Dinghy arrivals / asylum seekers / gimmegrants

[robmatic]

Big economic incentive for very rich people who can afford £2million. And that would be a very relaxed tax regime for the very rich. It's of no relevance to most immigrants and asylum seekers.

I'm pretty sure the economic incentives are highly relevant for most immigrants to the UK, to be honest. I worked in this area for a few years helping people get residency in the UK and they weren't going for the food and the weather.

But the £2million visa through investment isn't relevant to the majority of economic migrants, the ones who are perceived as coming here for lower level jobs and that the tories say reduce wages by undercutting UK workers. That's conflating two entirely separate things.

Yes, migrants tend not to go through that route. It's strange to be talking about economic migrants and also to be denying that there is an economic incentive to migrate to the UK. Do you genuinely think there is no value to being resident in the UK?

[robmatic]

That "economic incentive" is again looking through the wrong end of the telescope, I was more thinking about the absolute shit situations that cause people to flee across vast tracts of waters and lands.

There is no denying that there are plenty of shit situations in the world, but people are fleeing across vast tracts of reasonably civilised land before they arrive at the English Channel.

[Tichtheid]

That "economic incentive" is again looking through the wrong end of the telescope, I was more thinking about the absolute shit situations that cause people to flee across vast tracts of waters and lands.

There is no denying that there are plenty of shit situations in the world, but people are fleeing across vast tracts of reasonably civilised land before they arrive at the English Channel.

My understanding on the UNHCR which the UK is a signatory to is that refugees can claim asylum at any point, if they were only allowed to claim asylum in Greece, or wherever the first safe country was that would eventually destabilise that country, making it unsafe and this would have a domino effect until the UK was the last safe country standing, this is presumably the reasoning behind the fact that refugees can claim asylum at any point on their journey.

Surely it's better that European countries are spreading the load? As previously mentioned the UK is around 17th in the EU27 + UK in terms of number of asylum seekers taken per 10 000 head of population.

According to UNHCR
The number of forcibly displaced and stateless people in Europe rose to 21.8 million by the end of 2022, including almost 12.4 million refugees, 1.3 million asylum-seekers, 7.2 million internally displaced people (IDPs) and 474,000 who were stateless.

You can't just say, "Well let France take them, or Italy or wherever", that is the worst possible way to approach the situation.


This is going to seem like a World Cup warm up btw, once migration due to global warming kicks in.


Edit, put this another way, suppose the boats from North Africa started taking a different route and the first land they hit was the UK - would the UK be expected to take every refugee and asylum seeker?

[JM2K6]

That "economic incentive" is again looking through the wrong end of the telescope, I was more thinking about the absolute shit situations that cause people to flee across vast tracts of waters and lands.

There is no denying that there are plenty of shit situations in the world, but people are fleeing across vast tracts of reasonably civilised land before they arrive at the English Channel.

And the vast majority of them go somewhere other than here. But there's a heap of reasons why people might want to flee to the UK, all of them equally valid. If you want to nitpick at the destinations chosen by people fleeing genuinely awful situations, go ahead, but it's not a particularly strong argument.

YMX mentioned these people are "safe in France". No, they're not. They're mostly stuck in refugee camps that are appallingly managed and quite dangerous places to be for a number of reasons. There's no stability or safety to be had there.

There'd be a lot fewer boat crossings if we hadn't shut down practically every safe route towards claiming asylum, but we did, so lives are now being endangered. Great job, Britain. Great job.

[Insane_Homer]

That "economic incentive" is again looking through the wrong end of the telescope, I was more thinking about the absolute shit situations that cause people to flee across vast tracts of waters and lands.

There is no denying that there are plenty of shit situations in the world, but people are fleeing across vast tracts of reasonably civilised land before they arrive at the English Channel.

So why should geographic lottery abdicate responsibility? You may have noticed, Hong Kong isn't next door.

[Biffer]

I'm pretty sure the economic incentives are highly relevant for most immigrants to the UK, to be honest. I worked in this area for a few years helping people get residency in the UK and they weren't going for the food and the weather.

But the £2million visa through investment isn't relevant to the majority of economic migrants, the ones who are perceived as coming here for lower level jobs and that the tories say reduce wages by undercutting UK workers. That's conflating two entirely separate things.

Yes, migrants tend not to go through that route. It's strange to be talking about economic migrants and also to be denying that there is an economic incentive to migrate to the UK. Do you genuinely think there is no value to being resident in the UK?

Not denying that, but the £2million investment visa isn't really relevant to the situations we've been discussing in this thread. Whole different level and style of economic migration. Basically if you can invest £2million quid, you probably don't need to consider coming here on an inflatable.

[Guy Smiley]

That "economic incentive" is again looking through the wrong end of the telescope, I was more thinking about the absolute shit situations that cause people to flee across vast tracts of waters and lands.

There is no denying that there are plenty of shit situations in the world, but people are fleeing across vast tracts of reasonably civilised land before they arrive at the English Channel.

So why should geographic lottery abdicate responsibility? You may have noticed, Hong Kong isn't next door.

For years, the UK and the USA have held sway as the leaders of the free world, champions of virtue, democracy and easy lifestyles swimming in streets of gold. Of course people fleeing oppression or disaster head for that…. It’s the biggest carrot there is.

