ChatterBank2 mins ago
A Thousand In One Day
https:/
What is the answer to this out of control situation?
Enough is enough !
What is the answer to this out of control situation?
Enough is enough !
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bobbisox1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
the situation has been created in part by uk government policy - i.e. refusing to consider asylum applications from outside the uk and deliberately closing legal and safe routes to enter the uk for that purpose... the result is that people who want to claim asylum in the UK for legitimate reasons are forced to take the same routes as those who are either being smuggled in by force or wish to enter for criminal reasons. It would be much easier to do this with a safe and viable process to apply outside of the uk
We need to get back to basic principles.
The purpose of claiming asylum is to seek sanctuary when fleeing peril or persecution. It is not to give the right to people to roam the world until they reach the destination of their choice. It is, in effect, a safety net for people fleeing war and civil unrest. It is not a “carte blanche” for people to travel to countries in order to settle when they are otherwise not entitled to do so.
Article 31 is quite clear when it makes a provision especially for those arriving directly from a country where they are in peril – a provision not available to those who don’t. It could not be more clear. Unfortunately the UN has caused confusion by unilaterally declaring that refugees do not have to claim sanctuary in the first safe country they arrive in. Quite why they have made that declaration is a little unclear: that is not what (their own) convention says and not what its signatories agreed to. If the UN wants to make such a stipulation it should put an amendment to the signatories for their agreement.
The idea of making asylum application available from abroad is a non-starter. People with no realistic prospect of being accepted (e.g. 100% of the 12,000 or so Albanians who have arrived here recently) will not follow such a process. This is simply because they know that, even though their claims are wholly without merit, once here the likelihood of them being removed is very close to zero. So why would they make an application from abroad – during which no doubt their biometric identification will be secured – when it is very likely to fail and thus jeopardise any clandestine attempts they may later make to enter this country?
From a purely practical point of view, this country faces a number of problems. There is a shortage of housing, a serious shortage of medical facilities which is threatening the health and even the lives of people already here, schools are at bursting point and financially the country is worse than bankrupt. In short, it does not have the facilities or the finance to support people who arrive here without the proverbial pot to pee in. The government’s primary responsibility is to the people already here, many of whom are funding the services these new arrivals will require and who are often unable to access these services for themselves and their families. If our government believes that “international law” requires us to treat illegal migrants the way we do, perhaps they should look to countries like Spain to find out why their interpretation of that law is so very different to theirs.
The purpose of claiming asylum is to seek sanctuary when fleeing peril or persecution. It is not to give the right to people to roam the world until they reach the destination of their choice. It is, in effect, a safety net for people fleeing war and civil unrest. It is not a “carte blanche” for people to travel to countries in order to settle when they are otherwise not entitled to do so.
Article 31 is quite clear when it makes a provision especially for those arriving directly from a country where they are in peril – a provision not available to those who don’t. It could not be more clear. Unfortunately the UN has caused confusion by unilaterally declaring that refugees do not have to claim sanctuary in the first safe country they arrive in. Quite why they have made that declaration is a little unclear: that is not what (their own) convention says and not what its signatories agreed to. If the UN wants to make such a stipulation it should put an amendment to the signatories for their agreement.
The idea of making asylum application available from abroad is a non-starter. People with no realistic prospect of being accepted (e.g. 100% of the 12,000 or so Albanians who have arrived here recently) will not follow such a process. This is simply because they know that, even though their claims are wholly without merit, once here the likelihood of them being removed is very close to zero. So why would they make an application from abroad – during which no doubt their biometric identification will be secured – when it is very likely to fail and thus jeopardise any clandestine attempts they may later make to enter this country?
From a purely practical point of view, this country faces a number of problems. There is a shortage of housing, a serious shortage of medical facilities which is threatening the health and even the lives of people already here, schools are at bursting point and financially the country is worse than bankrupt. In short, it does not have the facilities or the finance to support people who arrive here without the proverbial pot to pee in. The government’s primary responsibility is to the people already here, many of whom are funding the services these new arrivals will require and who are often unable to access these services for themselves and their families. If our government believes that “international law” requires us to treat illegal migrants the way we do, perhaps they should look to countries like Spain to find out why their interpretation of that law is so very different to theirs.
