What has the UK become?

[blueinsa]

Sorry but why did you post this in reply to me? What has this got to do with refugees and asylum seekers not being allowed to work?

Refugees are legally entitled to work.

Asylum seekers can apply to work if their application has taken over 12 months and their skill is one needed on the officials skills shortage list.

So skilled refugees which you claimed can’t work here fucking can, in any job they like!

Stupid is thinking what you’re saying is right, based on nothing more than your own desperation to create a false narrative.

 

[blueinsa]

No I didn't claim anything of the sort, I just said refugees have unrestricted employment rights.

There's something seriously wrong with your reading comprehension. I'm actually concerned that your stupidity is increasing exponentially now.

You're Desperate Dan in a John Bull costume.

I quoted the wrong poster.

Fixed.

 

[Mon Autre]

Refugees are legally entitled to work.

Asylum seekers can apply to work if their application has taken over 12 months and their skill is one needed on the officials skills shortage list.

So skilled refugees which you claimed can’t work here fucking can, in any job they like!

Stupid is thinking what you’re saying is right, based on nothing more than your own desperation to create a false narrative.

OK so we agree, there are skilled asylum seekers being forced into destitution in an attempt to make them leave the country whilst their application goes through.

 

[inbetween]

Not demanding draconian immigration laws does not equal an open border policy.

No one even debates the 700k that the government wave through, just the 50k that come here on boats because the government don’t allow them to apply to come here until they actually get here.

All part of the lottery of which country you were born in.

There's a very good reason for this and it is because we don't know who the people coming in on the boats are until they have been processed. Some of the biggest numbers coming over on the boats are from Afghanistan which is a country run by actual terrorists.

Would you like to live next door to somebody from Afghanistan who was instead just waved through? I'm all for diversity but I don't fancy the slim chance of a Taliban neighbour.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

There's a very good reason for this and it is because we don't know who the people coming in on the boats are until they have been processed. Some of the biggest numbers coming over on the boats are from Afghanistan which is a country run by actual terrorists.

Would you like to live next door to somebody from Afghanistan who was instead just waved through? I'm all for diversity but I don't fancy the slim chance of a Taliban neighbour.

This could easily be resolved by having a processing centre outside of our shores.

This would speed up the process and negate their need to get on a dinghy.

 

[inbetween]

This could easily be resolved by having a processing centre outside of our shores.

This would speed up the process and negate their need to get on a dinghy.

Is there a single country on Earth which has an asylum immigration processing centre in a foreign country?

How many Greek or Italian processing centres do you see outside of Europe given most asylum seekers arrive in those countries first? Will Italy or Greece ever put a processing centre in Afghanistan?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Is there a single country on Earth which has an immigration processing centre in a foreign country?

How many Greek or Italian processing centres do you see outside of Europe given most asylum seekers arrive in those countries first? Will Italy or Greece ever put a processing centre in Afghanistan?

They don’t have the luxury of being an island.

If you make the rules mean that people can only apply for asylum on U.K. soil and withdraw from the Dublin Agreement, you’ll never stop the boats, unless you offer a processing option somewhere else.

Given that we can’t not let people apply for asylum, that seems to be the grown up answer to the problem. Well that or rejoining the EU and Dublin agreement.

 

[BrianW]

Sorry mate but people who advocate that people can come here without using a passport and stay to work without putting a viable number up that is too many are open border advocates. It's disingenuous to say otherwise.

First of all, let us be clear what an 'open border' is. An open border is like that between Greater Manchester and Yorkshire. If I decide to move to Huddersfield tomorrow then (unless I am under a court order to live at a particular address) I can, and I will have exactly the same rights and entitlements as someone born there. There is no Yorkshire Home Office to either licence my presence there or order my deportation. Even if I am a criminal of the worst kind, I cannot be deported back to Greater Manchester.

The UK has not had open borders since the first modern immigration laws passed in 1905, with the sole exception of the border with the Republic of Ireland. This latter is for historical reasons, as you know.

The former 'free movement' within the EU was not an open border. I could not have emigrated to Germany and dossed there on the dole for the rest of my life. But I could have dossed in Huddersfield. Do you mark the difference? Of course, if the German government had been as indolent and incompetent as the UK one, I might have got away with it, but that would be the fault of the German government, not the EU or freedom of movement as such.

I doubt 2% of the UK population advocates open borders. I certainly do not, and I am pretty left-wing. I do favour freedom of movement with the EU, but with the relevant controls exercised, not ignored because they are too much trouble. If that involves having ID cards, so be it.

As for asylum seekers, arguably they should not be mixed up with the immigration question at all. They are a separate case. Most (a good 70%) qualify for asylum here. The long delays in processing them and either accepting or rejecting their claims are the real problem.

The only solution is to cut a deal with the EU. We process them in France, take our agreed share of the total and return any who arrive by boat or lorry back to France. The problem is that we would have to take some when some people would like us to take none. But that's reality for you - you have to compromise.

 

[inbetween]

They don’t have the luxury of being an island.

If you make the rules mean that people can only apply for asylum on U.K. soil and withdraw from the Dublin Agreement, you’ll never stop the boats, unless you offer a processing option somewhere else.

Given that we can’t not let people apply for asylum, that seems to be the grown up answer to the problem. Well that or rejoining the EU and Dublin agreement.

How many boats has the EU stopped from coming into Europe via the Mediterranean? Do those European countries now have processing centres in Tunisia, Libya or Algeria? Of course not.

This isn't a unique UK problem and shouldn't be viewed that way. It's a continent wide problem and it just so happens that there is water between the UK and the rest of Europe.

You can absolutely bet that every other EU country would pull up the drawbridge just like we have but they can't because of geography. However, look at Ireland, they can't wait to send migrants back and are changing the law to ensure that they can do so.

A processing centre stops the boats but it will vastly increase the numbers coming which is another problem.

 

[mexico1970]

The only solution is to cut a deal with the EU. We process them in France, take our agreed share of the total and return any who arrive by boat or lorry back to France. The problem is that we would have to take some when some people would like us to take none. But that's reality for you - you have to compromise.

All in one paragraph that I agree with, I cannot see the problem with that.

However we always have to have the ability to remove an asylum seeker who has lied or turns out to be a wrong 'un without a busload of blue rinsers gluing themselves to the tarmac.