The Conservative Party

L
Blue Hefner said:
If someone is that desperate they will put themselves, never mind thier kids, in a dhyngy to cross the world's busiest shipping lanes then I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. But either way 'Economic migrants' are dirt poor thanks to a system to live under and actively promote. We are happy to send thier 5 years old's down mines so we can have a cheap I-phone. That is a case of economic opression of which they have every right to flee.

Before anyoe starts with the 'safe country' one. Would you consider living in a refugee camp on an abandoned air port in the middle of Congo 'safe'? Would you really? Or living in the 'Jungle' in France?. I wonder why they call it the Jungle, by the way.....

We are the UK, Great Britian. A few thousand shoud nto be bringing our coutry to a hault. Turkey has 1 million - It's funnt how British exeptionalism works when it comes to Brexit, CoronaVirus etc. but doesn't extend to helping people
Click to expand...

Britain does help people. From memory, we take in about 50k asylum seekers and about 500-600k non-asylum immigrants every year. The idea that there are no legal routes for immigrants or asylum seeker to come to this country is nonsense but at the same time, that doesn't mean it can't be improved whether the numbers go up or go down.

Personally, I think granting asylum to everyone who makes it across the channel would be one of the worst things we could do, leading to more and more crossings and sadly drownings in the channel.

I don't think that's an idea this Gov't would seriously entertain and rightly so imo.
 
Fame Monster said:
L


Britain does help people. From memory, we take in about 50k asylum seekers and about 500-600k non-asylum immigrants every year. The idea that there are no legal routes for immigrants or asylum seeker to come to this country is nonsense but at the same time, that doesn't mean it can't be improved whether the numbers go up or go down.

Personally, I think granting asylum to everyone who makes it across the channel would be one of the worst things we could do, leading to more and more crossings and sadly drownings in the channel.

I don't think that's an idea this Gov't would seriously entertain and rightly so imo.
Click to expand...

Asylum, resettlement and protection. The UK offered protection – in the form of asylum, humanitarian protection, alternative forms of leave and resettlement – to 20,339 people in the year ending March 2020, 17% higher than the previous year and similar to levels seen in 2003. Goverment website

People don't tend to want to leave thier own country. Why are they leaving? Never mind the numbers of asylum seekers we take in because if you don't like the numbers now they will increase over the next few years - the people who tend to be against improving the lot of asylum seekers tend to be the same people that are against any real action to tackle climate change and are very pro-capatilism. These poor unfortunates are a result of the system we have created and will not let go of

We've tried to be tough, we've tried to make oursleves unattractive yet people still want to come. Imagine how desperate they are. What would you do if you were them?

A global issue needs a global solution. Saying "we are full" is not helpful. The working class of this country have more in common with the father and daughter in the dinghy that we do with our political and media class yet we get conditioned to believe they are a threat rather than the people who give 12billion in contracts to their mates......
 
Blue Hefner said:
Asylum, resettlement and protection. The UK offered protection – in the form of asylum, humanitarian protection, alternative forms of leave and resettlement – to 20,339 people in the year ending March 2020, 17% higher than the previous year and similar to levels seen in 2003. Goverment website

People don't tend to want to leave thier own country. Why are they leaving? Never mind the numbers of asylum seekers we take in because if you don't like the numbers now they will increase over the next few years - the people who tend to be against improving the lot of asylum seekers tend to be the same people that are against any real action to tackle climate change and are very pro-capatilism. These poor unfortunates are a result of the system we have created and will not let go of

We've tried to be tough, we've tried to make oursleves unattractive yet people still want to come. Imagine how desperate they are. What would you do if you were them?

A global issue needs a global solution. Saying "we are full" is not helpful. The working class of this country have more in common with the father and daughter in the dinghy that we do with our political and media class yet we get conditioned to believe they are a threat rather than the people who give 12billion in contracts to their mates......
Click to expand...
A contender for my post of the month.

Chapeau.
 
Blue Hefner said:
Asylum, resettlement and protection. The UK offered protection – in the form of asylum, humanitarian protection, alternative forms of leave and resettlement – to 20,339 people in the year ending March 2020, 17% higher than the previous year and similar to levels seen in 2003. Goverment website

People don't tend to want to leave thier own country. Why are they leaving? Never mind the numbers of asylum seekers we take in because if you don't like the numbers now they will increase over the next few years - the people who tend to be against improving the lot of asylum seekers tend to be the same people that are against any real action to tackle climate change and are very pro-capatilism. These poor unfortunates are a result of the system we have created and will not let go of

We've tried to be tough, we've tried to make oursleves unattractive yet people still want to come. Imagine how desperate they are. What would you do if you were them?

