No, they're just allowed apply for asylum where ever they like. Theres no conditionality on it. It wasn't an oversight, its meant to work that way.Yes if they follow the procedures, but that is not the issue is it?
Arriving illegally in a small boat which is operated by people traffickers is not the way, stowing away on a train or a lorry is not the way either.
Any government has to try to put a stop to these illegal methods, and yes its highly unlikely they ever will stop all illegal routes, but the small boat situation is high visibility with the public and if ever the climate on immigration is to get better in the UK the government has to get on top of this.
In the next fifty years or so gradually there are likely to be millions of people, not just fleeing corrupt or dangerous regimes, but fleeing for their lives because of the ravages of climate change; islands sinking into a sea with increased levels, vast areas currently fertile becoming infertile, areas ravage by fire or floods making habitation impossible. For some it will be temporary need to migrate to a safe haven, for some there will be no going back, especially if water issues remain. If this modern-day exodus is not handled correctly then chaos will reign. To ensure that places like the UK have limitations will have to accepted, but so too will be the need and the understanding and sympathy with the situations millions will find themselves. Emergency systems need to be thought out and worked through, especially by countries in the northern hemisphere. however; first all governments and in particular in the UK have to show they can bring down the illegal operations, especially the high-viz ones. Although it may seem unlikely in the present atmosphere, but putting an end to the small boats route may one day become to be seen as an example of the l'ow-hanging fruit' in terms of illegal people trafficking.
We have NO procedures for asylum seekers, unless you’re from Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine or Hong Kong.
Arriving illegally in a small boat
what law are they breaking?
So, there are 'procedures', for certain areas... the answer in a nutshell then?
Yeah, and it’s down to the gov’t to create them for others.
So for example if you’re a woman in Iran fleeing death squads, there is no procedure, no safe and legal’ route to the UK for them.
The ONLY way they can come to the UK is via a dinghy in the Channel.
But sure, they’re the problem…
I remember when you used to be making arguments about being a frustrated left wing, politically homeless person!
I don't know if you explicitely said it but the UK do not take asylum claims in their embassies, they are not the only country where this applies, the same is true for France. In order to claim asylum you need to be in the UK/France. One thing that I know exist for France and may or may not exist for the UK, is that an asylum seeker can demand a visa for asylum. But either way, an asylum seeker need to get his backside to the country where he seeks asylum, also it's important to remember that asylum seekers aren't an issue for western countries, the vast majority of refugees remains in their region in a neighboring country which is by the way not ideal for the hosting countries.
Wealthy countries should actively help the likes of Turkey, Italy but also Bangladesh and other countries.
I remember when you used to be making arguments about being a frustrated left wing, politically homeless person!
I didn't think you were old enough to remember that far back.
My frustration with the Labour Party, back then, was they were deviating from what they were set up to do which was represent the UK Working Class. They had been and were being gradually infiltrated by all these 'international socialists' who, among other things, wanted to use the UK working class as a 'hobby horse' for promoting world wide socialism, which incidentally mean't different things to different people and for a while it scared the sh** out of a number of US administrations and agencies.
I have never been 'left wing' as its defined these days
It seems the UK government will only provide the necessary safe routes, for those countries where it deems there are people in substantial difficulties and require asylum. They know we cannot respond to every 'asylum claim'/need and therefore choose those they define as most needing help.
That last paragraph, I’m sorry but that’s either naive as f*ck at best or downright delusional!
So you think they just don’t think that the targeted killings in Iran is worth raising a ‘safe & legal route’? Suella Braverman cowering in her office going, “Oh I just wish we had the resources to help these women but we just can’t I’m afraid.”
Do me a favour!
That is not international law. I suggest laying off the Daily Mail or Telegraph.As far as I am aware that is the accepted situation, the first safe country they land in is the one to apply for asylum.
That is not international law. I suggest laying off the Daily Mail or Telegraph.
Have you even thought about the practicalities of this? Millions of people arriving in only 2-3 countries which neghbour a war torn country with refugees leaving. It wouldn't work.
So you think they just don’t think that the targeted killings in Iran is worth raising a ‘safe & legal route’?
It's not a matter of 'worth' it's a matter of practicality. The numbers of people all around the world who are being targeted for persecution, jail or death, by their own people is massive.
