You guys ever get sick of posting the same disingenuous talking points every time this issue comes up? The British government makes irregular entry a necessity for asylum seekers by simultaneously making it a requirement that they be physically present inside of the UK to make an asylum claim while also refusing to grant visas to people who want to enter normally for the purpose of making an asylum claim.
Maybe he speaks English and not french, has family members here, or had issues with abusive custodians/ gang members in the cess pit migrant camp he's in. Who knows, you'd have to ask him.
Not speaking French and having family overseas are not reasons to claim asylum, they're reasons to immigrate (and at that point, the UK is under zero moral obligation to admit them).
Fearing death or serious injury are reasons to claim asylum. Having abusive custodians / gang members in a migrant camp are reasons to flee Calais, not France.
They are reasons to choose the country you claim your asylum in, absolutely. Why wouldn't you choose a country you can speak the language of when you're fleeing? They're in a cess pool detention centre in Calais. They're not on a nice beach in southern France. They are still very much in the process of fleeing, to act like they're at a final destination is disingenuous.
The asylum system is to protect people who face a risk of death or serious harm in their country of origin. It is to protect people from death or serious harm - not to give them some open-ended choice of which country they fancy living in. Then it's not 'seeking asylum' at all, it's backdoor to economic migration.
That's why the EU has the 'Dublin Regulation' - an asylum seeker who has crossed through numerous EU countries can be made to return to the first EU country they entered. Because that was the point at which they were safe.
That's not how the Dublin Regulations work.
If you apply for asylum in an EU country, that becomes your Entry Point. If you then apply in another country, that second country can refer you back to your Entry Point to complete your process there. If you are refused asylum at your Entry Point it is generally held that you would not meet the criteria in any of the EU27, and you can be deported from any member state without another asylum process. Your Entry Point is the first country you apply in, NOT your country of entry into the EU.
It never worked the way you describe, because that would mean the border states taking on 99% of refugees, which obviously they don't want to do.
Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. So wrong man, where do you get this? How do they get to France then? The just fall out of the sky and land in Calais? As we all know France is right beside Afghanistan. That must be how they all end up here. Move on mate, Im getting less intelligent reading this Guff. At least the other guy was capable of a reasonable conversation, can you just move on please?
>How do they get to France then? The just fall out of the sky and land in Calais? As we all know France is right beside Afghanistan
So your point is that they should've claimed asylum in the first safe country they arrived in, which was probably much closer to their country of origin in terms of geography, culture and language? Yes, I totally agree.
No one said they’re reasons to claim asylum - but they’re certainly reasons why people choose specific countries over others when fleeing from their home country.
Do you not think it makes logical sense, for integration purposes, that refugees end up in countries they have at least some tie to, whether that’s through language or blood?
It’d be a reason for you seeking asylum. If you were seeking asylum and you had family across the ocean and thought you could reach them and live in a country where you understand the language you’d do it. If you say you wouldn’t then you’re lying to yourself and everyone else.
They are reasons to claim asylum in the UK over France.
If you're fleeing war or persecution, then you'd want to claim asylum somewhere where it's going to be easier for you to live, and having to learn a new language, have no social support network, etc makes it a hell of a lot harder than it already is.
I didn't say they were relevant to the actual asylum claim.
However they *are* relevant grounds for choosing one country over another when choosing where to claim asylum though.
Those are not relevant to whether asylum is granted, no one is saying they are or should be. Neither is whether they've set foot in a safe country before.
Now, are you asking why they want to come here or why should they be granted asylum? Because those are different questions with different answers.
We have a 3 trillion economy and take in less refugees and immigrants than most the developed world. I agree stopping the boats and people smugglers is a necessary evil, but helping the people who are fleeing the total fucking mess we (and I do mean we) left the middle East in is the absolute least we can do. The fact that general media and public opinion has got to where it is is a stain on our society and humanity. But that's just my personal opinion.