[Insane_Homer]

72% of refugees live in countries neighbouring their country of origin

Over 6.8 million people have fled conflict in Syria, and many more are displaced inside the country. Türkiye is the biggest refugee hosting country in the world.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistic ... ts_in_2022

Main countries of destination – Germany, France, Spain and Austria
With 217 735 applicants registered in 2022, Germany accounted for 24.7 % of all first-time asylum applicants in the EU. It was followed by France (137 510, or 15.6 %), Spain (116 135, or 13.2 %) and Austria (106 380, or 12.1 %). The lowest numbers of first-time asylum applicants were observed in 2022 in Hungary (45), Slovakia (500) and Latvia (545).

Among EU Member States with more than 5 000 first-time asylum seekers in 2022, the number of first time applicants rose in every country. The largest relative increases, compared with the previous year, were in Ireland (+421.8 %, or 11 030 more first-time asylum seekers in 2022 than in 2021), Croatia (+367.9 %, or 10 025 more) and Austria (+181.4 %, or 68 580 more).

[Biffer]

There is no denying that there are plenty of shit situations in the world, but people are fleeing across vast tracts of reasonably civilised land before they arrive at the English Channel.

So why should geographic lottery abdicate responsibility? You may have noticed, Hong Kong isn't next door.

For years, the UK and the USA have held sway as the leaders of the free world, champions of virtue, democracy and easy lifestyles swimming in streets of gold. Of course people fleeing oppression or disaster head for that…. It’s the biggest carrot there is.

Exactly. We wrote the fucking Convention on Human Rights, it's not unreasonable of people to think we'd live by it.

[I like neeps]

That "economic incentive" is again looking through the wrong end of the telescope, I was more thinking about the absolute shit situations that cause people to flee across vast tracts of waters and lands.

There is no denying that there are plenty of shit situations in the world, but people are fleeing across vast tracts of reasonably civilised land before they arrive at the English Channel.

And the vast majority of them go somewhere other than here. But there's a heap of reasons why people might want to flee to the UK, all of them equally valid. If you want to nitpick at the destinations chosen by people fleeing genuinely awful situations, go ahead, but it's not a particularly strong argument.

YMX mentioned these people are "safe in France". No, they're not. They're mostly stuck in refugee camps that are appallingly managed and quite dangerous places to be for a number of reasons. There's no stability or safety to be had there.

There'd be a lot fewer boat crossings if we hadn't shut down practically every safe route towards claiming asylum, but we did, so lives are now being endangered. Great job, Britain. Great job.

Ymx somehow also hasn't worked out when someone gets onto a dinghy and is in UK waters the French have absolutely no incentives to accept them back from the UK when they arrive and we don't want them. I guess the alt right X accounts he follows haven't worked out that when you arrive in France you aren't given a beret and croissant, you're put in some sh*thole which is comparable with our centres and that the French government want fewer migrants too.

[_Os_]

This thread of mine was specifically about boat people and has been since page 1.

Go back and read page 1. More than one poster mentioned total immigration numbers (including me).

The topic of Australia which I brought up was specifically about their own situation for handling the boats and asylum claims. Instead of the silly strawman thrown about Australia’s total migration numbers.

I already replied to your stuff about France and the Aussie method. But I'll try again. When you send them back to France, what is your response when France escalates?

I used the phrase illegal entry, which is as opposed to legally going through immigration. Eg boats. Ie the thread topic …

That's not how it works. Last time I looked into it, someone hasn't entered the UK until they've disembarked and left the port area used for immigration, in other words anyone picked up that is processed and claims asylum hasn't illegally entered. If that's not the case, the migrant has to understand that entering the UK without a visa is illegal and it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt they understand that, if it can't be proven then there's no offense.

Over the course of this thread, have you ever asked yourself why there's a 170k asylum backlog and growing? Or why if they're all criminals they can't be prosecuted for their alleged crimes?

OS, it’s pretty clear which cohort this thread is about, and in particular what I was talking about. Any suggestion otherwise, is extremely disingenuous.

I did read your comment about France, which made it sound impossible. This is in fact why I referenced the Aus case where this does in fact happen.

The illegal entry refers to the definition in UK law

Please read here

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3429

There's a difference between illegal entry and illegal entrant, but I'll park that.

The Illegal Migration Act (given Royal Assent 20th July 2023), mostly hasn't been given legal force yet, as in the vast majority of it is not yet operational. Read this:
https://freemovement.org.uk/the-illegal ... s-changed/

Why does it have no legal force yet? Because it compels the government to deport people that have entered the UK without permission (as you state it redefines the laws I briefly described), but the problem is there needs to be a deportation plan. There needs to be a means to actually deport people to a third country. If there's nowhere to send them then it's open to legal challenge and will fail (as things stand in literally every single case). So they're waiting on the Supreme Court ruling on Rwanda before bringing The Illegal Migration Act into full operation, but the next problem for them is even if Rwanda goes ahead the scheme lacks capacity, so like a game of snakes and ladders they return to having no deportation plan available and open to legal challenge.

The government is delaying bringing the Act fully into force, to delay their policy failure being exposed. Instead the media are fed a barge over and over.

Once the Act does fully come into force (if it ever does), it will simply delay asylum applications being made and grow the backlog. Because as things stand Rwanda will be quickly exhausted by one week's worth of arrivals, then in practice although the Tories have made a law saying no one can claim asylum if they've travelled without permission, this will have to give way to there being no deportation plan and therefore an asylum claim.

This has already happened, before it became an Act, the bill was amended so it didn't apply to people arriving after 7th of March 2023 (a Sunak pledge) the cut off was instead made 20th of July 2023 (the day the Act was passed). This was done because it would be impossible to remove 7k or so people who had arrived after the 7th of March, which would open it up to legal challenge and quickly being thrown to the side.