"refusing to consider asylum applications from outside the uk and deliberately closing legal and safe routes to enter the uk for that purpose"
And by the same argument car theft is the fault of car owners who have them to steal, burglary the fault of of home owners who have doors that can be broken into, assault is the fault of the victim who chose to walk out and about where their assailant could get to them, etc. ect. ect.
It's a well known argument referred to as, "blaming the victim".
And by the same argument car theft is the fault of car owners who have them to steal, burglary the fault of of home owners who have doors that can be broken into, assault is the fault of the victim who chose to walk out and about where their assailant could get to them, etc. ect. ect.
It's a well known argument referred to as, "blaming the victim".
//It's a well known argument referred to as, "blaming the victim".//
Indeed. The UK has no obligation to hear asylum claims from people who are abroad or to make such a facility available. If they have the ability to do that it is unlikely they are in immediate peril and they can make an application for residence the same as everybody else who settles here legally. Take, for example, those currently in France (from where virtually all the illegal migrants arrive). Why on Earth should the UK consider an asylum application from somebody living France? What persecution or peril are they fleeing from that they need our protection?
The asylum system is being abused. It is to provide sanctuary for those in danger. It is not a method for those who don't like it where they are to circumvent normal immigration processes and procedures.
To blame the UK for this fiasco is risible. This country has a perfectly fair way of determining who is and is not allowed to settle here. Those living in France wishing to come here can use it if they wish. Instead they are avoiding the strictures of that process (most probably because they are unlikely to be accepted - even though a high proportion of them are said to be architects and budding civil engineers). They do so by setting off in a rubber boat to land here illegally. And the government is condoning this by ensuring the maritime agencies assist them in their endeavours.
Indeed. The UK has no obligation to hear asylum claims from people who are abroad or to make such a facility available. If they have the ability to do that it is unlikely they are in immediate peril and they can make an application for residence the same as everybody else who settles here legally. Take, for example, those currently in France (from where virtually all the illegal migrants arrive). Why on Earth should the UK consider an asylum application from somebody living France? What persecution or peril are they fleeing from that they need our protection?
The asylum system is being abused. It is to provide sanctuary for those in danger. It is not a method for those who don't like it where they are to circumvent normal immigration processes and procedures.
To blame the UK for this fiasco is risible. This country has a perfectly fair way of determining who is and is not allowed to settle here. Those living in France wishing to come here can use it if they wish. Instead they are avoiding the strictures of that process (most probably because they are unlikely to be accepted - even though a high proportion of them are said to be architects and budding civil engineers). They do so by setting off in a rubber boat to land here illegally. And the government is condoning this by ensuring the maritime agencies assist them in their endeavours.
NJ, your claim,
"The idea of making asylum application available from abroad is a non-starter. People with no realistic prospect of being accepted (e.g. 100% of the 12,000 or so Albanians who have arrived here recently)"
appears to be contrary to the information given in this link from to-day.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/braverman-asylum-seekers-albania-trafficking-b2215187.html%3f
"The idea of making asylum application available from abroad is a non-starter. People with no realistic prospect of being accepted (e.g. 100% of the 12,000 or so Albanians who have arrived here recently)"
appears to be contrary to the information given in this link from to-day.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/braverman-asylum-seekers-albania-trafficking-b2215187.html%3f
There is only one way to stop this; all these vessels must be intercepted at sea in international waters & returned into the French waters from whence they came for their own safety, France being a safe country for them. This will require effectively a blockade.
If they are genuine refugees from persecution, then France must process them not the Brits, because they let them in to their country.
If they are genuine refugees from persecution, then France must process them not the Brits, because they let them in to their country.
I can't read the article because it wants me to register and I'm not registering for the Indie. But if the Albanian women were trafficked (i.e. transported from Albania against their will) then the best thing would be to return them to Albania. The Albanian arrivals here in the past few months have been overwhelmingly young men and it is estimated that 3% of the male population of Albania aged under 25 has arrived in the UK this year. It's unlikely that any of them have had asylum claims considered (and so will not be included in the Indie's figures), and many may never lodge them.
//There is only one way to stop this; all these vessels must be intercepted at sea in international waters & returned into the French waters...//
Quite so, Khandro, and why this has not been implemented is one of life's great mysteries. So keen are successive UK governments to display their "caring" credentials on the world stage, that they have forgotten who elected them and why they were elected.
//There is only one way to stop this; all these vessels must be intercepted at sea in international waters & returned into the French waters...//
Quite so, Khandro, and why this has not been implemented is one of life's great mysteries. So keen are successive UK governments to display their "caring" credentials on the world stage, that they have forgotten who elected them and why they were elected.
