FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Government immigration incompetence.
Government immigration incompetence.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The i paper (owned by the Daily Mail) reports today that the government’s ‘Stop the Boats’ law means 22,422 migrants can neither be deported, nor allowed to stay. “A “crazy” contradiction in Rishi Sunak’s flagship small-boats law has left the Home Office powerless to deport or grant asylum to more than 22,000 migrants already in the UK, i can reveal. At least half of the asylum seekers left in limbo indefinitely will be living in costly hotels likely to be costing the taxpayer more than £1.5m a day. The situation has been caused by the Illegal Migration Act which requires the Government to “remove” illegal migrants but only applies to those who entered the country from 20th July 2023. But the same legislation also bans the Government from granting asylum to any migrants who entered the UK illegally “on or after 7 March, 2023”. It has left the Home Office with no practical way of dealing with 22,448 migrants who arrived in the country between those two dates.“ Hateful and incompetent, what a government we have." The government has undeniable rights. political parties restrict it inept constantly up to the stage of constipation, The plumbing ain't to good in the house's, so they push the effluent elsewhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The i paper (owned by the Daily Mail) reports today that the government’s ‘Stop the Boats’ law means 22,422 migrants can neither be deported, nor allowed to stay. “A “crazy” contradiction in Rishi Sunak’s flagship small-boats law has left the Home Office powerless to deport or grant asylum to more than 22,000 migrants already in the UK, i can reveal. At least half of the asylum seekers left in limbo indefinitely will be living in costly hotels likely to be costing the taxpayer more than £1.5m a day. The situation has been caused by the Illegal Migration Act which requires the Government to “remove” illegal migrants but only applies to those who entered the country from 20th July 2023. But the same legislation also bans the Government from granting asylum to any migrants who entered the UK illegally “on or after 7 March, 2023”. It has left the Home Office with no practical way of dealing with 22,448 migrants who arrived in the country between those two dates.“ Hateful and incompetent, what a government we have." What is the answer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"215,500 on the home office asylum waiting list Rwanda capacity 500 a year If nobody else arrives, it will be year 2455 until everyone is deported " There are no limits on numbers as far as I'm aware, where did you get the number 500 from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"215,500 on the home office asylum waiting list Rwanda capacity 500 a year If nobody else arrives, it will be year 2455 until everyone is deported There are no limits on numbers as far as I'm aware, where did you get the number 500 from?" it's a bit embarrassing we dont actually know what is budgeted for. As I suspect limits will be £ based. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"215,500 on the home office asylum waiting list Rwanda capacity 500 a year If nobody else arrives, it will be year 2455 until everyone is deported There are no limits on numbers as far as I'm aware, where did you get the number 500 from?it's a bit embarrassing we dont actually know what is budgeted for. As I suspect limits will be £ based. " The idea is the scheme stops the crossings, which I guess the government will say is great result. If the scheme ever starts and the numbers don't drop dramatically then it can be classed as a failure, there will be no hiding from the figures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"215,500 on the home office asylum waiting list Rwanda capacity 500 a year If nobody else arrives, it will be year 2455 until everyone is deported There are no limits on numbers as far as I'm aware, where did you get the number 500 from?" The entire scheme is only meant as a deterrent. There is just no budget or planning to keep sending people to Rwanda like a conveyor belt. Surely this is obvious? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"215,500 on the home office asylum waiting list Rwanda capacity 500 a year If nobody else arrives, it will be year 2455 until everyone is deported There are no limits on numbers as far as I'm aware, where did you get the number 500 from?" Section 4 https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/news-and-cases/briefing-on-the-safety-of-rwanda-asylum-and-immigration-bill | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"215,500 on the home office asylum waiting list Rwanda capacity 500 a year If nobody else arrives, it will be year 2455 until everyone is deported There are no limits on numbers as far as I'm aware, where did you get the number 500 from? The entire scheme is only meant as a deterrent. There is just no budget or planning to keep sending people to Rwanda like a conveyor belt. Surely this is obvious?" Yes, that is the objective. The government can’t expect to send 45K+ people to Rwanda every year, the deterrent drives down the numbers. I think this part of the scheme needs to be discussed further, it should help remove some of the misleading reports / comments but equally it will need to prove a benchmark of success, as in where is the measure of success, 20K or 2k still crossing as an example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"215,500 on the home office asylum waiting list Rwanda capacity 500 a year If nobody else arrives, it will be year 2455 until everyone is deported There are no limits on numbers as far as I'm aware, where did you get the number 500 from? The entire scheme is only meant as a deterrent. There is just no budget or planning to keep sending people to Rwanda like a conveyor belt. Surely this is obvious?" As was pointed out by the barrister on question time a couple of weeks ago, ‘ contrary to what people might think Rwanda is not a prison and once people arrive there, they are immediately free to leave and travel to whatever they choose, with their location money/deportation allowance’. It is not a deterrent when all you have is what’s in your pockets, life’s an adventure | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"215,500 on the home office asylum waiting list Rwanda capacity 500 a year If nobody else arrives, it will be year 2455 until everyone is deported There are no limits on numbers as far as I'm aware, where did you get the number 500 from? Section 4 https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/news-and-cases/briefing-on-the-safety-of-rwanda-asylum-and-immigration-bill " I’m not sure who this law firm is and their credentials, I can only go on the Rwanda scheme plans from the government. Which I have pasted the relevant part here: How many people can be relocated to Rwanda? The arrangement to relocate individuals to Rwanda is uncapped. Rwanda has plans in place to scale up provision to take in as many relocated individuals as required. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"215,500 on the home office asylum waiting list Rwanda capacity 500 a year If nobody else arrives, it will be year 2455 until everyone is deported There are no limits on numbers as far as I'm aware, where did you get the number 500 from? The entire scheme is only meant as a deterrent. There is just no budget or planning to keep sending people to Rwanda like a conveyor belt. Surely this is obvious? As was pointed out by the barrister on question time a couple of weeks ago, ‘ contrary to what people might think Rwanda is not a prison and once people arrive there, they are immediately free to leave and travel to whatever they choose, with their location money/deportation allowance’. It is not a deterrent when all you have is what’s in your pockets, life’s an adventure " The above is correct, but not really that relevant as they will not be allowed back in the UK. The point of the scheme is to reduce the number entering the country by small boat, not send 45K people a year there and watch them leave on entry to Rwanda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The i paper (owned by the Daily Mail) reports today that the government’s ‘Stop the Boats’ law means 22,422 migrants can neither be deported, nor allowed to stay. “A “crazy” contradiction in Rishi Sunak’s flagship small-boats law has left the Home Office powerless to deport or grant asylum to more than 22,000 migrants already in the UK, i can reveal. At least half of the asylum seekers left in limbo indefinitely will be living in costly hotels likely to be costing the taxpayer more than £1.5m a day. The situation has been caused by the Illegal Migration Act which requires the Government to “remove” illegal migrants but only applies to those who entered the country from 20th July 2023. But the same legislation also bans the Government from granting asylum to any migrants who entered the UK illegally “on or after 7 March, 2023”. It has left the Home Office with no practical way of dealing with 22,448 migrants who arrived in the country between those two dates.“ Hateful and incompetent, what a government we have." I agree the immigration issue is a mess. I see the logic of the Rwanda scheme but I still think it will be either severely hindered or stopped altogether by legal challenges. I know some do not like any mention of asylum seekers or immigrants and feel it is only deflection but it is such a mess that it should be highlighted to show the government's failure to date. If anything they need a topic to divert from this topic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"215,500 on the home office asylum waiting list Rwanda capacity 500 a year If nobody else arrives, it will be year 2455 until everyone is deported There are no limits on numbers as far as I'm aware, where did you get the number 500 from? The entire scheme is only meant as a deterrent. There is just no budget or planning to keep sending people to Rwanda like a conveyor belt. Surely this is obvious? As was pointed out by the barrister on question time a couple of weeks ago, ‘ contrary to what people might think Rwanda is not a prison and once people arrive there, they are immediately free to leave and travel to whatever they choose, with their location money/deportation allowance’. It is not a deterrent when all you have is what’s in your pockets, life’s an adventure The above is correct, but not really that relevant as they will not be allowed back in the UK. The point of the scheme is to reduce the number entering the country by small boat, not send 45K people a year there and watch them leave on entry to Rwanda. " 1382 official arrivals so far this year, at £100 a day each for a room, £138k a day/ £4.1m a month/ £50m a year just for accommodation Hopefully our council tax rises should cover this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"215,500 on the home office asylum waiting list Rwanda capacity 500 a year If nobody else arrives, it will be year 2455 until everyone is deported There are no limits on numbers as far as I'm aware, where did you get the number 500 from? The entire scheme is only meant as a deterrent. There is just no budget or planning to keep sending people to Rwanda like a conveyor belt. Surely this is obvious? As was pointed out by the barrister on question time a couple of weeks ago, ‘ contrary to what people might think Rwanda is not a prison and once people arrive there, they are immediately free to leave and travel to whatever they choose, with their location money/deportation allowance’. It is not a deterrent when all you have is what’s in your pockets, life’s an adventure The above is correct, but not really that relevant as they will not be allowed back in the UK. The point of the scheme is to reduce the number entering the country by small boat, not send 45K people a year there and watch them leave on entry to Rwanda. 1382 official arrivals so far this year, at £100 a day each for a room, £138k a day/ £4.1m a month/ £50m a year just for accommodation Hopefully our council tax rises should cover this. " The numbers will rise as the weather improves. It is not just the money for accommodation either, food, clothing and medical expenses make this approx 8 billion a year | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just follow the Australian model to the letter " Impossible without the cooperation of third countries to return the asylum seekers to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really is time that they admit that nobody is ever being sent to Rwanda under this scheme" Why do you think that? Legal challenge, which is a legitimate avenue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really is time that they admit that nobody is ever being sent to Rwanda under this scheme Why do you think that? Legal challenge, which is a legitimate avenue? " Because the lords will continue to kick it down the road, and there’s not enough time for a parliament act to force it through before parliament is dissolved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really is time that they admit that nobody is ever being sent to Rwanda under this scheme Why do you think that? Legal challenge, which is a legitimate avenue? Because the lords will continue to kick it down the road, and there’s not enough time for a parliament act to force it through before parliament is dissolved. " Do think labour will drop 100% of the Rwanda scheme? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It really is time that they admit that nobody is ever being sent to Rwanda under this scheme Why do you think that? Legal challenge, which is a legitimate avenue? Because the lords will continue to kick it down the road, and there’s not enough time for a parliament act to force it through before parliament is dissolved. Do think labour will drop 100% of the Rwanda scheme? " I strongly suspect so, yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""I see the logic of the Rwanda scheme" There's no logic to the Rwanda scheme. The UK will get sued by individuals sent there years from now which will cost serious money to tax payers. The conservatives are clueless. In 10 years they've show utter incompetence. You need a serious and comprehensive immigration plan and then act on it. You need a serious government for that. You need effective governance. " As I said I don't think this will get past the legal challenges or they will be to such an extent that it will be severely hampered. The logic I understand, I just don't think it will be applied as designed or not applied at all. Totally agree we need serious and effective government which we are lacking and little prospect of getting one either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS look I have said this Many times in various threads. The ONLY way to tackle the issue is to sort out the root cause. The organised crime gangs who ferry the people get them routes through Europe and lie to them in the first instance. This is HUGE business for them they are the only ones profiting from the whole shit show. You can't tell me some Afghan or Syrian farmer has the first clue about the UK and how to reach it without people telling them lies and feeding disinformation to encourage them to take such perilous journeys in the first place. In fact I'd go as far as saying that They are probably the ones threating the people to make them feel unsafe and willing to risk everything to reach the land of gold and honey. " That is part of it but will never work due to the disparity in living standards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS look I have said this Many times in various threads. The ONLY way to tackle the issue is to sort out the root cause. The organised crime gangs who ferry the people get them routes through Europe and lie to them in the first instance. This is HUGE business for them they are the only ones profiting from the whole shit show. You can't tell me some Afghan or Syrian farmer has the first clue about the UK and how to reach it without people telling them lies and feeding disinformation to encourage them to take such perilous journeys in the first place. In fact I'd go as far as saying that They are probably the ones threating the people to make them feel unsafe and willing to risk everything to reach the land of gold and honey. " What about the root cause of people being forced to leave their home countries. That's the real answer to reducing the number of asylum seekers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS look I have said this Many times in various threads. The ONLY way to tackle the issue is to sort out the root cause. The organised crime gangs who ferry the people get them routes through Europe and lie to them in the first instance. This is HUGE business for them they are the only ones profiting from the whole shit show. You can't tell me some Afghan or Syrian farmer has the first clue about the UK and how to reach it without people telling them lies and feeding disinformation to encourage them to take such perilous journeys in the first place. In fact I'd go as far as saying that They are probably the ones threating the people to make them feel unsafe and willing to risk everything to reach the land of gold and honey. What about the root cause of people being forced to leave their home countries. That's the real answer to reducing the number of asylum seekers." Too long term. The only immediate way is as I outlined above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS look I have said this Many times in various threads. The ONLY way to tackle the issue is to sort out the root cause. The organised crime gangs who ferry the people get them routes through Europe and lie to them in the first instance. This is HUGE business for them they are the only ones profiting from the whole shit show. You can't tell me some Afghan or Syrian farmer has the first clue about the UK and how to reach it without people telling them lies and feeding disinformation to encourage them to take such perilous journeys in the first place. In fact I'd go as far as saying that They are probably the ones threating the people to make them feel unsafe and willing to risk everything to reach the land of gold and honey. What about the root cause of people being forced to leave their home countries. That's the real answer to reducing the number of asylum seekers. Too long term. The only immediate way is as I outlined above." Yeah, watching people drown then treating the survivors inhumanely is definitely not the only solution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The blame lies squarely with the incompetence of the Home Office. Our laws are also too lenient. The answer is fairly simple: 1. Don't rescue anyone during the crossings. They must make it to land in the UK themselves. Prosecute anone whe does help them. This makes the journey twice as dangerous so may deter some. 2. Those that do make it to land should be immediately arrested and detained in secure camps which provide for their basic needs however they are not allowed to leave. 