It's important to be clear what is happening. The UK government has purposely created a binding legal duty upon itself, to remove those who have entered the UK without permission, and it also knows it almost certainly cannot meet this legal obligation it has made for itself. This mess has been purposely created.

You may wonder, why are the Tories trying to legislate unicorns into existence? For example they could make laws that everyone should be a billionaire, everyone would know that's stupid and impossible, so why are they doing this? To make the issue more complicated for the ordinary person to follow, even this post grows longer the more I try to quickly explain reality. But why do that, you may ask? So the Tories can claim "lefty lawyers" are to blame when it's the Tories who are making laws they cannot implement, or to claim Labour are to blame when they're in power for not implementing impossible Tory laws, or to put pressure on leaving the ECHR (likely blowing up the WA/TCA with the EU).

In summary:

1. Does the UK have an uncapped/unlimited agreement to deport whom it wishes to a third country. Answer: No, and even with Rwanda that's very limited.
2. Can the UK therefore follow its own Illegal Migration Act 2023 and deport arrivals by boat to a third country. Answer: No, not until there's an uncapped/unlimited agreement with a third country/countries.
3. If the answer to 1 and 2 is "no" what does this mean? Answer: Everything regarding asylum and illegal migration gets worse, because the UK government is AWOL and not addressing reality.

Cannot make it simpler.

[Ymx]

There is no denying that there are plenty of shit situations in the world, but people are fleeing across vast tracts of reasonably civilised land before they arrive at the English Channel.

And the vast majority of them go somewhere other than here. But there's a heap of reasons why people might want to flee to the UK, all of them equally valid. If you want to nitpick at the destinations chosen by people fleeing genuinely awful situations, go ahead, but it's not a particularly strong argument.

YMX mentioned these people are "safe in France". No, they're not. They're mostly stuck in refugee camps that are appallingly managed and quite dangerous places to be for a number of reasons. There's no stability or safety to be had there.

There'd be a lot fewer boat crossings if we hadn't shut down practically every safe route towards claiming asylum, but we did, so lives are now being endangered. Great job, Britain. Great job.

Ymx somehow also hasn't worked out when someone gets onto a dinghy and is in UK waters the French have absolutely no incentives to accept them back from the UK when they arrive and we don't want them. I guess the alt right X accounts he follows haven't worked out that when you arrive in France you aren't given a beret and croissant, you're put in some sh*thole which is comparable with our centres and that the French government want fewer migrants too.

I’m quite well aware the French are pleased to be rid of them. Which is why we are having to bribe them to “police” it.

Likewise, I’m sure they are pleased to be out of tents and in to all inclusive holiday stays in the UK.

Quite why return to sender doesn’t apply automatically here, like it does in international ports, I don’t know. Especially given that it is now not possible to apply for asylum via these routes.

[Ymx]

Go back and read page 1. More than one poster mentioned total immigration numbers (including me).

I already replied to your stuff about France and the Aussie method. But I'll try again. When you send them back to France, what is your response when France escalates?

That's not how it works. Last time I looked into it, someone hasn't entered the UK until they've disembarked and left the port area used for immigration, in other words anyone picked up that is processed and claims asylum hasn't illegally entered. If that's not the case, the migrant has to understand that entering the UK without a visa is illegal and it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt they understand that, if it can't be proven then there's no offense.

Over the course of this thread, have you ever asked yourself why there's a 170k asylum backlog and growing? Or why if they're all criminals they can't be prosecuted for their alleged crimes?

OS, it’s pretty clear which cohort this thread is about, and in particular what I was talking about. Any suggestion otherwise, is extremely disingenuous.

I did read your comment about France, which made it sound impossible. This is in fact why I referenced the Aus case where this does in fact happen.

The illegal entry refers to the definition in UK law

Please read here

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3429

There's a difference between illegal entry and illegal entrant, but I'll park that.

The Illegal Migration Act (given Royal Assent 20th July 2023), mostly hasn't been given legal force yet, as in the vast majority of it is not yet operational. Read this:
https://freemovement.org.uk/the-illegal ... s-changed/

Why does it have no legal force yet? Because it compels the government to deport people that have entered the UK without permission (as you state it redefines the laws I briefly described), but the problem is there needs to be a deportation plan. There needs to be a means to actually deport people to a third country. If there's nowhere to send them then it's open to legal challenge and will fail (as things stand in literally every single case). So they're waiting on the Supreme Court ruling on Rwanda before bringing The Illegal Migration Act into full operation, but the next problem for them is even if Rwanda goes ahead the scheme lacks capacity, so like a game of snakes and ladders they return to having no deportation plan available and open to legal challenge.

The government is delaying bringing the Act fully into force, to delay their policy failure being exposed. Instead the media are fed a barge over and over.

Once the Act does fully come into force (if it ever does), it will simply delay asylum applications being made and grow the backlog. Because as things stand Rwanda will be quickly exhausted by one week's worth of arrivals, then in practice although the Tories have made a law saying no one can claim asylum if they've travelled without permission, this will have to give way to there being no deportation plan and therefore an asylum claim.

This has already happened, before it became an Act, the bill was amended so it didn't apply to people arriving after 7th of March 2023 (a Sunak pledge) the cut off was instead made 20th of July 2023 (the day the Act was passed). This was done because it would be impossible to remove 7k or so people who had arrived after the 7th of March, which would open it up to legal challenge and quickly being thrown to the side.