A global issue needs a global solution. Saying "we are full" is not helpful. The working class of this country have more in common with the father and daughter in the dinghy that we do with our political and media class yet we get conditioned to believe they are a threat rather than the people who give 12billion in contracts to their mates......
Click to expand...

That doesn't really address my point though and somewhat undermines your own.

Whether it's 20k or 50k asylum seekers, it shows there are legal means to enter this country as an asylum seeker and despite the legal means to enter increasing 17% last year, it didn't reduce the number of people crossing the channel. In fact, illegal channel crossings shot up so I'm not sure how that fits with the theory.

Also, total immigration was at 715,000 people last year so while I might have overshot the asylum figure by 30,000, I undershot the immigration figure by 100,000-200,000 thousand which I notice you didn't pull me up on. Again, this shows that there are plenty of legal routes for people to emigrate to the UK.
 
Fame Monster said:
That doesn't really address my point though and somewhat undermines your own.

Whether it's 20k or 50k asylum seekers, it shows there are legal means to enter this country as an asylum seeker and despite the legal means to enter increasing 17% last year, it didn't reduce the number of people crossing the channel. In fact, illegal channel crossings shot up so I'm not sure how that fits with the theory.

Also, total immigration was at 715,000 people last year so while I might have overshot the asylum figure by 30,000, I undershot the immigration figure by 100,000-200,000 thousand which I notice you didn't pull me up on. Again, this shows that there are plenty of legal routes for people to emigrate to the UK.
Click to expand...

Of course that are legal routes, but they are clearly not open to all. For a variety of reasons wether that be costs, logistcs, explotation, general danger, a lack of knowledge on thier part etc. You must remember Farage and the like have been telling everyone how easy it is to get here on a little boat and all about the 4 star hotels, the 'benefits', how we are a soft touch and so on - No wonder they are taking that route!! Maybe if we were honest, they would reconsider.......

Regards specific numbers, they don't really interest me. They don't really interest the people I am talking about either - If we had *only* 10 thousand ayslum seekers people like Andrew Pierce would say the country is full. It is not the amount coming people like him don't like, its the people themselves

We either accept these people will come and help them or don't and watch them drown. If you were them, what would you like people to do? We are in a privaleged position. No one thought 20 years ago that Damascus would be in ruins in 2020, it could be us next.....
 
Blue Hefner said:
Of course that are legal routes, but they are clearly not open to all. For a variety of reasons wether that be costs, logistcs, explotation, general danger, a lack of knowledge on thier part etc. You must remember Farage and the like have been telling everyone how easy it is to get here on a little boat and all about the 4 star hotels, the 'benefits', how we are a soft touch and so on - No wonder they are taking that route!! Maybe if we were honest, they would reconsider.......

Regards specific numbers, they don't really interest me. They don't really interest the people I am talking about either - If we had *only* 10 thousand ayslum seekers people like Andrew Pierce would say the country is full. It is not the amount coming people like him don't like, its the people themselves

We either accept these people will come and help them or don't and watch them drown. If you were them, what would you like people to do? We are in a privaleged position. No one thought 20 years ago that Damascus would be in ruins in 2020, it could be us next.....
Click to expand...

715k people still came to the UK last year so while some people might struggle to use the legal means to emigrate to the UK, an awful lot aren't.

Also, there's a third option to 'let them come or watch them drown' though, which the UK Gov't seem to be taking.

That's to deter them from crossing by having in place:

1. A legal means by which to enter (which, as discussed, we do have)

2. Deporting those who cross the channel that don't qualify as asylum seekers

If you don't do option 2, the reality is more and more people will try to cross knowing they will be granted asylum irrespective of their circumstances.
 
Fame Monster said:
L


Britain does help people. From memory, we take in about 50k asylum seekers and about 500-600k non-asylum immigrants every year. The idea that there are no legal routes for immigrants or asylum seeker to come to this country is nonsense but at the same time, that doesn't mean it can't be improved whether the numbers go up or go down.

Personally, I think granting asylum to everyone who makes it across the channel would be one of the worst things we could do, leading to more and more crossings and sadly drownings in the channel.

I don't think that's an idea this Gov't would seriously entertain and rightly so imo.
Click to expand...


