know ditching their ID will be a total dead stop in securing asylum then that becomes a deterrent for illegals. It should also speed up processing for those who are legitimate. The two groups can be handled differently too once here. I don’t think people in UK are that gullible. I would say many know the difference between immigrants with visas, students with visas, refugees, genuine asylum seekers, and illegals trying to game the system. The only people who should face any form of harsh treatment is that last group. Trouble is it suits racists and bigots to conflate all of those groups. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport.
A holiday visa? With a return ticket?
Yes if you have your passport.
You can withdraw cash.
Yravel agents can submit visa applications for you
Why buy a return ticket with no intention of returning?
I'd like to know they're coming with the intention of claiming asylum rather than under false pretences.
It does not matter. They will be entering her elegantly and with ID and we can verify them.
I am not bothered that they had no intention of returning.
All genuine asylum seekers are welcome here as far as I am concerned. Them buying s return ticket with no intention of returning has no baring on my view of them as asylum seekers.
Their honesty in landing at these shores with their ID does.
So a person who is being persecuted in Syria is unlikely to be able to get through immigration at Damascus Airport so how do they get here? Can they cross the border into Turkey and fly from their? Won’t the Turkish authorities ve suspicious and want to know why they aren’t flying from Turkey? What about the airline?
Who is being persecuted? Have you seen the movie the swimmers ? They literally pay criminals thousands to bring them across dozens of countries to the dumb fuckers that work immigration in the UK because they are stupidest
That made me laugh, because it is true.
I can’t understand how we have so many gullible people in the UK, and nor can those that enter our country illegally.
I want us to protect those that need protecting, and that also includes our citizens who work hard only to have money taken off them to pay for the upkeep of people who choose to play the system.
Surprisingly vitriolic of you there NotMe! I am all for establishing legitimate asylum claims and distinguishing those from people who are actually trying to game the system.
This is one area where I agree with Morley. Make it clear they need to have ID so we can establish right and process.
If they know ditching their ID will be a total dead stop in securing asylum then that becomes a deterrent for illegals. It should also speed up processing for those who are legitimate. The two groups can be handled differently too once here.
I don’t think people in UK are that gullible. I would say many know the difference between immigrants with visas, students with visas, refugees, genuine asylum seekers, and illegals trying to game the system. The only people who should face any form of harsh treatment is that last group. Trouble is it suits racists and bigots to conflate all of those groups."I agree it may suits certain people to conflate all of those groups but it's very hard not to when we've been told 98% of small boat arrivals do not have any ID. I've personally never seen anyone arguing against immigrants with visas. The criminal gangs operating these routes are helping them 'game the system' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport.
A holiday visa? With a return ticket?
Yes if you have your passport.
You can withdraw cash.
Yravel agents can submit visa applications for you
Why buy a return ticket with no intention of returning?
I'd like to know they're coming with the intention of claiming asylum rather than under false pretences.
It does not matter. They will be entering her elegantly and with ID and we can verify them.
I am not bothered that they had no intention of returning.
All genuine asylum seekers are welcome here as far as I am concerned. Them buying s return ticket with no intention of returning has no baring on my view of them as asylum seekers.
Their honesty in landing at these shores with their ID does.
So a person who is being persecuted in Syria is unlikely to be able to get through immigration at Damascus Airport so how do they get here? Can they cross the border into Turkey and fly from their? Won’t the Turkish authorities ve suspicious and want to know why they aren’t flying from Turkey? What about the airline?
Who is being persecuted? Have you seen the movie the swimmers ? They literally pay criminals thousands to bring them across dozens of countries to the dumb fuckers that work immigration in the UK because they are stupidest
That made me laugh, because it is true.
I can’t understand how we have so many gullible people in the UK, and nor can those that enter our country illegally.
I want us to protect those that need protecting, and that also includes our citizens who work hard only to have money taken off them to pay for the upkeep of people who choose to play the system.
Surprisingly vitriolic of you there NotMe! I am all for establishing legitimate asylum claims and distinguishing those from people who are actually trying to game the system.
This is one area where I agree with Morley. Make it clear they need to have ID so we can establish right and process.
If they know ditching their ID will be a total dead stop in securing asylum then that becomes a deterrent for illegals. It should also speed up processing for those who are legitimate. The two groups can be handled differently too once here.
I don’t think people in UK are that gullible. I would say many know the difference between immigrants with visas, students with visas, refugees, genuine asylum seekers, and illegals trying to game the system. The only people who should face any form of harsh treatment is that last group. Trouble is it suits racists and bigots to conflate all of those groups.
I agree it may suits certain people to conflate all of those groups but it's very hard not to when we've been told 98% of small boat arrivals do not have any ID.
