FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Safe routes (again)
Safe routes (again)
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Continuing where the Kent thread finished, e.g. talking about safe routes. Morley, I have looked at the numbers in the tables you suggested, as well as the words, as well as doing some reading around the topic. Respond to me as you wish; however, please rest assured I have followed the breadcrumbs you left in the previous thread. Indeed, I have looked to reconcile your numbers. I do not match them exactly, and I suspect you have a filter I don't. However, we are in pretty much the same ballpark, and therefore, I feel I can address your points with some confidence we are on the same page. I agree the Afghan scheme is open to more than just Afghan citizens. My understanding is it is available to those who helped in Afghanistan, which I can believe includes Afghan residents who weren't citizens, and that there may also be spouses and dependents of Afghan citizens who aren't themselves Afghan. However, it is not an open scheme for all and sundry to use. You must have that Afghan connection. The U.K.'s resettlement scheme is for people who have already applied for asylum in another country (the host country), and the UN has decided that they need to be resettled to another country for whatever reason. It is not a route to directly claim asylum in the UK. In the previous thread, you suggested 20 routes into this, not all of which were overseen by the UN. I've seen nothing to support this, so I would appreciate you expanding on this comment. The UK resettlement scheme superseded some of our other schemes, such as the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. I want to call this out because, in a previous post, you mentioned these various schemes, and one may have read that, meaning it was an open scheme, and therefore we had many more routes. The other settlement options are the community sponsorship scheme and the mandate scheme, which only saw 39 people come through in Q1. For all 39, there was a host country associated with them, which leads me to believe that, like the UK resettlement scheme, those 39 have already applied for asylum elsewhere, especially as when I look at asylum cases, the entry always says "asylum case - n/a" on the host country So again, I return to saying that outside of the Afghan scheme, which is only open to those associated with Afghanistan (citizens or not), the data does not show explicitly of any safe routes for someone wishing to claim asylum in the UK. Indeed, if I look at the other data in the same dataset, when I look at asylum applications, the only two options I have dor location of application is "at port" and "in the country". Again, this suggests there may not be this third safe route people like to refer to. " I have been over this subject many many many times to others. Those others decided those schemes originally did not exist. Before going further then. Can we address one issue. Before going over ground I have walked on 20 times. Are there legal entry routed for people to apply for asylum to the uk. Yes or no? It's a simple question with a correct answer. Nothing against you. But I am fed up with the disingenuous people in here. | |||
"Continuing where the Kent thread finished, e.g. talking about safe routes. Morley, I have looked at the numbers in the tables you suggested, as well as the words, as well as doing some reading around the topic. Respond to me as you wish; however, please rest assured I have followed the breadcrumbs you left in the previous thread. Indeed, I have looked to reconcile your numbers. I do not match them exactly, and I suspect you have a filter I don't. However, we are in pretty much the same ballpark, and therefore, I feel I can address your points with some confidence we are on the same page. I agree the Afghan scheme is open to more than just Afghan citizens. My understanding is it is available to those who helped in Afghanistan, which I can believe includes Afghan residents who weren't citizens, and that there may also be spouses and dependents of Afghan citizens who aren't themselves Afghan. However, it is not an open scheme for all and sundry to use. You must have that Afghan connection. The U.K.'s resettlement scheme is for people who have already applied for asylum in another country (the host country), and the UN has decided that they need to be resettled to another country for whatever reason. It is not a route to directly claim asylum in the UK. In the previous thread, you suggested 20 routes into this, not all of which were overseen by the UN. I've seen nothing to support this, so I would appreciate you expanding on this comment. The UK resettlement scheme superseded some of our other schemes, such as the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. I want to call this out because, in a previous post, you mentioned these various schemes, and one may have read that, meaning it was an open scheme, and therefore we had many more routes. The other settlement options are the community sponsorship scheme and the mandate scheme, which only saw 39 people come through in Q1. For all 39, there was a host country associated with them, which leads me to believe that, like the UK resettlement scheme, those 39 have already applied for asylum elsewhere, especially as when I look at asylum cases, the entry always says "asylum case - n/a" on the host country So again, I return to saying that outside of the Afghan scheme, which is only open to those associated with Afghanistan (citizens or not), the data does not show explicitly of any safe routes for someone wishing to claim asylum in the UK. Indeed, if I look at the other data in the same dataset, when I look at asylum applications, the only two options I have dor location of application is "at port" and "in the country". Again, this suggests there may not be this third safe route people like to refer to. I have been over this subject many many many times to others. Those others decided those schemes originally did not exist. Before going further then. Can we address one issue. Before going over ground I have walked on 20 times. Are there legal entry routed for people to apply for asylum to the uk. Yes or no? It's a simple question with a correct answer. Nothing against you. But I am fed up with the disingenuous people in here. " Yes if you are connected to Afghanistan. Otherwise, I am not convinced. The resettlement schemes do not help answer your question with a yes, as they are not about applying for asylum in the UK. The person has already claimed asylum in another country. If the correct answer is "yes" if we were to exclude the afgan schemes, i'd welcome details (plus links) to what they are. I'd also welcome your thoughts where they appear in the data you referenced. As above, it seems all asylum cases are raised "at port" or "in country". | |||
"Continuing where the Kent thread finished, e.g. talking about safe routes. Morley, I have looked at the numbers in the tables you suggested, as well as the words, as well as doing some reading around the topic. Respond to me as you wish; however, please rest assured I have followed the breadcrumbs you left in the previous thread. Indeed, I have looked to reconcile your numbers. I do not match them exactly, and I suspect you have a filter I don't. However, we are in pretty much the same ballpark, and therefore, I feel I can address your points with some confidence we are on the same page. I agree the Afghan scheme is open to more than just Afghan citizens. My understanding is it is available to those who helped in Afghanistan, which I can believe includes Afghan residents who weren't citizens, and that there may also be spouses and dependents of Afghan citizens who aren't themselves Afghan. However, it is not an open scheme for all and sundry to use. You must have that Afghan connection. The U.K.'s resettlement scheme is for people who have already applied for asylum in another country (the host country), and the UN has decided that they need to be resettled to another country for whatever reason. It is not a route to directly claim asylum in the UK. In the previous thread, you suggested 20 routes into this, not all of which were overseen by the UN. I've seen nothing to support this, so I would appreciate you expanding on this comment. The UK resettlement scheme superseded some of our other schemes, such as the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. I want to call this out because, in a previous post, you mentioned these various schemes, and one may have read that, meaning it was an open scheme, and therefore we had many more routes. The other settlement options are the community sponsorship scheme and the mandate scheme, which only saw 39 people come through in Q1. For all 39, there was a host country associated with them, which leads me to believe that, like the UK resettlement scheme, those 39 have already applied for asylum elsewhere, especially as when I look at asylum cases, the entry always says "asylum case - n/a" on the host country So again, I return to saying that outside of the Afghan scheme, which is only open to those associated with Afghanistan (citizens or not), the data does not show explicitly of any safe routes for someone wishing to claim asylum in the UK. Indeed, if I look at the other data in the same dataset, when I look at asylum applications, the only two options I have dor location of application is "at port" and "in the country". Again, this suggests there may not be this third safe route people like to refer to. I have been over this subject many many many times to others. Those others decided those schemes originally did not exist. Before going further then. Can we address one issue. Before going over ground I have walked on 20 times. Are there legal entry routed for people to apply for asylum to the uk. Yes or no? It's a simple question with a correct answer. Nothing against you. But I am fed up with the disingenuous people in here. Yes if you are connected to Afghanistan. Otherwise, I am not convinced. The resettlement schemes do not help answer your question with a yes, as they are not about applying for asylum in the UK. The person has already claimed asylum in another country. If the correct answer is "yes" if we were to exclude the afgan schemes, i'd welcome details (plus links) to what they are. I'd also welcome your thoughts where they appear in the data you referenced. As above, it seems all asylum cases are raised "at port" or "in country". " Then I refuse to engage further until you acknowledge these people here through legal safe schemes. We are done here until you can face the fact that 1ps of thousands are accepted through legal routes each year not just afghan. I can't be arsed woth any more disingenuous conversations. Ignoring factually provable and legal documentation. | |||
