Sooner or later, and, now it has happened

[purpan]

I’m not sure the phrase about the UK being « economically attractive » is appropriate. Investing in Tesla, probably, is something that’s « economically attractive ». Here, we’re talking about people trying to have enough money to stay alive.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Thus if someone is granted asylum, it merely tells us they won the tactical battle, it does not tell us they are a genuine asylum seeker although they could be.

Equally, if someone is refused asylum, it merely tells us they lost the tactical battle, it does not tell us they are not entitled to asylum, although it's likely they are not.

I'm not sure how else it can be measured other than by counting the number that satisfy/fail the conditions set for the granting of asylum.

Several posters point to the high number of approvals, which tells us our system is not as hostile as some on here would have us believe.

The high number shows that the requirements set by the Home Office have been met by mots applicants. It doesn't mean that these applications are done quickly or efficiently.

An FOI request by The Refugee Council shows that:

• the number of people waiting for more than a year for an initial decision increased ninefold from 3,588 people in 2010 to 33,016 in 2020;
• the number of children waiting longer than a year for an initial decision has increased more than twelve fold from 563 children in 2010 to 6,887 in 2020;
• more than 250 people had been waiting for 5 years or more for an initial decision on their case, of whom 55 were children.

I note that you offer no evidence for the claim that all these people are economic migrants.

 

[Rusty Nails]

How about £55million for one firm in three years?

There are loads of others.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ing-deportation-flights-Channel-migrants.html

It is clearly true that some legal firms make a lot of money from defending the rights of of immigrants in this country, but to go from that to "it's a legal game, funded at public expense" is a huge step that says more about some people's attitudes to foreigners seeking asylum and support for their human rights than it does about the law.

Are you saying that once here they should not have the right to have their status as immigrants defended...within the legal justice system of this country and international law? Or should the law only be allowed to be used to defend the rights of people born and raised here?

There is a separate argument to be made about legal costs and the profits of lawyers, but that is just a straw man in the discussion about the treatment and rights of immigrants/asylum seekers. Unlike you I am not an expert in UK and international law wrt to immigration/asylum-seeking and human rights, but I would have thought that other civilised countries also allow immigrants/asylum seekers to use their legal systems to defend their rights once in those countries. That is what being civilised is all about.

 

[Deleted member 28]

These are valid reasons, too bad if you find them boring or inconvenient to your position.

People seeking to cross from France report that they are badly treated by the police there so why would they feel it safe to remain? French police break up their camps, taking away their sleeping bags and equipment, leaving them and their children crying in the rain by the roadside.

Having got that far and with the UK practically in sight, why would they stay where they are still abused?

The fact remains that they are entitled to seek asylum here regardless of how they arrive or which countries they traversed to get here. Both international and UK law supports that.

Why not stop in a different part of France then or Germany or wherever else that they are going to be treated ok?

What would your answer be then?

 

[Rusty Nails]

Thus if someone is granted asylum, it merely tells us they won the tactical battle, it does not tell us they are a genuine asylum seeker although they could be.

Equally, if someone is refused asylum, it merely tells us they lost the tactical battle, it does not tell us they are not entitled to asylum, although it's likely they are not.

I believe the highlighted bits show that it is impossible for you to be fair and objective on this issue.

 

[Unkraut]

Why not stop in a different part of France then or Germany or wherever else that they are going to be treated ok?

What would your answer be then?

My answer would be the British have some responsibility (along with the French) for military interventions that have de-stabilised the areas from which some asylum seekers are coming from. Iraq, Libya, Syria. It is now no longer possible for Germany to keep taking them - the stated destination of those on the Polish border, for example.

Does it no longer occur to anyone in Britain that the entire continent of Europe should perhaps share the 'burden' of asylum seekers? There is no easy solution to the problem of migration if you want to be just and keep it under some sort of control, but pulling up the drawbridge isn't going to help.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Why not stop in a different part of France then or Germany or wherever else that they are going to be treated ok?

What would your answer be then?

They have numerous reasons for choosing the UK, some of which you find boring. I see no point in repeating them.

 

[theclaud]

I believe the highlighted bits show that it is impossible for you to be fair and objective on this issue.

'On this issue'?

 

[mudsticks]

My answer would be the British have some responsibility (along with the French) for military interventions that have de-stabilised the areas from which some asylum seekers are coming from. Iraq, Libya, Syria. It is now no longer possible for Germany to keep taking them - the stated destination of those on the Polish border, for example.

Does it no longer occur to anyone in Britain that the entire continent of Europe should perhaps share the 'burden' of asylum seekers? There is no easy solution to the problem of migration if you want to be just and keep it under some sort of control, but pulling up the drawbridge isn't going to help.

Yes it occurs to many of us - but unfortunately the populist right wing press has other ideas and prefers to demonise 'scroungers' of one sort or another - as an easy target - instead of looking at complex things such as our own part in global instability

Its the ultimate punching down on the already desperate - but notions such as being generous to others into their time of dire need seem to have rather fallen out of fashion of late.

 

[Rusty Nails]

My answer would be the British have some responsibility (along with the French) for military interventions that have de-stabilised the areas from which some asylum seekers are coming from. Iraq, Libya, Syria. It is now no longer possible for Germany to keep taking them - the stated destination of those on the Polish border, for example.

Does it no longer occur to anyone in Britain that the entire continent of Europe should perhaps share the 'burden' of asylum seekers? There is no easy solution to the problem of migration if you want to be just and keep it under some sort of control, but pulling up the drawbridge isn't going to help.

Exactly.

And to perpetuate the lies that all asylum seekers are headed for the UK and that UK somehow takes more asylum seekers than other European countries is just one of the tactics of people who don't like the changes to the ethnic demographic of the UK.................in line with most western countries over the past 50 years or more.

It has gone, will not come back, get over it and look to the future, not the past.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

but unfortunately the populist right wing press has other ideas and prefers to demonise

I don't know how you reached that conclusion 🤔

 

[Bromptonaut]

Like many court battles, asylum seeking has now been reduced to tactics, how to win.

Have your professional duties allowed/required that you attend an Immigration Appeal Hearing?

 

[BoldonLad]

Interesting. My initial reaction is what a shoddy piece of journalism. Her two oldest children are 18 and 20, so she hasn't had child benefit for them for 2 and 4 years respectively. So why the newspaper article? Why not ask *why* she has ended up with 8 children and how the system has let her down? Why not ask why she feels that she is struggling given that her two oldest children are no longer dependent on her and can earn their own living or go to further education?

The reason for “ending up with” 8 children are, I would have thought, self evident.

 

[mudsticks]

I don't know how you reached that conclusion 🤔

View attachment 289

View attachment 290

Its interesting isnt it - ??

How so very many of these covers require a substantial embonpoint to emphasise the point.

 

[Bromptonaut]

The reason for “ending up with” 8 children are, I would have thought, self evident.

Well up to a point Lord Copper.....