I've personally never seen anyone arguing against immigrants with visas.
The criminal gangs operating these routes are helping them 'game the system'"Which comes back to the need to have ID to even be considered within the system. I also want to see the ability to apply from closer to the point of origin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. What happens when the massy rejected the claim? Same as would happen now, it’s about stopping dangerous boat crossings. So those rejected for still take boats? They’d be less inclined to pay a people trafficker and risk their lives if they knew they’d just be arrested and deported as soon as they arrive, no? From my understanding that is actually the government thinking behind the Rwanda plan. In other words why pay thousands to cross the channel, risk your life if when you get to the UK you will just be sent to Rwanda instead. That's just my interpretation I should like to add True, but there is no evidence that it will work as a deterrent, they should be chasing and prosecuting the criminal gangs that are profiteering from this , you will never stop this from happening until you do that "As it's not been done I guess it's not easy to say if it will or will not work as a deterrent. I posted as saw the same point being made above | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport.
A holiday visa? With a return ticket?
Yes if you have your passport.
You can withdraw cash.
Yravel agents can submit visa applications for you
Why buy a return ticket with no intention of returning?
I'd like to know they're coming with the intention of claiming asylum rather than under false pretences.
It does not matter. They will be entering her elegantly and with ID and we can verify them.
I am not bothered that they had no intention of returning.
All genuine asylum seekers are welcome here as far as I am concerned. Them buying s return ticket with no intention of returning has no baring on my view of them as asylum seekers.
Their honesty in landing at these shores with their ID does.
So a person who is being persecuted in Syria is unlikely to be able to get through immigration at Damascus Airport so how do they get here? Can they cross the border into Turkey and fly from their? Won’t the Turkish authorities ve suspicious and want to know why they aren’t flying from Turkey? What about the airline?
Who is being persecuted? Have you seen the movie the swimmers ? They literally pay criminals thousands to bring them across dozens of countries to the dumb fuckers that work immigration in the UK because they are stupidest
That made me laugh, because it is true.
I can’t understand how we have so many gullible people in the UK, and nor can those that enter our country illegally.
I want us to protect those that need protecting, and that also includes our citizens who work hard only to have money taken off them to pay for the upkeep of people who choose to play the system.
Surprisingly vitriolic of you there NotMe! I am all for establishing legitimate asylum claims and distinguishing those from people who are actually trying to game the system.
This is one area where I agree with Morley. Make it clear they need to have ID so we can establish right and process.
If they know ditching their ID will be a total dead stop in securing asylum then that becomes a deterrent for illegals. It should also speed up processing for those who are legitimate. The two groups can be handled differently too once here.
I don’t think people in UK are that gullible. I would say many know the difference between immigrants with visas, students with visas, refugees, genuine asylum seekers, and illegals trying to game the system. The only people who should face any form of harsh treatment is that last group. Trouble is it suits racists and bigots to conflate all of those groups.
I agree it may suits certain people to conflate all of those groups but it's very hard not to when we've been told 98% of small boat arrivals do not have any ID.
I've personally never seen anyone arguing against immigrants with visas.
The criminal gangs operating these routes are helping them 'game the system'
Which comes back to the need to have ID to even be considered within the system. I also want to see the ability to apply from closer to the point of origin."I agree on both points but at present that's not the case so people will conflate. It's not just racists and bigots. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. What happens when the massy rejected the claim? Same as would happen now, it’s about stopping dangerous boat crossings. So those rejected for still take boats? They’d be less inclined to pay a people trafficker and risk their lives if they knew they’d just be arrested and deported as soon as they arrive, no? From my understanding that is actually the government thinking behind the Rwanda plan. In other words why pay thousands to cross the channel, risk your life if when you get to the UK you will just be sent to Rwanda instead. That's just my interpretation I should like to add It is one of the stated objectives. Use the threat of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent. " Is it a valid idea to deter people doing this. Are people more or less likely to pay thousands and risk their life's if they know that in doing so they will not be staying in the UK but instead sent to Rwanda | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. What happens when the massy rejected the claim? Same as would happen now, it’s about stopping dangerous boat crossings. So those rejected for still take boats? They’d be less inclined to pay a people trafficker and risk their lives if they knew they’d just be arrested and deported as soon as they arrive, no? From my understanding that is actually the government thinking behind the Rwanda plan. In other words why pay thousands to cross the channel, risk your life if when you get to the UK you will just be sent to Rwanda instead. That's just my interpretation I should like to add True, but there is no evidence that it will work as a deterrent, they should be chasing and prosecuting the criminal gangs that are profiteering from this , you will never stop this from happening until you do that "IF the supreme court rules that it is lawful, will you accept it or whine about it???? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. What happens when the massy rejected the claim? Same as would happen now, it’s about stopping dangerous boat crossings. So those rejected for still take boats? They’d be less inclined to pay a people trafficker and risk their lives if they knew they’d just be arrested and deported as soon as they arrive, no? From my understanding that is actually the government thinking behind the Rwanda plan. In other words why pay thousands to cross the channel, risk your life if when you get to the UK you will just be sent to Rwanda instead. That's just my interpretation I should like to add True, but there is no evidence that it will work as a deterrent, they should be chasing and prosecuting the criminal gangs that are profiteering from this , you will never stop this from happening until you do that