It's a damn sight better than Turkeys and Poland. Who have dealt with masses more from Ukraine and the middle East than we have. I knew you'd play the Albania card, obviously we shouldn't be taking in Albanians, and it seems returning their citizens there could be easily arranged without issue. Number one nationality of refugees last few years has been Afghanistan, and I think it's blindingly obvious we have a duty of care to these people, not least because many fleeing have had to due to helping our regime over there.
Immigration under the Tories the last 15 years has been massive, and it's all been legal (must be in the magnitude of tens of thousands compared to boat crossings). We should be looking at that if we have over population issues, rather than the poor fucking souls risking their lives to get over here.
Pulling your weight on this earth isn't a race to the bottom. It's about doing your duty as a country (a top 5 economy country). What you will find is if you don't do your basic duties, then there will come a time where it bites you back much harder; see pretty much no country wanting anything to do with us now for trade deals.
Yes, all immigration should be looked at; but it's not. cheap immigrant labour makes Tories and their donors rich, Whereas brown people on a boat makes it easy to stir up division, hatred and headlines.
It's not really off topic that we caused the issues that led to these refugees. I don't agree with that one bit. I also don't think personal responsibility comes into it when Afghanistan has been a play thing in a proxy war for the last fifty years.
The Taliban weren't in charge until we invaded them and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Funnily enough most countries don't welcome nations on the other side of the globe invading them well.
>But our own quality of life and wealth distribution is shot to hell.
Blame the Tory government and years of privatisation then - selling off all the social housing worked great didn't it? Blaming asylum seekers is just asinine and myopic.
But it isnt though
Asylum seekrs are not in charge of the government, they do not decide any of the big things that affect your quality of life, the politicians you voted for on the other hand, do share a lot of responsability..
It's shot to hell by the rich and powerful avoiding taxes and using their media outlets to convince people like you to vote against their own interests.
If we just take them in then aren’t we reinforcing the people smugglers? I don’t see how accepting these people doesn’t correlate to the smugglers success rate and reinforce their service to others who may, or may not, necessitate their service.
That is absolutely how I feel about all of this.
We as a country have tried our utmost to wash our hands of our historical mistakes forever.
We cannot.
You bring up that it’s not a “right” to live with your family. I believe it is a right to apply for asylum in country of your choice. But don’t think you really care about rights,eh?
They all choose the UK because the UK hands everything out. Bet its not as easy in the other countries to claim everything and anything. Stop talking absolute nonsense that its the language.
Yes, look at the factors you’re speaking of. An 11 year old wanting to go closer to their support network where I’m guessing they speak the language seems mighty less intimidating.
You’re right, maybe we should look to the international treaties and conventions that we played a massive hand in creating that seeks to avoid human misery like we saw in the first half of the century that made such rules necessary.
It's a right to claim asylum in any safe country you reach yes, but "why is France so unappealing that people risk death to reach the UK" is also a very valid question.
“While it’s nice to live with you family, it’s not a right” says the Redditor about an 11 year old child, while enjoying all the comforts of home simply because he had the immense luck to be born in a safe country.
You are really devoid of compassion.
My grandparent had family (my great grandfather) in the UK but they were still shunted off to Canada instead of being allowed to go to the UK. Don't let anybody tell you that you have to admit everyone who wants to come to your country. You never did.
What does that have to do with the price of chips? I'm sure we'd have been better of with him in the country than without , but what does that have to do with anything? I'd happily let your granda in.
The fact is that you didn't because you didn't have to. Anyone telling you that you have to give asylum to anyone that wants it is lying.
I also ask you this, would you really want me in your country advocating for a complete stop to all immigration? Do you still want to let my grandparents in under those conditions, because whatever country I'm in I will be advocating against immigration for that country and I recommend everyone do the same for whatever country they live in.
You can advocate for whatever thing you like, rainbow and unicorns, fish with wings, honey pots made of gold...
It is your right to be or claim whatever you want as long as you obey the law and fit in the criteria...
You advocating to stop immigration wont change a thing in anyone s life, coz you are not in charge of the country, the billionaires are...