"Continuing where the Kent thread finished, e.g. talking about safe routes. Morley, I have looked at the numbers in the tables you suggested, as well as the words, as well as doing some reading around the topic. Respond to me as you wish; however, please rest assured I have followed the breadcrumbs you left in the previous thread. Indeed, I have looked to reconcile your numbers. I do not match them exactly, and I suspect you have a filter I don't. However, we are in pretty much the same ballpark, and therefore, I feel I can address your points with some confidence we are on the same page. I agree the Afghan scheme is open to more than just Afghan citizens. My understanding is it is available to those who helped in Afghanistan, which I can believe includes Afghan residents who weren't citizens, and that there may also be spouses and dependents of Afghan citizens who aren't themselves Afghan. However, it is not an open scheme for all and sundry to use. You must have that Afghan connection. The U.K.'s resettlement scheme is for people who have already applied for asylum in another country (the host country), and the UN has decided that they need to be resettled to another country for whatever reason. It is not a route to directly claim asylum in the UK. In the previous thread, you suggested 20 routes into this, not all of which were overseen by the UN. I've seen nothing to support this, so I would appreciate you expanding on this comment. The UK resettlement scheme superseded some of our other schemes, such as the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. I want to call this out because, in a previous post, you mentioned these various schemes, and one may have read that, meaning it was an open scheme, and therefore we had many more routes. The other settlement options are the community sponsorship scheme and the mandate scheme, which only saw 39 people come through in Q1. For all 39, there was a host country associated with them, which leads me to believe that, like the UK resettlement scheme, those 39 have already applied for asylum elsewhere, especially as when I look at asylum cases, the entry always says "asylum case - n/a" on the host country So again, I return to saying that outside of the Afghan scheme, which is only open to those associated with Afghanistan (citizens or not), the data does not show explicitly of any safe routes for someone wishing to claim asylum in the UK. Indeed, if I look at the other data in the same dataset, when I look at asylum applications, the only two options I have dor location of application is "at port" and "in the country". Again, this suggests there may not be this third safe route people like to refer to. I have been over this subject many many many times to others. Those others decided those schemes originally did not exist. Before going further then. Can we address one issue. Before going over ground I have walked on 20 times. Are there legal entry routed for people to apply for asylum to the uk. Yes or no? It's a simple question with a correct answer. Nothing against you. But I am fed up with the disingenuous people in here. Yes if you are connected to Afghanistan. Otherwise, I am not convinced. The resettlement schemes do not help answer your question with a yes, as they are not about applying for asylum in the UK. The person has already claimed asylum in another country. If the correct answer is "yes" if we were to exclude the afgan schemes, i'd welcome details (plus links) to what they are. I'd also welcome your thoughts where they appear in the data you referenced. As above, it seems all asylum cases are raised "at port" or "in country". Then I refuse to engage further until you acknowledge these people here through legal safe schemes. We are done here until you can face the fact that 1ps of thousands are accepted through legal routes each year not just afghan. I can't be arsed woth any more disingenuous conversations. Ignoring factually provable and legal documentation. " which people? Which routes? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) " That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. " You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. " Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. " I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. " You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. | |||
"I was about to thank @Baryonyx Wankeri for doing the research and giving @Morleyman such a polite and considered answer. I was looking forward to Morley providing an equally polite and considered response. *sigh* I am one of the people Morley refers to above. But as usual misrepresents the discussions that actually took place. Nobody denied that a safe route existed or has ever existed. They merely pointed out that what safe routes exist are not widely available and have eligibility restrictions (such as only Afghans). Morley tries to pose a question and insist on a binary answer when the question is flawed, complex, and cannot have a binary answer." This is a yes or no answer there's no caveats. He has the data. ( unlike some one who never downloaded it) He has said one thing in the earlier discussion he is now contradicting. As I say. I get bored of people having their cake and eating it here. So people can either admit that the UN works with the uk to resettle people from 18 different nations so far via ukrs. These people were in 15 different countries And they were all abroad when their documentation was completed and verified. And they came to the uk on indefinite leave to remain and via a legal route Or they can rake their disingenuous discussion else where | |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. " The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title. | |||
"This is you "UN resettlement looks like it's moving someone who has already got refugee status in another country into the uk, because their new country has dangers too. It's running at a few hundred per quarter. It's not, as far as I can tell, a way of claiming asylum here. "" that is my understanding. The home office own guidance talks about refugees. Not asylum seekers. Unhcr determines if someone is a refugee before they enter this scheme. They then determine if resettlement is correct. So again, the individual isn't applying for asylum in the uk. Just asylum. | |||
| |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title." I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? | |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ?" That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no? | |||
| |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?" yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. | |||
"I'm getting pretty bored. So you have 1 last chance to show you want a genuine discussion." tbh, I feel equally like you aren't engaging as I had hoped despite me actually referring to your data and working to explain the difference between resettlement of refugees and asylum seekers. But hey ho. That's life.  | |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. " Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities. | |||
"I'm getting pretty bored. So you have 1 last chance to show you want a genuine discussion.tbh, I feel equally like you aren't engaging as I had hoped despite me actually referring to your data and working to explain the difference between resettlement of refugees and asylum seekers. But hey ho. That's life. "It was a simple question. You tried to be disingenuous. I wasn't going to allow that. You finally answered. Now we can have a proper diacussion | |||
"I was about to thank @Baryonyx Wankeri for doing the research and giving @Morleyman such a polite and considered answer. I was looking forward to Morley providing an equally polite and considered response. *sigh* I am one of the people Morley refers to above. But as usual misrepresents the discussions that actually took place. Nobody denied that a safe route existed or has ever existed. They merely pointed out that what safe routes exist are not widely available and have eligibility restrictions (such as only Afghans). Morley tries to pose a question and insist on a binary answer when the question is flawed, complex, and cannot have a binary answer."  | |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities." however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. | |||
"I was about to thank @Baryonyx Wankeri for doing the research and giving @Morleyman such a polite and considered answer. I was looking forward to Morley providing an equally polite and considered response. *sigh* I am one of the people Morley refers to above. But as usual misrepresents the discussions that actually took place. Nobody denied that a safe route existed or has ever existed. They merely pointed out that what safe routes exist are not widely available and have eligibility restrictions (such as only Afghans). Morley tries to pose a question and insist on a binary answer when the question is flawed, complex, and cannot have a binary answer. "You'll ne glad to see people not.being disingenuous fun fella. Learn from it. | |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities.however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. " No not at all. This is across every scheme. Some are to do with the UN so.e aren't. E.g a Syrian was in the cayman Islands but couldn't go back to Syria. He didn't want to live in the caymans all his life. He was granted ukrs without un being involved. For ukrs the un typically get si vovled in refugee camps. This wasnt necessary on tbe cayman islands. This was discussed on radio 4. I do believe the data should be in your download to see a male.syrian in tbe cayman islands. Asylum isn't open to all individuals no. This si where you need to prove persecution etc. Other wise there's be no point in borders. Every one could claim asylum in any country try they wish to live in. The UN do not decided where to relocate. They ask countries to accept certain individuals. The uk can choose to accept or decline them. They can not be forced on the uk. | |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities.however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. No not at all. This is across every scheme. Some are to do with the UN so.e aren't. E.g a Syrian was in the cayman Islands but couldn't go back to Syria. He didn't want to live in the caymans all his life. He was granted ukrs without un being involved. For ukrs the un typically get si vovled in refugee camps. This wasnt necessary on tbe cayman islands. This was discussed on radio 4. I do believe the data should be in your download to see a male.syrian in tbe cayman islands. Asylum isn't open to all individuals no. This si where you need to prove persecution etc. Other wise there's be no point in borders. Every one could claim asylum in any country try they wish to live in. The UN do not decided where to relocate. They ask countries to accept certain individuals. The uk can choose to accept or decline them. They can not be forced on the uk. " I'm going by what is written in the home offices "UK Refugee Resettlement: Policy Guidance" Do you remember which show this was discussed on?/ | |||
| |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities.however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. No not at all. This is across every scheme. Some are to do with the UN so.e aren't. E.g a Syrian was in the cayman Islands but couldn't go back to Syria. He didn't want to live in the caymans all his life. He was granted ukrs without un being involved. For ukrs the un typically get si vovled in refugee camps. This wasnt necessary on tbe cayman islands. This was discussed on radio 4. I do believe the data should be in your download to see a male.syrian in tbe cayman islands. Asylum isn't open to all individuals no. This si where you need to prove persecution etc. Other wise there's be no point in borders. Every one could claim asylum in any country try they wish to live in. The UN do not decided where to relocate. They ask countries to accept certain individuals. The uk can choose to accept or decline them. They can not be forced on the uk. I'm going by what is written in the home offices "UK Refugee Resettlement: Policy Guidance" Do you remember which show this was discussed on?/" Bbc radio 4. The government document says they work with the un...it doesn't say this is the inky way the scheme can be accessed. | |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities.however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. No not at all. This is across every scheme. Some are to do with the UN so.e aren't. E.g a Syrian was in the cayman Islands but couldn't go back to Syria. He didn't want to live in the caymans all his life. He was granted ukrs without un being involved. For ukrs the un typically get si vovled in refugee camps. This wasnt necessary on tbe cayman islands. This was discussed on radio 4. I do believe the data should be in your download to see a male.syrian in tbe cayman islands. Asylum isn't open to all individuals no. This si where you need to prove persecution etc. Other wise there's be no point in borders. Every one could claim asylum in any country try they wish to live in. The UN do not decided where to relocate. They ask countries to accept certain individuals. The uk can choose to accept or decline them. They can not be forced on the uk. I'm going by what is written in the home offices "UK Refugee Resettlement: Policy Guidance" Do you remember which show this was discussed on?/ Bbc radio 4. The government document says they work with the un...it doesn't say this is the inky way the scheme can be accessed." I was hoping for a show name or a date. I figured it was bbc radio 4/from saying radio 4! 
This is where I struggle. I also find
"UK Resettlement Scheme
The global resettlement scheme is open to vulnerable refugees around the world. Individuals coming through this scheme are assessed and referred by the UNHCR according to their criteria, which is based on people’s needs and vulnerabilities."
Which doesn't read as if there are other routes into the scheme other than unhcr.