Practically the UK cannot set up safe routes to save them all. It seems the UK has set up safe routes for asylum seekers from; the refugee camps coping with the millions displaced by the war in Syria; for Afgan's who served or helped out the UK forces and whose lives are a risk; people from Hong Kong and refugees from Ukraine.
It's not a matter of 'worth' it's a matter of practicality. The numbers of people all around the world who are being targeted for persecution, jail or death, by their own people is massive.
Practically the UK cannot set up safe routes to save them all. It seems the UK has set up safe routes for asylum seekers from; the refugee camps coping with the millions displaced by the war in Syria; for Afgan's who served or helped out the UK forces and whose lives are a risk; people from Hong Kong and refugees from Ukraine.
It won't be the UK saving them all will it? You just seem to want the UK to ignore international law.It's not a matter of 'worth' it's a matter of practicality. The numbers of people all around the world who are being targeted for persecution, jail or death, by their own people is massive.
Practically the UK cannot set up safe routes to save them all. It seems the UK has set up safe routes for asylum seekers from; the refugee camps coping with the millions displaced by the war in Syria; for Afgan's who served or helped out the UK forces and whose lives are a risk; people from Hong Kong and refugees from Ukraine.
At this point you’ve gotta ask why you’re not getting across the subject matter.
It feel like you just want to say ‘The UK should be closed and only take Asylum applications from their cherry picked scenarios’.
That’s ok for you to say. But you’ve got to question your place in the world if you think that’s how it should work.
The UK is not' 'closed' and never has been, immigrants (including asylum seekers) legal and illegal have been arriving here for centuries and will continue to do so. Nevertheless the UK government has to have a 'blueprint' to work from and yes you could say it is 'cherry picking', it will set up up 'safe asylum 'routes it feels obligated to do so, but also those which it knows it can have some control over.
I have speculated elsewhere that over the next fifty years, more and more people will seek to migrate not just because of fear of persecution or indeed just seeking a better life, it will be because climate change will reek havoc with their environment on a scale we can only speculate about at this time.
Countries especially in the northern hemisphere will come to view migration, and its potentially disruptive effects, on a level currently not seen at this time except perhaps when the German Chancellor said Germany would welcome all comers.
I don't doubt the UK's place in the world is changing. Brexit apart the likelihood that over the next decade or two, Ireland will become a completely united entity, Scotland may yet dissolve its Union with England, etc. all will play a part going forward. Immigration that is controlled by the UK government is essential, because despite the roll back of 'freedom of movement' since leaving the EU, the UK will need a steady stream of immigrants, not just to take up jobs, but to keep the population numbers stable, over the next two decades at least.
However the UK population by and large doesn't accept this, perhaps because of right wing press etc., but either way unless the Government can show it can control the 'high vis' illegal entry methods (NB 'methods' are illegal not the people) like the small boats, then the populace never will and who knows what may result?
Because the UK is an island, with how many miles of coast line? It will always be difficult to stop illegal landings, not just across the channel. If the situation continues to grow as it has over the past few years, then maybe the government will invest in super fast marine patrol vessels, for the Border patrols and therefore bring back welcome ship building skills to former dockyards.... trouble is who/what labour force will be available and skilled enough to build these vessels?
To me this is the crux of the issue with these convesations. At which point immigration to the UK has been controlled by anyone else than the UK?
Yes it is, I agree, in theory the UK has always had 'control' over immigration (every government has), even within the EU, but successive governments of every hue have failed to implement or use the levels/levers of control that are required to exercise anything like effective control. This was either because it cost too much; or it would at times to have worked effectively have had to be fairly brutal in its application and 'humanitarian' considerations, especially in an espoused 'Liberal democracy' would not allow such brutality; or until relative recently because it seemed the majority of the populace didn't care too much, one way or the other and the UK had built something of a reputation of being ready to help out with emergency asylum situations, e.g. when East Asians were forcibly removed from Kenya, etc.
However, it is assumed the main reason that successive governments did not implement stricter overall immigration controls was it was all too much trouble and asylum seekers only really popped up now and again in large swathes, although it was known others, not the true asylum seekers, but those just desperate to get in, did find their way in although mainly illegally.
Then of course the 'freedom of movement' in the EU set off a 'number of hares' running, that such as Farage moved in on, almost immediately.