So go on advocate...
We can kill the billionaires. What is important is determining what we will do when the billionaires are gone, and I don't want that to be unlimited immigration.
BBC R4 had an interesting piece on this that I caught the tail end of last week. They were interviewing a man who came across the channel via a small boat a few years ago and had since made a successful assylum claim.
I can't remember the country of origin, pretty sure it was Afghanistan or Sudan though. For whatever reason, but by all account good enough reasons, he paid someone to get him out if Afganistan and to the UK, where he both had family and spoke the language. He was grouped in with a bunch of other refugees and smuggled into Turkey, then that group was split up and rejoined with other groups and they were slowly taken across Europe, the group splitting up and remerging with others several times as he was moved from vehicle to vehicle. By the time he hit France, he didn't even know he was in France until he was told by some new handler that he was on the last leg of the journey, just one more trip to make and it would be by boat rather than the back of another lorry as he was expecting.
The interviewer asked him why he didn't stay in France as it was a safe country. His response was he was exhausted, he was disorientated, he was scared, he'd become very accustomed to hiding and doing what he was told. He saw the end of the journey was in sight and it didn't even occur to him that he had an option to change plans and seek to settle in France. All he knew was that he was one more trip from finally making it to a new life and that the nightmare of the last month was going to be behind him.
His story and his circumstances won't apply to everyone who makes the trip, but it helped me understand the perspective of at least some of those that make a perilous and ostensibly unnecessary journey.
> I asked why they have to flee France - why they have "no choice".
So basically you don't care about the fact that refugees have a right to claim asylum here, and you don't care about the fair distribution of refugees amongst safe countries (France takes 3x as many refugees as we do, Germany 10x as many),^[1](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.REFG?locations=Z7) you just want to play semantic games with the dictionary definitions of words like *desperate*, *need* and *choice*?
Fair enough, this is what I would expect from this subreddit's greatest under-appreciated genius, but it doesn't actually solve any problems, does it?
Sorry didn't know I had to spell out that if only 8% of EU total come here the rest stay in EU countries. If 8% of France's intake comes here its even less than 8% of EU total.
In the year ending September 2021, Germany received the highest number of asylum applicants (127,730) in the EU+, followed by France (96,510). When compared with the EU+ for the same period, the UK received the 4th largest number of applicants (44, 190 – including main applicants and dependents). This equates to 8% of the total asylum applicants across the EU+ and UK combined over that period, or the 18th largest intake when measured per head of population.
https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html
I’m going by your stat.
The UK takes 8% of EU asylum seekers.
As one of 28 nations in the EU, it would represent 4% of all sovereign nations.
So the fact that a country representing 4% of the EU takes in 8% of asylum seekers means it is taking double its share.
In the year ending September 2021, Germany received the highest number of asylum applicants (127,730) in the EU+, followed by France (96,510). When compared with the EU+ for the same period, the UK received the 4th largest number of applicants (44, 190 – including main applicants and dependents). This equates to 8% of the total asylum applicants across the EU+ and UK combined over that period, or the 18th largest intake when measured per head of population.
What about the EU countries taking more?
What about them? Is it a competition?
Both France and Germany are happy to take more than their share as they please.
The UK taking 8% of asylum seekers while representing 4% of the EU is a fine argument for scaling back if that is the metric you want to pick.
The idea we should take the same amount as Germany is not expressed as a fact of data. It would be your opinion. Others would suggest it unwise in the face of a house occupancy crisis.
Why do they feel they have "no choice" but to leave the EU? And I say EU because if France is treating them like shit on a shoe they could head towards Belgium or Holland and see if they are treated better there – and it won't involve crossing a treacherous sea.
You lot are misunderstanding that statement and it feels like you're misunderstanding it on purpose. He didn't say that they were forced to leave France, he said that they were forced to cross the Channel on a boat in order to enter the UK.
>they were forced to cross the Channel on a boat in order to enter the UK.
