What has the UK become under the far right influence?

[grunge]

I may be wrong but I think it's the not seeking asylum in France (safe country and all that) that is the point in question here

Its an urban myth that you have to apply for Asylum in the 1st safe country.

Should refugees claim asylum in the first safe country they reach? - Free Movement

Over and over again we hear that refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country the reach. There are variations on the theme. Genuine refugees claim

freemovement.org.uk

the vast majority of the people trying to get here already have family links here too and get granted asylum at the end of the day.

 

[Chris in London]

It's Ireland and the EU that are complaining about what we are doing, it's up to them to solve it.

No it isn't.

We were party to an agreement that ensured this wasn't a problem. We withdrew from that agreement. How is that anyone else's fault?

You keep blaming other people for the problems caused by Brexit. Do you not understand that there's no obligation on anyone else to sort out a mess caused by the UK?

I'm tempted to say "you won, get over it."

 

[Kinkybyname]

There's no obligation to do so. You can transit through country A and claim asylum in country B perfectly legitimately under the Vienna convention.

Likewise, there is no obligation on anyone to claim asylum in the UK if their intention is to claim asylum in Ireland. The problem seems to be that some of those the Irish want to send back have already claimed asylum in the UK. If they have, the Irish are entirely justified in sending them back. If not, the position is exactly the same as with France/UK crossings.

how can they send them back to the UK if it is considered an "unsafe" country because of the threat of deportation to Rwanda?

 

[mexico1970]

No it isn't.

We were party to an agreement that ensured this wasn't a problem. We withdrew from that agreement. How is that anyone else's fault?

You keep blaming other people for the problems caused by Brexit. Do you not understand that there's no obligation on anyone else to sort out a mess caused by the UK?

I'm tempted to say "you won, get over it."

Things changed when we did Brexit, it doesn't mean everything carries on as normal. Whichever way this falls the EU are trying to formulate a plan to ship out Asylum seekers to other countries the same as we are doing.

Labour will keep the status quo too when they get in, we need a rethink on what the difference is between an asylum seeker or an economic migrant and until that happens nothing is going to get done.

We should start by aligning out %'s of successful applications with Ireland and France.

 

[Kinkybyname]

Its an urban myth that you have to apply for Asylum in the 1st safe country.

Should refugees claim asylum in the first safe country they reach? - Free Movement

Over and over again we hear that refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country the reach. There are variations on the theme. Genuine refugees claim

freemovement.org.uk

the vast majority of the people trying to get here already have family links here too and get granted asylum at the end of the day.

I didn't say that wasn't the case... I was merely pointing out that that was the question being asked

 

[Chris in London]

how can they send them back to the UK if it is considered an "unsafe" country because of the threat of deportation to Rwanda?

If you've already claimed asylum in an unsafe country I don't think the Vienna convention permits a fresh claim in a second country.

I may be wrong, but the crucial difference to my mind is whether anyone transiting to Ireland from the UK has already claimed asylum here.

 

[Kinkybyname]

If you've already claimed asylum in an unsafe country I don't think the Vienna convention permits a fresh claim in a second country.

I may be wrong, but the crucial difference to my mind is whether anyone transiting to Ireland from the UK has already claimed asylum here.

Ireland kicking off over this, I wonder why... I strongly suspect the numbers are minuscule

 

[Chris in London]

Things changed when we did Brexit, it doesn't mean everything carries on as normal. Whichever way this falls the EU are trying to formulate a plan to ship out Asylum seekers to other countries the same as we are doing.

Labour will keep the status quo too when they get in, we need a rethink on what the difference is between an asylum seeker or an economic migrant and until that happens nothing is going to get done.

We should start by aligning out %'s of successful applications with Ireland and France.

Of course things don't carry on as usual, that's the whole point. Everything changes as a result of Brexit, which was a voluntary decision made by the UK. That's why you are completely wrong to blame the French for this mess, however personally satisfying you might find it to do so.

There is however a very simple solution which is to return to the Dublin agreement.

If they'll have us.

See if you can guess why the current government doesn't want to do that.

The difference between what is an asylum seeker and what is an economic migrant is very simple, by the way. One is an economic migrant, the other is an asylum seeker. The only problem with working out which is which is if you don't employ enough properly qualified staff to carry out that assessment.

 

[grunge]

I didn't say that wasn't the case... I was merely pointing out that that was the question being asked

Thats cool. just seemed like a good post to respond to with think link.

 

[mexico1970]

I didn't say that wasn't the case... I was merely pointing out that that was the question being asked

Of course things don't carry on as usual, that's the whole point. Everything changes as a result of Brexit, which was a voluntary decision made by the UK. That's why you are completely wrong to blame the French for this mess, however personally satisfying you might find it to do so.

There is however a very simple solution which is to return to the Dublin agreement.

If they'll have us.

See if you can guess why the current government doesn't want to do that.

The difference between what is an asylum seeker and what is an economic migrant is very simple, by the way. One is an economic migrant, the other is an asylum seeker. The only problem with working out which is which is if you don't employ enough properly qualified staff to carry out that assessment.

