Yes we are back to square one, or more like square zero because we've consciously got ourselves into a situation where we can do even less about it than we could have done a year or two ago. We don't have a government that has a clue how to address it, and anyone pretending they have an easy solution doesn't understand the problem.I agree with all that but the question is if we, the French and other countries in general can't or more likely won't have a cohesive plan then we are back to square one.
Which is my point the journey across Europe needs to be stoppedYes. And the people stuck in Calais are the ones wanting to come to the UK. Otherwise they would have stayed in other countries as the vast majority do. And we pay the French to manage the issue on our behalf in Calais and since many applicants will be rejected they then risk the crossing, knowing that once in the UK we cannot return them and that whilst the Govt may have rejected their application, there is a good chance it will be overturned in the courts because the Govt grounds for rejection are often illegal.
Having a legitimate asylum claim is little guarantee of the Govt accepting that claim. Many rejected asylum claims are appealed and overturned - think the figure is around 70% in the courts.
The key for the people trying to get here, is to first, actually get here, as once here they cannot be automatically returned and instead go through the system with a high chance of success.
What was your question?You’ve neatly sidestepped the question. They either have a legitimate asylum claim or they don’t. Arguing that they are “playing the system” or trying to “get away with it” says they don’t, worse it says they don’t and they know it.
If they get into British waters and claim asylum when intercepted we are obliged to process, interception would have to be in French waters.
Good point - easy to virtue signal - with no practical substanceNo limits to numbers at all?
What changes to how we process applications would you suggest would make my post incorrect? That our asylum acceptance criteria is far more forgiving than that of say France? Maybe a “subprime asylum policy”, where we pretty much accept anyone?
What was your question?
I'm recognising it's a shit situation that our government and the French won't address properly. I know that the answer is not to play the blame game because it will make matters worse. Unfortunately no-one seems to know what the answer actually is and I include myself in that.
A fair bit of what you’ve suggested subsequently in this thread I agree with and would be in favour of.
Ok. I can accept that logic. So they aren’t playing the system.
Now how do we solve them being able to apply to be here? If 70% are overturned on appeal (not checked assume you are right) being able to apply from our consulates or embassies is pointless as they won’t have that right of appeal through the UK courts. Temporary visa’s? What criteria should they meet to be given one? Perhaps we can have three outcomes to initial asylum claim. 1. Accepted. 2. Rejected with right of appeal (you get temp visa). 3. Rejected with no right of appeal.
I think that could work. I’d be in favour.