Please stop reading the Daily Mail / Express .... the UK handled 41,000 asylum applications last year and not all were granted.


Thats less than 2/3rds of the death toll of Covid19 caused by Tory incompetence.
 
Fame Monster said:
715k people still came to the UK last year so while some people might struggle to use the legal means to emigrate to the UK, an awful lot aren't.

Also, there's a third option to 'let them come or watch them drown' though, which the UK Gov't seem to be taking.

That's to deter them from crossing by having in place:

1. A legal means by which to enter (which, as discussed, we do have)

2. Deporting those who cross the channel that don't qualify as asylum seekers

If you don't do option 2, the reality is more and more people will try to cross knowing they will be granted asylum irrespective of their circumstances.
Click to expand...

“Irrespective of circumstances” - can you think of one reason, just one reasonable, circumstance in which you would get on a small, overcrowded boat and cross 22 miles of dangerous waters with your children?

Because I can only think of one, Desperation. I think we should help desperate people

Maybe increasing overseas aid could help, create infrastructure in countries where these people come from? Perhaps invest in refugee camps on route to help people flee from where necessary but not necessarily risk everything by coming all this way?

Deportation as a general principle doesn’t sit well with me. I don’t like the idea. It seems rather inhuman to me
 
Fame Monster said:
715k people still came to the UK last year so while some people might struggle to use the legal means to emigrate to the UK, an awful lot aren't.

Also, there's a third option to 'let them come or watch them drown' though, which the UK Gov't seem to be taking.

That's to deter them from crossing by having in place:

1. A legal means by which to enter (which, as discussed, we do have)

2. Deporting those who cross the channel that don't qualify as asylum seekers

If you don't do option 2, the reality is more and more people will try to cross knowing they will be granted asylum irrespective of their circumstances.
Click to expand...



Totally wrong.

Please outline the legal means to apply for asylum in the UK.

If their application for asylum in the uk fails then under the Dublin Agreement we have the right to return them to the first country in the Eu in which they were registered. They dont register (requires fingerprints etc) because they believe that the UK government will deny them asylum and simply return them as its the easy option.


If you allowed them to apply for asylum at an embassy or consulate , then you could reasonably assume that the ones crossing the channel on nothing more than kids toys are economic migrants and return them.
 
Fame Monster said:
L


Britain does help people. From memory, we take in about 50k asylum seekers and about 500-600k non-asylum immigrants every year. The idea that there are no legal routes for immigrants or asylum seeker to come to this country is nonsense but at the same time, that doesn't mean it can't be improved whether the numbers go up or go down.

Personally, I think granting asylum to everyone who makes it across the channel would be one of the worst things we could do, leading to more and more crossings and sadly drownings in the channel.

I don't think that's an idea this Gov't would seriously entertain and rightly so imo.
Click to expand...
You’re a citizen of the Uk by a quirk of fate and should be forever grateful that’s the case.
For those unfortunate enough to be born in a country where the simplest everyday task is impossible due to war, famine or whatever it may be, they deserve a chance of happiness like everybody else.
We should do all we can to help those who aren’t lucky enough to live a life with relatively little to worry about.
It’s that simple for me.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
Totally wrong.

Please outline the legal means to apply for asylum in the UK.

If their application for asylum in the uk fails then under the Dublin Agreement we have the right to return them to the first country in the Eu in which they were registered. They dont register (requires fingerprints etc) because they believe that the UK government will deny them asylum and simply return them as its the easy option.


If you allowed them to apply for asylum at an embassy or consulate , then you could reasonably assume that the ones crossing the channel on nothing more than kids toys are economic migrants and return them.
Click to expand...

The legal route is on the .gov website.

Maybe it can be improved but I wanted to dispel the idea that:

1. There are no legal routes.

2. Britain doesn't help anyone.

Both of them things aren't true.
 
Fame Monster said:
The legal route is on the .gov website.

Maybe it can be improved but I wanted to dispel the idea that:

1. There are no legal routes.

2. Britain doesn't help anyone.

Both of them things aren't true.
Click to expand...
There are no legal routes .... you have to be in the uk before you can apply for asylum .... it cant be done from anywhere else.

Tory Britain helps only their mates ..... no one else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
There are no legal routes .... you have to be in the uk before you can apply for asylum .... it cant be done from anywhere else.

Tory Britain helps only their mates ..... no one else.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing that you have to be in the UK to claim asylum, I'm disputing that there aren't legal routes to do it and that you have to cross the channel in a dinghy in order to settle here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top