For what it's worth I would vote to return to the EU, I never voted to leave it. As I have stated the asylum process needs a huge overhaul and for a grown up conversation needs to happen to make sure there is a difference between asylum and economic.

Without suggesting we need more people to wipe backsides and serve our coffee.

 

[Kinkybyname]

Thats cool. just seemed like a good post to respond to with think link.

fair enough - the two sides seemed to be missing each other's point in the battlefield fog

 

[Chris in London]

For what it's worth I would vote to return to the EU, I never voted to leave it. As I have stated the asylum process needs a huge overhaul and for a grown up conversation needs to happen to make sure there is a difference between asylum and economic.

Without suggesting we need more people to wipe backsides and serve our coffee.

There's not really any conversation that needs to take place. Economic migrants are welcome provided they fit within the criteria decided by the government of the day. That will depend on what sectors of the economy are underresourced, whether that is the care industry, the hospitality sector, fruit pickers, whatever. What we need one year will not be what we need the next year. Anyone who doesn't fall within the relevant visa requirements is simply an illegal immigrant.

Asylum seekers are those whose circumstances in their home land are such that we have a legal duty towards them as set out in various treaty obligations which the UK has voluntarily entered into.

There is very little wrong with the process, which is a simple matter of assessing the personal circumstances of each applicant and making a decision based on the relevant legal criteria. The problem is that we have a huge backlog of applicants caused by the fact that the UK Government has massively under-resourced this part of the Home Office, and the government recognises that its electoral base is vehemently anti-immigrant whatever the reason for the immigration. So instead of funding our existing asylum system properly ity has spaffed half a billion up the wall on this fucking batshit crazy Rwanda scheme that will not work in a month of Sundays.

BTW have you stopped blaming the French now?

 

[mexico1970]

There's not really any conversation that needs to take place. Economic migrants are welcome provided they fit within the criteria decided by the government of the day. That will depend on what sectors of the economy are underresourced, whether that is the care industry, the hospitality sector, fruit pickers, whatever. What we need one year will not be what we need the next year. Anyone who doesn't fall within the relevant visa requirements is simply an illegal immigrant.

Asylum seekers are those whose circumstances in their home land are such that we have a legal duty towards them as set out in various treaty obligations which the UK has voluntarily entered into.

There is very little wrong with the process, which is a simple matter of assessing the personal circumstances of each applicant and making a decision based on the relevant legal criteria. The problem is that we have a huge backlog of applicants caused by the fact that the UK Government has massively under-resourced this part of the Home Office, and the government recognises that its electoral base is vehemently anti-immigrant whatever the reason for the immigration. So instead of funding our existing asylum system properly ity has spaffed half a billion up the wall on this fucking batshit crazy Rwanda scheme that will not work in a month of Sundays.

BTW have you stopped blaming the French now?

Economic migrants shouldn't be coming on boats, have you criticised the EU version of the Rwanda scheme that has been touted yet?

The European Commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, has given her support to controversial migration reforms that would involve deporting people to third countries for asylum processing and the imposition of a quota system for those receiving protection in EU countries.

And the French are doing nothing to stop the boats so yes I am blaming the French, I know who you would blame but that's obvious and tiring.

 

[stonerblue]

A bit of a shithole hasnt it

You can thank the tories for that

 

[Worsleyweb]

You can thank the tories for that

Took longer than i thought that

 

[Chris in London]

Economic migrants shouldn't be coming on boats, have you criticised the EU version of the Rwanda scheme that has been touted yet?

The European Commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, has given her support to controversial migration reforms that would involve deporting people to third countries for asylum processing and the imposition of a quota system for those receiving protection in EU countries.

And the French are doing nothing to stop the boats so yes I am blaming the French, I know who you would blame but that's obvious and tiring.

Okay. You crack on blaming the French all you want to.

Even after its been demonstrated why this is not the case.

 

[hilts]

Fair enough.

I think we have 2 options. Revert to how it was when we were in the EU and Dublin agreement, or go more and more crazy creating more and more zany schemes to deflect away from the problem, without really resolving it.

It's been going on decades this debate I cannae see anyone coming up with a masterplan anytime soon.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

They’ve gone after the international students now. Is there no end to their populist, xenophobic ravings?
International students can no longer bring any dependents with them AND they’re reviewing to 2 year work visa they currently get when completing their degrees.
Staggeringly incompetent even for this lot of charlatans, which is really saying something..
Knock on effect will be fewer places for locals, higher and higher fees, even more loss of ‘soft power’, a further diminution of our place in the world and, yet again, a loss of income/reduction in GDP.

 

[hilts]

They don't want migrants from a country outside the European wide Dublin agreement. Doesn't make our position as a country ouside the agreement any more tenable, or sensible.

They don't want people that are fleeing from France in fear of their lives? Bastards! don't they realise asylum seekers get to choose the destination.

Heartless EU member.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

They don't want people that are fleeing from France in fear of their lives? Bastards! don't they realise asylum seekers get to choose the destination.

Heartless EU member.

It doesn’t work like that though, as CIL explained before. The Vienna convention applies.