That's why I'm keen to hear what you heard. So any additional help here is appreciated.
| |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities.however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. No not at all. This is across every scheme. Some are to do with the UN so.e aren't. E.g a Syrian was in the cayman Islands but couldn't go back to Syria. He didn't want to live in the caymans all his life. He was granted ukrs without un being involved. For ukrs the un typically get si vovled in refugee camps. This wasnt necessary on tbe cayman islands. This was discussed on radio 4. I do believe the data should be in your download to see a male.syrian in tbe cayman islands. Asylum isn't open to all individuals no. This si where you need to prove persecution etc. Other wise there's be no point in borders. Every one could claim asylum in any country try they wish to live in. The UN do not decided where to relocate. They ask countries to accept certain individuals. The uk can choose to accept or decline them. They can not be forced on the uk. I'm going by what is written in the home offices "UK Refugee Resettlement: Policy Guidance" Do you remember which show this was discussed on?/ Bbc radio 4. The government document says they work with the un...it doesn't say this is the inky way the scheme can be accessed.I was hoping for a show name or a date. I figured it was bbc radio 4/from saying radio 4!
This is where I struggle. I also find
"UK Resettlement Scheme
The global resettlement scheme is open to vulnerable refugees around the world. Individuals coming through this scheme are assessed and referred by the UNHCR according to their criteria, which is based on people’s needs and vulnerabilities."
Which doesn't read as if there are other routes into the scheme other than unhcr.
That's why I'm keen to hear what you heard. So any additional help here is appreciated.
"Will have been a show on at about 6.30 am in the morning I've no idea whose show it is or the date. I justnuses to listen to it in the car. Yes it's open tk refugees around the world and they can be assessed by the UN. It doesn't say that's the only way it can be used via un This is where there's a difference. I sadly don't know ow the ins and outs but I'd be intrigued as to the large refugee camp and UN officials on the cayman islands. Fleeing wars and persecution. | |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities.however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. No not at all. This is across every scheme. Some are to do with the UN so.e aren't. E.g a Syrian was in the cayman Islands but couldn't go back to Syria. He didn't want to live in the caymans all his life. He was granted ukrs without un being involved. For ukrs the un typically get si vovled in refugee camps. This wasnt necessary on tbe cayman islands. This was discussed on radio 4. I do believe the data should be in your download to see a male.syrian in tbe cayman islands. Asylum isn't open to all individuals no. This si where you need to prove persecution etc. Other wise there's be no point in borders. Every one could claim asylum in any country try they wish to live in. The UN do not decided where to relocate. They ask countries to accept certain individuals. The uk can choose to accept or decline them. They can not be forced on the uk. I'm going by what is written in the home offices "UK Refugee Resettlement: Policy Guidance" Do you remember which show this was discussed on?/ Bbc radio 4. The government document says they work with the un...it doesn't say this is the inky way the scheme can be accessed.I was hoping for a show name or a date. I figured it was bbc radio 4/from saying radio 4!
This is where I struggle. I also find
"UK Resettlement Scheme
The global resettlement scheme is open to vulnerable refugees around the world. Individuals coming through this scheme are assessed and referred by the UNHCR according to their criteria, which is based on people’s needs and vulnerabilities."
Which doesn't read as if there are other routes into the scheme other than unhcr.
That's why I'm keen to hear what you heard. So any additional help here is appreciated.
Will have been a show on at about 6.30 am in the morning
I've no idea whose show it is or the date. I justnuses to listen to it in the car.
Yes it's open tk refugees around the world and they can be assessed by the UN.
It doesn't say that's the only way it can be used via un
This is where there's a difference.
I sadly don't know ow the ins and outs but I'd be intrigued as to the large refugee camp and UN officials on the cayman islands. Fleeing wars and persecution.
"I don't think all referalls would come via refugee camps. Do you have a rough day or time period I can go looking for? I'm.assuming it wasn't today | |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities.however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. No not at all. This is across every scheme. Some are to do with the UN so.e aren't. E.g a Syrian was in the cayman Islands but couldn't go back to Syria. He didn't want to live in the caymans all his life. He was granted ukrs without un being involved. For ukrs the un typically get si vovled in refugee camps. This wasnt necessary on tbe cayman islands. This was discussed on radio 4. I do believe the data should be in your download to see a male.syrian in tbe cayman islands. Asylum isn't open to all individuals no. This si where you need to prove persecution etc. Other wise there's be no point in borders. Every one could claim asylum in any country try they wish to live in. The UN do not decided where to relocate. They ask countries to accept certain individuals. The uk can choose to accept or decline them. They can not be forced on the uk. I'm going by what is written in the home offices "UK Refugee Resettlement: Policy Guidance" Do you remember which show this was discussed on?/ Bbc radio 4. The government document says they work with the un...it doesn't say this is the inky way the scheme can be accessed.I was hoping for a show name or a date. I figured it was bbc radio 4/from saying radio 4!
This is where I struggle. I also find
"UK Resettlement Scheme
The global resettlement scheme is open to vulnerable refugees around the world. Individuals coming through this scheme are assessed and referred by the UNHCR according to their criteria, which is based on people’s needs and vulnerabilities."
Which doesn't read as if there are other routes into the scheme other than unhcr.
That's why I'm keen to hear what you heard. So any additional help here is appreciated.
Will have been a show on at about 6.30 am in the morning
I've no idea whose show it is or the date. I justnuses to listen to it in the car.
Yes it's open tk refugees around the world and they can be assessed by the UN.
It doesn't say that's the only way it can be used via un
This is where there's a difference.
I sadly don't know ow the ins and outs but I'd be intrigued as to the large refugee camp and UN officials on the cayman islands. Fleeing wars and persecution.
I don't think all referalls would come via refugee camps.
Do you have a rough day or time period I can go looking for? I'm.assuming it wasn't today "No this was in 2022. It would have likely been a monday-weds as that's when I sued to drive to York. So you think a UN official flew out to a former British territory? To do the interviewing an Embassy could do? | |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities.however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. No not at all. This is across every scheme. Some are to do with the UN so.e aren't. E.g a Syrian was in the cayman Islands but couldn't go back to Syria. He didn't want to live in the caymans all his life. He was granted ukrs without un being involved. For ukrs the un typically get si vovled in refugee camps. This wasnt necessary on tbe cayman islands. This was discussed on radio 4. I do believe the data should be in your download to see a male.syrian in tbe cayman islands. Asylum isn't open to all individuals no. This si where you need to prove persecution etc. Other wise there's be no point in borders. Every one could claim asylum in any country try they wish to live in. The UN do not decided where to relocate. They ask countries to accept certain individuals. The uk can choose to accept or decline them. They can not be forced on the uk. I'm going by what is written in the home offices "UK Refugee Resettlement: Policy Guidance" Do you remember which show this was discussed on?/ Bbc radio 4. The government document says they work with the un...it doesn't say this is the inky way the scheme can be accessed.I was hoping for a show name or a date. I figured it was bbc radio 4/from saying radio 4!
This is where I struggle. I also find
"UK Resettlement Scheme
The global resettlement scheme is open to vulnerable refugees around the world. Individuals coming through this scheme are assessed and referred by the UNHCR according to their criteria, which is based on people’s needs and vulnerabilities."
Which doesn't read as if there are other routes into the scheme other than unhcr.
That's why I'm keen to hear what you heard. So any additional help here is appreciated.
Will have been a show on at about 6.30 am in the morning
I've no idea whose show it is or the date. I justnuses to listen to it in the car.
Yes it's open tk refugees around the world and they can be assessed by the UN.
It doesn't say that's the only way it can be used via un
This is where there's a difference.
I sadly don't know ow the ins and outs but I'd be intrigued as to the large refugee camp and UN officials on the cayman islands. Fleeing wars and persecution.
I don't think all referalls would come via refugee camps.
Do you have a rough day or time period I can go looking for? I'm.assuming it wasn't today No this was in 2022.
It would have likely been a monday-weds as that's when I sued to drive to York.
So you think a UN official flew out to a former British territory? To do the interviewing an Embassy could do?"ahh that makes it hard to go digging to understand. | |||
| |||
| |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities.however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. No not at all. This is across every scheme. Some are to do with the UN so.e aren't. E.g a Syrian was in the cayman Islands but couldn't go back to Syria. He didn't want to live in the caymans all his life. He was granted ukrs without un being involved. For ukrs the un typically get si vovled in refugee camps. This wasnt necessary on tbe cayman islands. This was discussed on radio 4. I do believe the data should be in your download to see a male.syrian in tbe cayman islands. Asylum isn't open to all individuals no. This si where you need to prove persecution etc. Other wise there's be no point in borders. Every one could claim asylum in any country try they wish to live in. The UN do not decided where to relocate. They ask countries to accept certain individuals. The uk can choose to accept or decline them. They can not be forced on the uk. I'm going by what is written in the home offices "UK Refugee Resettlement: Policy Guidance" Do you remember which show this was discussed on?/ Bbc radio 4. The government document says they work with the un...it doesn't say this is the inky way the scheme can be accessed.I was hoping for a show name or a date. I figured it was bbc radio 4/from saying radio 4!
This is where I struggle. I also find
"UK Resettlement Scheme
The global resettlement scheme is open to vulnerable refugees around the world. Individuals coming through this scheme are assessed and referred by the UNHCR according to their criteria, which is based on people’s needs and vulnerabilities."
Which doesn't read as if there are other routes into the scheme other than unhcr.
That's why I'm keen to hear what you heard. So any additional help here is appreciated.
Will have been a show on at about 6.30 am in the morning
I've no idea whose show it is or the date. I justnuses to listen to it in the car.
Yes it's open tk refugees around the world and they can be assessed by the UN.
It doesn't say that's the only way it can be used via un
This is where there's a difference.
I sadly don't know ow the ins and outs but I'd be intrigued as to the large refugee camp and UN officials on the cayman islands. Fleeing wars and persecution.