IF the supreme court rules that it is lawful, will you accept it or whine about it????"It’s perfectly acceptable to disagree with the outcome whilst still accepting it. I think it’s morally wrong to dump asylum seekers in Rwanda against their will. The Supreme Court decision won’t change that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a single person in the Question time audience supported the Governments Rwanda plan. Why would that be? Perhaps there are actually very, very few people in the country who think that as a country we should be behaving in such a divisive and inhumane way. It’s so on par for this government to create a politically abhorrent solution to a problem that they themselves have created. It really wasn’t such a clever idea to think that they could reduce immigration by closing down overseas safe and legal routes. The law of unintended consequences can be such a bitch." Maybe Lord Frost's suggestion if a referendum on the subject isn't such a bad idea then because I think the majority would vote against your opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. What happens when the massy rejected the claim? Same as would happen now, it’s about stopping dangerous boat crossings. So those rejected for still take boats? They’d be less inclined to pay a people trafficker and risk their lives if they knew they’d just be arrested and deported as soon as they arrive, no? From my understanding that is actually the government thinking behind the Rwanda plan. In other words why pay thousands to cross the channel, risk your life if when you get to the UK you will just be sent to Rwanda instead. That's just my interpretation I should like to add True, but there is no evidence that it will work as a deterrent, they should be chasing and prosecuting the criminal gangs that are profiteering from this , you will never stop this from happening until you do that
IF the supreme court rules that it is lawful, will you accept it or whine about it????
It’s perfectly acceptable to disagree with the outcome whilst still accepting it.
I think it’s morally wrong to dump asylum seekers in Rwanda against their will. The Supreme Court decision won’t change that. "I don't but I doubt you'll accept that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a single person in the Question time audience supported the Governments Rwanda plan. Why would that be? Perhaps there are actually very, very few people in the country who think that as a country we should be behaving in such a divisive and inhumane way. It’s so on par for this government to create a politically abhorrent solution to a problem that they themselves have created. It really wasn’t such a clever idea to think that they could reduce immigration by closing down overseas safe and legal routes. The law of unintended consequences can be such a bitch. Maybe Lord Frost's suggestion if a referendum on the subject isn't such a bad idea then because I think the majority would vote against your opinion " Why not just have a grown up Government acting rationally, legally and humanely - just like we did before THIS government decided to close down safe and legal routes. Why is it so important to act big, and hard and tough and stick it to brown skinned foreigners? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it so important to act big, and hard and tough and stick it to brown skinned foreigners?" Because the right-wing political governing narrative for many years has been to demonise a group of people as somehow being responsible for all our country's ills, dog-whistling some of the populace to pay them more scrutiny than perhaps they might pay elsewhere (eg, government). It works every time, and has been used a political tool for aeons. Governments of all persuasions gaslight the populace, to a lesser or greater degree. That's the long answer. The short one is some folks are genuinely racist and hate any skin colour but their own. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a single person in the Question time audience supported the Governments Rwanda plan. Why would that be? Perhaps there are actually very, very few people in the country who think that as a country we should be behaving in such a divisive and inhumane way. It’s so on par for this government to create a politically abhorrent solution to a problem that they themselves have created. It really wasn’t such a clever idea to think that they could reduce immigration by closing down overseas safe and legal routes. The law of unintended consequences can be such a bitch. Maybe Lord Frost's suggestion if a referendum on the subject isn't such a bad idea then because I think the majority would vote against your opinion " What did Frost suggest a referendum on? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am putting my own opinions to the side for the moment (it won’t last). What IS the solution? A lot of people who were not born in the UK want to be in the UK. Some go through the standard immigration channels to secure a visa. Some are refugees. Some are genuine asylum seekers. Some are none of those things and therefore may be considered illegal. So what do we do? It falls on the home office to improve asylum processes, strike a deal with France to hold asylum seekers there for processing, or allow claims to be made prior to travel. All sounds sensible (I am playing devil’s advocate for a bit)... Currently to claim asylum in any country in the world you need to physically be in that country. I believe IF (big IF) you can gain entry into an Embassy then you can claim asylum as you are considered to be on sovereign territory? So if you are a genuine asylum seeker who wants to claim asylum in the UK, how do you do that without already being in the UK? Are you suggesting we provide a channel outside the UK to enable that? Yes - In short. Without safe routes to the U.K, this is probably the most effective means of stopping dangerous boat crossings and hampering people smuggling efforts. So do we allow our Embassies to operate asylum seeker processes? So instead of trying to actually get into the physical island of the UK, people make their way to nearest British Embassy (so if escaping Syria they head to Ankara in Turkey or Beirut in Lebanon?) That is exactly what should be done imo. What happens when the massy rejected the claim? Same as would happen now, it’s about stopping dangerous boat crossings. So those rejected for still take boats? They’d be less inclined to pay a people trafficker and risk their lives if they knew they’d just be arrested and deported as soon as they arrive, no? From my understanding that is actually the government thinking behind the Rwanda plan. In other words why pay thousands to cross the channel, risk your life if when you get to the UK you will just be sent to Rwanda instead. That's just my interpretation I should like to add True, but there is no evidence that it will work as a deterrent, they should be chasing and prosecuting the criminal gangs that are profiteering from this , you will never stop this from happening until you do that
IF the supreme court rules that it is lawful, will you accept it or whine about it????
