Terrorist attack on asylum centre

At the end of the day, we need more decision makers to process asylum applications. Then the ones that are successful can get work and the others are deported.

We gain the money to pay for the decision makers by not having to put asylum seekers in camps and hotels for so long.

The last information I saw about people crossing in dinghies suggested around 70% were successful in their application or after an appeal.
Absolutely and as I said in another reply, we need to a proper process set up in Calais, where the UK border is.

And once set up, everyone who doesn’t go through this centre should be deported.

There’s an ever increasing number of people who aren’t escaping persecution and war who are coming tho and that’s a significant problem that needs a tough stance.
 
You have to wonder whether some on the right actually want problems. There's apparently no political fallout from constantly making up immigration targets and then missing them - but there does seem to be a political bonus in being seen as "tougher" on an issue that never seems to get any better.
You have to wonder the motives of those who don’t see any problem and think borders shouldn’t exist, too.

The answer is in the middle and we need to offer an easier process to genuine refugees whilst being able to successfully deport those that aren’t.

I don’t see anyone in government or opposition suggesting a sensible alternative at the moment.
 
Absolutely and as I said in another reply, we need to a proper process set up in Calais, where the UK border is.

And once set up, everyone who doesn’t go through this centre should be deported.

There’s an ever increasing number of people who aren’t escaping persecution and war who are coming tho and that’s a significant problem that needs a tough stance.
How can we take a tougher stance? There is protocol in place that determines who qualifies and who doesn’t.

Most that travel are doing so as it is their only means of applying, so a Calais centre makes sense from a humanitarian point of view as well as reducing the necessity to patrol our coasts.
 
How can we take a tougher stance? There is protocol in place that determines who qualifies and who doesn’t.

Most that travel are doing so as it is their only means of applying, so a Calais centre makes sense from a humanitarian point of view as well as reducing the necessity to patrol our coasts.
Invest in a proper Calais centre and any other attempts to enter the country results in deportation, that’s what I mean by tough stance.

If we had a proper processing centre in Calais, that could deal with those coming, then we’d know for sure those that cross the channel are doing so as they’re not genuine refugees.
 
Invest in a proper Calais centre and any other attempts to enter the country results in deportation, that’s what I mean by tough stance.

If we had a proper processing centre in Calais, that could deal with those coming, then we’d know for sure those that cross the channel are doing so as they’re not genuine refugees.
We’ve solved most of the issue in 5 minutes.

This begs the question as to why the government don’t do this.
 
Absolutely and as I said in another reply, we need to a proper process set up in Calais, where the UK border is.

And once set up, everyone who doesn’t go through this centre should be deported.

There’s an ever increasing number of people who aren’t escaping persecution and war who are coming tho and that’s a significant problem that needs a tough stance.
I think the French should tell us to fuck off and man the border where it actually is.
In the U.K.
 
Invest in a proper Calais centre and any other attempts to enter the country results in deportation, that’s what I mean by tough stance.

If we had a proper processing centre in Calais, that could deal with those coming, then we’d know for sure those that cross the channel are doing so as they’re not genuine refugees.
Wait 7 years for a decision in Calais?

Deport if they claim asylum travelling on a legitimate visa?
 
I think the French should tell us to fuck off and man the border where it actually is.
In the U.K.
They won’t because we’re currently paying them millions to do fuck all, they’re laughing.

We should man the actual Uk border tho, you’re right
 
They can if they apply for a visa and meet the requirements needed, to fill the gaps we have. It’s how the points system works.

Many of the migrants crossing the Channel, according to the stats provided by the BBC it is possibly half of those crossing, are young men coming from places where there isn’t immediate danger or war.

I think it’s fairly obvious many are being offered illegal work here and that’s why they’re coming.

Of course there are plenty who are genuine refugees and should be treated as such but the biggest increases in numbers are men from Albania and Iran… according to the BBC.
i doubt i'd meet the requirements if i applied for a visa
 
Being told you have been refused entry isn't draconian is it?
No, but that isn’t what people want. People are happy with the Rwanda project, somehow.

They don’t just want them deported from our shores without due process, they want them flown to a different continent!
 
No, but that isn’t what people want. People are happy with the Rwanda project, somehow.

They don’t just want them deported from our shores without due process, they want them flown to a different continent!

I don't know anyone who wants that at all, however I do know a fair few people who just want a free for all and not deport anyone at all.

We need a process and that process has to have deportation as an option, it has to be quicker and it has to be fair.
 
So you set up a centre at Calais do you think those who aren’t genuine asylum seekers would turn up there? Those that don’t bet in then what? Straight on a dinghy. You will have exactly the same problem, plus the fact the French wouldn’t entertain it.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top