3. Their claims need to be processed quickly, with the presumption that those arriving illegally without paperwork from another safe country are economic migrants. 4. Those who are unsuccessful, which should be most of them, should be deported immediately. No appeal. Their country of origin can easily be checked using DNA analysis and hair or tooth samples. The whole process should take a few weeks." what paperwork are you expecting ? From previous threads, there is an assumption that everyone has a passport or something. If we look at what is going on in Palenstine, how many of those have the paperwork that meets your bar? If it's not every single one, infear your bar is too high. Regardless of agreeing with 1-4, I think we need a 5. Have a better approach to helping those truly in need. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS look I have said this Many times in various threads. The ONLY way to tackle the issue is to sort out the root cause. The organised crime gangs who ferry the people get them routes through Europe and lie to them in the first instance. This is HUGE business for them they are the only ones profiting from the whole shit show. You can't tell me some Afghan or Syrian farmer has the first clue about the UK and how to reach it without people telling them lies and feeding disinformation to encourage them to take such perilous journeys in the first place. In fact I'd go as far as saying that They are probably the ones threating the people to make them feel unsafe and willing to risk everything to reach the land of gold and honey. " I agree with you on a high level. But unfortunately, these gangs are really hard to tackle. Big part of these gangs are not in the UK to begin with. It's hard to get other countries to cooperate to find terrorists for that matter. I don't think anyone would care about finding the people smugglers. Even if they cooperated, I would guess it's still hard. So the governments are left with a very few options. They have to do something in house to tackle it. Denmark did a fairly good job in reducing the number of people going there for asylum. UK could probably learn from them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But anyway, this is an issue all over Europe because we are still blindly sticking to laws written multiple decades back, which are full of loopholes. The world has changed and the laws have to change along with it. But I don't think any politician has the will to do that." As you say we are bound by laws written many years ago that dealt with a specific problem then, things have moved on leaving loopholes that are being manipulated. If we can't acknowledge that the vast majority of people entering the country by small boat are economic migrants we can't begin to write laws that tackle that particular problem, the Rwanda scheme is an example of that. First problem is the uproar from the progressives making it a minefield for career politicians to deal with, but what gets missed time and time again is, the real asylum seekers who really do need our help being stepped over by tens of thousands of people who knowingly break the law and lying to enter the country. There has been a crackdown on the dodgy solicitors and that also needs to continue with retrospective audits, they need to be removed from the system too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But anyway, this is an issue all over Europe because we are still blindly sticking to laws written multiple decades back, which are full of loopholes. The world has changed and the laws have to change along with it. But I don't think any politician has the will to do that. As you say we are bound by laws written many years ago that dealt with a specific problem then, things have moved on leaving loopholes that are being manipulated. If we can't acknowledge that the vast majority of people entering the country by small boat are economic migrants we can't begin to write laws that tackle that particular problem, the Rwanda scheme is an example of that. First problem is the uproar from the progressives making it a minefield for career politicians to deal with, but what gets missed time and time again is, the real asylum seekers who really do need our help being stepped over by tens of thousands of people who knowingly break the law and lying to enter the country. There has been a crackdown on the dodgy solicitors and that also needs to continue with retrospective audits, they need to be removed from the system too. " Correct. As of now, you can show up within any European countries without a visa and they won't arrest you if you apply for asylum because they have to process the claim. It was written at a time when it was hard for people to travel. Now it can be easily exploited. Send thousands of people to a country and the country's asylum system will be overwhelmed. Anyone who goes there after the system is overwhelmed basically has a free pass to stay there because it will take a year to process their claim. This is why Putin sends migrants to Finland and Poland border whenever there is a geopolitical issue. Progressives are being used as useful idiots in this whole thing. I think countries should be able to set limits on how many people they want to give asylum to. After that, they can open legal channels to process asylums and also make arrival in this country without visas a crime that will get them arrested. This way they can prioritise and actually help individuals who are in need of help. Progressives want us to open legal processing centres everywhere now itself without setting limits, as though that will somehow magically solve the problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS look I have said this Many times in various threads. The ONLY way to tackle the issue is to sort out the root cause. The organised crime gangs who ferry the people get them routes through Europe and lie to them in the first instance. This is HUGE business for them they are the only ones profiting from the whole shit show. You can't tell me some Afghan or Syrian farmer has the first clue about the UK and how to reach it without people telling them lies and feeding disinformation to encourage them to take such perilous journeys in the first place. In fact I'd go as far as saying that They are probably the ones threating the people to make them feel unsafe and willing to risk everything to reach the land of gold and honey. What about the root cause of people being forced to leave their home countries. That's the real answer to reducing the number of asylum seekers. Too long term. The only immediate way is as I outlined above. Yeah, watching people drown then treating the survivors inhumanely is definitely not the only solution. " So what is your solution? Increasing the risk of the crossing is a good deterrent. Don't want to risk drowning, don't try the crossing. What is inhumane about keeping people secure until we know who they are and their claims are processed? Their basic needs would be met. That is all people can ask for if they enter a country illegally and then want to stay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS look I have said this Many times in various threads. The ONLY way to tackle the issue is to sort out the root cause. The organised crime gangs who ferry the people get them routes through Europe and lie to them in the first instance. This is HUGE business for them they are the only ones profiting from the whole shit show. You can't tell me some Afghan or Syrian farmer has the first clue about the UK and how to reach it without people telling them lies and feeding disinformation to encourage them to take such perilous journeys in the first place. In fact I'd go as far as saying that They are probably the ones threating the people to make them feel unsafe and willing to risk everything to reach the land of gold and honey. What about the root cause of people being forced to leave their home countries. That's the real answer to reducing the number of asylum seekers. Too long term. The only immediate way is as I outlined above. Yeah, watching people drown then treating the survivors inhumanely is definitely not the only solution. So what is your solution? " Step one. Stop reading right wing media that over-hypes the issue ridiculously. Stop blaming immigrants/asylum seekers/foreigners for everything. Step two. Process applications more quickly (like much more quickly, this will take some investment, but will save money in the medium and longer term). Those who genuinely need help can be integrated more quickly and start earning, paying taxes etc. " Increasing the risk of the crossing is a good deterrent. Don't want to risk drowning, don't try the crossing. " I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. There's nothing you can say that will convince me that the RNLI checking passports before picking you out of the sea, or pushing you back in, is a good idea. Absolutely abhorrent suggestion. " What is inhumane about keeping people secure until we know who they are and their claims are processed? " That's not what you said though, but yes if we can keep them secure and safe. That's sensible. " Their basic needs would be met. That is all people can ask for if they enter a country illegally and then want to stay." This is fine. Then we can process their claims more quickly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS look I have said this Many times in various threads. The ONLY way to tackle the issue is to sort out the root cause. The organised crime gangs who ferry the people get them routes through Europe and lie to them in the first instance. This is HUGE business for them they are the only ones profiting from the whole shit show. You can't tell me some Afghan or Syrian farmer has the first clue about the UK and how to reach it without people telling them lies and feeding disinformation to encourage them to take such perilous journeys in the first place. In fact I'd go as far as saying that They are probably the ones threating the people to make them feel unsafe and willing to risk everything to reach the land of gold and honey. What about the root cause of people being forced to leave their home countries. That's the real answer to reducing the number of asylum seekers. Too long term. The only immediate way is as I outlined above. Yeah, watching people drown then treating the survivors inhumanely is definitely not the only solution. So what is your solution? Step one. Stop reading right wing media that over-hypes the issue ridiculously. Stop blaming immigrants/asylum seekers/foreigners for everything. Step two. Process applications more quickly (like much more quickly, this will take some investment, but will save money in the medium and longer term). Those who genuinely need help can be integrated more quickly and start earning, paying taxes etc. Increasing the risk of the crossing is a good deterrent. Don't want to risk drowning, don't try the crossing. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. There's nothing you can say that will convince me that the RNLI checking passports before picking you out of the sea, or pushing you back in, is a good idea. Absolutely abhorrent suggestion. What is inhumane about keeping people secure until we know who they are and their claims are processed? That's not what you said though, but yes if we can keep them secure and safe. That's sensible. Their basic needs would be met. That is all people can ask for if they enter a country illegally and then want to stay. This is fine. Then we can process their claims more quickly. " Step 2 - What makes you think they are earning money and paying taxes? Employment rate among people who have received refugee status is 53%. And the ones who actually work also earn much less compared to the national average. So it is a net loss to the country. That's even without bringing in the problem of cultural conflicts, bringing in people whose values are at odds with western values. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS look I have said this Many times in various threads. The ONLY way to tackle the issue is to sort out the root cause. The organised crime gangs who ferry the people get them routes through Europe and lie to them in the first instance. This is HUGE business for them they are the only ones profiting from the whole shit show. You can't tell me some Afghan or Syrian farmer has the first clue about the UK and how to reach it without people telling them lies and feeding disinformation to encourage them to take such perilous journeys in the first place. In fact I'd go as far as saying that They are probably the ones threating the people to make them feel unsafe and willing to risk everything to reach the land of gold and honey. What about the root cause of people being forced to leave their home countries. That's the real answer to reducing the number of asylum seekers. Too long term. The only immediate way is as I outlined above. Yeah, watching people drown then treating the survivors inhumanely is definitely not the only solution. So what is your solution? Step one. Stop reading right wing media that over-hypes the issue ridiculously. Stop blaming immigrants/asylum seekers/foreigners for everything. Step two. Process applications more quickly (like much more quickly, this will take some investment, but will save money in the medium and longer term). Those who genuinely need help can be integrated more quickly and start earning, paying taxes etc. Increasing the risk of the crossing is a good deterrent. Don't want to risk drowning, don't try the crossing. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. There's nothing you can say that will convince me that the RNLI checking passports before picking you out of the sea, or pushing you back in, is a good idea. Absolutely abhorrent suggestion. What is inhumane about keeping people secure until we know who they are and their claims are processed? That's not what you said though, but yes if we can keep them secure and safe. That's sensible. Their basic needs would be met. That is all people can ask for if they enter a country illegally and then want to stay. This is fine. Then we can process their claims more quickly. Step 2 - What makes you think they are earning money and paying taxes? Employment rate among people who have received refugee status is 53%. And the ones who actually work also earn much less compared to the national average. So it is a net loss to the country. That's even without bringing in the problem of cultural conflicts, bringing in people whose values are at odds with western values." Where do you get this information from? Most reports suggest that immigration has a net positive impact on tax revenue and the economy? Although I have heard anecdotal evidence that there is a lack of support getting people started in the job market. Let's for a moment leave aside the problems bigots have with foreigners. And just discuss the sensible question? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS look I have said this Many times in various threads. The ONLY way to tackle the issue is to sort out the root cause. The organised crime gangs who ferry the people get them routes through Europe and lie to them in the first instance. This is HUGE business for them they are the only ones profiting from the whole shit show. You can't tell me some Afghan or Syrian farmer has the first clue about the UK and how to reach it without people telling them lies and feeding disinformation to encourage them to take such perilous journeys in the first place. In fact I'd go as far as saying that They are probably the ones threating the people to make them feel unsafe and willing to risk everything to reach the land of gold and honey. What about the root cause of people being forced to leave their home countries. That's the real answer to reducing the number of asylum seekers. Too long term. The only immediate way is as I outlined above. Yeah, watching people drown then treating the survivors inhumanely is definitely not the only solution. So what is your solution? Step one. Stop reading right wing media that over-hypes the issue ridiculously. Stop blaming immigrants/asylum seekers/foreigners for everything. Step two. Process applications more quickly (like much more quickly, this will take some investment, but will save money in the medium and longer term). Those who genuinely need help can be integrated more quickly and start earning, paying taxes etc. Increasing the risk of the crossing is a good deterrent. Don't want to risk drowning, don't try the crossing. