The UK’s broken asylum system

[Bromptonaut]

's a simple statement of fact - 'virtually none' of the boat people turn up with documents.

There's no need for 'research or (much) thought'.

As regards your questions, you tell me, you're the one who knows all about it.

It must also be true that having no documents makes people much more difficult to process - unless you simply roll out the red carpet to everyone.

I agree that the chap with lots of braid on his uniform told the HoC Committee that many/most destroyed their documents, or such documents as they had. Many other reports say the same but they're all from sources like HMG, Migration Watch and other anti migration outfits and reported in the Mail or Telegraph.

I'm struggling to find real numbers and why/how type facts from a reliable source - has the Oxford Migration Observatory for example written on the subject?

From what I can find it's not about concealing their identity and origins for the purposes of their claim to Asylum. Rather, it's about what can happen if their claim for Asylum is refused.

If there's no evidence that passed through x or y it's even more difficult than it would be otherwise to get y or x to accept them as returns.

It's also unlikely that those from say Syria or Iraq will have freshly minted passports issued by outfits that are recognised by, say, the UN. While some wilfully destroy stuff others never had it or it's been taken from them.

It's not new either. David Blunkett was getting knicker twisty about it 20+ years ago and threatening those without passports that they'd do gaol time for it. In fact the whole show we're seeing now is a reprise of the last 'something must be done' hoo haa when the french warhoused asylum seekers in that place near Sangatte...

 

[Deleted member 28]

Nope. The Telegraph. Which is why this:



...is quite funny.

No, still don't get it.

People on here moaned about the need for ID cards for voting, I simply reminded the cookiebloke of it so what's that got to do with some newspaper article?

 

[multitool]

No, still don't get it.

People on here moaned about the need for ID cards for voting, I simply reminded the cookiebloke of it so what's that got to do with some newspaper article?

Because your "people on here" is shorthand for "lefties", and yet the article opposing ID is in the most Tory of newspapers.

Not only that, but the only serious proposal in recent decades for ID cards came from a Labour government.

 

[cookiemonster]

Never trust a Scotsman not to ask a disingenuous question.

OI!!!! Less of that nonsense Paley!

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I’m not sure whether you’re stating your own belief here, or that you think this is a legal obligation.

Can you clarify, please?

Based on what I have heard government ministers say in Parliament and on political TV programmes

but therefore on memory - but I have heard it several times

 

[newfhouse]

Based on what I have heard government ministers say in Parliament and on political TV programmes

but therefore on memory - but I have heard it several times

This is the entire point of liars repeating lies. They take hold in the minds of even decent people like you and they grow like cancer.

There is no legal or moral obligation to remain in or apply for asylum in the first safe country reached by a refugee.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Based on what I have heard government ministers say

Nuff said, they are lying.

There is no legal requirement for a person to seek asylum in the first safe country they may pass through. None.

The UK’s High Court has established this.

 

[Pale Rider]

Nuff said, they are lying.

There is no legal requirement for a person to seek asylum in the first safe country they may pass through. None.

The UK’s High Court has established this.

Great, but there's nothing to stop them, either.

Given that someone supposedly fleeing is not going to be in the best position to undertake a long journey, it's a reasonable question to ask why they choose to prolong that journey for many more miles than it needs to be.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Great, but there's nothing to stop them, either.

Given that someone supposedly fleeing is not going to be in the best position to undertake a long journey, it's a reasonable question to ask why they choose to prolong that journey for many more miles than it needs to be.

You can ask the question but it’s an irrelevant one.

The choice is entirely that of the the person who has been displaced.

How someone travelled, or where they travelled to, is not important, it’s why they travelled that matters.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Great, but there's nothing to stop them, either.

Given that someone supposedly fleeing is not going to be in the best position to undertake a long journey, it's a reasonable question to ask why they choose to prolong that journey for many more miles than it needs to be.

The majority stop relatively close to home - see Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey.

Of those who travel on to Europe most go to Greece, Italy France and Germany.

The number coming here is (a) quite small and (b) although more than pre pandemic, not massive in historical terms. Their reasons for doing so vary but have been amply explained over the past 444 posts.

The vast majority hand themselves in and claim Asylum. Most of those claims are successful.

 

[All uphill]

Great, but there's nothing to stop them, either.

Given that someone supposedly fleeing is not going to be in the best position to undertake a long journey, it's a reasonable question to ask why they choose to prolong that journey for many more miles than it needs to be.

I think the answers to this have been repeated here several times.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Because your "people on here" is shorthand for "lefties", and yet the article opposing ID is in the most Tory of newspapers.

Not only that, but the only serious proposal in recent decades for ID cards came from a Labour government.

I'm still correct though.

 

[the snail]

I'm still correct though.

No. Actually if we all had compulsory ID cards it would be less of an issue. The government attempted to discourage younger people from voting by requiring one of various forms of ID, the majority of which were only available to older voters. Fortunately it backfired, and it was mostly elderly confused tory voters that were turned away from polling stations.

 

[BoldonLad]

No. Actually if we all had compulsory ID cards it would be less of an issue. The government attempted to discourage younger people from voting by requiring one of various forms of ID, the majority of which were only available to older voters. Fortunately it backfired, and it was mostly elderly confused tory voters that were turned away from polling stations.

Any evidence for that claim?

Quite a list of suitable Id documents, many, very applicable to "elderly tory voters", confused or not (this is not the Total list:

• Older Person’s Bus Pass funded by the UK Government
• Disabled Person’s Bus Pass funded by the UK Government
• Oyster 60+ Card funded by the funded by the UK Government
• Freedom Pass
• Scottish National Entitlement Card
• 60 and Over Welsh Concessionary Travel Card
• Disabled Person’s Welsh Concessionary Travel Card
• Senior SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland
• Registered Blind SmartPass or Blind Person’s SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland
• War Disablement SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland
• 60+ SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland
• Half Fare SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland
• Driving licence issued by the UK, any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, or an EEA state (this includes a provisional driving licence)
• A Blue Badge

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/voter/voter-id/accepted-forms-photo-id

 

[newfhouse]

Any evidence for that claim?

I wouldn’t usually use the words of Jacob Rees Mogg as evidence of anything much, but here he is admitting that it was an attempt at gerrymandering, that he believes it backfired, and that in his view it mostly affected older Tories.


View: https://youtu.be/zwqDJAyO5As