None of the EU citizens (as far as I am aware) ever came to the UK to seek asylum, but it all got lumped together, including loss of jobs and over stretched hospitals and shortage of housing, etc.Anyone watching us from a distance would have seen Brexit coming, but David Cameron, buoyed by first his Election victory(after the coalition) and a couple of years later seeing off a strong Nationalist challenge in INDY1, in Scotland that also decimated (and then obliterated) Labour in Scotland, he decided to go for the hat-trick and put his Conservative 'anti EU brigade' to the sword once and for all and he issued the sloppiest attempt at a operating a fundamental referendum that one could have expected.... one he was oh so confident of winning. The rest as they say is history.
As a result, months, years and more yet still to come will follow of chaos over immigration/asylum etc. with the true picture getting blurred over and over again, because after twelve years of power the Tory's now know their only hope of a) winning and/or b) avoiding a drubbing at the next Election, is to 'go big' on immigration (well actually asylum seekers, really).
The UK is not' 'closed' and never has been, immigrants (including asylum seekers) legal and illegal have been arriving here for centuries and will continue to do so. Nevertheless the UK government has to have a 'blueprint' to work from and yes you could say it is 'cherry picking', it will set up up 'safe asylum 'routes it feels obligated to do so, but also those which it knows it can have some control over.
I have speculated elsewhere that over the next fifty years, more and more people will seek to migrate not just because of fear of persecution or indeed just seeking a better life, it will be because climate change will reek havoc with their environment on a scale we can only speculate about at this time.
Countries especially in the northern hemisphere will come to view migration, and its potentially disruptive effects, on a level currently not seen at this time except perhaps when the German Chancellor said Germany would welcome all comers.
I don't doubt the UK's place in the world is changing. Brexit apart the likelihood that over the next decade or two, Ireland will become a completely united entity, Scotland may yet dissolve its Union with England, etc. all will play a part going forward. Immigration that is controlled by the UK government is essential, because despite the roll back of 'freedom of movement' since leaving the EU, the UK will need a steady stream of immigrants, not just to take up jobs, but to keep the population numbers stable, over the next two decades at least.
However the UK population by and large doesn't accept this, perhaps because of right wing press etc., but either way unless the Government can show it can control the 'high vis' illegal entry methods (NB 'methods' are illegal not the people) like the small boats, then the populace never will and who knows what may result?
Because the UK is an island, with how many miles of coast line? It will always be difficult to stop illegal landings, not just across the channel. If the situation continues to grow as it has over the past few years, then maybe the government will invest in super fast marine patrol vessels, for the Border patrols and therefore bring back welcome ship building skills to former dockyards.... trouble is who/what labour force will be available and skilled enough to build these vessels?
Why did you wrote a wall of words to answer a question that required one sentence? Also there is no large swathes of asylum seekers going to the UK or any western Europe country, as I already said refugees almost exclusively move to neighboring countries or other regions within the same country. And it's particularly ridiculous to link it to Brexit or any immigration issue, when Brexit was championed the amount of asylum request to the UK were under 20k.
Also freedom of movement isn't an issue either there isn't actually that many movement within the EU and that movement is only allowed for 3 months beyond that you have to register for long term residency which is determined by the host country rules.
Again, you’re either wilfully ingorant, or you’re a bad person.
Because for your idea of a response, that would have been good enough, for my idea of a response it needed more, please don't ask me to answer a question, posed in order to misrepresent what I am saying.
I acknowledge that, but in the context of how the UK public perceive it, there is!
You are joking of course? Brexit in large parts of the UK was all about the perception of immigration (including asylum) as perceived by the UK public. It wasn't true, but the 'freedom of movement' element was (in the minds of many) what caused the issue to 'balloon' from job, housing, etc.to immigration and asylum although neither were part of the EU's idea of movement over borders.
We are all aware that many issues, especially surrounding immigration/asylum got rolled into one by such as Farage, but the remainers stubbornly refused to get into a debate, they continually pointed at economic issues, when a large proportion of the UK public were talking about other things. There was a lot of 'talking to the back of peoples head's,' and it seems it still hasn't stopped yet!