It's important to be clear what is happening. The UK government has purposely created a binding legal duty upon itself, to remove those who have entered the UK without permission, and it also knows it almost certainly cannot meet this legal obligation it has made for itself. This mess has been purposely created.

You may wonder, why are the Tories trying to legislate unicorns into existence? For example they could make laws that everyone should be a billionaire, everyone would know that's stupid and impossible, so why are they doing this? To make the issue more complicated for the ordinary person to follow, even this post grows longer the more I try to quickly explain reality. But why do that, you may ask? So the Tories can claim "lefty lawyers" are to blame when it's the Tories who are making laws they cannot implement, or to claim Labour are to blame when they're in power for not implementing impossible Tory laws, or to put pressure on leaving the ECHR (likely blowing up the WA/TCA with the EU).

In summary:

1. Does the UK have an uncapped/unlimited agreement to deport whom it wishes to a third country. Answer: No, and even with Rwanda that's very limited.
2. Can the UK therefore follow its own Illegal Migration Act 2023 and deport arrivals by boat to a third country. Answer: No, not until there's an uncapped/unlimited agreement with a third country/countries.
3. If the answer to 1 and 2 is "no" what does this mean? Answer: Everything regarding asylum and illegal migration gets worse, because the UK government is AWOL and not addressing reality.

Cannot make it simpler.

The assumption on Rwanda being that if it happens, then these people will stop, as they are no longer ever getting in to the UK, so a large number of places will not be needed.

These people do not want to end up in Rwanda, they will stop coming.

[JM2K6]

No they will not

[_Os_]

Quite why return to sender doesn’t apply automatically here, like it does in international ports, I don’t know. Especially given that it is now not possible to apply for asylum via these routes.

For now the 3rd or 4th time, after you've forcibly sent people who are not French into France, what do you do when the French respond?

For the 2nd time, yes asylum can still be claimed through these routes. Making a law doesn't work if it's not enforced or enforceable.

The assumption on Rwanda being that if it happens, then these people will stop, as they are no longer ever getting in to the UK, so a large number of places will not be needed.

These people do not want to end up in Rwanda, they will stop coming.

You're in their shoes, you have relatives in the UK, do you take the 1/100 risk or give up?

Good you admit that Rwanda is a punishment, more than some do. But what happens if/when they're sent to Rwanda, they have no wish to be there, the closest economies of any size they can get to cheaply are Kenya and SA. Potentially it puts pressure on the Commonwealth (if there's Syrians/Afghans/Iraqis rocking up who couldn't be deported to their own countries by the UK and they also have no money, any populists are going to be demanding pulling out of the Commonwealth and packing these people on flights to the UK). If they can get money, they're going to go straight back to the UK.

[Simian]

OS, it’s pretty clear which cohort this thread is about, and in particular what I was talking about. Any suggestion otherwise, is extremely disingenuous.

I did read your comment about France, which made it sound impossible. This is in fact why I referenced the Aus case where this does in fact happen.

The illegal entry refers to the definition in UK law

Please read here

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3429

There's a difference between illegal entry and illegal entrant, but I'll park that.

The Illegal Migration Act (given Royal Assent 20th July 2023), mostly hasn't been given legal force yet, as in the vast majority of it is not yet operational. Read this:
https://freemovement.org.uk/the-illegal ... s-changed/

Why does it have no legal force yet? Because it compels the government to deport people that have entered the UK without permission (as you state it redefines the laws I briefly described), but the problem is there needs to be a deportation plan. There needs to be a means to actually deport people to a third country. If there's nowhere to send them then it's open to legal challenge and will fail (as things stand in literally every single case). So they're waiting on the Supreme Court ruling on Rwanda before bringing The Illegal Migration Act into full operation, but the next problem for them is even if Rwanda goes ahead the scheme lacks capacity, so like a game of snakes and ladders they return to having no deportation plan available and open to legal challenge.

The government is delaying bringing the Act fully into force, to delay their policy failure being exposed. Instead the media are fed a barge over and over.

Once the Act does fully come into force (if it ever does), it will simply delay asylum applications being made and grow the backlog. Because as things stand Rwanda will be quickly exhausted by one week's worth of arrivals, then in practice although the Tories have made a law saying no one can claim asylum if they've travelled without permission, this will have to give way to there being no deportation plan and therefore an asylum claim.

This has already happened, before it became an Act, the bill was amended so it didn't apply to people arriving after 7th of March 2023 (a Sunak pledge) the cut off was instead made 20th of July 2023 (the day the Act was passed). This was done because it would be impossible to remove 7k or so people who had arrived after the 7th of March, which would open it up to legal challenge and quickly being thrown to the side.

It's important to be clear what is happening. The UK government has purposely created a binding legal duty upon itself, to remove those who have entered the UK without permission, and it also knows it almost certainly cannot meet this legal obligation it has made for itself. This mess has been purposely created.

You may wonder, why are the Tories trying to legislate unicorns into existence? For example they could make laws that everyone should be a billionaire, everyone would know that's stupid and impossible, so why are they doing this? To make the issue more complicated for the ordinary person to follow, even this post grows longer the more I try to quickly explain reality. But why do that, you may ask? So the Tories can claim "lefty lawyers" are to blame when it's the Tories who are making laws they cannot implement, or to claim Labour are to blame when they're in power for not implementing impossible Tory laws, or to put pressure on leaving the ECHR (likely blowing up the WA/TCA with the EU).

