The UK’s broken asylum system

[BoldonLad]

I was echoing Shep's 'on here' which usually means on this whole forum.

(A bit like his 'you lot' which I take to mean anyone on this forum)


Either those precise words in that order, or else their implication.

Said by anyone 'on here'

I'm asking to be shown where anyone here has ever said "They all speak English".

You clearly approved his point, so perhaps you'd like to back it up with some evidence if he can't.

I won't hold my breath

Is it though?

1.14 million people appeared in a magistrates court in total in 2022. That's about 2% of the population of England and Wales.
There were 44000 small boat arrivals in 2022. So we can extrapolate that if the crime rate were the same, we would expect to see 880 of those people in a magistrates court for one reason or another over the course of the year. That's 0.07% additional imported crime.

We can also extrapolate that it is more important to you that 880 people are prevented from committing crime than 43120 people reaching a safe haven where they can speak the language and have friends or family.

Other studies show that asylum seekers and refugees are more likely to commit crime than the general population, but that that crime tends to be property crime. It might just be that the reason for this is that if you are unable to work, to buy food, to get a job, your recourse tends to be stealing things. We can solve this problem by getting these people set up so that they can get work, and therefore don't need to commit crime. Other studies show that asylum seekers and refugees are more likely to work harder than the general population. So instead of taking fingerprints and DNA and running every arrival through interpol it might be better to give them a National Insurance number and point them at the job centre.

Yes. The logic is that you don't care about the problem as long as it's someone else's problem. You have no empathy or sympathy and fail to understand that people aren't coming to the UK because it's a great place to live, they are coming here because they have friends or relatives and can speak the language.

You also fail to comprehend that a system where asylum had to be claimed at the first country an asylum seeker comes to would fail utterly as those countries on the borders of countries where people are oppressed or in danger through war would quickly become swamped with new citizens. The current system ensures an even(ish) diaspora. The system needs to be improved because the need to move country is going to become ever greater as the world burns hotter.

Yes. We explained it. People tend to go where they can speak the language and where they know other people whether they be friends or relations. The youngest and fittest people tend to be sent out to get to somewhere safe in the hope that they can save the weaker and more vulnerable.


In which we have set up a system whereby it is better to have no documentation than to have documentation.


Absolutely. So why does the Government persist in their stupid policy?


And obviously you would trek thousands of miles, deal with human traffickers and take the risk of rape and death so that you can commit a crime somewhere safe,


If that were the case, they wouldn't be dumping it in the sea.

No. We need to stop penalising people who haven't done anything wrong and penalise them when they do something wrong.

Wouldn't want you to have to hold your breath too long....

A few posts above, not using @shep's exact phrase, but, the implication is the same.

 

[BoldonLad]

Do you ever do your own research in relation to the topics on this forum?

You asked a question about the comparison of treatment of foreign wives wishing to join their husbands in the UK. I saw the question and, not knowing the answer myself, googled it with an appropriate search string. The first answer offered was the relevant section within the UK Gov’s website. It took me less time to find than it has to type this paragraph.

Yes

 

[Rusty Nails]

True, so, does that mean, no more questions on here (from anyone) ?

I'm sure that genuine questions to forum members in the search for knowledge will always be welcome.

 

[BoldonLad]

I'm sure that genuine questions to forum members in the search for knowledge will always be welcome.

I admire your optimism

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I'm sure that genuine questions to forum members in the search for knowledge will always be welcome.

Absolutely.

There are some questions that require a higher level of familiarity or qualification in a given area and it’s not unreasonable to seek guidance from the broader forum where someone might have the necessary expertise.

There are others, as we had here, which have answers which are readily available with simple querying of one’s favourite search engine and require no specialist skill or knowledge to interpret.
That’s laziness, at best.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Yes

Maybe one day we’ll see the fruits of your labour.

 

[BoldonLad]

Maybe one day we’ll see the fruits of your labour.

Indeed, perhaps you will

 

[BoldonLad]

Absolutely.

There are some questions that require a higher level of familiarity or qualification in a given area and it’s not unreasonable to seek guidance from the broader forum where someone might have the necessary expertise.

There are others, as we had here, which have answers which are readily available with simple querying of one’s favourite search engine and require no specialist skill or knowledge to interpret.
That’s laziness, at best.

I always prefer the worst interpretation, personally

 

[mudsticks]

Wouldn't want you to have to hold your breath too long....