I'm not going to get involved with the whole thing but there is a lot of truth in this part, I personally know a number of people who voted for Brexit mainly on this basis and there'll be a lot moreYou are joking of course? Brexit in large parts of the UK was all about the perception of immigration (including asylum) as perceived by the UK public. It wasn't true, but the 'freedom of movement' element was (in the minds of many) what caused the issue to 'balloon' from job, housing, etc.to immigration and asylum although neither were part of the EU's idea of movement over borders.
Your idea of a response seems to involved having no clue about the topic at hand and writing lots of words that have either no meaning or are based on fantasy.
And were weren't talking about perceptions, you made claims that are untrue and are now playing games and trying to distance yourself from them. You have spent several days trying to justify your own nonsense not the "UK public perception".
You really expect me to respond to this?
If you believe that the UK should cherry pick it’s asylum routes and ‘only get the best ones’… yeah I’ll label that a truly awful character trait.
The UK both-sides everything.
I honestly don’t know why. It’s full of cnuts.
I am afraid that applies to you not me. I have consistently made the point about how in my life time UK governments have approached the subject of immigration and in particular asylum, how this has impacted on at least three or maybe four generations of UK populace, and how until Brexit no one really talked about immigration or asylum, then when they did with help from Farage and Co....most got it wrong.
You may not have been talking about perceptions and lack of understanding, but I was, I have made no claims and I am not playing games, I am simple giving my thoughts, perceptions if you insist, and why I think the way I do.
I am afraid that applies to you not me. I have consistently made the point about how in my life time UK governments have approached the subject of immigration and in particular asylum, how this has impacted on at least three or maybe four generations of UK populace, and how until Brexit no one really talked about immigration or asylum, then when they did with help from Farage and Co....most got it wrong.
You may not have been talking about perceptions and lack of understanding, but I was, I have made no claims and I am not playing games, I am simple giving my thoughts, perceptions if you insist, and why I think the way I do.
've tried to stay out of this argument but this is contradiction at its highest. It's impacted three of four generations but no-one talked about. Where were you living? Because it wasn't in the UK I lived in for fifty years. To quote an old saying: Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Wondered when you would put in an appearance Paul?
Perhaps we are talking about different aspects of generations, on that assumption (please note @JPRouve).
I am talking of ten year periods, possibly 70's but definitely 80's, 90's, 00's in fact right up to Brexit in 2016, any attempt to open up debate around immigration/asylum either aroused no interest whats so ever, or was shouted down at meetings. I was still a member of the Labour party then and remember someone trying to raise a question from the floor, which a local MP slammed down as out of order.
Also of course Gordon Brown found to his cost when an old lady in Rochdale asked him about immigration, as I remember a fairly innocuous one, Gordon went on to allow his his statement about 'bigots' to be overheard, from that point on with the Tory press in full cry everything shifted up a gear!
Wondered when you would put in an appearance Paul?
Perhaps we are talking about different aspects of generations, on that assumption (please note @JPRouve).
I am talking of ten year periods, possibly 70's but definitely 80's, 90's, 00's in fact right up to Brexit in 2016, any attempt to open up debate around immigration/asylum either aroused no interest whats so ever, or was shouted down at meetings. I was still a member of the Labour party then and remember someone trying to raise a question from the floor, which a local MP slammed down as out of order.
Also of course Gordon Brown found to his cost when an old lady in Rochdale asked him about immigration, as I remember a fairly innocuous one, Gordon went on to allow his his statement about 'bigots' to be overheard, from that point on with the Tory press in full cry everything shifted up a gear!
Wondered when you would put in an appearance Paul?
Perhaps we are talking about different aspects of generations, on that assumption (please note @JPRouve).
I am talking of ten year periods, possibly 70's but definitely 80's, 90's, 00's in fact right up to Brexit in 2016, any attempt to open up debate around immigration/asylum either aroused no interest whats so ever, or was shouted down at meetings. I was still a member of the Labour party then and remember someone trying to raise a question from the floor, which a local MP slammed down as out of order.
Also of course Gordon Brown found to his cost when an old lady in Rochdale asked him about immigration, as I remember a fairly innocuous one, Gordon went on to allow his statement about 'bigots' to be overheard, from that point on with the Tory press in full cry everything shifted up a gear!
I think the immigration talk should remainMods, it's been many days of this circling discussion on immigration. Can it be moved to its own thread now? Its link to Brexit is becoming more tenuous by the day.
Oh leave it out.I think the immigration talk should remain
I think the immigration talk should remain