It’s perfectly acceptable to disagree with the outcome whilst still accepting it.
I think it’s morally wrong to dump asylum seekers in Rwanda against their will. The Supreme Court decision won’t change that.
I don't but I doubt you'll accept that"Oh I accept your opinion. I think it’s abhorrent, sickening and frankly bigoted, but I accept it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Polls consistently show that UK citizens want an end to decades of illegal migrant crossings. When the courts overrule the government on measures to tackle the problem, the will of the people is being subverted surely?" The Rwanda plan is a fucking moronic waste of money, at best. Designed purely to garner support for the Tories from people who have swallowed the decades long campaign of blaming immigrants for everything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Polls consistently show that UK citizens want an end to decades of illegal migrant crossings. When the courts overrule the government on measures to tackle the problem, the will of the people is being subverted surely?" . Last time I checked 46 % of the people surveyed supported the plan , 27 % did not and the rest did not know. It seems that the majority of the population of the UK support the government on this one. It is only a highly vocal minority that wish to present a false view of reality | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
You said just jump on a plane and I explained why that is probably not possible for someone who needs to claim asylum."The last tien this came up? We discussed it and I was right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to understand how the UNHCR can be against the UK government in this case whilst sending asylum seekers to... Rwanda of all places. It would also appear that this process has been extended until 2026 Refugees, not asylum seekers, in that instance. Legally allowed to work and integrate. If you read the article it refers to both refugees and asylum seekers. In fact it states some 1600 have been sent there between 2019 and march this year The daily Mail article? Yes, their conflicting of the two terms is suggestive of them not understanding that there’s a difference. It’s a very badly worded piece. From what I can gather (and I’m open to being proved wrong) is that the UNHCR scheme is refugees, not asylum seekers. The solicitor that featured on the sky news article made no such distinction so I'm happy to go with him on that point. Also the issue is whether Rwanda is a safe country. If it's safe to receive refugees, surely it follows that it's safe to receive asylum seekers? I would also make the point that the High Court found it to bea safe country. I note that 1 of the 3 court of appeal judges agreed with that assessment so don't be surprised if the supreme court overrules again 2 of the judges disagreed . You are completely missing the point, they deemed it unsafe because Rwanda couldn’t assure the judges that the asylum seekers wouldn’t be forced back (wrongly ) to the country where they were fleeing from. If the government can prove this isn’t the case then the scheme will go ahead , up to now its cost over £140 million, no one has been deported and no one has been deterred from making the channel crossings. A total shambles
No, you are missing the point. The high court ruled lawful, the court of appeal ruled unlawful by a majority so the point is that this is down to the interpretation of the judge(s). It's gone both ways so there's clearly a difference of opinion between the wigs.
2 to 1 are against the lawfulness of the scheme, wether you agree with the Rwanda plan or not, the government have had over a year to get it right, they failed, they are conning us,
It's not the lawfulness of the scheme.
Read the judgement.
It's about whether the uk government could address their safety concerns as att he attempted date of deportstion.
There's no judgement on the scheme. just these specific 10 individuals and the concerns about their re deportation.
