Absolutely and as I said in another reply, we need to a proper process set up in Calais, where the UK border is.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.
You have to wonder the motives of those who don’t see any problem and think borders shouldn’t exist, too.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.
How can we take a tougher stance? There is protocol in place that determines who qualifies and who doesn’t.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.
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.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.
We’ve solved most of the issue in 5 minutes.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.
I think the French should tell us to fuck off and man the border where it actually is.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.
Wait 7 years for a decision in Calais?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.
They won’t because we’re currently paying them millions to do fuck all, they’re laughing.I think the French should tell us to fuck off and man the border where it actually is.
In the U.K.
How did you get to either of those questions by what I said?Wait 7 years for a decision in Calais?
Deport if they claim asylum travelling on a legitimate visa?
I can answer that in one word… uselessWe’ve solved most of the issue in 5 minutes.
This begs the question as to why the government don’t do this.