A few posts above, not using @shep's exact phrase, but, the implication is the same.

Thanks there was no rush, the ride went on rather longer than expected, assuredly no breath holding done at any time.

OK, so no, no one has said or even implied that refugees can 'always' speak English.
Just that they often, or even sometimes can.
(Hence we have jolly nice people like alluphill, offering English lessons to asylum seekers🙏🏼)

Or no ones said that, that I can see anyway.
Perhaps the interlocutors themselves might care to clarify.?

Meanwhile perhaps we should have an injunction in place for the determinedly dim, unsympathetic, and or ignorant (and their allies 🙄).

"All statements must always be clarified as non absolutist, unless they are intended to apply 100% of the time"

Just in case anyone* with limited natural intelligence, or a tendency towards 'black or white' thinking should happen past..

*Even if, those persons, as they are frequently wont to remind us.

"Don't give a shoot about any of this stuff anyway" 👍🏼

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Just in case anyone with a tendency towards 'black or white' thinking should happen past..

Heaven forfend

 

[mudsticks]

Heaven forfend

You may jest, but believe me they're out there.
😱

Occasionally they even find their way to this shady backwater.

 

[BoldonLad]

Thanks there was no rush, the ride went on rather longer than expected, assuredly no breath holding done at any time.

OK, so no, no one has said or even implied that refugees can 'always' speak English.
Just that they often, or even sometimes can.
(Hence we have jolly nice people like alluphill, offering English lessons to asylum seekers🙏🏼)

Or no ones said that, that I can see anyway.
Perhaps the interlocutors themselves might care to clarify.?

Meanwhile perhaps we should have an injunction in place for the determinedly dim, unsympathetic, and or ignorant (and their allies 🙄).

"All statements must always be clarified as non absolutist, unless they are intended to apply 100% of the time"

Just in case anyone* with limited natural intelligence, or a tendency towards 'black or white' thinking should happen past..

*Even if, those persons, as they are frequently wont to remind us.

"Don't give a shoot about any of this stuff anyway" 👍🏼

Indeed, it is great that people offer help, in whatever way they can, it is actually very rewarding (I am not talking financially)

 

[mudsticks]

Indeed, it is great that people offer help, in whatever way they can, it is actually very rewarding (I am not talking financially)

Well I'll have to take your word for it Bolders.

You'll not catch me lifting a finger to help anyone who's not obviously in my 'clan'.

Unless there's immediate monetary reward in it for me you understand 😉

 

[Bromptonaut]

I thought they all spoke English? , thats what people on here often say.

Pears v Apples alert.

One reason some people who've got as far as Europe might seek to come to the UK for Asylum is because they're from a place where English is the main second language. There are of course other reasons including family, or whatever degree, or wider kith/clan being established here.

The issue in this bit, ie introduced by post #202 is Afghan women. They are applying to join their husbands who are here legitimately, presumably after being given Asylum. I wasn't aware of this but apparently applicants for a spousal visa are supposed to be proficient in English. Maybe I should have grasped the point given the number of battered or otherwise abused spouses I've given advice to and who speak better English than I do but there you go....

It seems to me that, thinking in the way law treats people in other fields, we ought to apply the idea of 'reasonable adjustments' where there is a real reason why (say) Afghan women who lack the opportunity to be educated at all, never mind to fluent English, should be 'cut some slack'.

But I don't suppose that's 'fair' in the eyes of the right wind media who seem to have Ministers by the short and curlies...

 

[Deleted member 28]

Pears v Apples alert.

One reason some people who've got as far as Europe might seek to come to the UK for Asylum is because they're from a place where English is the main second language. There are of course other reasons including family, or whatever degree, or wider kith/clan being established here.

The issue in this bit, ie introduced by post #202 is Afghan women. They are applying to join their husbands who are here legitimately, presumably after being given Asylum. I wasn't aware of this but apparently applicants for a spousal visa are supposed to be proficient in English. Maybe I should have grasped the point given the number of battered or otherwise abused spouses I've given advice to and who speak better English than I do but there you go....

It seems to me that, thinking in the way law treats people in other fields, we ought to apply the idea of 'reasonable adjustments' where there is a real reason why (say) Afghan women who lack the opportunity to be educated at all, never mind to fluent English, should be 'cut some slack'.

But I don't suppose that's 'fair' in the eyes of the right wind media who seem to have Ministers by the short and curlies...

That's a fair point, I imagine a Labour government will alter the law accordingly when they get in.