"Dr Walsh added: "It is commonly asserted that most Albanians do not have a legitimate claim for asylum, but recent statistics do not support this view. In the first half of 2022 55 per cent of adult asylum claims from Albanians were successful. In particular, in the most recent data, nearly 90 per cent of claims by Albanian women were granted by the UK government. This is in part due to the UK government’s commitment to protecting female victims of trafficking."
Immigration barrister Colin Yeo said that the high rate of visas granted was due to a change in UK government guidance, with more awareness among UK asylum decision makers that ***protection is not available for female victims of modern slavery in Albania.***" (emphasis added)
As they are not protected in Albania, why would those women return there?
Immigration barrister Colin Yeo said that the high rate of visas granted was due to a change in UK government guidance, with more awareness among UK asylum decision makers that ***protection is not available for female victims of modern slavery in Albania.***" (emphasis added)
As they are not protected in Albania, why would those women return there?
don't believe i suggested that the recent increase in albanians would be offset by a viable route outside the UK as most of them are unlikely to make genuine asylum claims... making such a route available would however assist greatly in distinguishing those who are not genuine asylum seekers from those who are...
i don't care if you find it "risible" newjudge... uk policy has contributed enormously to this problem. The UK does have an obligation to consider applications for asylum (though not necessarily to accept them!) and has created a situation where it is only possible to apply for asylum by crossing illegally... it is an excellent smokescreen for criminals and is in part of our own making.
the shortages and service deficiencies you describe are also a result of government policy...
i don't care if you find it "risible" newjudge... uk policy has contributed enormously to this problem. The UK does have an obligation to consider applications for asylum (though not necessarily to accept them!) and has created a situation where it is only possible to apply for asylum by crossing illegally... it is an excellent smokescreen for criminals and is in part of our own making.
the shortages and service deficiencies you describe are also a result of government policy...
"all these vessels must be intercepted at sea in international waters & returned into the French waters"
unfortunately the navy has recently announced that it has no spare capacity to do so... and aside from that it may not be that simple...
https:/
unfortunately the navy has recently announced that it has no spare capacity to do so... and aside from that it may not be that simple...
https:/
// Why on Earth should the UK consider an asylum application from somebody living France? //
In 1972, approximately 60,000 Ugandan Asians were to flee the regime of the self acclaimed King of Scotland.
Circa 30,000 of these refugees, instead of seeking safe haven in neighbouring Kenya (in line with UN policy), they were flown out and took up permanent residence here in Britain.
The British govt at the time, proudly called it a 'Resettlement' program. Perhaps then, we shouldn't always lay the blame at the feet of the UN?
In 1972, approximately 60,000 Ugandan Asians were to flee the regime of the self acclaimed King of Scotland.
Circa 30,000 of these refugees, instead of seeking safe haven in neighbouring Kenya (in line with UN policy), they were flown out and took up permanent residence here in Britain.
The British govt at the time, proudly called it a 'Resettlement' program. Perhaps then, we shouldn't always lay the blame at the feet of the UN?
As I understand it, zebu, many of them were British subjects.
https:/
https:/
My annoyance if you like , is at those who’ve chosen to nit pick at Braverman’s use of the word ‘invasion ‘ that she used , instead of dealing with the issue of it is an invasion of our shores by young men leaving a country that has no conflict,Albania is a poor country it’s said so to get here and receive money and warmth in a hotel with 3 meals a day must be like a Shangri-La to them at the tax payers expense .I say stop the ‘benefits , they haven't earned any, stop the lawyers representing them by refusing Legal Aid ,tow the dinghies back to France and let them deal with them, and to those who say Let them come in, I’d say you are responsible if , in the coming winter months there’s deaths at sea when these flimsy vessels flip over drowning those in them
Maybe the pushback has begun. Local Authorities have started(not before time) to thwart the foisting of hundreds of migrants into their area. Even the left wing Councils have seen the damage being imposed on their towns and businesses as unsustainable. I like the sneaky ploy of using planning regs. to prevent the block booking of Hotels by the Home Office using the change of use angle.
https:/
https:/
Latest Posts
Crosswords7 mins ago
Sunday Express Skeleton 23Rd June
Crosswords7 mins ago
Farage Vs. Johnson Vs The Daily Mail
News9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
