Pblakeney
Über Member
There is a difference between an ocean and a channel.
Rwanda was an abject failure.
Potential Immigrants
- Thread starter spen666
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
There is a difference between an ocean and a channel.
Rwanda was an abject failure.
PurplePenguin
Active Member
Successful in reducing the numbers arriving by boats, but not so successful with human rights. That's likely to always be the trade off no matter how many people say that there are easy alternatives. The question that should be considered is whether that is better than allowing a swing to the far right.
PurplePenguin
Active Member
Not really much difference.
Psamathe
Veteran
More a question of the failed asylum seeker than "Iran". A failed Iranian asylum seeker would likely return to a prison sentence (6 months to 3 years) as they probably broke Iranian law and left the country illegally - but they have broken the law of Iran. If they don't hold an Iranian passport they can apply for one. It is not illegal for an Iranian citizen to apply for asylum in another country and an Iranian citizen who has been a successful or failed asylum seeker can apply for an Iranian passport outside Iran. The Iranian passport application includes an additional form requiring such citizens for details about their departure, current status, etc. And tick a box agreeing to a statement apologising for their actions.
As far as I can see Iran refuses returning asylum seekers being returned against their will. If the failed asylum seeker agrees to return they will be accepted.
At that point you have somebody who is here illegally, has crossed our borders illegally and is refusing to agree to departing. At that point even schemes like 3rd countries might be justifiable.
AuroraSaab
Shaman
Who will be providing this personal assistance to those applying for asylum from France? And assistance to appeal if not successful? Volunteers? French immigration lawyers? The UK government?
It sounds like an opportunity for dodgy people to rip off naive applicants. A few Zoom calls aren't going to be a good substitute for a Legal Aid funded UK immigration lawyer, which you are eligible for once you reach the UK.
Instead of being snarky you could think a bit more deeply about how the logistics of your plan are going to work because I don't think the promise of months in France on a waiting list for a Zoom call with a volunteer is going to deter most of those young men who are waiting to cross the channel.
Pblakeney
Über Member
Why not offshore the application service to France? We are already paying them a fortune. For what?
Can't imagine it will be much less cost effective than what we have/had. No realistic solution will be cheap.
PurplePenguin
Active Member
A true story from 30 years ago. An Iraqi man was interviewed with a translator about his asylum claim. The UK government felt he had a strong case as he detailed his persecution. Afterwards, over a coffee, while they were informally discussing his case, the translator mentioned that he was actually Egyptian and not Iraqi. He clearly spoke Egyptian Arabic.
I use this as an example of the challenges that are faced:
- His accent cannot be used to determine his asylum claim only the evidence he presents, so the UK needs to continue to consider him Iraqi
- If his claim is denied, the UK would look to return him to Iraq, but why should Iraq accept someone who they have no record of and the UK cannot prove is Iraqi?
- The UK could try to send him to Egypt, but again why would Egypt accept someone who says they are Iraqi that the UK can't prove is Egyptian?
As a result, he is likely to be given leave to remain.
To counter this approach the Tories tried to make it much harder to work illegally (resulting in the Windrush scandal) and to slow the processing of claims, so people would have to do quite a lot of time without work, before being granted leave to remain - in other words reduce the appeal of trying.
Australia adopted the approach of offshoring everyone as a solution. Trump is just strong arming countries to accept returns irrespective of where they are actually from. In the above case, the Egyptian would be sent to Iraq or Sudan or somewhere else that is not the US. Neither of these approaches are acceptable to the UK.
I use this as an example of the challenges that are faced:
- His accent cannot be used to determine his asylum claim only the evidence he presents, so the UK needs to continue to consider him Iraqi
- If his claim is denied, the UK would look to return him to Iraq, but why should Iraq accept someone who they have no record of and the UK cannot prove is Iraqi?
- The UK could try to send him to Egypt, but again why would Egypt accept someone who says they are Iraqi that the UK can't prove is Egyptian?
As a result, he is likely to be given leave to remain.
To counter this approach the Tories tried to make it much harder to work illegally (resulting in the Windrush scandal) and to slow the processing of claims, so people would have to do quite a lot of time without work, before being granted leave to remain - in other words reduce the appeal of trying.
Australia adopted the approach of offshoring everyone as a solution. Trump is just strong arming countries to accept returns irrespective of where they are actually from. In the above case, the Egyptian would be sent to Iraq or Sudan or somewhere else that is not the US. Neither of these approaches are acceptable to the UK.
AuroraSaab
Shaman
True and part of the issue is the (often ill informed) perception of the public about what an asylum system should/shouldn't cost.
The French haven't really done much in terms of stopping the boats so I'm not sure they'd be any better with asylum admin. Thanks for a sensible reply though. Outsourcing the admin might be the only option given the French will already have some data on at least some of those applying.
icowden
Shaman
The same person who would do it if they crossed the channel!
So you make them eligible before they reach the UK. Yes, a multinational effort would be needed.
No, you expedite these things. Then there are no camps, no asylum hotels, no benefit stamps, lower crime, fewer mental health problems and more input into the economy.
Psamathe
Veteran
Or use UK staff based in France. We already have a load of UK staff posted to France (consular, diplomatic, etc.) opening a new office based on the coast with additional staff is not beyond the capabilities of the British Government.
UK Government's responsibility is to accept, investigate and process asylum claims. That support can be provided using British staff posted to Offices in France (it already happens). Other support is not the responsibility of the British Government as recently confirmed by the British Courts (where an asylum seeker claiming modern slavery and court decided he could safely pursue his claim through the legal processes from France).
Pblakeney
Über Member
I meant to infer this. Yes, use UK employees.
Ian H
Squire
If that was happening to any degree we wouldn't have hotels stuffed with migrants.
Psamathe
Veteran
More down to timescales in meeting that responsibility than the responsibility itself and limiting what those seeking asylum can do eg allow them to work (as many EU countries do) would mean no need for the hotels and a lot less costs for the tax payer.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
I'm not sure that bolded bit is correct or if it was 30 years ago it still is now.
However people with no route of return are a big problem both practically and in numbers terms and some get forms of leave to remain other than as Refugees.
AuroraSaab
Shaman
Coincidentally, Farage has today announced he wants to address the indefinite leave to remain status.