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. There's nothing you can say that will convince me that the RNLI checking passports before picking you out of the sea, or pushing you back in, is a good idea. Absolutely abhorrent suggestion. What is inhumane about keeping people secure until we know who they are and their claims are processed? That's not what you said though, but yes if we can keep them secure and safe. That's sensible. Their basic needs would be met. That is all people can ask for if they enter a country illegally and then want to stay. This is fine. Then we can process their claims more quickly. Step 2 - What makes you think they are earning money and paying taxes? Employment rate among people who have received refugee status is 53%. And the ones who actually work also earn much less compared to the national average. So it is a net loss to the country. That's even without bringing in the problem of cultural conflicts, bringing in people whose values are at odds with western values. Where do you get this information from? Most reports suggest that immigration has a net positive impact on tax revenue and the economy? Although I have heard anecdotal evidence that there is a lack of support getting people started in the job market. Let's for a moment leave aside the problems bigots have with foreigners. And just discuss the sensible question?" Because that figure includes Premiership footballers amongst other ultra high earners. For every Mo Salah putting £100k+ a week in there are 100 taking a grand out… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Where do you get this information from? Most reports suggest that immigration has a net positive impact on tax revenue and the economy? Although I have heard anecdotal evidence that there is a lack of support getting people started in the job market. " The "most reports" you are talking about mix skilled legal immigrants with asylum seekers which obviously skews the results because skilled legal immigrants have to earn above certain thresholds to get visas in the first place. Employment rate of asylum seekers who are granted work permit is 51% https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/london-assembly-press-releases/working-out-employment-barriers-asylum-seekers-and-refugees " Let's for a moment leave aside the problems bigots have with foreigners. And just discuss the sensible question?" The problem I am talking about is the bigotry among the people who show up. Ask them what we should do to homosexuals in this country and how women are supposed to dress up. You will know what real bigotry is. Also, I would love to retain the right to criticise and mock religions and not get death threats of doing so. I am sorry if you think that's bigotry too. But it's not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS look I have said this Many times in various threads. The ONLY way to tackle the issue is to sort out the root cause. The organised crime gangs who ferry the people get them routes through Europe and lie to them in the first instance. This is HUGE business for them they are the only ones profiting from the whole shit show. You can't tell me some Afghan or Syrian farmer has the first clue about the UK and how to reach it without people telling them lies and feeding disinformation to encourage them to take such perilous journeys in the first place. In fact I'd go as far as saying that They are probably the ones threating the people to make them feel unsafe and willing to risk everything to reach the land of gold and honey. What about the root cause of people being forced to leave their home countries. That's the real answer to reducing the number of asylum seekers. Too long term. The only immediate way is as I outlined above. Yeah, watching people drown then treating the survivors inhumanely is definitely not the only solution. So what is your solution? Step one. Stop reading right wing media that over-hypes the issue ridiculously. Stop blaming immigrants/asylum seekers/foreigners for everything. Step two. Process applications more quickly (like much more quickly, this will take some investment, but will save money in the medium and longer term). Those who genuinely need help can be integrated more quickly and start earning, paying taxes etc. Increasing the risk of the crossing is a good deterrent. Don't want to risk drowning, don't try the crossing. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. There's nothing you can say that will convince me that the RNLI checking passports before picking you out of the sea, or pushing you back in, is a good idea. Absolutely abhorrent suggestion. What is inhumane about keeping people secure until we know who they are and their claims are processed? That's not what you said though, but yes if we can keep them secure and safe. That's sensible. Their basic needs would be met. That is all people can ask for if they enter a country illegally and then want to stay. This is fine. Then we can process their claims more quickly. Step 2 - What makes you think they are earning money and paying taxes? Employment rate among people who have received refugee status is 53%. And the ones who actually work also earn much less compared to the national average. So it is a net loss to the country. That's even without bringing in the problem of cultural conflicts, bringing in people whose values are at odds with western values. Where do you get this information from? Most reports suggest that immigration has a net positive impact on tax revenue and the economy? Although I have heard anecdotal evidence that there is a lack of support getting people started in the job market. Let's for a moment leave aside the problems bigots have with foreigners. And just discuss the sensible question?" "Refugees and the uK LabouR MaRKet" My quick hot take is: The gap seems to be more pronounced in female refugees and a lot smaller in male. Therefore there may be cultural bits at play here. (Table 8) The gap closes over time (figure 7) which suggests it takes time to skill up. I can imagine this is a combo of learning new languages and getting a credible CV. After all the average refugee is more educated (figure 5) There are more pronounced differences in pay and hours worked. A question if be asking myself is why are there differences. Is it lack of ability (education distribution suggests no) or other challenges ? And can we do more to enhance productivity? (And this is a question we should be asking about the UK as a whole) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS look I have said this Many times in various threads. The ONLY way to tackle the issue is to sort out the root cause. The organised crime gangs who ferry the people get them routes through Europe and lie to them in the first instance. This is HUGE business for them they are the only ones profiting from the whole shit show. You can't tell me some Afghan or Syrian farmer has the first clue about the UK and how to reach it without people telling them lies and feeding disinformation to encourage them to take such perilous journeys in the first place. In fact I'd go as far as saying that They are probably the ones threating the people to make them feel unsafe and willing to risk everything to reach the land of gold and honey. What about the root cause of people being forced to leave their home countries. That's the real answer to reducing the number of asylum seekers. Too long term. The only immediate way is as I outlined above. Yeah, watching people drown then treating the survivors inhumanely is definitely not the only solution. So what is your solution? Step one. Stop reading right wing media that over-hypes the issue ridiculously. Stop blaming immigrants/asylum seekers/foreigners for everything. Step two. Process applications more quickly (like much more quickly, this will take some investment, but will save money in the medium and longer term). Those who genuinely need help can be integrated more quickly and start earning, paying taxes etc. Increasing the risk of the crossing is a good deterrent. Don't want to risk drowning, don't try the crossing. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. There's nothing you can say that will convince me that the RNLI checking passports before picking you out of the sea, or pushing you back in, is a good idea. Absolutely abhorrent suggestion. What is inhumane about keeping people secure until we know who they are and their claims are processed? That's not what you said though, but yes if we can keep them secure and safe. That's sensible. Their basic needs would be met. That is all people can ask for if they enter a country illegally and then want to stay. This is fine. Then we can process their claims more quickly. Step 2 - What makes you think they are earning money and paying taxes? Employment rate among people who have received refugee status is 53%. And the ones who actually work also earn much less compared to the national average. So it is a net loss to the country. That's even without bringing in the problem of cultural conflicts, bringing in people whose values are at odds with western values. Where do you get this information from? Most reports suggest that immigration has a net positive impact on tax revenue and the economy? Although I have heard anecdotal evidence that there is a lack of support getting people started in the job market. Let's for a moment leave aside the problems bigots have with foreigners. And just discuss the sensible question?" Controlled immigration that encourages people to bring skills we are short of is a benefit. That is different to uncontrolled illegal entry, those people tend to not have specific skills needed or they would have come through the legal route and are a burden on the state. There will be outliers that have made good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes this government is incredibly incompetent. They spout on about the "dole scroungers" yet import unskilled workers by the bucket load! " Their is a guy on the south coast trying to get back to germany but the UK will not let him claim asylum in Germany. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And just discuss the sensible question?"Refugees and the uK LabouR MaRKet" My quick hot take is: The gap seems to be more pronounced in female refugees and a lot smaller in male. Therefore there may be cultural bits at play here. (Table 8) The gap closes over time (figure 7) which suggests it takes time to skill up. I can imagine this is a combo of learning new languages and getting a credible CV. After all the average refugee is more educated (figure 5) There are more pronounced differences in pay and hours worked. A question if be asking myself is why are there differences. Is it lack of ability (education distribution suggests no) or other challenges ? And can we do more to enhance productivity? (And this is a question we should be asking about the UK as a whole) " About the comparison of skill level with UK-born people, it would be interesting to see how UK born people have mostly low level or medium level education and still have high employment rate. My guess is that most people who have low level education here usually have preferred to take up other jobs like being a tradesman. But asylum seekers are probably not skilled to do that work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS look I have said this Many times in various threads. The ONLY way to tackle the issue is to sort out the root cause. The organised crime gangs who ferry the people get them routes through Europe and lie to them in the first instance. This is HUGE business for them they are the only ones profiting from the whole shit show. You can't tell me some Afghan or Syrian farmer has the first clue about the UK and how to reach it without people telling them lies and feeding disinformation to encourage them to take such perilous journeys in the first place. In fact I'd go as far as saying that They are probably the ones threating the people to make them feel unsafe and willing to risk everything to reach the land of gold and honey. What about the root cause of people being forced to leave their home countries. That's the real answer to reducing the number of asylum seekers. Too long term. The only immediate way is as I outlined above. Yeah, watching people drown then treating the survivors inhumanely is definitely not the only solution. So what is your solution? Step one. Stop reading right wing media that over-hypes the issue ridiculously. Stop blaming immigrants/asylum seekers/foreigners for everything. Step two. Process applications more quickly (like much more quickly, this will take some investment, but will save money in the medium and longer term). Those who genuinely need help can be integrated more quickly and start earning, paying taxes etc. Increasing the risk of the crossing is a good deterrent. Don't want to risk drowning, don't try the crossing. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. There's nothing you can say that will convince me that the RNLI checking passports before picking you out of the sea, or pushing you back in, is a good idea. Absolutely abhorrent suggestion. What is inhumane about keeping people secure until we know who they are and their claims are processed? That's not what you said though, but yes if we can keep them secure and safe. That's sensible. Their basic needs would be met. That is all people can ask for if they enter a country illegally and then want to stay. This is fine. Then we can process their claims more quickly. Step 2 - What makes you think they are earning money and paying taxes? Employment rate among people who have received refugee status is 53%. And the ones who actually work also earn much less compared to the national average. So it is a net loss to the country. That's even without bringing in the problem of cultural conflicts, bringing in people whose values are at odds with western values. Where do you get this information from? Most reports suggest that immigration has a net positive impact on tax revenue and the economy? Although I have heard anecdotal evidence that there is a lack of support getting people started in the job market. Let's for a moment leave aside the problems bigots have with foreigners. And just discuss the sensible question? Controlled immigration that encourages people to bring skills we are short of is a benefit. That is different to uncontrolled illegal entry, those people tend to not have specific skills needed or they would have come through the legal route and are a burden on the state. There will be outliers that have made good." imo theres immigration to improve the country. And immigration as part of being a humane and compassionate country. They are two seperate conversations. There is also a conversation on why refugees are a burden on the state and what we can do to reverse that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes this government is incredibly incompetent. They spout on about the "dole scroungers" yet import unskilled workers by the bucket load! Their is a guy on the south coast trying to get back to germany but the UK will not let him claim asylum in Germany. "Yep I believe it too. Same thing about an Indian wanting to return to India and they kept delaying his deportation. If they can't deport someone who wants to leave, What chance have they deporting someone who doesn't! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 4. Those who are unsuccessful, which should be most of them, should be deported immediately. No appeal. Their country of origin can easily be checked using DNA analysis and hair or tooth samples. The whole process should take a few weeks." Firstly, you have to have an appeal system, in all walks of life. Wherever there is human involvement there is human error or bias. Which means you need an appeal system. Secondly DNA won’t reveal country of origin. That’s impressively stupid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS look I have said this Many times in various threads. The ONLY way to tackle the issue is to sort out the root cause. The organised crime gangs who ferry the people get them routes through Europe and lie to them in the first instance. This is HUGE business for them they are the only ones profiting from the whole shit show. You can't tell me some Afghan or Syrian farmer has the first clue about the UK and how to reach it without people telling them lies and feeding disinformation to encourage them to take such perilous journeys in the first place. In fact I'd go as far as saying that They are probably the ones threating the people to make them feel unsafe and willing to risk everything to reach the land of gold and honey. What about the root cause of people being forced to leave their home countries. That's the real answer to reducing the number of asylum seekers. Too long term. The only immediate way is as I outlined above. Yeah, watching people drown then treating the survivors inhumanely is definitely not the only solution. So what is your solution? Step one. Stop reading right wing media that over-hypes the issue ridiculously. Stop blaming immigrants/asylum seekers/foreigners for everything. Step two. Process applications more quickly (like much more quickly, this will take some investment, but will save money in the medium and longer term). Those who genuinely need help can be integrated more quickly and start earning, paying taxes etc. Increasing the risk of the crossing is a good deterrent. Don't want to risk drowning, don't try the crossing. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. There's nothing you can say that will convince me that the RNLI checking passports before picking you out of the sea, or pushing you back in, is a good idea. Absolutely abhorrent suggestion. What is inhumane about keeping people secure until we know who they are and their claims are processed? That's not what you said though, but yes if we can keep them secure and safe. That's sensible. Their basic needs would be met. That is all people can ask for if they enter a country illegally and then want to stay. This is fine. Then we can process their claims more quickly. Step 2 - What makes you think they are earning money and paying taxes? Employment rate among people who have received refugee status is 53%. And the ones who actually work also earn much less compared to the national average. So it is a net loss to the country. That's even without bringing in the problem of cultural conflicts, bringing in people whose values are at odds with western values. Where do you get this information from? Most reports suggest that immigration has a net positive impact on tax revenue and the economy? Although I have heard anecdotal evidence that there is a lack of support getting people started in the job market. Let's for a moment leave aside the problems bigots have with foreigners. And just discuss the sensible question? Controlled immigration that encourages people to bring skills we are short of is a benefit. That is different to uncontrolled illegal entry, those people tend to not have specific skills needed or they would have come through the legal route and are a burden on the state. There will be outliers that have made good.imo theres immigration to improve the country. And immigration as part of being a humane and compassionate country. They are two seperate conversations. There is also a conversation on why refugees are a burden on the state and what we can do to reverse that. " You are mixing the 2 types together which is why we get skewed results that as you can see used in this thread. Controlled and invited immigration is a benefit, uncontrolled immigration is not. I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. Finding a solution should not be this hard, the solution in my opinion is not open door policy, or is it speeding up assessments, that is just getting people playing the system in quicker. I have my doubts that the next government are going to get on top of this, I can see them making it worse and numbers increasing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. " And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS look I have said this Many times in various threads. The ONLY way to tackle the issue is to sort out the root cause. The organised crime gangs who ferry the people get them routes through Europe and lie to them in the first instance. This is HUGE business for them they are the only ones profiting from the whole shit show. You can't tell me some Afghan or Syrian farmer has the first clue about the UK and how to reach it without people telling them lies and feeding disinformation to encourage them to take such perilous journeys in the first place. In fact I'd go as far as saying that They are probably the ones threating the people to make them feel unsafe and willing to risk everything to reach the land of gold and honey. What about the root cause of people being forced to leave their home countries. That's the real answer to reducing the number of asylum seekers. Too long term. The only immediate way is as I outlined above. Yeah, watching people drown then treating the survivors inhumanely is definitely not the only solution. So what is your solution? Step one. Stop reading right wing media that over-hypes the issue ridiculously. Stop blaming immigrants/asylum seekers/foreigners for everything. Step two. Process applications more quickly (like much more quickly, this will take some investment, but will save money in the medium and longer term). Those who genuinely need help can be integrated more quickly and start earning, paying taxes etc. Increasing the risk of the crossing is a good deterrent. Don't want to risk drowning, don't try the crossing. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. There's nothing you can say that will convince me that the RNLI checking passports before picking you out of the sea, or pushing you back in, is a good idea. Absolutely abhorrent suggestion. What is inhumane about keeping people secure until we know who they are and their claims are processed? That's not what you said though, but yes if we can keep them secure and safe. That's sensible. Their basic needs would be met. That is all people can ask for if they enter a country illegally and then want to stay. This is fine. Then we can process their claims more quickly. Step 2 - What makes you think they are earning money and paying taxes? Employment rate among people who have received refugee status is 53%. And the ones who actually work also earn much less compared to the national average. So it is a net loss to the country. That's even without bringing in the problem of cultural conflicts, bringing in people whose values are at odds with western values. Where do you get this information from? Most reports suggest that immigration has a net positive impact on tax revenue and the economy? Although I have heard anecdotal evidence that there is a lack of support getting people started in the job market. Let's for a moment leave aside the problems bigots have with foreigners. And just discuss the sensible question? Controlled immigration that encourages people to bring skills we are short of is a benefit. That is different to uncontrolled illegal entry, those people tend to not have specific skills needed or they would have come through the legal route and are a burden on the state. There will be outliers that have made good.imo theres immigration to improve the country. And immigration as part of being a humane and compassionate country. They are two seperate conversations. There is also a conversation on why refugees are a burden on the state and what we can do to reverse that. You are mixing the 2 types together which is why we get skewed results that as you can see used in this thread. Controlled and invited immigration is a benefit, uncontrolled immigration is not. I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. Finding a solution should not be this hard, the solution in my opinion is not open door policy, or is it speeding up assessments, that is just getting people playing the system in quicker. I have my doubts that the next government are going to get on top of this, I can see them making it worse and numbers increasing. " how does invited immigration work with asylum seekers ? And can you walk me through your reasoning for saying economic migration are beating the system ? Unless we believe all boat people are economic migrants then we need to show that our application system is failing to pick out bad faith actors. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? " I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are." Which means risking turning away genuine asylum seekers (who are probably less likely to have ID than the fakes) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are." I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are." This is absolutely key. Asylum seekers must be able to prove legitimacy. The issues arise if someone doesn't have papers, where do we send them back to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS look I have said this Many times in various threads. The ONLY way to tackle the issue is to sort out the root cause. The organised crime gangs who ferry the people get them routes through Europe and lie to them in the first instance. This is HUGE business for them they are the only ones profiting from the whole shit show. You can't tell me some Afghan or Syrian farmer has the first clue about the UK and how to reach it without people telling them lies and feeding disinformation to encourage them to take such perilous journeys in the first place. In fact I'd go as far as saying that They are probably the ones threating the people to make them feel unsafe and willing to risk everything to reach the land of gold and honey. What about the root cause of people being forced to leave their home countries. That's the real answer to reducing the number of asylum seekers. Too long term. The only immediate way is as I outlined above. Yeah, watching people drown then treating the survivors inhumanely is definitely not the only solution. So what is your solution? Step one. Stop reading right wing media that over-hypes the issue ridiculously. Stop blaming immigrants/asylum seekers/foreigners for everything. Step two. Process applications more quickly (like much more quickly, this will take some investment, but will save money in the medium and longer term). Those who genuinely need help can be integrated more quickly and start earning, paying taxes etc. Increasing the risk of the crossing is a good deterrent. Don't want to risk drowning, don't try the crossing. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. There's nothing you can say that will convince me that the RNLI checking passports before picking you out of the sea, or pushing you back in, is a good idea. Absolutely abhorrent suggestion. What is inhumane about keeping people secure until we know who they are and their claims are processed? That's not what you said though, but yes if we can keep them secure and safe. That's sensible. Their basic needs would be met. That is all people can ask for if they enter a country illegally and then want to stay. This is fine. Then we can process their claims more quickly. Step 2 - What makes you think they are earning money and paying taxes? Employment rate among people who have received refugee status is 53%. And the ones who actually work also earn much less compared to the national average. So it is a net loss to the country. That's even without bringing in the problem of cultural conflicts, bringing in people whose values are at odds with western values. Where do you get this information from? Most reports suggest that immigration has a net positive impact on tax revenue and the economy? Although I have heard anecdotal evidence that there is a lack of support getting people started in the job market. Let's for a moment leave aside the problems bigots have with foreigners. And just discuss the sensible question? Controlled immigration that encourages people to bring skills we are short of is a benefit. That is different to uncontrolled illegal entry, those people tend to not have specific skills needed or they would have come through the legal route and are a burden on the state. There will be outliers that have made good.imo theres immigration to improve the country. And immigration as part of being a humane and compassionate country. They are two seperate conversations. There is also a conversation on why refugees are a burden on the state and what we can do to reverse that. You are mixing the 2 types together which is why we get skewed results that as you can see used in this thread. Controlled and invited immigration is a benefit, uncontrolled immigration is not. I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. Finding a solution should not be this hard, the solution in my opinion is not open door policy, or is it speeding up assessments, that is just getting people playing the system in quicker. I have my doubts that the next government are going to get on top of this, I can see them making it worse and numbers increasing. how does invited immigration work with asylum seekers ? And can you walk me through your reasoning for saying economic migration are beating the system ? Unless we believe all boat people are economic migrants then we need to show that our application system is failing to pick out bad faith actors. " I'm saying that those entering illegally by small boat are in the main economic migrants, who are playing the system and playing the asylum system for entry. And yes our system has been broken just like every other country in Europe. If you look above these posts you will see part of the thread that goes into some detail as to the why. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FFS look I have said this Many times in various threads. The ONLY way to tackle the issue is to sort out the root cause. The organised crime gangs who ferry the people get them routes through Europe and lie to them in the first instance. This is HUGE business for them they are the only ones profiting from the whole shit show. You can't tell me some Afghan or Syrian farmer has the first clue about the UK and how to reach it without people telling them lies and feeding disinformation to encourage them to take such perilous journeys in the first place. In fact I'd go as far as saying that They are probably the ones threating the people to make them feel unsafe and willing to risk everything to reach the land of gold and honey. What about the root cause of people being forced to leave their home countries. That's the real answer to reducing the number of asylum seekers. Too long term. The only immediate way is as I outlined above. Yeah, watching people drown then treating the survivors inhumanely is definitely not the only solution. So what is your solution? Step one. Stop reading right wing media that over-hypes the issue ridiculously. Stop blaming immigrants/asylum seekers/foreigners for everything. Step two. Process applications more quickly (like much more quickly, this will take some investment, but will save money in the medium and longer term). Those who genuinely need help can be integrated more quickly and start earning, paying taxes etc. Increasing the risk of the crossing is a good deterrent. Don't want to risk drowning, don't try the crossing. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. There's nothing you can say that will convince me that the RNLI checking passports before picking you out of the sea, or pushing you back in, is a good idea. Absolutely abhorrent suggestion. What is inhumane about keeping people secure until we know who they are and their claims are processed? That's not what you said though, but yes if we can keep them secure and safe. That's sensible. Their basic needs would be met. That is all people can ask for if they enter a country illegally and then want to stay. This is fine. Then we can process their claims more quickly. Step 2 - What makes you think they are earning money and paying taxes? Employment rate among people who have received refugee status is 53%. And the ones who actually work also earn much less compared to the national average. So it is a net loss to the country. That's even without bringing in the problem of cultural conflicts, bringing in people whose values are at odds with western values. Where do you get this information from? Most reports suggest that immigration has a net positive impact on tax revenue and the economy? Although I have heard anecdotal evidence that there is a lack of support getting people started in the job market. Let's for a moment leave aside the problems bigots have with foreigners. And just discuss the sensible question? Controlled immigration that encourages people to bring skills we are short of is a benefit. That is different to uncontrolled illegal entry, those people tend to not have specific skills needed or they would have come through the legal route and are a burden on the state. There will be outliers that have made good.imo theres immigration to improve the country. And immigration as part of being a humane and compassionate country. They are two seperate conversations. There is also a conversation on why refugees are a burden on the state and what we can do to reverse that. You are mixing the 2 types together which is why we get skewed results that as you can see used in this thread. Controlled and invited immigration is a benefit, uncontrolled immigration is not. I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. Finding a solution should not be this hard, the solution in my opinion is not open door policy, or is it speeding up assessments, that is just getting people playing the system in quicker. I have my doubts that the next government are going to get on top of this, I can see them making it worse and numbers increasing. how does invited immigration work with asylum seekers ? And can you walk me through your reasoning for saying economic migration are beating the system ? Unless we believe all boat people are economic migrants then we need to show that our application system is failing to pick out bad faith actors. I'm saying that those entering illegally by small boat are in the main economic migrants, who are playing the system and playing the asylum system for entry. And yes our system has been broken just like every other country in Europe. If you look above these posts you will see part of the thread that goes into some detail as to the why." gotcha. And what do you have to support that view ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"m I'm saying that those entering illegally by small boat are in the main economic migrants, who are playing the system and playing the asylum system for entry. " And this is where the judge says ‘prove it’ - and it’s not so easy to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Where do you get this information from? Most reports suggest that immigration has a net positive impact on tax revenue and the economy? Although I have heard anecdotal evidence that there is a lack of support getting people started in the job market. The "most reports" you are talking about mix skilled legal immigrants with asylum seekers which obviously skews the results because skilled legal immigrants have to earn above certain thresholds to get visas in the first place. Employment rate of asylum seekers who are granted work permit is 51% https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/london-assembly-press-releases/working-out-employment-barriers-asylum-seekers-and-refugees Let's for a moment leave aside the problems bigots have with foreigners. And just discuss the sensible question? The problem I am talking about is the bigotry among the people who show up. Ask them what we should do to homosexuals in this country and how women are supposed to dress up. You will know what real bigotry is. Also, I would love to retain the right to criticise and mock religions and not get death threats of doing so. I am sorry if you think that's bigotry too. But it's not. " Ah this old chestnut that you have to choose between homophobia and islamaphobia. It's absolute nonsense. But to your sensible point. Then sounds like we need to give a little more support to people who have been granted asylum to get them integrated and working. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. " You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? " They wouldn’t flee a Warzone? Because they don’t have their paperwork? I think you underestimate the power of survival instinct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"m I'm saying that those entering illegally by small boat are in the main economic migrants, who are playing the system and playing the asylum system for entry. And this is where the judge says ‘prove it’ - and it’s not so easy to do." And this is why I said we should have very clear laws and policies that should be followed, no paperwork proving ID no entry. Clear cut. I would take that over Rwanda | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? They wouldn’t flee a Warzone? Because they don’t have their paperwork? I think you underestimate the power of survival instinct. " Let's not go down a rabbit hole of Gaza, you know they can't leave and I shouldn't have risen to the scenario. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"m I'm saying that those entering illegally by small boat are in the main economic migrants, who are playing the system and playing the asylum system for entry. And this is where the judge says ‘prove it’ - and it’s not so easy to do. And this is why I said we should have very clear laws and policies that should be followed, no paperwork proving ID no entry. Clear cut. I would take that over Rwanda " But you said that the majority are Ebonics migrants - now they can have ID, whilst asylum seekers don’t. So once again, I ask you to prove your claim that “those entering illegally by small boat are in the main economic migrants, who are playing the system and playing the asylum system for entry” I’m not saying you’re wrong - I’m asking you to prove it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? They wouldn’t flee a Warzone? Because they don’t have their paperwork? I think you underestimate the power of survival instinct. Let's not go down a rabbit hole of Gaza, you know they can't leave and I shouldn't have risen to the scenario. " But the point remains re: ID. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. " This is why I believe asylum processing centres in those respective countries is the long term solution. But you can't do that right now because you will end up getting millions of requests from around the world and there is no way UK can take them all. This goes back to my point that the current global framework for handling asylum seekers - Both ECHR and UN refugee convention are not fit for purpose. Ideally, - Countries decide maximum number of refugees they take per year. - Make it criminal to land here without visas - Then open asylum centres in countries in which we believe that they will need our support. Given the limits, we also need a prioritisation framework. Prioritise, women, children and families. Prioritise minorities who are being oppressed in those countries by the majority. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? " it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. This is why I believe asylum processing centres in those respective countries is the long term solution. But you can't do that right now because you will end up getting millions of requests from around the world and there is no way UK can take them all. This goes back to my point that the current global framework for handling asylum seekers - Both ECHR and UN refugee convention are not fit for purpose. Ideally, - Countries decide maximum number of refugees they take per year. - Make it criminal to land here without visas - Then open asylum centres in countries in which we believe that they will need our support. Given the limits, we also need a prioritisation framework. Prioritise, women, children and families. Prioritise minorities who are being oppressed in those countries by the majority. " I'm not a million miles from this view. International cooperation and localised processing. Irrc this was similar to something labour suggested years back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. " You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today." This breaches the Refugee convention. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. " I have given you this number and fact before, approx 94% of people who make illegal entrance to the UK do not have paperwork. Those people are told to throw documents if they have them, by the the boat gangs. We have travelled this argument many times, if you want to close your eyes to the realities, it makes it hard to discuss ways things can be improved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. This is why I believe asylum processing centres in those respective countries is the long term solution. But you can't do that right now because you will end up getting millions of requests from around the world and there is no way UK can take them all. This goes back to my point that the current global framework for handling asylum seekers - Both ECHR and UN refugee convention are not fit for purpose. Ideally, - Countries decide maximum number of refugees they take per year. - Make it criminal to land here without visas - Then open asylum centres in countries in which we believe that they will need our support. Given the limits, we also need a prioritisation framework. Prioritise, women, children and families. Prioritise minorities who are being oppressed in those countries by the majority. I'm not a million miles from this view. International cooperation and localised processing. Irrc this was similar to something labour suggested years back. " Yes, but they proposed these ideas without my first two points. If you just open processing centres in those countries right now, you aren't solving the problem. There will be millions of applications that Europe cannot handle. Many will still show up in boats because, why wait for official asylum claims when you can come here in boats and stay for as long as you want? That's why setting limits on refugee intake and making it criminal to land here in boats are both crucial before we go down the path of setting asylum processing centres. But unfortunately both cannot be done within current ECHR and UN refugee convention frameworks. They need to be updated. But no politician wants to do that. Instead, they are trying to play within the framework which will not work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention." Bingo! Out of date and needs changing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today." imo your approach closes the door those who can't find ID for whatever reason. Is that a consequence that you are accepting? I also haven't yet understood why you believe that all those we are accepting today as genuine refugees are economic migrants scamming the system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. I have given you this number and fact before, approx 94% of people who make illegal entrance to the UK do not have paperwork. Those people are told to throw documents if they have them, by the the boat gangs. We have travelled this argument many times, if you want to close your eyes to the realities, it makes it hard to discuss ways things can be improved. " How do you prove someone is or is not a genuine asylum seeker and remain within international law? Your answer doesn’t work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. Bingo! Out of date and needs changing. " Because you don’t agree with it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention." The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. I have given you this number and fact before, approx 94% of people who make illegal entrance to the UK do not have paperwork. Those people are told to throw documents if they have them, by the the boat gangs. We have travelled this argument many times, if you want to close your eyes to the realities, it makes it hard to discuss ways things can be improved. How do you prove someone is or is not a genuine asylum seeker and remain within international law? Your answer doesn’t work." It does not work because you are holding onto outdated conventions that need updating. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. " And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. I have given you this number and fact before, approx 94% of people who make illegal entrance to the UK do not have paperwork. Those people are told to throw documents if they have them, by the the boat gangs. We have travelled this argument many times, if you want to close your eyes to the realities, it makes it hard to discuss ways things can be improved. How do you prove someone is or is not a genuine asylum seeker and remain within international law? Your answer doesn’t work. It does not work because you are holding onto outdated conventions that need updating." If you can prove that everyone in the world has a valid means of ID, with electronic backup in case of loss/damage, then you’d have a valid point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. Bingo! Out of date and needs changing. Because you don’t agree with it? " Because democracy. Laws keep changing everyday. If they aren't to be touched, there isn't much difference between these laws and religious books. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here)." You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. " As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. " It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. I have given you this number and fact before, approx 94% of people who make illegal entrance to the UK do not have paperwork. Those people are told to throw documents if they have them, by the the boat gangs. We have travelled this argument many times, if you want to close your eyes to the realities, it makes it hard to discuss ways things can be improved. " I disagree that not having ID makes you a fake refugee. It may add to suspicions ... But why are they still getting through our processing successfully? It may you feel that our processing is shit. I have some sympathy here. Processing the backlog via a questionnaire doesn't feel a great approach. But that's on us. But I'm asking why you believe what you believe. As I understand you believe that no ID is evidence of a scam because all legitimate refugees would have ID. I'm not completely convinced that last bit is an absolute truth. But it may be that (as per my other post) Yiu accept that some won't be able to claim asylum as a consequence of preventing "fake" claims through a zero tolerance approach, rather than better processing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. " Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away." I'm not the first to mention this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away." Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. " And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. " And the circle is now complete... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. " this bit is just opinions. It's the balance of turning away legitimate claims versus accepting illegamate claims. Often it's this kind of balance that policies come down to. The other bit is agreeing what can be done to shift the balance in ones favour. In this example it's quality of processing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. " What's stopping the UN getting round the table? We aren't the only country with these issues. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete..." So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 4. Those who are unsuccessful, which should be most of them, should be deported immediately. No appeal. Their country of origin can easily be checked using DNA analysis and hair or tooth samples. The whole process should take a few weeks. Firstly, you have to have an appeal system, in all walks of life. Wherever there is human involvement there is human error or bias. Which means you need an appeal system. Secondly DNA won’t reveal country of origin. That’s impressively stupid." DNA and samples of hair and teeth give a very good idea of where someone has lived, and their heritage. Isotopes in the hair and teeth are pretty accurate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 4. Those who are unsuccessful, which should be most of them, should be deported immediately. No appeal. Their country of origin can easily be checked using DNA analysis and hair or tooth samples. The whole process should take a few weeks. Firstly, you have to have an appeal system, in all walks of life. Wherever there is human involvement there is human error or bias. Which means you need an appeal system. Secondly DNA won’t reveal country of origin. That’s impressively stupid. DNA and samples of hair and teeth give a very good idea of where someone has lived, and their heritage. Isotopes in the hair and teeth are pretty accurate. " Correct. But that’s not the same as country of origin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? " I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to." And that’s not in our power. So what can be done by the home office? Let’s get realistic here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to." which bits need updating and to what ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. this bit is just opinions. It's the balance of turning away legitimate claims versus accepting illegamate claims. Often it's this kind of balance that policies come down to. The other bit is agreeing what can be done to shift the balance in ones favour. In this example it's quality of processing. " Requirements exist for pretty much everything we do in life and all over the world, except in the scenario of illegal entry into the country using loopholes of a convention that is no longer fit for purpose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to. And that’s not in our power. So what can be done by the home office? Let’s get realistic here." Entire Europe and also the US are facing this issue. All it takes is the will of politicians to work together and change it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to. And that’s not in our power. So what can be done by the home office? Let’s get realistic here. You have gone from completing the circle, which you didn't like, so now you have squared the circle..  "Your solution is impossible (certainly in the short term), you know that - you accept that. So what’s possible? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ?" I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to. And that’s not in our power. So what can be done by the home office? Let’s get realistic here. Entire Europe and also the US are facing this issue. All it takes is the will of politicians to work together and change it." Indeed. We could engage with our European friends to process asylum seekers before they cross the channel. Create safe routes for others. Better/faster processing in these centres both in the U.K. and abroad. A fair appeals system and clear rules about failed asylum (coupled with prompt deportation) Any of that disagreeable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to. And that’s not in our power. So what can be done by the home office? Let’s get realistic here. You have gone from completing the circle, which you didn't like, so now you have squared the circle..
Your solution is impossible (certainly in the short term), you know that - you accept that.
So what’s possible?"Until then let's consider deterrents such as Rwanda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. this bit is just opinions. It's the balance of turning away legitimate claims versus accepting illegamate claims. Often it's this kind of balance that policies come down to. The other bit is agreeing what can be done to shift the balance in ones favour. In this example it's quality of processing. Requirements exist for pretty much everything we do in life and all over the world, except in the scenario of illegal entry into the country using loopholes of a convention that is no longer fit for purpose. " I'm still not clear what this loop hole is. Anyone can claim asylum. We dont have to grant it if it's not legitimate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to. And that’s not in our power. So what can be done by the home office? Let’s get realistic here. You have gone from completing the circle, which you didn't like, so now you have squared the circle..
Your solution is impossible (certainly in the short term), you know that - you accept that.
So what’s possible?"Denmark solution. Which is what we're trying to do but our politicians are fucking soft. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention " So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Your solution is impossible (certainly in the short term), you know that - you accept that. So what’s possible?" You haven't told us why it's impossible. If countries can get together and sign these conventions, pretty sure they can change it too? Especially when all European countries are trying to find innovative ways and throwing money to just get around the convention? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations " It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to. And that’s not in our power. So what can be done by the home office? Let’s get realistic here. You have gone from completing the circle, which you didn't like, so now you have squared the circle..
Your solution is impossible (certainly in the short term), you know that - you accept that.
So what’s possible?
Denmark solution. Which is what we're trying to do but our politicians are fucking soft. "You can still enter Denmark ‘illegally’ though, and sink it an asylum request. Which is perfectly in line with the refugee convention. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible?" It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to. And that’s not in our power. So what can be done by the home office? Let’s get realistic here. You have gone from completing the circle, which you didn't like, so now you have squared the circle..
Your solution is impossible (certainly in the short term), you know that - you accept that.
So what’s possible?
Denmark solution. Which is what we're trying to do but our politicians are fucking soft.
You can still enter Denmark ‘illegally’ though, and sink it an asylum request. Which is perfectly in line with the refugee convention. "You can, and they will ship you back out to a 3rd country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term." Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to. And that’s not in our power. So what can be done by the home office? Let’s get realistic here. You have gone from completing the circle, which you didn't like, so now you have squared the circle..
Your solution is impossible (certainly in the short term), you know that - you accept that.
So what’s possible?
Until then let's consider deterrents such as Rwanda.
"Rwanda isn’t a deterrent, it’s a dead-cat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to. And that’s not in our power. So what can be done by the home office? Let’s get realistic here. You have gone from completing the circle, which you didn't like, so now you have squared the circle..
Your solution is impossible (certainly in the short term), you know that - you accept that.
So what’s possible?
Until then let's consider deterrents such as Rwanda.
"next time, I'm hoping HMG will a) do some actual analysis on whether it will be a deterrent (not convinced) and b) do it in a way that comolies with our own laws ! (My biggest issue with Rwanda was the lack of actual analysis that seems to have been done) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers?" Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term." Right wing politicians in all countries are suggesting leaving ECHR. I am pretty sure it's better to change the convention than to leave it? It is possible in short term if policians have the will. You are irrationally pushing it away by saying it's impossible. If a law can be written, it can be changed too. It's not the Bible or Quran or Bhagwad Gita. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure." If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to. And that’s not in our power. So what can be done by the home office? Let’s get realistic here. You have gone from completing the circle, which you didn't like, so now you have squared the circle..
Your solution is impossible (certainly in the short term), you know that - you accept that.
So what’s possible?
Denmark solution. Which is what we're trying to do but our politicians are fucking soft.
You can still enter Denmark ‘illegally’ though, and sink it an asylum request. Which is perfectly in line with the refugee convention.
You can, and they will ship you back out to a 3rd country."They may do, for processing. Yes. Their Rwanda scheme also failed, like ours has. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. " I’ve mention many times here steps that the home office could take to alleviate the problems. In this very thread I’ve done so again. It’s actually not a complicated problem to solve, it’s just requires some work with other nations, and suitable funding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to. And that’s not in our power. So what can be done by the home office? Let’s get realistic here. You have gone from completing the circle, which you didn't like, so now you have squared the circle..