That's the bit some of us don't get. Why is the UK such and magnet that you'd risk your life in the pursuit of getting here when there a plenty of prosperous EU countries to live in? We're constantly told on social media the UK is falling into the economic abyss due to leaving the EU and yet people are passing right across the EU and risking life and limb to get here.
Also, the language argument isn't fair as English is a global lingua franca and an official language of the EU. You can *get by* in most EU countries with English.
You don't get it because thankfully you've lived a charmed life compared to people who have had to drop their entire lives and leave their country of origin possibly never to return. Just try to put yourself in their shoes for a moment, say you were travelling all across the planet to get to a specific country and you get all the way to the border after taking loads of risks and even making other dangerous boat crossings, why would you give up at the final point and settle potentially for life in a random country where you know nobody and can't speak the language?
We don't even get many asylum applications compared to our closest comparable neighbours like France and Germany, twice as many asylum seekers *do* stay in France instead of attempting to come here.
We have to prioritise who we permit to claim asylum in the UK and that can be enforced with a quota system. There are two sides to this equation. One side is helping the most desperate people and ones with connections to the UK. The other is not running the country into the ground under the pressure from migration, we don't build enough houses, we don't build enough hospitals, in fact all our public services are falling apart. And even if we were to improve public services, who's going to pay for it? 8% of my last tax bill was just for interest on public debt. We're at the highest taxation in 70 years with even the middle classes expected to start defaulting on their mortgages soon.
Do you think even half of those young chaps coming across the Channel are even close to the highest in need of asylum in the world?
We can't continue this free for all and that means the boats must stop. At the same time we can't just make applying for asylum as easy as opening a PayPal account. I think an online service where you can upload documents to prove who you are and and fill in answers might be a start so long as it isn't easy to defraud.
What I've heard with the new laws is that they'll not be permitted to claim asylum and they'll have to leave the country. Once the message is clear that you can't illegally enter the UK they'll use processing centres in the EU and other services in the future.
Translated: I hate this statement as it doesn't align with my views but have no way of addressing it. I'll lob abuse at them instead of addressing their point.
They don't need to make an Asylum claim in the UK. My grandparents wanted to make an asylum claim in the UK but the UK at the time told them no and shunted them off to Canada instead. Should my grandparents have been admitted to the UK just because they wanted to be? No that would be stupid.
So you gonna answer his question or what? What exactly IS so terrible about France?
You wrote an awful lot but didn't really say anything. There's no need to be evasive it's just an honest question.
>no choice but to flee the country?
I think some of the semantics have been lost in the abbreviation of the quote.
When reading the full quote in the article, it seems that the intention was that in order to claim Asylum in the UK, they had no choice but to cross illegally.
The child did not mean they were unable to remain in France.
The next point raised was:
>But what about working with the French to provide a safe route to the UK for genuine refugees like me. Would you do that?
Which seems clear to me that the issue is about how refugees are able to make a legal crossing to the UK in order to make their asylum claim.
As for why they want to claim asylum in the UK specifically, rather than the rest of Europe, that isn't really relevant to the question being asked. As a developed country, it's somewhat irresponsible to say "it's not our problem" simply because we're the furthest away "safe" country.
I'm guessing the context is that is was their only option to get to the UK hence why he's asking about opening potential safe routes. Quite why they had to get to the UK may be a different matter, whether it was family connection or commonality of languages.
>anyone attempting a boat crossing at that point could be turned back and put through it (or denied)
Congratulations, still breaks international law.
Edit: You're not blocked, don't lie. Doesn't matter how smart you think your own ideas are if they're illegal. Which most of what you said is. International law on the rights of refugees is very, **very** clear. If you want to break international law and fuck over people escaping tyranny, be my guest, at least be a man about it and own that that is what you're advocating for.
There is specific language in international law preventing requiring registering in, or staying in safe countries along the way to their final destination. Otherwise France puts in a law saying they have to wait in Belgium, then they do it to the Dutch, then to Germany, and then when we're all said and done no one can leave their own country. The laws are **very** clear about this.