In summary:

1. Does the UK have an uncapped/unlimited agreement to deport whom it wishes to a third country. Answer: No, and even with Rwanda that's very limited.
2. Can the UK therefore follow its own Illegal Migration Act 2023 and deport arrivals by boat to a third country. Answer: No, not until there's an uncapped/unlimited agreement with a third country/countries.
3. If the answer to 1 and 2 is "no" what does this mean? Answer: Everything regarding asylum and illegal migration gets worse, because the UK government is AWOL and not addressing reality.

Cannot make it simpler.

The assumption on Rwanda being that if it happens, then these people will stop, as they are no longer ever getting in to the UK, so a large number of places will not be needed.

These people do not want to end up in Rwanda, they will stop coming.

Oh, ffs. You sound like Rees Mogg. And even he doesn’t seem to really believe it when he says that.

[Simian]

I just don’t get why you seem to feel so very strongly that we shouldn’t ‘do our bit’ to help asylum seekers and seek to have fallen for the press/Tory spin that the UK is in some way disproportionately affected by asylum seekers.

[Tichtheid]

I just don’t get why you seem to feel so very strongly that we shouldn’t ‘do our bit’ to help asylum seekers and seek to have fallen for the press/Tory spin that the UK is in some way disproportionately affected by asylum seekers.

I've assumed from the start that this thread was playing the exact same part as the subject does in real life, a "Look over there" distraction from the catastrophe that is the Tory governments of the last 13 years.

The Tories have been responsible for immigration for 13 years now.

[Simian]

I just don’t get why you seem to feel so very strongly that we shouldn’t ‘do our bit’ to help asylum seekers and seek to have fallen for the press/Tory spin that the UK is in some way disproportionately affected by asylum seekers.

I've assumed from the start that this thread was playing the exact same part as the subject does in real life, a "Look over there" distraction from the catastrophe that is the Tory governments of the last 13 years.

The Tories have been responsible for immigration for 13 years now.

Yup

[Blackmac]

Are there any statistics to show how many of these people are successfully processed and got on to create productive lives for themselves in the UK. It's not as if there isn't a need for willing workers. It would provide a nice antidote for the never ending drone we get about the drain they are on the economy.

[Ymx]

I just don’t get why you seem to feel so very strongly that we shouldn’t ‘do our bit’ to help asylum seekers and seek to have fallen for the press/Tory spin that the UK is in some way disproportionately affected by asylum seekers.

I think there are a large portion who are coming here for what they get, not because they are fleeing war/life threatening persecution. They specifically hop on the boat knowing they will be rewarded with free hotels, etc. There is a prevalence of young males as opposed to whole families. They are being coached by some (care4calais, dodgy lawyers) to rip up ID, frustrate, delay, lie and fabricate as part of their application.

If we were offering the same as France (and with as tough approval rates as France 25%) they would not bother to target the UK. They may not even leave their own country.

At the moment the UK is the low hanging fruit.

This is an economic migration which is getting more steam, the more the free benefits there are seen to be on the other side.

I’d much prefer we spend taxes on housing and funding our elderly, than this.

The other significant concern is really the negative impact hordes of these young idle men have on communities. As a father of a young daughter, I’m extremely worried should a horde turn up here. There have been too many incidents to suggest it’s safe. It’s been noted above that certain camps in France are not safe. Well, these people are the reason it’s not safe!

[Tichtheid]

That's a full bingo card in the one post, but this

"I’d much prefer we spend taxes on housing and funding our elderly, than this."


'the fuck you doing voting Tory then for fuck's sakes?

it could have been written on the side of a bus.

[Ymx]

This is the type of stuff which just popped up on feed, sets off my parental fears. Being issued with “Child locators”



And compounded when you see coverage maps like this

[Blackmac]

This is the type of stuff which just popped up on feed, sets off my parental fears. Being issued with “Child locators”



And compounded when you see coverage maps like this

C'mon, you must be trolling.

[Tichtheid]

honestly, this is amateur hour trolling, it's cartoon stuff.

We'll be getting tweets from that Tommy Lennon guy or whatever the fuck he chooses to call himself next

[JM2K6]

From dull and inoffensive to full on DAC posting from Gates of Vienna speed run

[mat the expat]

Reading the Australian case, which I’ll admit I’ve not read an huge amount about …

They introduced offshore processing, but it only really made a difference when they implemented the turn back policy. Physically intercepting the boats to return them to the place of origin.

Have any European countries successfully implemented a turn back policy?

I note Denmark appears the most advanced in terms of handling.

It only "worked" by keeping the Murdoch Media happy.

10 times the number of the turnbacks arrived EACH WEEK illegally by plane (Visa overstayers, etc).

Nothing in the news about that

Where’s some official material on this?

Are you actually talking about asylum seekers? As you instead mention visa over stayers in your example?

Look it up - I'm not doing leg work for your bad faith arguing.

Visa overstays can also be what you call "illegal immigrants" - I mean, that's the actual definition of the word

However, they are all Asylum seekers as there is no such thing as Illegal Immigrants outside of Murdoch rags and Right-wing Nutjob groups

I would be more polite but your latest posts of "Child abuse/rape" exposes you for what you really are.

[Ymx]

honestly, this is amateur hour trolling, it's cartoon stuff.

We'll be getting tweets from that Tommy Lennon guy or whatever the fuck he chooses to call himself next

Your responses too often merely disregard the actual content.

The video interview is real, of a real mum with concerns. But you’ve not mentioned anything about the content of it.