I don't think all referalls would come via refugee camps.
Do you have a rough day or time period I can go looking for? I'm.assuming it wasn't today No this was in 2022.
It would have likely been a monday-weds as that's when I sued to drive to York.
So you think a UN official flew out to a former British territory? To do the interviewing an Embassy could do?ahh that makes it hard to go digging to understand.
"What is missing from the government website on safe routes / schemes, that is making you ask so many questions? | |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities.however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. No not at all. This is across every scheme. Some are to do with the UN so.e aren't. E.g a Syrian was in the cayman Islands but couldn't go back to Syria. He didn't want to live in the caymans all his life. He was granted ukrs without un being involved. For ukrs the un typically get si vovled in refugee camps. This wasnt necessary on tbe cayman islands. This was discussed on radio 4. I do believe the data should be in your download to see a male.syrian in tbe cayman islands. Asylum isn't open to all individuals no. This si where you need to prove persecution etc. Other wise there's be no point in borders. Every one could claim asylum in any country try they wish to live in. The UN do not decided where to relocate. They ask countries to accept certain individuals. The uk can choose to accept or decline them. They can not be forced on the uk. I'm going by what is written in the home offices "UK Refugee Resettlement: Policy Guidance" Do you remember which show this was discussed on?/ Bbc radio 4. The government document says they work with the un...it doesn't say this is the inky way the scheme can be accessed.I was hoping for a show name or a date. I figured it was bbc radio 4/from saying radio 4!
This is where I struggle. I also find
"UK Resettlement Scheme
The global resettlement scheme is open to vulnerable refugees around the world. Individuals coming through this scheme are assessed and referred by the UNHCR according to their criteria, which is based on people’s needs and vulnerabilities."
Which doesn't read as if there are other routes into the scheme other than unhcr.
That's why I'm keen to hear what you heard. So any additional help here is appreciated.
Will have been a show on at about 6.30 am in the morning
I've no idea whose show it is or the date. I justnuses to listen to it in the car.
Yes it's open tk refugees around the world and they can be assessed by the UN.
It doesn't say that's the only way it can be used via un
This is where there's a difference.
I sadly don't know ow the ins and outs but I'd be intrigued as to the large refugee camp and UN officials on the cayman islands. Fleeing wars and persecution.
I don't think all referalls would come via refugee camps.
Do you have a rough day or time period I can go looking for? I'm.assuming it wasn't today No this was in 2022.
It would have likely been a monday-weds as that's when I sued to drive to York.
So you think a UN official flew out to a former British territory? To do the interviewing an Embassy could do?ahh that makes it hard to go digging to understand.
What is missing from the government website on safe routes / schemes, that is making you ask so many questions?
"I'm assuming this is aimed at me. Other than how one goes through the UK resettlement scheme other than an UNHCR referral, the government website has most of the information. All the questions were related to understanding each other's position and understanding of this information. Isn't that what discussions are mainly about? Indeed, most discussions probably arose because we were answering subtly different questions. I understand Morley was looking for everyone to agree that there are safe routes into the UK. I agree some safe ways are available to some people. Namely, those associated with Afghanistan and those who already have asylum elsewhere (e.g. are refugees) and have been referred to the UK for our humanitarian protection. Others like myself are coming from an angle to say these schemes are not open to all asylum seekers, only if you are related to Afghanistan or have already been granted asylum in a third (host) country. Eg I am an asylum seeker and wish to make my first claim in the UK, and I do not have a connection to Afghanistan. I do not believe there is a safe route for me to be able to claim asylum in the UK directly. The reason I and others want to agree on this point is because the implication is that those crossing the Channe, and entering irregularly are doing so despite there being safe routes. My understanding is that for the vast majority of those asylum seekers, there is no such safe route. The Afghan scheme and the UK referral scheme would not apply to them. | |||
"For future reference if I or anyone else puts in a post something along the lines of ' If the government had not closed all the safe routes then we would not have this problem' or ' it's the government's fault for forcing people into small boats because all the safe routes have been closed' Would these statements be true or false?" The governemnt didn't close any safe routes. They are all still available for genuine refugees and people wanting asylum. | |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities.however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. No not at all. This is across every scheme. Some are to do with the UN so.e aren't. E.g a Syrian was in the cayman Islands but couldn't go back to Syria. He didn't want to live in the caymans all his life. He was granted ukrs without un being involved. For ukrs the un typically get si vovled in refugee camps. This wasnt necessary on tbe cayman islands. This was discussed on radio 4. I do believe the data should be in your download to see a male.syrian in tbe cayman islands. Asylum isn't open to all individuals no. This si where you need to prove persecution etc. Other wise there's be no point in borders. Every one could claim asylum in any country try they wish to live in. The UN do not decided where to relocate. They ask countries to accept certain individuals. The uk can choose to accept or decline them. They can not be forced on the uk. I'm going by what is written in the home offices "UK Refugee Resettlement: Policy Guidance" Do you remember which show this was discussed on?/ Bbc radio 4. The government document says they work with the un...it doesn't say this is the inky way the scheme can be accessed.I was hoping for a show name or a date. I figured it was bbc radio 4/from saying radio 4!
This is where I struggle. I also find
"UK Resettlement Scheme
The global resettlement scheme is open to vulnerable refugees around the world. Individuals coming through this scheme are assessed and referred by the UNHCR according to their criteria, which is based on people’s needs and vulnerabilities."
Which doesn't read as if there are other routes into the scheme other than unhcr.
That's why I'm keen to hear what you heard. So any additional help here is appreciated.
Will have been a show on at about 6.30 am in the morning
I've no idea whose show it is or the date. I justnuses to listen to it in the car.
Yes it's open tk refugees around the world and they can be assessed by the UN.
It doesn't say that's the only way it can be used via un
This is where there's a difference.
I sadly don't know ow the ins and outs but I'd be intrigued as to the large refugee camp and UN officials on the cayman islands. Fleeing wars and persecution.
I don't think all referalls would come via refugee camps.
Do you have a rough day or time period I can go looking for? I'm.assuming it wasn't today No this was in 2022.
It would have likely been a monday-weds as that's when I sued to drive to York.
So you think a UN official flew out to a former British territory? To do the interviewing an Embassy could do?ahh that makes it hard to go digging to understand.
What is missing from the government website on safe routes / schemes, that is making you ask so many questions?
I'm assuming this is aimed at me.
Other than how one goes through the UK resettlement scheme other than an UNHCR referral, the government website has most of the information.
All the questions were related to understanding each other's position and understanding of this information. Isn't that what discussions are mainly about?
Indeed, most discussions probably arose because we were answering subtly different questions.
I understand Morley was looking for everyone to agree that there are safe routes into the UK. I agree some safe ways are available to some people. Namely, those associated with Afghanistan and those who already have asylum elsewhere (e.g. are refugees) and have been referred to the UK for our humanitarian protection.
Others like myself are coming from an angle to say these schemes are not open to all asylum seekers, only if you are related to Afghanistan or have already been granted asylum in a third (host) country.
Eg I am an asylum seeker and wish to make my first claim in the UK, and I do not have a connection to Afghanistan. I do not believe there is a safe route for me to be able to claim asylum in the UK directly.
The reason I and others want to agree on this point is because the implication is that those crossing the Channe, and entering irregularly are doing so despite there being safe routes. My understanding is that for the vast majority of those asylum seekers, there is no such safe route. The Afghan scheme and the UK referral scheme would not apply to them.
"Sorry please bo reneging. "Namely, those associated with Afghanistan and those who already have asylum elsewhere (e.g. are refugees) and have been referred to the UK for our humanitarian protection." You agreed there were safe routes for pretty much every nationality on earth This was not Afghanistan. We agreed this. | |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities.however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. No not at all. This is across every scheme. Some are to do with the UN so.e aren't. E.g a Syrian was in the cayman Islands but couldn't go back to Syria. He didn't want to live in the caymans all his life. He was granted ukrs without un being involved. For ukrs the un typically get si vovled in refugee camps. This wasnt necessary on tbe cayman islands. This was discussed on radio 4. I do believe the data should be in your download to see a male.syrian in tbe cayman islands. Asylum isn't open to all individuals no. This si where you need to prove persecution etc. Other wise there's be no point in borders. Every one could claim asylum in any country try they wish to live in. The UN do not decided where to relocate. They ask countries to accept certain individuals. The uk can choose to accept or decline them. They can not be forced on the uk. I'm going by what is written in the home offices "UK Refugee Resettlement: Policy Guidance" Do you remember which show this was discussed on?/ Bbc radio 4. The government document says they work with the un...it doesn't say this is the inky way the scheme can be accessed.I was hoping for a show name or a date. I figured it was bbc radio 4/from saying radio 4!
This is where I struggle. I also find
"UK Resettlement Scheme
The global resettlement scheme is open to vulnerable refugees around the world. Individuals coming through this scheme are assessed and referred by the UNHCR according to their criteria, which is based on people’s needs and vulnerabilities."
Which doesn't read as if there are other routes into the scheme other than unhcr.
That's why I'm keen to hear what you heard. So any additional help here is appreciated.
Will have been a show on at about 6.30 am in the morning
I've no idea whose show it is or the date. I justnuses to listen to it in the car.
Yes it's open tk refugees around the world and they can be assessed by the UN.
It doesn't say that's the only way it can be used via un
This is where there's a difference.
I sadly don't know ow the ins and outs but I'd be intrigued as to the large refugee camp and UN officials on the cayman islands. Fleeing wars and persecution.