Your solution is impossible (certainly in the short term), you know that - you accept that.
So what’s possible?
Denmark solution. Which is what we're trying to do but our politicians are fucking soft.
You can still enter Denmark ‘illegally’ though, and sink it an asylum request. Which is perfectly in line with the refugee convention.
You can, and they will ship you back out to a 3rd country.
They may do, for processing. Yes.
Their Rwanda scheme also failed, like ours has."They also only have circa 5k/year. What we really need is to get round the rable and make changes as you keep being told. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Right wing politicians in all countries are suggesting leaving ECHR. I am pretty sure it's better to change the convention than to leave it? It is possible in short term if policians have the will. You are irrationally pushing it away by saying it's impossible. If a law can be written, it can be changed too. It's not the Bible or Quran or Bhagwad Gita." Would it be faster to change the refugee convention, or for the home office to make simple steps? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree we should be compassionate with legitimate asylum seekers, not with the economic migrants who are entering by small boats illegally and lying from day 1. And as you’ve been asked previously, when a boat arrives, how do you tell the difference? I will say again, no papers no entry. Set the rule and stick to it, people who are legitimate and know the rules will make that happen. Any form of ID that proves a person is who they say they are.I see the camps in Palestine and wonder what ID they need on a daily basis. Likewise some of the tribal farmers etc in the middle east. You have said this on numerous occasions, playing a look at this scenario card. If I play the same intent, it would not matter if they have paperwork or not, they will not be leaving Gaza. Now if they could, and they knew they were going to head to Europe, they would find something to bring with them? it's an example to help bring to life a point. You have an assumption that the only people able to get to the UK are ones that are able to source ID. If you are living in villages and camps, the need for ID is a lot less. After all, how much of the ID we have comes from a privalaged position of having a bank, passport, or even a permanent address. I don't have certainty that everyone in the wold has the same access. I also don't have certainty that that only those with access can make it to the UK. And I don't yet fully understand why you have certainty. You are making a lot of assumptions, I'm making 1, find something that proves you are who you say you are. Can't do that, don't travel here you wont be allowed in. If we can get on top of the numbers, people who do need legitimate help will be able to get it, we will never do this with our system today. This breaches the Refugee convention. The Refugee Convention was written over 70 years ago. As many people have said, old laws need updating. And assuming it was updated, it’s not going to have a ‘must carry ID’ clause, for myriad reasons (some of which have been mentioned here). You're a great believer in 'govts don't have the will to change', same applies here. As above - if everyone in the world had ID, it could be incorporated. They don’t, and it won’t. It doesn't need everyone in the world to have ID. Only the ones who choose to travel, if we had local processing then those could be issued ID. It will be easy to ascertain people are genuine with local processing. Now we’re getting somewhere - as I’ve stated repeatedly on these threads - processing is vital, be it in the U.K or offshore. What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to. And that’s not in our power. So what can be done by the home office? Let’s get realistic here. You have gone from completing the circle, which you didn't like, so now you have squared the circle..
Your solution is impossible (certainly in the short term), you know that - you accept that.
So what’s possible?
Denmark solution. Which is what we're trying to do but our politicians are fucking soft.
You can still enter Denmark ‘illegally’ though, and sink it an asylum request. Which is perfectly in line with the refugee convention.
You can, and they will ship you back out to a 3rd country.
They may do, for processing. Yes.
Their Rwanda scheme also failed, like ours has.
They also only have circa 5k/year.
What we really need is to get round the rable and make changes as you keep being told. "I’ve provided an answer that requires no changes to any convention, that could be implemented quickly. Nobody has engaged with it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Right wing politicians in all countries are suggesting leaving ECHR. I am pretty sure it's better to change the convention than to leave it? It is possible in short term if policians have the will. You are irrationally pushing it away by saying it's impossible. If a law can be written, it can be changed too. It's not the Bible or Quran or Bhagwad Gita. Would it be faster to change the refugee convention, or for the home office to make simple steps? " What 'simple steps' can the home office make that would do the trick? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. I’ve mention many times here steps that the home office could take to alleviate the problems. In this very thread I’ve done so again. It’s actually not a complicated problem to solve, it’s just requires some work with other nations, and suitable funding. " It doesn't remove the illegal small boat crossings, there is nothing you are saying that would do that, they would still cross and we would still be in the same position. Changing the entry requirements and convention gives us that control. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. I’ve mention many times here steps that the home office could take to alleviate the problems. In this very thread I’ve done so again. It’s actually not a complicated problem to solve, it’s just requires some work with other nations, and suitable funding. It doesn't remove the illegal small boat crossings, there is nothing you are saying that would do that, they would still cross and we would still be in the same position. Changing the entry requirements and convention gives us that control. " Safe routes don’t stop/limit the boat crossings? On what grounds do you reach that conclusion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Right wing politicians in all countries are suggesting leaving ECHR. I am pretty sure it's better to change the convention than to leave it? It is possible in short term if policians have the will. You are irrationally pushing it away by saying it's impossible. If a law can be written, it can be changed too. It's not the Bible or Quran or Bhagwad Gita. Would it be faster to change the refugee convention, or for the home office to make simple steps? " This is exactly what the other poster accused you of - Going around in circles. You discussed this before. The conclusion was that any solution that cannot be exploited and actually is a solution to the problem involves changing the refugee convention. It is possible if we have the political will. The home office cannot take "simple steps" to solve it. In case you haven't noticed, all of Europe face the problem and no one has managed to find those "simple steps" to solve it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. I’ve mention many times here steps that the home office could take to alleviate the problems. In this very thread I’ve done so again. It’s actually not a complicated problem to solve, it’s just requires some work with other nations, and suitable funding. It doesn't remove the illegal small boat crossings, there is nothing you are saying that would do that, they would still cross and we would still be in the same position. Changing the entry requirements and convention gives us that control. Safe routes don’t stop/limit the boat crossings? On what grounds do you reach that conclusion? " No, those that don't qualify to travel safe routes will still cross by small boat, because nothing has changed, the convention still allows them to play the game. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"‘Just change the refugee convention and it’s problem solved. There’s no other way’ This forum is quite hilarious at times. " It's hilarious that you stick to staying "it's impossible to change the convention" without telling us why. This is a long term problem and solving it requires a big change. If you don't like making the change, say it so. Don't come up with weak arguments that it is impossible to change it. As I said, it's not a religious book that can't be rewritten. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. I’ve mention many times here steps that the home office could take to alleviate the problems. In this very thread I’ve done so again. It’s actually not a complicated problem to solve, it’s just requires some work with other nations, and suitable funding. It doesn't remove the illegal small boat crossings, there is nothing you are saying that would do that, they would still cross and we would still be in the same position. Changing the entry requirements and convention gives us that control. Safe routes don’t stop/limit the boat crossings? On what grounds do you reach that conclusion? No, those that don't qualify to travel safe routes will still cross by small boat, because nothing has changed, the convention still allows them to play the game. " But you’re accepting that safe routes will be taken up by some? Thus reducing the boat crossings? Why do you think the boat crossings are a fairly recent phenomenon? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"‘Just change the refugee convention and it’s problem solved. There’s no other way’ This forum is quite hilarious at times. It's hilarious that you stick to staying "it's impossible to change the convention" without telling us why. This is a long term problem and solving it requires a big change. If you don't like making the change, say it so. Don't come up with weak arguments that it is impossible to change it. As I said, it's not a religious book that can't be rewritten." I said it’s impossible to change in the short term, and it’s unlikely to happen in the long term - that’s what said, correct? How long do you think it would take to agree to change, discuss, listen to legal argument and create an acceptable piece, agreed and signed by all? Give us an estimate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. I’ve mention many times here steps that the home office could take to alleviate the problems. In this very thread I’ve done so again. It’s actually not a complicated problem to solve, it’s just requires some work with other nations, and suitable funding. It doesn't remove the illegal small boat crossings, there is nothing you are saying that would do that, they would still cross and we would still be in the same position. Changing the entry requirements and convention gives us that control. Safe routes don’t stop/limit the boat crossings? On what grounds do you reach that conclusion? No, those that don't qualify to travel safe routes will still cross by small boat, because nothing has changed, the convention still allows them to play the game. But you’re accepting that safe routes will be taken up by some? Thus reducing the boat crossings? Why do you think the boat crossings are a fairly recent phenomenon?" The numbers will be the same, you will simply be exposing those that are playing the system but with your hands tied firmly behind your back. Change the entry criteria and convention and we can move forward. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. I’ve mention many times here steps that the home office could take to alleviate the problems. In this very thread I’ve done so again. It’s actually not a complicated problem to solve, it’s just requires some work with other nations, and suitable funding. It doesn't remove the illegal small boat crossings, there is nothing you are saying that would do that, they would still cross and we would still be in the same position. Changing the entry requirements and convention gives us that control. Safe routes don’t stop/limit the boat crossings? On what grounds do you reach that conclusion? No, those that don't qualify to travel safe routes will still cross by small boat, because nothing has changed, the convention still allows them to play the game. But you’re accepting that safe routes will be taken up by some? Thus reducing the boat crossings? Why do you think the boat crossings are a fairly recent phenomenon? The numbers will be the same, you will simply be exposing those that are playing the system but with your hands tied firmly behind your back. Change the entry criteria and convention and we can move forward. " Like a stuck record. The convention isn’t changing any time soon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. I’ve mention many times here steps that the home office could take to alleviate the problems. In this very thread I’ve done so again. It’s actually not a complicated problem to solve, it’s just requires some work with other nations, and suitable funding. It doesn't remove the illegal small boat crossings, there is nothing you are saying that would do that, they would still cross and we would still be in the same position. Changing the entry requirements and convention gives us that control. Safe routes don’t stop/limit the boat crossings? On what grounds do you reach that conclusion? No, those that don't qualify to travel safe routes will still cross by small boat, because nothing has changed, the convention still allows them to play the game. But you’re accepting that safe routes will be taken up by some? Thus reducing the boat crossings? Why do you think the boat crossings are a fairly recent phenomenon? The numbers will be the same, you will simply be exposing those that are playing the system but with your hands tied firmly behind your back. Change the entry criteria and convention and we can move forward. Like a stuck record. The convention isn’t changing any time soon." Why. other than it is impossible and nothing to back it up with? Is 95% renewables impossible? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Right wing politicians in all countries are suggesting leaving ECHR. I am pretty sure it's better to change the convention than to leave it? It is possible in short term if policians have the will. You are irrationally pushing it away by saying it's impossible. If a law can be written, it can be changed too. It's not the Bible or Quran or Bhagwad Gita. Would it be faster to change the refugee convention, or for the home office to make simple steps? This is exactly what the other poster accused you of - Going around in circles. You discussed this before. The conclusion was that any solution that cannot be exploited and actually is a solution to the problem involves changing the refugee convention. It is possible if we have the political will. The home office cannot take "simple steps" to solve it. In case you haven't noticed, all of Europe face the problem and no one has managed to find those "simple steps" to solve it." You mentioned processing - this is the right approach. Processing being well funded at home, and opening processing centres on the continent is a far more realistic prospect than changing the refugee convention. I find it hard to believe anyone can question that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"‘Just change the refugee convention and it’s problem solved. There’s no other way’ This forum is quite hilarious at times. It's hilarious that you stick to staying "it's impossible to change the convention" without telling us why. This is a long term problem and solving it requires a big change. If you don't like making the change, say it so. Don't come up with weak arguments that it is impossible to change it. As I said, it's not a religious book that can't be rewritten. I said it’s impossible to change in the short term, and it’s unlikely to happen in the long term - that’s what said, correct? How long do you think it would take to agree to change, discuss, listen to legal argument and create an acceptable piece, agreed and signed by all? Give us an estimate? " Maybe a year? Given that this has been a discussion in most European elections, they can definitely do it within that for the sake of urgency. It didn't take that long to write the convention in the first place. If we don't do it, the outcome is that all countries would just leave the convention. Would you rather prefer that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. I’ve mention many times here steps that the home office could take to alleviate the problems. In this very thread I’ve done so again. It’s actually not a complicated problem to solve, it’s just requires some work with other nations, and suitable funding. It doesn't remove the illegal small boat crossings, there is nothing you are saying that would do that, they would still cross and we would still be in the same position. Changing the entry requirements and convention gives us that control. Safe routes don’t stop/limit the boat crossings? On what grounds do you reach that conclusion? No, those that don't qualify to travel safe routes will still cross by small boat, because nothing has changed, the convention still allows them to play the game. But you’re accepting that safe routes will be taken up by some? Thus reducing the boat crossings? Why do you think the boat crossings are a fairly recent phenomenon? The numbers will be the same, you will simply be exposing those that are playing the system but with your hands tied firmly behind your back. Change the entry criteria and convention and we can move forward. Like a stuck record. The convention isn’t changing any time soon. Why. other than it is impossible and nothing to back it up with? Is 95% renewables impossible? " *sigh* Let’s start at the start How long does *stuff* generally take to pass through as legislation? Even reasonably simple legislation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Right wing politicians in all countries are suggesting leaving ECHR. I am pretty sure it's better to change the convention than to leave it? It is possible in short term if policians have the will. You are irrationally pushing it away by saying it's impossible. If a law can be written, it can be changed too. It's not the Bible or Quran or Bhagwad Gita. Would it be faster to change the refugee convention, or for the home office to make simple steps? This is exactly what the other poster accused you of - Going around in circles. You discussed this before. The conclusion was that any solution that cannot be exploited and actually is a solution to the problem involves changing the refugee convention. It is possible if we have the political will. The home office cannot take "simple steps" to solve it. In case you haven't noticed, all of Europe face the problem and no one has managed to find those "simple steps" to solve it. You mentioned processing - this is the right approach. Processing being well funded at home, and opening processing centres on the continent is a far more realistic prospect than changing the refugee convention. I find it hard to believe anyone can question that." But processing alone is not a solution. No country has the ability to take millions of refugees and it won't stop the boat crossings either | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"‘Just change the refugee convention and it’s problem solved. There’s no other way’ This forum is quite hilarious at times. It's hilarious that you stick to staying "it's impossible to change the convention" without telling us why. This is a long term problem and solving it requires a big change. If you don't like making the change, say it so. Don't come up with weak arguments that it is impossible to change it. As I said, it's not a religious book that can't be rewritten. I said it’s impossible to change in the short term, and it’s unlikely to happen in the long term - that’s what said, correct? How long do you think it would take to agree to change, discuss, listen to legal argument and create an acceptable piece, agreed and signed by all? Give us an estimate? Maybe a year? Given that this has been a discussion in most European elections, they can definitely do it within that for the sake of urgency. It didn't take that long to write the convention in the first place. If we don't do it, the outcome is that all countries would just leave the convention. Would you rather prefer that?" The process of creating the 1951 convention can be traced back to 1921. Now would a new convention take 30 years? No. Would it take considerably longer than a year? I’d bet Rishi at least a grand that it would. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Right wing politicians in all countries are suggesting leaving ECHR. I am pretty sure it's better to change the convention than to leave it? It is possible in short term if policians have the will. You are irrationally pushing it away by saying it's impossible. If a law can be written, it can be changed too. It's not the Bible or Quran or Bhagwad Gita. Would it be faster to change the refugee convention, or for the home office to make simple steps? This is exactly what the other poster accused you of - Going around in circles. You discussed this before. The conclusion was that any solution that cannot be exploited and actually is a solution to the problem involves changing the refugee convention. It is possible if we have the political will. The home office cannot take "simple steps" to solve it. In case you haven't noticed, all of Europe face the problem and no one has managed to find those "simple steps" to solve it. You mentioned processing - this is the right approach. Processing being well funded at home, and opening processing centres on the continent is a far more realistic prospect than changing the refugee convention. I find it hard to believe anyone can question that. But processing alone is not a solution. No country has the ability to take millions of refugees and it won't stop the boat crossings either " Every asylum seeker has to be processed somewhere. It’s part of the asylum process - it’s actually the core of the whole argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"‘Just change the refugee convention and it’s problem solved. There’s no other way’ This forum is quite hilarious at times. It's hilarious that you stick to staying "it's impossible to change the convention" without telling us why. This is a long term problem and solving it requires a big change. If you don't like making the change, say it so. Don't come up with weak arguments that it is impossible to change it. As I said, it's not a religious book that can't be rewritten. I said it’s impossible to change in the short term, and it’s unlikely to happen in the long term - that’s what said, correct? How long do you think it would take to agree to change, discuss, listen to legal argument and create an acceptable piece, agreed and signed by all? Give us an estimate? Maybe a year? Given that this has been a discussion in most European elections, they can definitely do it within that for the sake of urgency. It didn't take that long to write the convention in the first place. If we don't do it, the outcome is that all countries would just leave the convention. Would you rather prefer that? The process of creating the 1951 convention can be traced back to 1921. Now would a new convention take 30 years? No. Would it take considerably longer than a year? I’d bet Rishi at least a grand that it would. " You're just finding problems. You have no will. It's a simple task to get everyone round the table, get it written up and voted on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"‘Just change the refugee convention and it’s problem solved. There’s no other way’ This forum is quite hilarious at times. It's hilarious that you stick to staying "it's impossible to change the convention" without telling us why. This is a long term problem and solving it requires a big change. If you don't like making the change, say it so. Don't come up with weak arguments that it is impossible to change it. As I said, it's not a religious book that can't be rewritten. I said it’s impossible to change in the short term, and it’s unlikely to happen in the long term - that’s what said, correct? How long do you think it would take to agree to change, discuss, listen to legal argument and create an acceptable piece, agreed and signed by all? Give us an estimate? Maybe a year? Given that this has been a discussion in most European elections, they can definitely do it within that for the sake of urgency. It didn't take that long to write the convention in the first place. If we don't do it, the outcome is that all countries would just leave the convention. Would you rather prefer that? The process of creating the 1951 convention can be traced back to 1921. Now would a new convention take 30 years? No. Would it take considerably longer than a year? I’d bet Rishi at least a grand that it would. " They did not take that long to write it. It was written long before 1951. The draft was adapted in 1951 because you know... certain things happened in between | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. I’ve mention many times here steps that the home office could take to alleviate the problems. In this very thread I’ve done so again. It’s actually not a complicated problem to solve, it’s just requires some work with other nations, and suitable funding. It doesn't remove the illegal small boat crossings, there is nothing you are saying that would do that, they would still cross and we would still be in the same position. Changing the entry requirements and convention gives us that control. Safe routes don’t stop/limit the boat crossings? On what grounds do you reach that conclusion? No, those that don't qualify to travel safe routes will still cross by small boat, because nothing has changed, the convention still allows them to play the game. But you’re accepting that safe routes will be taken up by some? Thus reducing the boat crossings? Why do you think the boat crossings are a fairly recent phenomenon? The numbers will be the same, you will simply be exposing those that are playing the system but with your hands tied firmly behind your back. Change the entry criteria and convention and we can move forward. Like a stuck record. The convention isn’t changing any time soon. Why. other than it is impossible and nothing to back it up with? Is 95% renewables impossible? *sigh* Let’s start at the start How long does *stuff* generally take to pass through as legislation? Even reasonably simple legislation." I'm going to leave this now, for the simple reason that you have not offered any type of argument as to why it is impossible, and that you can see your recommendations still leave the door open for small boat crossings is a bizarre position to be arguing from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. I’ve mention many times here steps that the home office could take to alleviate the problems. In this very thread I’ve done so again. It’s actually not a complicated problem to solve, it’s just requires some work with other nations, and suitable funding. It doesn't remove the illegal small boat crossings, there is nothing you are saying that would do that, they would still cross and we would still be in the same position. Changing the entry requirements and convention gives us that control. Safe routes don’t stop/limit the boat crossings? On what grounds do you reach that conclusion? No, those that don't qualify to travel safe routes will still cross by small boat, because nothing has changed, the convention still allows them to play the game. But you’re accepting that safe routes will be taken up by some? Thus reducing the boat crossings? Why do you think the boat crossings are a fairly recent phenomenon? The numbers will be the same, you will simply be exposing those that are playing the system but with your hands tied firmly behind your back. Change the entry criteria and convention and we can move forward. Like a stuck record. The convention isn’t changing any time soon. Why. other than it is impossible and nothing to back it up with? Is 95% renewables impossible? *sigh* Let’s start at the start How long does *stuff* generally take to pass through as legislation? Even reasonably simple legislation. I'm going to leave this now, for the simple reason that you have not offered any type of argument as to why it is impossible, and that you can see your recommendations still leave the door open for small boat crossings is a bizarre position to be arguing from." What’s bizarre is insisting that your way is correct, whilst also admitting that it’s impossible without wholesale changes to international law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. I’ve mention many times here steps that the home office could take to alleviate the problems. In this very thread I’ve done so again. It’s actually not a complicated problem to solve, it’s just requires some work with other nations, and suitable funding. It doesn't remove the illegal small boat crossings, there is nothing you are saying that would do that, they would still cross and we would still be in the same position. Changing the entry requirements and convention gives us that control. Safe routes don’t stop/limit the boat crossings? On what grounds do you reach that conclusion? No, those that don't qualify to travel safe routes will still cross by small boat, because nothing has changed, the convention still allows them to play the game. But you’re accepting that safe routes will be taken up by some? Thus reducing the boat crossings? Why do you think the boat crossings are a fairly recent phenomenon? The numbers will be the same, you will simply be exposing those that are playing the system but with your hands tied firmly behind your back. Change the entry criteria and convention and we can move forward. Like a stuck record. The convention isn’t changing any time soon. Why. other than it is impossible and nothing to back it up with? Is 95% renewables impossible? *sigh* Let’s start at the start How long does *stuff* generally take to pass through as legislation? Even reasonably simple legislation. I'm going to leave this now, for the simple reason that you have not offered any type of argument as to why it is impossible, and that you can see your recommendations still leave the door open for small boat crossings is a bizarre position to be arguing from. What’s bizarre is insisting that your way is correct, whilst also admitting that it’s impossible without wholesale changes to international law." Why is getting multiple countries together and changing the law impossible you? I hope you are a brexiter because that's exactly what the EU does. Your argument on this matter is laughable to be honest | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. I’ve mention many times here steps that the home office could take to alleviate the problems. In this very thread I’ve done so again. It’s actually not a complicated problem to solve, it’s just requires some work with other nations, and suitable funding. It doesn't remove the illegal small boat crossings, there is nothing you are saying that would do that, they would still cross and we would still be in the same position. Changing the entry requirements and convention gives us that control. Safe routes don’t stop/limit the boat crossings? On what grounds do you reach that conclusion? No, those that don't qualify to travel safe routes will still cross by small boat, because nothing has changed, the convention still allows them to play the game. But you’re accepting that safe routes will be taken up by some? Thus reducing the boat crossings? Why do you think the boat crossings are a fairly recent phenomenon? The numbers will be the same, you will simply be exposing those that are playing the system but with your hands tied firmly behind your back. Change the entry criteria and convention and we can move forward. Like a stuck record. The convention isn’t changing any time soon. Why. other than it is impossible and nothing to back it up with? Is 95% renewables impossible? *sigh* Let’s start at the start How long does *stuff* generally take to pass through as legislation? Even reasonably simple legislation. I'm going to leave this now, for the simple reason that you have not offered any type of argument as to why it is impossible, and that you can see your recommendations still leave the door open for small boat crossings is a bizarre position to be arguing from. What’s bizarre is insisting that your way is correct, whilst also admitting that it’s impossible without wholesale changes to international law. Why is getting multiple countries together and changing the law impossible you? I hope you are a brexiter because that's exactly what the EU does. Your argument on this matter is laughable to be honest " My argument is based upon objective reality. The notion that we can miraculously change the refugee convention in no time at all is as naive as anything I’ve ever heard on these forums, and that’s saying something. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. I’ve mention many times here steps that the home office could take to alleviate the problems. In this very thread I’ve done so again. It’s actually not a complicated problem to solve, it’s just requires some work with other nations, and suitable funding. It doesn't remove the illegal small boat crossings, there is nothing you are saying that would do that, they would still cross and we would still be in the same position. Changing the entry requirements and convention gives us that control. Safe routes don’t stop/limit the boat crossings? On what grounds do you reach that conclusion? No, those that don't qualify to travel safe routes will still cross by small boat, because nothing has changed, the convention still allows them to play the game. But you’re accepting that safe routes will be taken up by some? Thus reducing the boat crossings? Why do you think the boat crossings are a fairly recent phenomenon? The numbers will be the same, you will simply be exposing those that are playing the system but with your hands tied firmly behind your back. Change the entry criteria and convention and we can move forward. Like a stuck record. The convention isn’t changing any time soon. Why. other than it is impossible and nothing to back it up with? Is 95% renewables impossible? *sigh* Let’s start at the start How long does *stuff* generally take to pass through as legislation? Even reasonably simple legislation. I'm going to leave this now, for the simple reason that you have not offered any type of argument as to why it is impossible, and that you can see your recommendations still leave the door open for small boat crossings is a bizarre position to be arguing from. What’s bizarre is insisting that your way is correct, whilst also admitting that it’s impossible without wholesale changes to international law. Why is getting multiple countries together and changing the law impossible you? I hope you are a brexiter because that's exactly what the EU does. Your argument on this matter is laughable to be honest My argument is based upon objective reality. The notion that we can miraculously change the refugee convention in no time at all is as naive as anything I’ve ever heard on these forums, and that’s saying something. " It's a piece of law. It isn't a religious book. It can be changed. If we don't change it, countries will eventually leave it, which is probably a faster outcome. But you may not like it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incidentally there are over 100 signatories to the refugee convention. Sounds like the work of a couple of hours to get them all to agree changes, right?" Not one person has argued this can be done in a couple of hours. You're arguing in bad faith, tell us why it's impossible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incidentally there are over 100 signatories to the refugee convention. Sounds like the work of a couple of hours to get them all to agree changes, right? Not one person has argued this can be