Wrong, Rwanda is deemed unsafe and deportation there is unlawful
Again the judgement
The decision of the majority – the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos,
and Lord Justice Underhill (the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)) – is that the deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda
are such that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real
risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries
where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact,
they have a good claim for asylum. In that sense Rwanda is not a “safe
third country”. That conclusion is founded on the evidence which was
before the High Court that Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims
was, in the period up to the conclusion of the Rwanda agreement,
inadequate. The Court is unanimous in accepting that the assurances given
by the Rwandan government were made in good faith and were intended
to address any defects in its asylum processes. However, the majority
believes that the evidence does not establish that the necessary changes had
by then been reliably effected or would have been at the time of the
proposed removals
See bit on the " timing of removals"
There is no judgement on Rwanda the country itself. But that they may again be moved on.
You do not understand the judgement
Wrong, Rwanda is deemed unsafe and deportation there is unlawful. Btw, why are they now going to the Supreme Court "You don't understand the judgement. I have even copy pasted it for you. But you're a lost cause in pretty much anything you discuss. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Polls consistently show that UK citizens want an end to decades of illegal migrant crossings. When the courts overrule the government on measures to tackle the problem, the will of the people is being subverted surely? The Rwanda plan is a fucking moronic waste of money, at best. Designed purely to garner support for the Tories from people who have swallowed the decades long campaign of blaming immigrants for everything. " Well what's the alternative? Sit on our hands gormlessly year after year whilst our borders are violated by criminal gangs? It's not a matter of blaming 'migrants', it's a matter of having border controls and applying the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport.
A holiday visa? With a return ticket?
Yes if you have your passport.
You can withdraw cash.
Yravel agents can submit visa applications for you
Why buy a return ticket with no intention of returning?
I'd like to know they're coming with the intention of claiming asylum rather than under false pretences.
It does not matter. They will be entering her elegantly and with ID and we can verify them.
I am not bothered that they had no intention of returning.
All genuine asylum seekers are welcome here as far as I am concerned. Them buying s return ticket with no intention of returning has no baring on my view of them as asylum seekers.
Their honesty in landing at these shores with their ID does.
So a person who is being persecuted in Syria is unlikely to be able to get through immigration at Damascus Airport so how do they get here? Can they cross the border into Turkey and fly from their? Won’t the Turkish authorities ve suspicious and want to know why they aren’t flying from Turkey? What about the airline?"Can you and fab and feisty decide which rules you're laying down You are both replying to me o the same reply I gave yet one for you is saying g the scenario is in a different country they originate from. The other is saying its the same country. Please atleast get this sorted before further discussion. Or open up 2 separate topics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Polls consistently show that UK citizens want an end to decades of illegal migrant crossings. When the courts overrule the government on measures to tackle the problem, the will of the people is being subverted surely?. Last time I checked 46 % of the people surveyed supported the plan , 27 % did not and the rest did not know. It seems that the majority of the population of the UK support the government on this one. It is only a highly vocal minority that wish to present a false view of reality " Yes exactly. My point is, in a democracy , the will of the people should prevail. If the courts use laws to prevent that happening, we need to change the laws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport.
A holiday visa? With a return ticket?
Yes if you have your passport.
You can withdraw cash.
Yravel agents can submit visa applications for you
Why buy a return ticket with no intention of returning?
I'd like to know they're coming with the intention of claiming asylum rather than under false pretences.
It does not matter. They will be entering her elegantly and with ID and we can verify them.
I am not bothered that they had no intention of returning.
All genuine asylum seekers are welcome here as far as I am concerned. Them buying s return ticket with no intention of returning has no baring on my view of them as asylum seekers.
Their honesty in landing at these shores with their ID does.
So a person who is being persecuted in Syria is unlikely to be able to get through immigration at Damascus Airport so how do they get here? Can they cross the border into Turkey and fly from their? Won’t the Turkish authorities ve suspicious and want to know why they aren’t flying from Turkey? What about the airline?
Can you and fab and feisty decide which rules you're laying down
You are both replying to me o the same reply I gave yet one for you is saying g the scenario is in a different country they originate from.
The other is saying its the same country.
Please atleast get this sorted before further discussion.