I don't think all referalls would come via refugee camps.
Do you have a rough day or time period I can go looking for? I'm.assuming it wasn't today No this was in 2022.
It would have likely been a monday-weds as that's when I sued to drive to York.
So you think a UN official flew out to a former British territory? To do the interviewing an Embassy could do?ahh that makes it hard to go digging to understand.
What is missing from the government website on safe routes / schemes, that is making you ask so many questions?
I'm assuming this is aimed at me.
Other than how one goes through the UK resettlement scheme other than an UNHCR referral, the government website has most of the information.
All the questions were related to understanding each other's position and understanding of this information. Isn't that what discussions are mainly about?
Indeed, most discussions probably arose because we were answering subtly different questions.
I understand Morley was looking for everyone to agree that there are safe routes into the UK. I agree some safe ways are available to some people. Namely, those associated with Afghanistan and those who already have asylum elsewhere (e.g. are refugees) and have been referred to the UK for our humanitarian protection.
Others like myself are coming from an angle to say these schemes are not open to all asylum seekers, only if you are related to Afghanistan or have already been granted asylum in a third (host) country.
Eg I am an asylum seeker and wish to make my first claim in the UK, and I do not have a connection to Afghanistan. I do not believe there is a safe route for me to be able to claim asylum in the UK directly.
The reason I and others want to agree on this point is because the implication is that those crossing the Channe, and entering irregularly are doing so despite there being safe routes. My understanding is that for the vast majority of those asylum seekers, there is no such safe route. The Afghan scheme and the UK referral scheme would not apply to them.
Sorry please bo reneging.
"Namely, those associated with Afghanistan and those who already have asylum elsewhere (e.g. are refugees) and have been referred to the UK for our humanitarian protection."
You agreed there were safe routes for pretty much every nationality on earth
This was not Afghanistan. We agreed this. "Lets do this in parts. Is the afghan scheme only open to those associated with Afghanistan (accepting that this may include non afghans). | |||
"For future reference if I or anyone else puts in a post something along the lines of ' If the government had not closed all the safe routes then we would not have this problem' or ' it's the government's fault for forcing people into small boats because all the safe routes have been closed' Would these statements be true or false? The governemnt didn't close any safe routes. They are all still available for genuine refugees and people wanting asylum. " I'm certainly not well read on this subject but I'm sure others have said that safe routes were closed. Is it the case that no safe routes were closed and the actual safe routes that are in dispute have been there for years and years | |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities.however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. No not at all. This is across every scheme. Some are to do with the UN so.e aren't. E.g a Syrian was in the cayman Islands but couldn't go back to Syria. He didn't want to live in the caymans all his life. He was granted ukrs without un being involved. For ukrs the un typically get si vovled in refugee camps. This wasnt necessary on tbe cayman islands. This was discussed on radio 4. I do believe the data should be in your download to see a male.syrian in tbe cayman islands. Asylum isn't open to all individuals no. This si where you need to prove persecution etc. Other wise there's be no point in borders. Every one could claim asylum in any country try they wish to live in. The UN do not decided where to relocate. They ask countries to accept certain individuals. The uk can choose to accept or decline them. They can not be forced on the uk. I'm going by what is written in the home offices "UK Refugee Resettlement: Policy Guidance" Do you remember which show this was discussed on?/ Bbc radio 4. The government document says they work with the un...it doesn't say this is the inky way the scheme can be accessed.I was hoping for a show name or a date. I figured it was bbc radio 4/from saying radio 4!
This is where I struggle. I also find
"UK Resettlement Scheme
The global resettlement scheme is open to vulnerable refugees around the world. Individuals coming through this scheme are assessed and referred by the UNHCR according to their criteria, which is based on people’s needs and vulnerabilities."
Which doesn't read as if there are other routes into the scheme other than unhcr.
That's why I'm keen to hear what you heard. So any additional help here is appreciated.
Will have been a show on at about 6.30 am in the morning
I've no idea whose show it is or the date. I justnuses to listen to it in the car.
Yes it's open tk refugees around the world and they can be assessed by the UN.
It doesn't say that's the only way it can be used via un
This is where there's a difference.
I sadly don't know ow the ins and outs but I'd be intrigued as to the large refugee camp and UN officials on the cayman islands. Fleeing wars and persecution.
I don't think all referalls would come via refugee camps.
Do you have a rough day or time period I can go looking for? I'm.assuming it wasn't today No this was in 2022.
It would have likely been a monday-weds as that's when I sued to drive to York.
So you think a UN official flew out to a former British territory? To do the interviewing an Embassy could do?ahh that makes it hard to go digging to understand.
What is missing from the government website on safe routes / schemes, that is making you ask so many questions?
I'm assuming this is aimed at me.
Other than how one goes through the UK resettlement scheme other than an UNHCR referral, the government website has most of the information.
All the questions were related to understanding each other's position and understanding of this information. Isn't that what discussions are mainly about?
Indeed, most discussions probably arose because we were answering subtly different questions.
I understand Morley was looking for everyone to agree that there are safe routes into the UK. I agree some safe ways are available to some people. Namely, those associated with Afghanistan and those who already have asylum elsewhere (e.g. are refugees) and have been referred to the UK for our humanitarian protection.
Others like myself are coming from an angle to say these schemes are not open to all asylum seekers, only if you are related to Afghanistan or have already been granted asylum in a third (host) country.
Eg I am an asylum seeker and wish to make my first claim in the UK, and I do not have a connection to Afghanistan. I do not believe there is a safe route for me to be able to claim asylum in the UK directly.
The reason I and others want to agree on this point is because the implication is that those crossing the Channe, and entering irregularly are doing so despite there being safe routes. My understanding is that for the vast majority of those asylum seekers, there is no such safe route. The Afghan scheme and the UK referral scheme would not apply to them.
Sorry please bo reneging.
"Namely, those associated with Afghanistan and those who already have asylum elsewhere (e.g. are refugees) and have been referred to the UK for our humanitarian protection."
You agreed there were safe routes for pretty much every nationality on earth
This was not Afghanistan. We agreed this.
Lets do this in parts.
Is the afghan scheme only open to those associated with Afghanistan (accepting that this may include non afghans). "The acrs and afghan yes. They will be for afghan citizens ornpeople in afghan or afghan citizens abroad. | |||
"For future reference if I or anyone else puts in a post something along the lines of ' If the government had not closed all the safe routes then we would not have this problem' or ' it's the government's fault for forcing people into small boats because all the safe routes have been closed' Would these statements be true or false? The governemnt didn't close any safe routes. They are all still available for genuine refugees and people wanting asylum. I'm certainly not well read on this subject but I'm sure others have said that safe routes were closed. Is it the case that no safe routes were closed and the actual safe routes that are in dispute have been there for years and years" The others dpnt know what they're talking about. Others in this forum didn't even know things suck as ukrs, acrs , vprs , vcrs, gateway programme existed until I told them. | |||
| |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities.however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. No not at all. This is across every scheme. Some are to do with the UN so.e aren't. E.g a Syrian was in the cayman Islands but couldn't go back to Syria. He didn't want to live in the caymans all his life. He was granted ukrs without un being involved. For ukrs the un typically get si vovled in refugee camps. This wasnt necessary on tbe cayman islands. This was discussed on radio 4. I do believe the data should be in your download to see a male.syrian in tbe cayman islands. Asylum isn't open to all individuals no. This si where you need to prove persecution etc. Other wise there's be no point in borders. Every one could claim asylum in any country try they wish to live in. The UN do not decided where to relocate. They ask countries to accept certain individuals. The uk can choose to accept or decline them. They can not be forced on the uk. I'm going by what is written in the home offices "UK Refugee Resettlement: Policy Guidance" Do you remember which show this was discussed on?/ Bbc radio 4. The government document says they work with the un...it doesn't say this is the inky way the scheme can be accessed.I was hoping for a show name or a date. I figured it was bbc radio 4/from saying radio 4!
This is where I struggle. I also find
"UK Resettlement Scheme
The global resettlement scheme is open to vulnerable refugees around the world. Individuals coming through this scheme are assessed and referred by the UNHCR according to their criteria, which is based on people’s needs and vulnerabilities."
Which doesn't read as if there are other routes into the scheme other than unhcr.
That's why I'm keen to hear what you heard. So any additional help here is appreciated.
Will have been a show on at about 6.30 am in the morning
I've no idea whose show it is or the date. I justnuses to listen to it in the car.
Yes it's open tk refugees around the world and they can be assessed by the UN.
It doesn't say that's the only way it can be used via un
This is where there's a difference.
I sadly don't know ow the ins and outs but I'd be intrigued as to the large refugee camp and UN officials on the cayman islands. Fleeing wars and persecution.
I don't think all referalls would come via refugee camps.
Do you have a rough day or time period I can go looking for? I'm.assuming it wasn't today No this was in 2022.
It would have likely been a monday-weds as that's when I sued to drive to York.
So you think a UN official flew out to a former British territory? To do the interviewing an Embassy could do?ahh that makes it hard to go digging to understand.
What is missing from the government website on safe routes / schemes, that is making you ask so many questions?
I'm assuming this is aimed at me.
Other than how one goes through the UK resettlement scheme other than an UNHCR referral, the government website has most of the information.
All the questions were related to understanding each other's position and understanding of this information. Isn't that what discussions are mainly about?
Indeed, most discussions probably arose because we were answering subtly different questions.