The map is a map of all the locations where these people are housed. Hotels, etc. Do you feel it’s inaccurate? Because you’ve not indicated as such.

You’ve far too often lazily resorted to genetic fallacy, in bad faith.

[Tichtheid]

honestly, this is amateur hour trolling, it's cartoon stuff.

We'll be getting tweets from that Tommy Lennon guy or whatever the fuck he chooses to call himself next

Your responses too often merely disregard the actual content.

The video interview is real, of a real mum with concerns. But you’ve not mentioned anything about the content of it.

The map is a map of all the locations where these people are housed. Hotels, etc. Do you feel it’s inaccurate? Because you’ve not indicated as such.

You’ve far too often lazily resorted to genetic fallacy, in bad faith.

Have you looked up who that "active patriot" guy is?

I have.


I was forced to look up a reactionary site the other day because of this thread, it was some migration watch bollocks or something, it listed all the terrible crimes they attribute to immigrants, 16 of them over an eight year period, including the guy in Glasgow who stabbed several migrants, a police officer and hotel staff, it caught my eye because I recalled part of the detail, in fact Wiki says

Badreddin Abadlla Adam,[6][11][12] was a 28-year-old male asylum seeker from Sudan who had arrived in the UK six months earlier.[13] He went on a rampage after numerous reports had been made to the relevant authorities by charities and other asylum seekers residing in Park Inn Hotel, who were concerned about his deteriorating mental health, and the potential risk he posed to himself and others

Adam was shot dead by police officers.

[petej]

honestly, this is amateur hour trolling, it's cartoon stuff.

We'll be getting tweets from that Tommy Lennon guy or whatever the fuck he chooses to call himself next

Your responses too often merely disregard the actual content.

The video interview is real, of a real mum with concerns. But you’ve not mentioned anything about the content of it.

The map is a map of all the locations where these people are housed. Hotels, etc. Do you feel it’s inaccurate? Because you’ve not indicated as such.

You’ve far too often lazily resorted to genetic fallacy, in bad faith.

Disappointed in that map. Where are the imported predators from cultures like Russia or saudi arabia or abu dhabi? How dare our government let them in for a sack load of cash. I have real concerns.

[Tichtheid]

honestly, this is amateur hour trolling, it's cartoon stuff.

We'll be getting tweets from that Tommy Lennon guy or whatever the fuck he chooses to call himself next

Your responses too often merely disregard the actual content.

The video interview is real, of a real mum with concerns. But you’ve not mentioned anything about the content of it.

The map is a map of all the locations where these people are housed. Hotels, etc. Do you feel it’s inaccurate? Because you’ve not indicated as such.

You’ve far too often lazily resorted to genetic fallacy, in bad faith.

Disappointed in that map. Where are the imported predators from cultures like Russia or saudi arabia or abu dhabi? How dare our government let them in for a sack load of cash. I have real concerns.

There is a map for that, sort of, you can find foreign-owned houses, they are often sold for several million pounds at a time. There is an anti money laundering process, but the money comes in from all sort of shell companies and accounts, it's pretty much impossible to find the source of it.

[Ymx]

honestly, this is amateur hour trolling, it's cartoon stuff.

We'll be getting tweets from that Tommy Lennon guy or whatever the fuck he chooses to call himself next

Your responses too often merely disregard the actual content.

The video interview is real, of a real mum with concerns. But you’ve not mentioned anything about the content of it.

The map is a map of all the locations where these people are housed. Hotels, etc. Do you feel it’s inaccurate? Because you’ve not indicated as such.

You’ve far too often lazily resorted to genetic fallacy, in bad faith.

Have you looked up who that "active patriot" guy is?

I have.


I was forced to look up a reactionary site the other day because of this thread, it was some migration watch bollocks or something, it listed all the terrible crimes they attribute to immigrants, 16 of them over an eight year period, including the guy in Glasgow who stabbed several migrants, a police officer and hotel staff, it caught my eye because I recalled part of the detail, in fact Wiki says

Badreddin Abadlla Adam,[6][11][12] was a 28-year-old male asylum seeker from Sudan who had arrived in the UK six months earlier.[13] He went on a rampage after numerous reports had been made to the relevant authorities by charities and other asylum seekers residing in Park Inn Hotel, who were concerned about his deteriorating mental health, and the potential risk he posed to himself and others

Adam was shot dead by police officers.

No I haven’t. Though it is a real video of a real community, irrespective of who posted it. It’s not fake. It is how many people feel, myself included.

I believe the video originated from a bbc interview.

I’m not going to lie, I half expected this reaction from me posting it. But I had genuinely hoped it might not.

[Tichtheid]

Your responses too often merely disregard the actual content.

The video interview is real, of a real mum with concerns. But you’ve not mentioned anything about the content of it.

The map is a map of all the locations where these people are housed. Hotels, etc. Do you feel it’s inaccurate? Because you’ve not indicated as such.

You’ve far too often lazily resorted to genetic fallacy, in bad faith.

Have you looked up who that "active patriot" guy is?

I have.


I was forced to look up a reactionary site the other day because of this thread, it was some migration watch bollocks or something, it listed all the terrible crimes they attribute to immigrants, 16 of them over an eight year period, including the guy in Glasgow who stabbed several migrants, a police officer and hotel staff, it caught my eye because I recalled part of the detail, in fact Wiki says

Badreddin Abadlla Adam,[6][11][12] was a 28-year-old male asylum seeker from Sudan who had arrived in the UK six months earlier.[13] He went on a rampage after numerous reports had been made to the relevant authorities by charities and other asylum seekers residing in Park Inn Hotel, who were concerned about his deteriorating mental health, and the potential risk he posed to himself and others

Adam was shot dead by police officers.