Or open up 2 separate topics."We were 'throwing out ideas', besides, I'm sure we're both capable of speaking for ourselves  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It does appear that the judge's need more reassure that those people sent to Rwanda won't be later sent to their original country or an unsafe third country. This despite assurances from Rwanda themselves. So how can more reassurance be given, what did the UNHCR do to convince judges that those it sends to Rwanda won't be sent to their original country?. Clearly the government need to address this before appealing to my way of thinking. Something that many seem to agree with in all the various ideas is that those claiming should produce ID " Exactly. There are several layers of security form our side that stop that re deportation They have given themselves and out though by declaring this judgement only represents the case as of the day we tried removing them. I've no idea given what we know of the agreement how they think they'll be re deported. The mind boggles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Arrive with passport ID of you want tk be processed here . Don't throw away phones, discovers licenses bank cards. If you have no proof. Your claim is to be automatically unheard and you are to be sent to a 3rd country. ( rwanda) You can live there, or you can go back home or seek asylum in another country. Your claim *will* be heard because under protection of international law you have claimed asylum. You can’t be sent to Rwanda as it’s not a safe third country. What now? I'd still like to know, why, if Rwnada is unsafe, the EU are happy to pay to send Libyans there. Or why they pay to have them diverted to Niger? Is Niger safe? I’m telling you, the way to go is the Isle of Wight (or maybe Anglesey). We could even charge the EU to hold and process theirs! Why give money to Rwanda? Having thought about this, IOW wouldn't work, you can swim to the mainland. You’d have to be a bloody good swimmer! Right sorry in that case the Crown Dependencies need to play their part. Jersey, Guernsey or Isle of Man? The shortest point is only about a mile. Right we need to grow the shark population! Possibly easier to police the Solent than the whole English Channel? Few gunboats. Mines? Sorry being flippant now. Back to Devil’s advocate... Mandatory ID seems a good call. Processing would be easier/quicker/cheaper and consequences known. A potential good deterrent. I think some people here are also in favour of processing closer to the point of origin. Got to find a way for that to work? Go to embassy, register ID, retina scans, finger prints and DNA. Leave embassy, get here somehow (any which how) and you can be processed? You can't leave the embassy Why not? Embassy grounds are considered to be immune from the country they sit in. The Vienna convention deals with a lot of this. Essentially it doesn't at thatbpoint in time belong to the counteybit sits in, nor does it belong to the country its grounds represents. Many asylum claims( as per the legal ruling today) are on political, religious, ethnic etc persecution. The moment you leave that embassy. You re enter your old country and thus have been sent back to that persecution. Thisnis against the multiple human rights conventions we've signed. You are not entering the embassy to claim asylum. You are entering the embassy to register intent. You can still only claim asylum when you reach our shores. I mean, we can argue about it but we're only throwing out ideas
But you claim asylum because of persecution.
You can't have an intent of being persecuted. You either are or aren't.
You can go in there and say.
You know what in 5 years I might be persecuted.
You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed.
Do you think people who are persecuted are 24/7?
If they made it to an Embassy in say Turkey, leaving that embassy wouldn't necessarily put them in immediate danger.
"You're not making sense. Someone who wishes to claim asylum will already be being persecuted. They go to the embassy, register intent to get to the UK, give all details, get themselves to UK (within a time period) and then are processed."
Right so you didn't mean the embassy in the country they were being persecuted in?
Why would they go to an Embassy?
Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.
How many commercial flights are there from Syria to the UK?
How does a persecuted person get through passport control in their own country where they are being persecuted?
You know airlines have to satisfy criteria that they are not transporting people into the UK whose intent is to claim asylum? They face fines and have to repatriate at own expense.
Wait so now they are in their own country?
Keep up morley. Are you ok? You said...
“Just come to the uk. Buy a plane ticket and get a visa. And just claim asylum here.”
I don’t know where they are flying from in your scenario. If in own country points one and two clearly apply. If from another country it will depend if they entered that country legally and a variation on point 2 applies. Point 3 always applies.
Well if they have a passport and I'd etc for embassy to assess them.
They have the documents to get to the UK in the first place.
They would still need a valid travel visa. A new 'asylum visa' perhaps?
You can get a visa if you have a passport.
A holiday visa? With a return ticket?
Yes if you have your passport.
You can withdraw cash.
Yravel agents can submit visa applications for you
Why buy a return ticket with no intention of returning?
I'd like to know they're coming with the intention of claiming asylum rather than under false pretences.
It does not matter. They will be entering her elegantly and with ID and we can verify them.
I am not bothered that they had no intention of returning.
All genuine asylum seekers are welcome here as far as I am concerned. Them buying s return ticket with no intention of returning has no baring on my view of them as asylum seekers.
Their honesty in landing at these shores with their ID does.
So a person who is being persecuted in Syria is unlikely to be able to get through immigration at Damascus Airport so how do they get here? Can they cross the border into Turkey and fly from their? Won’t the Turkish authorities ve suspicious and want to know why they aren’t flying from Turkey? What about the airline?
Can you and fab and feisty decide which rules you're laying down
You are both replying to me o the same reply I gave yet one for you is saying g the scenario is in a different country they originate from.
The other is saying its the same country.
Please atleast get this sorted before further discussion.
Or open up 2 separate topics.