I understand Morley was looking for everyone to agree that there are safe routes into the UK. I agree some safe ways are available to some people. Namely, those associated with Afghanistan and those who already have asylum elsewhere (e.g. are refugees) and have been referred to the UK for our humanitarian protection.
Others like myself are coming from an angle to say these schemes are not open to all asylum seekers, only if you are related to Afghanistan or have already been granted asylum in a third (host) country.
Eg I am an asylum seeker and wish to make my first claim in the UK, and I do not have a connection to Afghanistan. I do not believe there is a safe route for me to be able to claim asylum in the UK directly.
The reason I and others want to agree on this point is because the implication is that those crossing the Channe, and entering irregularly are doing so despite there being safe routes. My understanding is that for the vast majority of those asylum seekers, there is no such safe route. The Afghan scheme and the UK referral scheme would not apply to them.
Sorry please bo reneging.
"Namely, those associated with Afghanistan and those who already have asylum elsewhere (e.g. are refugees) and have been referred to the UK for our humanitarian protection."
You agreed there were safe routes for pretty much every nationality on earth
This was not Afghanistan. We agreed this.
Lets do this in parts.
Is the afghan scheme only open to those associated with Afghanistan (accepting that this may include non afghans).
The acrs and afghan yes. They will be for afghan citizens ornpeople in afghan or afghan citizens abroad." agreed on that.
The ukrs. Do we agree this is for those who already have refugee status (rather than those seeking asylum)? | |||
"For future reference if I or anyone else puts in a post something along the lines of ' If the government had not closed all the safe routes then we would not have this problem' or ' it's the government's fault for forcing people into small boats because all the safe routes have been closed' Would these statements be true or false? The governemnt didn't close any safe routes. They are all still available for genuine refugees and people wanting asylum. I'm certainly not well read on this subject but I'm sure others have said that safe routes were closed. Is it the case that no safe routes were closed and the actual safe routes that are in dispute have been there for years and years The others dpnt know what they're talking about. Others in this forum didn't even know things suck as ukrs, acrs , vprs , vcrs, gateway programme existed until I told them." for clarity, vprs and vcrs no longer exist. They've been superseded by ukrs. They have existed tho, agreed. | |||
"For future reference if I or anyone else puts in a post something along the lines of ' If the government had not closed all the safe routes then we would not have this problem' or ' it's the government's fault for forcing people into small boats because all the safe routes have been closed' Would these statements be true or false? The governemnt didn't close any safe routes. They are all still available for genuine refugees and people wanting asylum. I'm certainly not well read on this subject but I'm sure others have said that safe routes were closed. Is it the case that no safe routes were closed and the actual safe routes that are in dispute have been there for years and years The others dpnt know what they're talking about. Others in this forum didn't even know things suck as ukrs, acrs , vprs , vcrs, gateway programme existed until I told them.for clarity, vprs and vcrs no longer exist. They've been superseded by ukrs. They have existed tho, agreed. "Agreed. But we are taking about all rewxent routes and legal safe routes.. so in the discussion. They matter. | |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities.however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. No not at all. This is across every scheme. Some are to do with the UN so.e aren't. E.g a Syrian was in the cayman Islands but couldn't go back to Syria. He didn't want to live in the caymans all his life. He was granted ukrs without un being involved. For ukrs the un typically get si vovled in refugee camps. This wasnt necessary on tbe cayman islands. This was discussed on radio 4. I do believe the data should be in your download to see a male.syrian in tbe cayman islands. Asylum isn't open to all individuals no. This si where you need to prove persecution etc. Other wise there's be no point in borders. Every one could claim asylum in any country try they wish to live in. The UN do not decided where to relocate. They ask countries to accept certain individuals. The uk can choose to accept or decline them. They can not be forced on the uk. I'm going by what is written in the home offices "UK Refugee Resettlement: Policy Guidance" Do you remember which show this was discussed on?/ Bbc radio 4. The government document says they work with the un...it doesn't say this is the inky way the scheme can be accessed.I was hoping for a show name or a date. I figured it was bbc radio 4/from saying radio 4!
This is where I struggle. I also find
"UK Resettlement Scheme
The global resettlement scheme is open to vulnerable refugees around the world. Individuals coming through this scheme are assessed and referred by the UNHCR according to their criteria, which is based on people’s needs and vulnerabilities."
Which doesn't read as if there are other routes into the scheme other than unhcr.
That's why I'm keen to hear what you heard. So any additional help here is appreciated.
Will have been a show on at about 6.30 am in the morning
I've no idea whose show it is or the date. I justnuses to listen to it in the car.
Yes it's open tk refugees around the world and they can be assessed by the UN.
It doesn't say that's the only way it can be used via un
This is where there's a difference.
I sadly don't know ow the ins and outs but I'd be intrigued as to the large refugee camp and UN officials on the cayman islands. Fleeing wars and persecution.
I don't think all referalls would come via refugee camps.
Do you have a rough day or time period I can go looking for? I'm.assuming it wasn't today No this was in 2022.
It would have likely been a monday-weds as that's when I sued to drive to York.
So you think a UN official flew out to a former British territory? To do the interviewing an Embassy could do?ahh that makes it hard to go digging to understand.
What is missing from the government website on safe routes / schemes, that is making you ask so many questions?
I'm assuming this is aimed at me.
Other than how one goes through the UK resettlement scheme other than an UNHCR referral, the government website has most of the information.
All the questions were related to understanding each other's position and understanding of this information. Isn't that what discussions are mainly about?
Indeed, most discussions probably arose because we were answering subtly different questions.
I understand Morley was looking for everyone to agree that there are safe routes into the UK. I agree some safe ways are available to some people. Namely, those associated with Afghanistan and those who already have asylum elsewhere (e.g. are refugees) and have been referred to the UK for our humanitarian protection.
Others like myself are coming from an angle to say these schemes are not open to all asylum seekers, only if you are related to Afghanistan or have already been granted asylum in a third (host) country.
Eg I am an asylum seeker and wish to make my first claim in the UK, and I do not have a connection to Afghanistan. I do not believe there is a safe route for me to be able to claim asylum in the UK directly.
The reason I and others want to agree on this point is because the implication is that those crossing the Channe, and entering irregularly are doing so despite there being safe routes. My understanding is that for the vast majority of those asylum seekers, there is no such safe route. The Afghan scheme and the UK referral scheme would not apply to them.
Sorry please bo reneging.
"Namely, those associated with Afghanistan and those who already have asylum elsewhere (e.g. are refugees) and have been referred to the UK for our humanitarian protection."
You agreed there were safe routes for pretty much every nationality on earth
This was not Afghanistan. We agreed this.
Lets do this in parts.
Is the afghan scheme only open to those associated with Afghanistan (accepting that this may include non afghans).
The acrs and afghan yes. They will be for afghan citizens ornpeople in afghan or afghan citizens abroad. agreed on that.
The ukrs. Do we agree this is for those who already have refugee status (rather than those seeking asylum)?"Every 1 who wishes to come to the uk an claim asylum or refuge is a refugee. They do not necessarily have to have left their country, they do not necessarily need to be in a refugee camp. As discussed. If they can not return home for example. As the cayman islands example shows. They don't have to be in any sort of un refugee camp | |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities.however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. No not at all. This is across every scheme. Some are to do with the UN so.e aren't. E.g a Syrian was in the cayman Islands but couldn't go back to Syria. He didn't want to live in the caymans all his life. He was granted ukrs without un being involved. For ukrs the un typically get si vovled in refugee camps. This wasnt necessary on tbe cayman islands. This was discussed on radio 4. I do believe the data should be in your download to see a male.syrian in tbe cayman islands. Asylum isn't open to all individuals no. This si where you need to prove persecution etc. Other wise there's be no point in borders. Every one could claim asylum in any country try they wish to live in. The UN do not decided where to relocate. They ask countries to accept certain individuals. The uk can choose to accept or decline them. They can not be forced on the uk. I'm going by what is written in the home offices "UK Refugee Resettlement: Policy Guidance" Do you remember which show this was discussed on?/ Bbc radio 4. The government document says they work with the un...it doesn't say this is the inky way the scheme can be accessed.I was hoping for a show name or a date. I figured it was bbc radio 4/from saying radio 4!
This is where I struggle. I also find
"UK Resettlement Scheme
The global resettlement scheme is open to vulnerable refugees around the world. Individuals coming through this scheme are assessed and referred by the UNHCR according to their criteria, which is based on people’s needs and vulnerabilities."
Which doesn't read as if there are other routes into the scheme other than unhcr.
That's why I'm keen to hear what you heard. So any additional help here is appreciated.
Will have been a show on at about 6.30 am in the morning
I've no idea whose show it is or the date. I justnuses to listen to it in the car.
Yes it's open tk refugees around the world and they can be assessed by the UN.
It doesn't say that's the only way it can be used via un
This is where there's a difference.
I sadly don't know ow the ins and outs but I'd be intrigued as to the large refugee camp and UN officials on the cayman islands. Fleeing wars and persecution.
I don't think all referalls would come via refugee camps.
Do you have a rough day or time period I can go looking for? I'm.assuming it wasn't today No this was in 2022.
It would have likely been a monday-weds as that's when I sued to drive to York.
So you think a UN official flew out to a former British territory? To do the interviewing an Embassy could do?ahh that makes it hard to go digging to understand.
What is missing from the government website on safe routes / schemes, that is making you ask so many questions?
I'm assuming this is aimed at me.