No I haven’t. Though it is a real video of a real community, irrespective of who posted it. It’s not fake. It is how many people feel, myself included.

I believe the video originated from a bbc interview.

I’m not going to lie, I half expected this reaction from me posting it. But I had genuinely hoped it might not.

It's undeniable that the far right have deliberately whipped up fear to further their own agenda, so I absolutely believe that some people are scared by what they read from these sources.

[Ymx]

There is some pretty dreadful anecdotal evidence including many actual videos circulating online.

Whether or not these are isolated incidents is not clear to me. There have been requests for stats which don’t have responses.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transpar ... threeyears

Although in Sweden the correlation of crime to their open policy has not been great. Nor in Germany as reported some years back. Though, some stats would be a good start.

[Ymx]

Why refugees prefer Britain to France

The Channel acts as a magnet to refugees because the UK is at odds with the rest of Europe in its attitude to asylum, writes Jon Henley

It is one of those thorny little cross-Channel problems that periodically excite British national sentiment, like mad cows or the efficiency of the French police.

For the past week, more than 1,600 would-be illegal immigrants to Britain, who are currently housed in a vast hangar outside the Calais suburb of Sangatte, have been making all kinds of headlines.

Even moderate voices in the British press took a swing at France for not doing enough either to stop these refugees trying to breach the high-security Eurotunnel compound, or to punish them once they have done so.

France, the reasoning appears to go, is "encouraging" hordes of migrants to attempt the hazardous journey across the Channel. It is cynically decanting onto Britain a human tragedy it would prefer not to deal with itself.

The solutions suggested by those who adopt this line run from closing down the Red Cross holding centre at Sangatte to deploying a contingent of heavily-armed British troops around the tunnel entrance.

Such talk has been reported, with some astonishment, in France. Here, the media fuss has been more about the plight of the refugees, their hellish journeys to the west, their nightmare dealings with the "passeurs" or people smugglers, the urgent necessity of opening a second centre to improve inhumane conditions at Sangatte.

And there has been a great deal of talk about why exactly the migrants are so desperate to reach Britain, and only Britain. According to the Red Cross, barely 1-2% apply for asylum in France. For the rest, Britain is Eldorado, where the streets are paved with gold.

What, then, is the attraction? First, unlike in France or Germany, refugees who reach Britain instantly acquire the effective status of asylum seeker. While they wait for their cases to be examined, a lengthy process that gives them every chance to disappear, they are housed and fed and given £35 a week, including £25 in vouchers to be exchanged in the shops.

Then, after six months in the country, they can apply for a work permit. But they can easily find work without a permit, because the black economy in Britain is worth some £80bn a year - four times the size of France's. There is no penalty for an employer who hires an illegal immigrant. Ultimately, only one in 40 illegal immigrants to Britain is repatriated.

Better treatment aside, perhaps the most appealing aspect of life in Britain is its lack of that continental institution, the national identity card. In Britain, nobody has the right to ask you for your papers unless they suspect you of having committed an offence. You can live and work in Britain without the constant fear of a tap on the shoulder.

In France, on the other hand, asylum seekers do not have the right to work. They are entitled to £180 a month and, although they are theoretically supposed to have access to accommodation in an overcrowded reception centre, for the most part must find a bed themselves. And without identity papers, they can do virtually nothing.

So France's arguments are not entirely without foundation. It is not the Sangatte refugee centre that attracts refugees to Sangatte, it is Britain, represented in France by the mouth of the Channel tunnel.

As a French foreign ministry spokesman, Francois Rivasseau, said: "Maybe London should reflect on possible ways to reduce the differences between legislation and practice in the United Kingdom on the one hand, and in continental Europe on the other - differences that make Britain particularly attractive to potential immigrants."

And like Britain, France cannot, for practical, humanitarian and political reasons, simply fly migrants back home when home is Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq. Almost all Sangatte's refugees come from countries where the political situation is deemed hazardous. Forced repatriation could expose them to "inhuman or degrading treatment" and is condemned under the European convention of human rights.

Only one thing will stop the flow of refugees to Sangatte, and that is a common European approach to immigration. Most EU member states belong to the Schengen group, which has such an approach and is working on improving it. Britain is one of three to have partially opted out.

For a French or Belgian official, what counts is that those illegal immigrants on his patch who have not applied for asylum eventually leave the territory covered by the Schengen agreement. It does not matter whether their destination is Bahrain or Britain - administratively speaking, at present, they are the same.

Interesting read ….

[Ymx]

Why refugees prefer Britain to France

The Channel acts as a magnet to refugees because the UK is at odds with the rest of Europe in its attitude to asylum, writes Jon Henley

It is one of those thorny little cross-Channel problems that periodically excite British national sentiment, like mad cows or the efficiency of the French police.

For the past week, more than 1,600 would-be illegal immigrants to Britain, who are currently housed in a vast hangar outside the Calais suburb of Sangatte, have been making all kinds of headlines.

Even moderate voices in the British press took a swing at France for not doing enough either to stop these refugees trying to breach the channel, or to punish them once they have done so.

France, the reasoning appears to go, is "encouraging" hordes of migrants to attempt the hazardous journey across the Channel. It is cynically decanting onto Britain a human tragedy it would prefer not to deal with itself.