We were 'throwing out ideas', besides, I'm sure we're both capable of speaking for ourselves "But if your both reply to the my 1 reply with a critique but that critique involves 2 completely separate scenarios, it's not conducive to a discussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Polls consistently show that UK citizens want an end to decades of illegal migrant crossings. When the courts overrule the government on measures to tackle the problem, the will of the people is being subverted surely? The Rwanda plan is a fucking moronic waste of money, at best. Designed purely to garner support for the Tories from people who have swallowed the decades long campaign of blaming immigrants for everything. Well what's the alternative? Sit on our hands gormlessly year after year whilst our borders are violated by criminal gangs? It's not a matter of blaming 'migrants', it's a matter of having border controls and applying the law." Are you suggesting that the only options are. 1. Do nothing. 2. Waste millions on a pointless scheme to traffic people to Rwanda? I think you'll find we do have boarders and we do apply the law. The current levels of immigration are directly down to the government's policy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Polls consistently show that UK citizens want an end to decades of illegal migrant crossings. When the courts overrule the government on measures to tackle the problem, the will of the people is being subverted surely?. Last time I checked 46 % of the people surveyed supported the plan , 27 % did not and the rest did not know. It seems that the majority of the population of the UK support the government on this one. It is only a highly vocal minority that wish to present a false view of reality Yes exactly. My point is, in a democracy , the will of the people should prevail. If the courts use laws to prevent that happening, we need to change the laws. " He's trolling you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Polls consistently show that UK citizens want an end to decades of illegal migrant crossings. When the courts overrule the government on measures to tackle the problem, the will of the people is being subverted surely?" Shooting them as they arrive is an option. Is that the will of the people? It has been explained over and over that the answer to the problem is to have safe and legal routes that originate overseas. This Government closed down safe and legal routes under the misapprehension that if asylum routes were not available then this would help reduce the overall levels of inward migration. Instead, desperate people looked at any way they could to get to the U.K. and claim asylum here. From this, an entire network of people smuggling has been created. This, in turn made it easy for non-refugee/asylum seekers - chancers - to also take a shot at crossing. Thus the decision to close down safe and legal routes has had somewhat unintended consequences. Re-open the safe and legal routes and the boat issue will naturally diminish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Polls consistently show that UK citizens want an end to decades of illegal migrant crossings. When the courts overrule the government on measures to tackle the problem, the will of the people is being subverted surely?. Last time I checked 46 % of the people surveyed supported the plan , 27 % did not and the rest did not know. It seems that the majority of the population of the UK support the government on this one. It is only a highly vocal minority that wish to present a false view of reality Yes exactly. My point is, in a democracy , the will of the people should prevail. If the courts use laws to prevent that happening, we need to change the laws. " So if ‘the people’ want the death penalty, it should be introduced? How educated, on the whole, do you think ‘the people’ are? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Polls consistently show that UK citizens want an end to decades of illegal migrant crossings. When the courts overrule the government on measures to tackle the problem, the will of the people is being subverted surely?. Last time I checked 46 % of the people surveyed supported the plan , 27 % did not and the rest did not know. It seems that the majority of the population of the UK support the government on this one. It is only a highly vocal minority that wish to present a false view of reality Yes exactly. My point is, in a democracy , the will of the people should prevail. If the courts use laws to prevent that happening, we need to change the laws. So if ‘the people’ want the death penalty, it should be introduced? How educated, on the whole, do you think ‘the people’ are? " That's how a democracy tends to work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Polls consistently show that UK citizens want an end to decades of illegal migrant crossings. When the courts overrule the government on measures to tackle the problem, the will of the people is being subverted surely? The Rwanda plan is a fucking moronic waste of money, at best. Designed purely to garner support for the Tories from people who have swallowed the decades long campaign of blaming immigrants for everything. Well what's the alternative? Sit on our hands gormlessly year after year whilst our borders are violated by criminal gangs? It's not a matter of blaming 'migrants', it's a matter of having border controls and applying the law." How about we implement a functional and fair asylum system, Emily enough people to clear the backlog, open safe routes to stop dangerous crossings and shutdown smuggling gangs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Polls consistently show that UK citizens want an end to decades of illegal migrant crossings. When the courts overrule the government on measures to tackle the problem, the will of the people is being subverted surely?. Last time I checked 46 % of the people surveyed supported the plan , 27 % did not and the rest did not know. It seems that the majority of the population of the UK support the government on this one. It is only a highly vocal minority that wish to present a false view of reality Yes exactly. My point is, in a democracy , the will of the people should prevail. If the courts use laws to prevent that happening, we need to change the laws. So if ‘the people’ want the death penalty, it should be introduced? How educated, on the whole, do you think ‘the people’ are? That's how a democracy tends to work." Not under representative politics, it doesn’t. We elect an MP who represents and acts for what is best for a) the constituents and b) the broader country. Your elected MP is supposed to do what’s right for constituents, which is not the same as doing whatever they want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thus the decision to close down safe and legal routes has had somewhat unintended consequences. Re-open the safe and legal routes and the boat issue will naturally diminish." What were these safe and legal routes that got shut down? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Polls consistently show that UK citizens want an end to decades of illegal migrant crossings. When the courts overrule the government on measures to tackle the problem, the will of the people is being subverted surely?. Last time I checked 46 % of the people surveyed supported the plan , 27 % did not and the rest did not know. It seems that the majority of the population of the UK support the government on this one. It is only a highly vocal minority that wish to present a false view of reality Yes exactly. My point is, in a democracy , the will of the people should prevail. If the courts use laws to prevent that happening, we need to change the laws. So if ‘the people’ want the death penalty, it should be introduced? How educated, on the whole, do you think ‘the people’ are? That's how a democracy tends to work. Not under representative politics, it doesn’t. We elect an MP who represents and acts for what is best for a) the constituents and b) the broader country. Your elected MP is supposed to do what’s right for constituents, which is not the same as doing whatever they want. " True, but there's such a thing as getting elected with a mandate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Polls consistently show that UK citizens want an end to decades of illegal migrant crossings. When the courts overrule the government on measures to tackle the problem, the will of the people is being subverted surely? The Rwanda plan is a fucking moronic waste of money, at best. Designed purely to garner support for the Tories from people who have swallowed the decades long campaign of blaming immigrants for everything. Well what's the alternative? Sit on our hands gormlessly year after year whilst our borders are violated by criminal gangs? It's not a matter of blaming 'migrants', it's a matter of having border controls and applying the law. How about we implement a functional and fair asylum system, Emily enough people to clear the backlog, open safe routes to stop dangerous crossings and shutdown smuggling gangs? " Of course! But would that stop the illegal crossings? I doubt it, because most would fail the 'genuine' asylum seeker test e.g. Albanians. So it gets us no further forward does it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your elected MP is supposed to do what’s right for constituents, which is not the same as doing whatever they want." MPs are supposed to represent the people of their constituencies, and if those people want capital punishment, the MP is supposed to convey that wish to parliament. MP are not supposed to vote for whatever they think is right, ignoring what their constituencies want. MPs that act that way tend not to get re-elected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Polls consistently show that UK citizens want an end to decades of illegal migrant crossings. When the courts overrule the government on measures to tackle the problem, the will of the people is being subverted surely?. Last time I checked 46 % of the people surveyed supported the plan , 27 % did not and the rest did not know. It seems that the majority of the population of the UK support the government on this one. It is only a highly vocal minority that wish to present a false view of reality Yes exactly. My point is, in a democracy , the will of the people should prevail. If the courts use laws to prevent that happening, we need to change the laws. So if ‘the people’ want the death penalty, it should be introduced? How educated, on the whole, do you think ‘the people’ are? " Ha! Indeed, who said "I believe in democracy until I spend 5 minutes talking with an average voter" LOL. In this case, MPs had a mandate from the GE to stop illegal crossings. They need to get on with it. If we see border laws being routinely broken, why should any of us obey any law we don't like? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your elected MP is supposed to do what’s right for constituents, which is not the same as doing whatever they want. MPs are supposed to represent the people of their constituencies, and if those people want capital punishment, the MP is supposed to convey that wish to parliament. MP are not supposed to vote for whatever they think is right, ignoring what their constituencies want. MPs that act that way tend not to get re-elected." With reference to immigration, you're missing a huge piece of how this works. Why do so many people place a disproportionate focus of their ire on immigrants/foreigners? In my opinion, it's largely down to the government and media pushing the anti-immigrant propaganda for decades. So people are doing exactly as they're being instructed to, blaming immigrants and telling their MP to vote for the pointless horrific Rwanda scheme. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Polls consistently show that UK citizens want an end to decades of illegal migrant crossings. When the courts overrule the government on measures to tackle the problem, the will of the people is being subverted surely?. Last time I checked 46 % of the people surveyed supported the plan , 27 % did not and the rest did not know. It seems that the majority of the population of the UK support the government on this one. It is only a highly vocal minority that wish to present a false view of reality Yes exactly. My point is, in a democracy , the will of the people should prevail. If the courts use laws to prevent that happening, we need to change the laws. So if ‘the people’ want the death penalty, it should be introduced? How educated, on the whole, do you think ‘the people’ are? That's how a democracy tends to work. Not under representative politics, it doesn’t. We elect an MP who represents and acts for what is best for a) the constituents and b) the broader country. Your elected MP is supposed to do what’s right for constituents, which is not the same as doing whatever they want. " A vote for your MP is to represent you, they decide what they think is best and that is it. A lot of things come out in these forums that paint a very clear picture of logical thinking, understanding and the not so... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