Other than how one goes through the UK resettlement scheme other than an UNHCR referral, the government website has most of the information.
All the questions were related to understanding each other's position and understanding of this information. Isn't that what discussions are mainly about?
Indeed, most discussions probably arose because we were answering subtly different questions.
I understand Morley was looking for everyone to agree that there are safe routes into the UK. I agree some safe ways are available to some people. Namely, those associated with Afghanistan and those who already have asylum elsewhere (e.g. are refugees) and have been referred to the UK for our humanitarian protection.
Others like myself are coming from an angle to say these schemes are not open to all asylum seekers, only if you are related to Afghanistan or have already been granted asylum in a third (host) country.
Eg I am an asylum seeker and wish to make my first claim in the UK, and I do not have a connection to Afghanistan. I do not believe there is a safe route for me to be able to claim asylum in the UK directly.
The reason I and others want to agree on this point is because the implication is that those crossing the Channe, and entering irregularly are doing so despite there being safe routes. My understanding is that for the vast majority of those asylum seekers, there is no such safe route. The Afghan scheme and the UK referral scheme would not apply to them.
Sorry please bo reneging.
"Namely, those associated with Afghanistan and those who already have asylum elsewhere (e.g. are refugees) and have been referred to the UK for our humanitarian protection."
You agreed there were safe routes for pretty much every nationality on earth
This was not Afghanistan. We agreed this.
Lets do this in parts.
Is the afghan scheme only open to those associated with Afghanistan (accepting that this may include non afghans).
The acrs and afghan yes. They will be for afghan citizens ornpeople in afghan or afghan citizens abroad. agreed on that.
The ukrs. Do we agree this is for those who already have refugee status (rather than those seeking asylum)?
Every 1 who wishes to come to the uk an claim asylum or refuge is a refugee.
They do not necessarily have to have left their country, they do not necessarily need to be in a refugee camp. As discussed.
If they can not return home for example. As the cayman islands example shows. They don't have to be in any sort of un refugee camp"disagree. A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. | |||
"This is the classic fab forum of cake and eat it. In the previous thread. You were adamant ukrs was only open to those accepted and verified but the UN. These cases are all in 3rd countries typical but not limited to refugee camps in Turkey for example. They still don't get to come here until fully vetted and then arrive as UKRS( not always via UN) That is my understanding. "It [UKRS] is accessible to refugees who have been assessed for resettlement by UNHCR against their resettlement submission categories" I don't follow where I am having my cake and eating it. It is not a route for one to claim asylum in the Uk. They have claimed asylum else where. Unhcr have determined them to be refugees already. You are now having your cake and eating it saying its only Afghans coming here via their schemes. Again, unclear. I am saying only those who have been involved in afgan someway can use the scheme. Eg those evacuated, those referred by unhcr or those "at risk who supported the UK and international community effort in Afghanistan" It is more than just afghan nations. I am sorry you don't get to have your cake and eat it. You either admit they can come here via UNHCR and ukrs working together. And thus legal routes exist Or you get no further discussion. You don't have it both ways. You asked about applying for asylum. Ukrs isn't about applying for asylum in the uk. It's relocating refugees. Who have applied for asylum in another country. The discussion is about safe legal routes to the uk. Look at your title.I was answering your question which was about applying for asylum in the uk. Did those who come in under ukrs apply for asylum in the uk ? That was a colloquialism. Are the legal routes to the uk for asylum seekers yes or no?yes. Are these schemes available to all? No. Glad we got there in the end. Yes there are safe and legal rlutesfor people to come to the uk for refuge. Glad we finally got there Now then. Are they available to all . As stated previously I think these schemes have see ma y come to the uk over 20 years. Some 207 nations I think. Now. They won't be available to all no. There's no reason a German would need to seek asylum to the uk currently. But since 2022. Total grants to different nationalities is 113 So there are clearly routes for a LOT of nationalities.however when they come via resettlement is because they are vulnerable. And it is unhcr who decide where to relocate, not the individual. So while I agree it's open to lots (probably all) nationalities, its not open to all individuals. It certainly isn't a route for applying for asylum in the uk. Even if it is a way that results in some people getting it. No not at all. This is across every scheme. Some are to do with the UN so.e aren't. E.g a Syrian was in the cayman Islands but couldn't go back to Syria. He didn't want to live in the caymans all his life. He was granted ukrs without un being involved. For ukrs the un typically get si vovled in refugee camps. This wasnt necessary on tbe cayman islands. This was discussed on radio 4. I do believe the data should be in your download to see a male.syrian in tbe cayman islands. Asylum isn't open to all individuals no. This si where you need to prove persecution etc. Other wise there's be no point in borders. Every one could claim asylum in any country try they wish to live in. The UN do not decided where to relocate. They ask countries to accept certain individuals. The uk can choose to accept or decline them. They can not be forced on the uk. I'm going by what is written in the home offices "UK Refugee Resettlement: Policy Guidance" Do you remember which show this was discussed on?/ Bbc radio 4. The government document says they work with the un...it doesn't say this is the inky way the scheme can be accessed.I was hoping for a show name or a date. I figured it was bbc radio 4/from saying radio 4!
This is where I struggle. I also find
"UK Resettlement Scheme
The global resettlement scheme is open to vulnerable refugees around the world. Individuals coming through this scheme are assessed and referred by the UNHCR according to their criteria, which is based on people’s needs and vulnerabilities."
Which doesn't read as if there are other routes into the scheme other than unhcr.
That's why I'm keen to hear what you heard. So any additional help here is appreciated.
Will have been a show on at about 6.30 am in the morning
I've no idea whose show it is or the date. I justnuses to listen to it in the car.
Yes it's open tk refugees around the world and they can be assessed by the UN.
It doesn't say that's the only way it can be used via un
This is where there's a difference.
I sadly don't know ow the ins and outs but I'd be intrigued as to the large refugee camp and UN officials on the cayman islands. Fleeing wars and persecution.
I don't think all referalls would come via refugee camps.
Do you have a rough day or time period I can go looking for? I'm.assuming it wasn't today No this was in 2022.
It would have likely been a monday-weds as that's when I sued to drive to York.
So you think a UN official flew out to a former British territory? To do the interviewing an Embassy could do?ahh that makes it hard to go digging to understand.
What is missing from the government website on safe routes / schemes, that is making you ask so many questions?
I'm assuming this is aimed at me.
Other than how one goes through the UK resettlement scheme other than an UNHCR referral, the government website has most of the information.
All the questions were related to understanding each other's position and understanding of this information. Isn't that what discussions are mainly about?
Indeed, most discussions probably arose because we were answering subtly different questions.
I understand Morley was looking for everyone to agree that there are safe routes into the UK. I agree some safe ways are available to some people. Namely, those associated with Afghanistan and those who already have asylum elsewhere (e.g. are refugees) and have been referred to the UK for our humanitarian protection.
Others like myself are coming from an angle to say these schemes are not open to all asylum seekers, only if you are related to Afghanistan or have already been granted asylum in a third (host) country.
Eg I am an asylum seeker and wish to make my first claim in the UK, and I do not have a connection to Afghanistan. I do not believe there is a safe route for me to be able to claim asylum in the UK directly.
The reason I and others want to agree on this point is because the implication is that those crossing the Channe, and entering irregularly are doing so despite there being safe routes. My understanding is that for the vast majority of those asylum seekers, there is no such safe route. The Afghan scheme and the UK referral scheme would not apply to them.
Sorry please bo reneging.
"Namely, those associated with Afghanistan and those who already have asylum elsewhere (e.g. are refugees) and have been referred to the UK for our humanitarian protection."
You agreed there were safe routes for pretty much every nationality on earth
This was not Afghanistan. We agreed this.
Lets do this in parts.
Is the afghan scheme only open to those associated with Afghanistan (accepting that this may include non afghans).
The acrs and afghan yes. They will be for afghan citizens ornpeople in afghan or afghan citizens abroad. agreed on that.
The ukrs. Do we agree this is for those who already have refugee status (rather than those seeking asylum)?
Every 1 who wishes to come to the uk an claim asylum or refuge is a refugee.
They do not necessarily have to have left their country, they do not necessarily need to be in a refugee camp. As discussed.
If they can not return home for example. As the cayman islands example shows. They don't have to be in any sort of un refugee campdisagree. A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker.