done in a couple of hours. You're arguing in bad faith, tell us why it's impossible." I said it was impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the longer term. Am I wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. I’ve mention many times here steps that the home office could take to alleviate the problems. In this very thread I’ve done so again. It’s actually not a complicated problem to solve, it’s just requires some work with other nations, and suitable funding. It doesn't remove the illegal small boat crossings, there is nothing you are saying that would do that, they would still cross and we would still be in the same position. Changing the entry requirements and convention gives us that control. Safe routes don’t stop/limit the boat crossings? On what grounds do you reach that conclusion? No, those that don't qualify to travel safe routes will still cross by small boat, because nothing has changed, the convention still allows them to play the game. But you’re accepting that safe routes will be taken up by some? Thus reducing the boat crossings? Why do you think the boat crossings are a fairly recent phenomenon? The numbers will be the same, you will simply be exposing those that are playing the system but with your hands tied firmly behind your back. Change the entry criteria and convention and we can move forward. Like a stuck record. The convention isn’t changing any time soon. Why. other than it is impossible and nothing to back it up with? Is 95% renewables impossible? *sigh* Let’s start at the start How long does *stuff* generally take to pass through as legislation? Even reasonably simple legislation. I'm going to leave this now, for the simple reason that you have not offered any type of argument as to why it is impossible, and that you can see your recommendations still leave the door open for small boat crossings is a bizarre position to be arguing from. What’s bizarre is insisting that your way is correct, whilst also admitting that it’s impossible without wholesale changes to international law. Why is getting multiple countries together and changing the law impossible you? I hope you are a brexiter because that's exactly what the EU does. Your argument on this matter is laughable to be honest My argument is based upon objective reality. The notion that we can miraculously change the refugee convention in no time at all is as naive as anything I’ve ever heard on these forums, and that’s saying something. It's a piece of law. It isn't a religious book. It can be changed. If we don't change it, countries will eventually leave it, which is probably a faster outcome. But you may not like it." If we left the refugee convention, you know that wouldn’t necessarily stop refugees arriving? And we’d not be able to repatriate some due to other laws/agreements? (Not to mention the fact that literally no viable polical party in the UK will ever back leaving the convention). Its cloud cuckoo land to pretend it’s going to happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incidentally there are over 100 signatories to the refugee convention. Sounds like the work of a couple of hours to get them all to agree changes, right? Not one person has argued this can be done in a couple of hours. You're arguing in bad faith, tell us why it's impossible. I said it was impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the longer term. Am I wrong?" It's possible to get round the table and start speaking tomorrow if the will is there. Why do you think that's impossible? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incidentally there are over 100 signatories to the refugee convention. Sounds like the work of a couple of hours to get them all to agree changes, right? Not one person has argued this can be done in a couple of hours. You're arguing in bad faith, tell us why it's impossible. I said it was impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the longer term. Am I wrong?" I have to agree with bass, the refugee convention will not make changes that would prejudice a refugee. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incidentally there are over 100 signatories to the refugee convention. Sounds like the work of a couple of hours to get them all to agree changes, right? Not one person has argued this can be done in a couple of hours. You're arguing in bad faith, tell us why it's impossible. I said it was impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the longer term. Am I wrong?" until they begin we will not know, but begin they must, as there will be liberal filibustering to contend with  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incidentally there are over 100 signatories to the refugee convention. Sounds like the work of a couple of hours to get them all to agree changes, right? Not one person has argued this can be done in a couple of hours. You're arguing in bad faith, tell us why it's impossible. I said it was impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the longer term. Am I wrong? I have to agree with bass, the refugee convention will not make changes that would prejudice a refugee. " The refugee convention isn't an organisation. The UN only exists because a bunch of countries have common goals. Those same countries are struggling with the same issues. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incidentally there are over 100 signatories to the refugee convention. Sounds like the work of a couple of hours to get them all to agree changes, right? Not one person has argued this can be done in a couple of hours. You're arguing in bad faith, tell us why it's impossible. I said it was impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the longer term. Am I wrong? It's possible to get round the table and start speaking tomorrow if the will is there. Why do you think that's impossible?" I didn’t say it was impossible to start talks, did I? (It’s also immensely unlikely) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incidentally there are over 100 signatories to the refugee convention. Sounds like the work of a couple of hours to get them all to agree changes, right? Not one person has argued this can be done in a couple of hours. You're arguing in bad faith, tell us why it's impossible. I said it was impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the longer term. Am I wrong? I have to agree with bass, the refugee convention will not make changes that would prejudice a refugee. The refugee convention isn't an organisation. The UN only exists because a bunch of countries have common goals. Those same countries are struggling with the same issues." Do all 100+ have the same views on refugees? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incidentally there are over 100 signatories to the refugee convention. Sounds like the work of a couple of hours to get them all to agree changes, right? Not one person has argued this can be done in a couple of hours. You're arguing in bad faith, tell us why it's impossible. I said it was impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the longer term. Am I wrong? I have to agree with bass, the refugee convention will not make changes that would prejudice a refugee. " Refugee convention is not a person. It's an agreement that multiple countries have reached and signed up for. Given that entire Europe and the US are also reeling from refugee crisis, it's possible to change it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incidentally there are over 100 signatories to the refugee convention. Sounds like the work of a couple of hours to get them all to agree changes, right? Not one person has argued this can be done in a couple of hours. You're arguing in bad faith, tell us why it's impossible. I said it was impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the longer term. Am I wrong? It's possible to get round the table and start speaking tomorrow if the will is there. Why do you think that's impossible? I didn’t say it was impossible to start talks, did I? (It’s also immensely unlikely)" You've said a lot of things. What you haven't did is why it'd impossible or even unlikely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incidentally there are over 100 signatories to the refugee convention. Sounds like the work of a couple of hours to get them all to agree changes, right? Not one person has argued this can be done in a couple of hours. You're arguing in bad faith, tell us why it's impossible. I said it was impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the longer term. Am I wrong? I have to agree with bass, the refugee convention will not make changes that would prejudice a refugee. The refugee convention isn't an organisation. The UN only exists because a bunch of countries have common goals. Those same countries are struggling with the same issues. Do all 100+ have the same views on refugees? " Have you asked? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. I’ve mention many times here steps that the home office could take to alleviate the problems. In this very thread I’ve done so again. It’s actually not a complicated problem to solve, it’s just requires some work with other nations, and suitable funding. It doesn't remove the illegal small boat crossings, there is nothing you are saying that would do that, they would still cross and we would still be in the same position. Changing the entry requirements and convention gives us that control. Safe routes don’t stop/limit the boat crossings? On what grounds do you reach that conclusion? No, those that don't qualify to travel safe routes will still cross by small boat, because nothing has changed, the convention still allows them to play the game. But you’re accepting that safe routes will be taken up by some? Thus reducing the boat crossings? Why do you think the boat crossings are a fairly recent phenomenon? The numbers will be the same, you will simply be exposing those that are playing the system but with your hands tied firmly behind your back. Change the entry criteria and convention and we can move forward. Like a stuck record. The convention isn’t changing any time soon. Why. other than it is impossible and nothing to back it up with? Is 95% renewables impossible? *sigh* Let’s start at the start How long does *stuff* generally take to pass through as legislation? Even reasonably simple legislation. I'm going to leave this now, for the simple reason that you have not offered any type of argument as to why it is impossible, and that you can see your recommendations still leave the door open for small boat crossings is a bizarre position to be arguing from. What’s bizarre is insisting that your way is correct, whilst also admitting that it’s impossible without wholesale changes to international law. Why is getting multiple countries together and changing the law impossible you? I hope you are a brexiter because that's exactly what the EU does. Your argument on this matter is laughable to be honest My argument is based upon objective reality. The notion that we can miraculously change the refugee convention in no time at all is as naive as anything I’ve ever heard on these forums, and that’s saying something. It's a piece of law. It isn't a religious book. It can be changed. If we don't change it, countries will eventually leave it, which is probably a faster outcome. But you may not like it. If we left the refugee convention, you know that wouldn’t necessarily stop refugees arriving? And we’d not be able to repatriate some due to other laws/agreements? (Not to mention the fact that literally no viable polical party in the UK will ever back leaving the convention). Its cloud cuckoo land to pretend it’s going to happen." Who said leave / abandon the convention? We are talking of rewriting it to cope with the modern day, removing the loopholes that allow illegal entry, and provide clear entry criteria. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incidentally there are over 100 signatories to the refugee convention. Sounds like the work of a couple of hours to get them all to agree changes, right? Not one person has argued this can be done in a couple of hours. You're arguing in bad faith, tell us why it's impossible. I said it was impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the longer term. Am I wrong? I have to agree with bass, the refugee convention will not make changes that would prejudice a refugee. The refugee convention isn't an organisation. The UN only exists because a bunch of countries have common goals. Those same countries are struggling with the same issues. Do all 100+ have the same views on refugees? Have you asked?" I think that’s Stage 1 of rewriting the convention, isn’t it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What’s not acceptable is just turning folk away. Yes it is if they do not meet our entry requirements and that is what we need to change. And we can’t change them for the reasons outlined, namely the refugee convention. And the circle is now complete... So we’re agreed that your ‘solution’ is unworkable? So what is the answer? I think the answer was to update the refugee convention. There is no reason not to.which bits need updating and to what ? I mentioned them above. - Countries should be able to set limits on how many refugees they take annually - Making it a crime to just show up in any country without visa - Then open asylum processing centres in other countries. You can't do the first two right now because of the refugee convention So you’re accepting that your solution won’t work. So there’s no point. You’re right about processing though - that’s vital. And it requires us to work with either nations It will work if we change the convention. Why can't we change it? Why do you say it's impossible? It’s impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the long term. Do you care about legitimate asylum seekers? Yes I do. More than some on this thread, for sure. If you do, why do you spend so much of your time arguing and supporting those peoples and conventions that are breaking our society in front of our very eyes, why not put that effort into stopping those things and in return it will help pave the way for asylum seekers who need our help. I’ve mention many times here steps that the home office could take to alleviate the problems. In this very thread I’ve done so again. It’s actually not a complicated problem to solve, it’s just requires some work with other nations, and suitable funding. It doesn't remove the illegal small boat crossings, there is nothing you are saying that would do that, they would still cross and we would still be in the same position. Changing the entry requirements and convention gives us that control. Safe routes don’t stop/limit the boat crossings? On what grounds do you reach that conclusion? No, those that don't qualify to travel safe routes will still cross by small boat, because nothing has changed, the convention still allows them to play the game. But you’re accepting that safe routes will be taken up by some? Thus reducing the boat crossings? Why do you think the boat crossings are a fairly recent phenomenon? The numbers will be the same, you will simply be exposing those that are playing the system but with your hands tied firmly behind your back. Change the entry criteria and convention and we can move forward. Like a stuck record. The convention isn’t changing any time soon. Why. other than it is impossible and nothing to back it up with? Is 95% renewables impossible? *sigh* Let’s start at the start How long does *stuff* generally take to pass through as legislation? Even reasonably simple legislation. I'm going to leave this now, for the simple reason that you have not offered any type of argument as to why it is impossible, and that you can see your recommendations still leave the door open for small boat crossings is a bizarre position to be arguing from. What’s bizarre is insisting that your way is correct, whilst also admitting that it’s impossible without wholesale changes to international law. Why is getting multiple countries together and changing the law impossible you? I hope you are a brexiter because that's exactly what the EU does. Your argument on this matter is laughable to be honest My argument is based upon objective reality. The notion that we can miraculously change the refugee convention in no time at all is as naive as anything I’ve ever heard on these forums, and that’s saying something. It's a piece of law. It isn't a religious book. It can be changed. If we don't change it, countries will eventually leave it, which is probably a faster outcome. But you may not like it. If we left the refugee convention, you know that wouldn’t necessarily stop refugees arriving? And we’d not be able to repatriate some due to other laws/agreements? (Not to mention the fact that literally no viable polical party in the UK will ever back leaving the convention). Its cloud cuckoo land to pretend it’s going to happen. Who said leave / abandon the convention? We are talking of rewriting it to cope with the modern day, removing the loopholes that allow illegal entry, and provide clear entry criteria." The poster I was responding has said that countries will leave. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incidentally there are over 100 signatories to the refugee convention. Sounds like the work of a couple of hours to get them all to agree changes, right? Not one person has argued this can be done in a couple of hours. You're arguing in bad faith, tell us why it's impossible. I said it was impossible in the short term, and unlikely in the longer term. Am I wrong? I have to agree with bass, the refugee convention will not make changes that would prejudice a refugee. The refugee convention isn't an organisation. The UN only exists because a bunch of countries have common goals. Those same countries are struggling with the same issues. Do all 100+ have the same views on refugees? Have you asked? I think that’s Stage 1 of rewriting the convention, isn’t it? " Blimey you did get yourself in a pickle, at least I can see some movement towards you thinking of rewriting now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