The solutions suggested by those who adopt this line run from closing down the Red Cross holding centre at Sangatte to deploying a contingent of heavily-armed British troops around the tunnel entrance.

Such talk has been reported, with some astonishment, in France. Here, the media fuss has been more about the plight of the refugees, their hellish journeys to the west, their nightmare dealings with the "passeurs" or people smugglers, the urgent necessity of opening a second centre to improve inhumane conditions at Sangatte.

And there has been a great deal of talk about why exactly the migrants are so desperate to reach Britain, and only Britain. According to the Red Cross, barely 1-2% apply for asylum in France. For the rest, Britain is Eldorado, where the streets are paved with gold.

What, then, is the attraction? First, unlike in France or Germany, refugees who reach Britain instantly acquire the effective status of asylum seeker. While they wait for their cases to be examined, a lengthy process that gives them every chance to disappear, they are housed and fed and given £35 a week, including £25 in vouchers to be exchanged in the shops.

Then, after six months in the country, they can apply for a work permit. But they can easily find work without a permit, because the black economy in Britain is worth some £80bn a year - four times the size of France's. There is no penalty for an employer who hires an illegal immigrant. Ultimately, only one in 40 illegal immigrants to Britain is repatriated.

Better treatment aside, perhaps the most appealing aspect of life in Britain is its lack of that continental institution, the national identity card. In Britain, nobody has the right to ask you for your papers unless they suspect you of having committed an offence. You can live and work in Britain without the constant fear of a tap on the shoulder.

In France, on the other hand, asylum seekers do not have the right to work. They are entitled to £180 a month and, although they are theoretically supposed to have access to accommodation in an overcrowded reception centre, for the most part must find a bed themselves. And without identity papers, they can do virtually nothing.

So France's arguments are not entirely without foundation. It is not the Sangatte refugee centre that attracts refugees to Sangatte, it is Britain, represented in France by the mouth of the Channel tunnel.

As a French foreign ministry spokesman, Francois Rivasseau, said: "Maybe London should reflect on possible ways to reduce the differences between legislation and practice in the United Kingdom on the one hand, and in continental Europe on the other - differences that make Britain particularly attractive to potential immigrants."

And like Britain, France cannot, for practical, humanitarian and political reasons, simply fly migrants back home when home is Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq. Almost all Sangatte's refugees come from countries where the political situation is deemed hazardous. Forced repatriation could expose them to "inhuman or degrading treatment" and is condemned under the European convention of human rights.

Only one thing will stop the flow of refugees to Sangatte, and that is a common European approach to immigration. Most EU member states belong to the Schengen group, which has such an approach and is working on improving it. Britain is one of three to have partially opted out.

For a French or Belgian official, what counts is that those illegal immigrants on his patch who have not applied for asylum eventually leave the territory covered by the Schengen agreement. It does not matter whether their destination is Bahrain or Britain - administratively speaking, at present, they are the same.

Interesting read from the Guardian ….

[Ymx]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/ ... .jonhenley

Spoiler

Show

It’s over 20 years old. 2001 !!

I did have to strip a couple of references to the euro tunnel.

But it’s so strangely still so applicable.

[Insane_Homer]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/ ... .jonhenley


It’s over 20 years old. 2001 !!

I did have to strip a couple of references to the euro tunnel.

But it’s so strangely still so applicable.

YMX linking that lefty rag the Guardian...

Strangely that almost none of the supposed attractions exist today and yet they still come

What, then, is the attraction? First, unlike in France or Germany, refugees who reach Britain instantly acquire the effective status of asylum seeker. While they wait for their cases to be examined, a lengthy process that gives them every chance to disappear, they are housed and fed and given £35 a week, including £25 in vouchers to be exchanged in the shops.

Then, after six months in the country, they can apply for a work permit. But they can easily find work without a permit, because the black economy in Britain is worth some £80bn a year - four times the size of France's. There is no penalty for an employer who hires an illegal immigrant. Ultimately, only one in 40 illegal immigrants to Britain is repatriated.

Better treatment aside, perhaps the most appealing aspect of life in Britain is its lack of that continental institution, the national identity card. In Britain, nobody has the right to ask you for your papers unless they suspect you of having committed an offence. You can live and work in Britain without the constant fear of a tap on the shoulder.

[Ymx]

That type of “far-right” article would never be allowed on the Guardian these days. Just an amusing aside really.

Actually, I think most of it does pretty much run like that prior to the new bill, several weeks back, in fact. Though, I’ve been informed by above the new bill is not enforceable until Rwanda.

[Tichtheid]

There is no penalty for an employer who hires an illegal immigrant.

From uk gov website


Asylum seekers are only allowed to work in the UK if they have not had a decision on their claim for over 12 months. This must be through no fault of their own. If you are able to work, you can only do the jobs on the Shortage Occupation List.

It is a criminal offence to work in the UK without the right to do so. Migrants working illegally can be imprisoned for up to 6 months. Wages from working illegally can be seized as the proceeds of crime if someone knows or has reasonable cause to believe a person is working illegally.

If an employer is found to be employing someone illegally, the employer may be fined or face prosecution.

Only those with lawful immigration status can rent private accommodation. It is a criminal offence for landlords and agents to knowingly let property to an illegal migrant.

Migrants in the UK illegally are not able to access public funds. Those without lawful immigration status may also be charged if they require hospital treatment or secondary health care whilst in the UK. Outstanding payments for medical treatment can also result in further immigration applications being refused.

Other services, like bank accounts and driving licences are also restricted if you are in the UK illegally.