"Nooo sorry. Not every refugee has claimed asylum. | |||
"disagree. A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker." Not sure on this point. Do ALL refugees claim asylum? Are all the Syrian refugees in Turkey claiming asylum in Turkey or are they just staying somewhere safe(r) to escape the war in Syria and ISIS? Do they want to go home when it is safe to do so? | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker." I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time " Or an Ex-Pat  | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time " all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" " Will try a d reply later. The new economic data has created a shitstorm . | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Will try a d reply later. The new economic data has created a shitstorm ." I await that thread too | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" " Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. | |||
| |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. " is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. | |||
"You don't need to claim asylum once you get to the UK as a refugee coming via tbe UN. You have already been granted indefinite leave to remain. After 5 years you become a citizen should you wish to remain." agreed. Your refugee status has already been recognised by unhrc or the host country. In a sense ukhrc are requesting um humanitarian protection on your behalf as a vulnerable refugee. | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. " Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation" Nope. Section 31 defence would take care of that. It's the same defence used on illegal entry cases. | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation Nope. Section 31 defence would take care of that. It's the same defence used on illegal entry cases. " but it's illegal, right? Just not punishable given they are claiming asylum. And if we thought this to be the reason for applying for a visa, we would reject the visa. | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation" Not true. | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation Nope. Section 31 defence would take care of that. It's the same defence used on illegal entry cases. " Quite right. Why he has so brazenly lied I do not know | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation Nope. Section 31 defence would take care of that. It's the same defence used on illegal entry cases. but it's illegal, right? Just not punishable given they are claiming asylum. And if we thought this to be the reason for applying for a visa, we would reject the visa. " It is illegal. No more so than entry without a visa. | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation Nope. Section 31 defence would take care of that. It's the same defence used on illegal entry cases. but it's illegal, right? Just not punishable given they are claiming asylum. And if we thought this to be the reason for applying for a visa, we would reject the visa. It is illegal. No more so than entry without a visa." my understanding too. Not a legal way of applying for asylum. Albeit safer. If you are able to get the visa on false pretenses. | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation Nope. Section 31 defence would take care of that. It's the same defence used on illegal entry cases. but it's illegal, right? Just not punishable given they are claiming asylum. And if we thought this to be the reason for applying for a visa, we would reject the visa. It is illegal. No more so than entry without a visa. my understanding too. Not a legal way of applying for asylum. Albeit safer. If you are able to get the visa on false pretenses. "If you can't get the visa just hop on a dinghy | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation Nope. Section 31 defence would take care of that. It's the same defence used on illegal entry cases. but it's illegal, right? Just not punishable given they are claiming asylum. And if we thought this to be the reason for applying for a visa, we would reject the visa. It is illegal. No more so than entry without a visa. my understanding too. Not a legal way of applying for asylum. Albeit safer. If you are able to get the visa on false pretenses.
If you can't get the visa just hop on a dinghy "indeed. It's how I would do it. If you can't be legal, at least be safe | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation Nope. Section 31 defence would take care of that. It's the same defence used on illegal entry cases. but it's illegal, right? Just not punishable given they are claiming asylum. And if we thought this to be the reason for applying for a visa, we would reject the visa. It is illegal. No more so than entry without a visa. my understanding too. Not a legal way of applying for asylum. Albeit safer. If you are able to get the visa on false pretenses.
If you can't get the visa just hop on a dinghy "From the above it appears that both crossing the channel in a dingy to the UK and obtaining a visa under false presences are both illegal forms of entry but if the person is a genuine asylum seeker then the offense is overlooked. The main difference is the safety factor and the fact if you get on a plane then you will most probably have to have ID with you which may or may not help your claim in the UK | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation Nope. Section 31 defence would take care of that. It's the same defence used on illegal entry cases. but it's illegal, right? Just not punishable given they are claiming asylum. And if we thought this to be the reason for applying for a visa, we would reject the visa. It is illegal. No more so than entry without a visa. my understanding too. Not a legal way of applying for asylum. Albeit safer. If you are able to get the visa on false pretenses.
If you can't get the visa just hop on a dinghy
From the above it appears that both crossing the channel in a dingy to the UK and obtaining a visa under false presences are both illegal forms of entry but if the person is a genuine asylum seeker then the offense is overlooked. The main difference is the safety factor and the fact if you get on a plane then you will most probably have to have ID with you which may or may not help your claim in the UK"These people aren't stupid. They want us to have to dig, dig, dig. It's prolongs the process. | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation Nope. Section 31 defence would take care of that. It's the same defence used on illegal entry cases. but it's illegal, right? Just not punishable given they are claiming asylum. And if we thought this to be the reason for applying for a visa, we would reject the visa. " 
That’s the simple point that some here ignore. But at lest they’re consistently wrong on the topic.
At least some of us have read documents on the subject  | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation Nope. Section 31 defence would take care of that. It's the same defence used on illegal entry cases. but it's illegal, right? Just not punishable given they are claiming asylum. And if we thought this to be the reason for applying for a visa, we would reject the visa.
That’s the simple point that some here ignore. But at lest they’re consistently wrong on the topic.
At least some of us have read documents on the subject "Did you find that mirror yet?  | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation Nope. Section 31 defence would take care of that. It's the same defence used on illegal entry cases. but it's illegal, right? Just not punishable given they are claiming asylum. And if we thought this to be the reason for applying for a visa, we would reject the visa.
That’s the simple point that some here ignore. But at lest they’re consistently wrong on the topic.
At least some of us have read documents on the subject
Did you find that mirror yet? "No I was busy chuckling at the contortionist acts on display | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation Nope. Section 31 defence would take care of that. It's the same defence used on illegal entry cases. but it's illegal, right? Just not punishable given they are claiming asylum. And if we thought this to be the reason for applying for a visa, we would reject the visa.
That’s the simple point that some here ignore. But at lest they’re consistently wrong on the topic.
At least some of us have read documents on the subject
Did you find that mirror yet?
No I was busy chuckling at the contortionist acts on display "Touché
Care to comment on people being imprisoned or deported whilst using section 31 defence?
Or are you suddenly a mime act? | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation Nope. Section 31 defence would take care of that. It's the same defence used on illegal entry cases. but it's illegal, right? Just not punishable given they are claiming asylum. And if we thought this to be the reason for applying for a visa, we would reject the visa.
That’s the simple point that some here ignore. But at lest they’re consistently wrong on the topic.
At least some of us have read documents on the subject
Did you find that mirror yet?
No I was busy chuckling at the contortionist acts on display
Touché
Care to comment on people being imprisoned or deported whilst using section 31 defence?
Or are you suddenly a mime act?"I’m just giving you the facts about what someone is liable for should they fake the reason for their visa. | |||
"A refugee is someone who has successfully claimed asylum. Before them they are an asylum seeker. I'm sorry to see that you have fallen for this exclusionary classification. A refugee becomes a refugee as soon as they make the decision not to return to their home country. They stay a refugee for the rest of their life, unless they decide to return. An asylum seeker is anyone that has applied for asylum, and has not yet been accepted or deported. A person can be a refugee and an asylum seeker both at the same time all fair. I had my focus on the ukrs scheme which is about recognised refugees. Eg refugees who have gone thru an asylum claim. "These resettlement programmes transfer recognised refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of giving refugees permanent settlement" Now, it may be this recognition can be done by the UN without needing to claim asylum in their host country. But it does not appear that the refugee themselves can claim asylum in the UK. But the UNHCR decide where best for them to go. Also, it is not a route available to all refugees " Resettlement is a critical protection tool for refugees who have been identified as particularly at risk, and who cannot return home or integrate into the country where they have sought asylum. It is the rare exception – available to fewer than 1% of refugees worldwide. Although a critical and lifesaving mechanism, resettlement is not a solution for most refugees, and does not replace the right to seek asylum itself." UNHCR factsheet. Which brings me back to my yes/no question of "for any given asylum seeker, is there always a safe route for them to claim asylum in the uk" Yes there is always a safe route. You buy a plane ticket and a visa. You request asylum when you enter the uk. If they don't have ID. They can contact the UN and request aid in attaining this. You seem to be hung up on who can use these schemes. I've pointed out since 2022 over 100 nationalities have used the schemes. Not every one will be granted asylum because ebot every 1 is entitled to asylum. is entering in a tourist visa with the intent of apply g for asylum legal? Does everyone get given a visa? I'm aware many nationalities have used the schemes. That doesn't show everyone is able use the safe route. Even unhrc say that the referral is used in the exceptional case. I'm also aware that not everyone will be granted. Never made that claim. My claim is that not every refugee has a safe and legal way of applying for asylum in the uk. Pointing at schemes that address the exceptional cases does not disprove me. Now if the visa route is available to all, then we should make that a lot more obvious if we want to reduce channel crossings. Unless it is claimed that hardly any of the boat crosses are refugees. Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation Nope. Section 31 defence would take care of that. It's the same defence used on illegal entry cases. but it's illegal, right? Just not punishable given they are claiming asylum. And if we thought this to be the reason for applying for a visa, we would reject the visa.
That’s the simple point that some here ignore. But at lest they’re consistently wrong on the topic.
At least some of us have read documents on the subject
Did you find that mirror yet?
No I was busy chuckling at the contortionist acts on display
Touché
Care to comment on people being imprisoned or deported whilst using section 31 defence?
Or are you suddenly a mime act?
I’m just giving you the facts about what someone is liable for should they fake the reason for their visa."But it's not a fact is it? Section 31 takes care of your claims. | |||
| |||
"Am I right in thinking that the majority of this thread has been a user reading another user saying "(most) asylum seekers have no legal routes" as " there are no legal routes"?" There are legal routes for all. | |||
| |||
"That's though is not a guarantee your claim will be accepted." ok, can we agree that the user was referring to safe routes then. That would solve it wouldn't it? | |||
"That's though is not a guarantee your claim will be accepted." is this the gap between our views? That one could, in theory, go thru ukrs. It's just that if you are not vulnerable in your host county the chances of success are minimal. | |||
"Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation" Not true, there is no criminal offence of lying on a visa application. The punishment for doing so is deportation. Why would we want to take someone to court and then imprison them at our expense, when we could just deport them? | |||
"Anyone coming to the U.K on a tourist visa and then applying for asylum would have lied on the documentation for entry to the country, and would be liable for a fine, imprisonment and ultimately likely deportation Not true, there is no criminal offence of lying on a visa application. The punishment for doing so is deportation. Why would we want to take someone to court and then imprison them at our expense, when we could just deport them?" Not to mention if their claim is real you can't deport them | |||