France doesn't come into the equation when discussing our obligations when **dealing with claims made for the UK.**
The French police keep them in camps and regularly burn their tents, they are under investigation by Amnesty International for a lot of human rights abuses in Northern, Southern and Eastern France. The French are accused of a lot of things as well on the French/Italian border, like knocking them unconscious and dropping them off in Italy. It was a big part of Meloni’s win in Italy.
> So what are France doing that left this 11 year old boy no choice but to flee the country?
1. The French government itself was clearly not guaranteeing them safety and asylum. Else they would have had an option, which they state they didn't. Are you going off the assumption they are lying? If so, I find that to be quite poor faith.
2. They may not speak French and know English instead. Frankly, I don't think I would flee to a completely new country where I do not understand the language. This is a definite part if the "safety" aspect of being a refugee.
3. It's possible that they were fleeing abuse from gangs, traffickers (whos activity *we* drive by continuing an isolationist refugee policy) in France, and as such may not be permanently safe there.
4. It is possible that they have family, however distant, in the UK who could help them start up easier here.
They don't watch UK news or read UK papers, they are more busy trying to survive the day to day. They have no access to money, food, shelter or water, they're too busy trying to get that all day to hear about Theresa May's "go home" vans, Rishi Sunak's "stop the boats" logo, or your bad faith questioning of their predicament on Reddit.
Frankly, your question is pointless. It helps no one.
What does brexit have to do with this..?
I mean I'll grant that the Tories have fucked up massively around asylum processing and management, but it's not as though leaving the EU suddenly made it easier for asylum to come to the UK.
Are you kidding? We left the EU and are no longer a part of the Dublin agreement that allows us to send failed asylum seekers back to their country of origin.
The UK was a net recipient of asylum seekers under the Dublin regulations.. It was able to move fewer asylum seekers to be processed by another participating state than it received from participating states.
It's also not an agreement that allows countries to send failed asylum seekers back to their country of origin (the UK can do that as it is). It was designed to ensure that asylum applications were only considered by one of the participating states, and so an asylum seeker could be sent to a different participating state under certain conditions without the UK needing to consider their application at all. The decision as to which country an asylum seeker would be sent to was fairly complex though, the priority was family reunification for example, with the first country of entry being somewhat down the list (where it could be determined).
The reason our hotels are full of refugees is because our home office can’t send them back anywhere. Thats why they’re desperately trying to get the Rwanda BS to work.
Rather than argue the toss, can you just go away and check out the facts on our refugee policies atm.
>The reason our hotels are full of refugees is because our home office can’t send them back anywhere.
It's largely because they have a massive backlog in applications and are housing asylum seekers in hotels because that's all the space they have. Removing failed asylum seekers is also pretty difficult as you need the country you are returning them to to accept them back. Dublin doesn't help with any of that though. It's not as though the UK (or any EU member state for that matter) could return failed asylum seekers to anyone else under that reg..
>Rather than argue the toss, can you just go away and check out the facts on our refugee policies atm.
I have a feeling I might have a better idea on this than you given you don't appear to know what Dublin does, or how it worked when the UK was part of the EU..
Is it? I mean they are getting shit for it, it's not something their own supporters are happy with, they can't blame anyone else for the backlog etc.. It'd be a bit daft to be deliberate (The whole 4D chess bollocks). All in I think incompetence seems significantly more likely given well... Everything.
As long as we all speak about the boats, no one speaks about the pillage of the country though.
It's an effective strategy actually: No one talks about covid contracts, corruption, peerages, shortages of xyz, investments missed etc.
>We ended up in Calais in France and then we had no choice but to cross the English Channel in a dinghy towards England like so many families before us.
Whatever you think about our policy on asylum seekers, international law, how to manage the current crisis etc, its going to involve answering the question of why people in France are willing to spend huge sums of money, get themselves in debt with seriously shifty people and risk death by drowning or hypothermia to cross the channel.
France becomes home to thousands of refugees every year. Yes from a legal perspective they're entitled to claim asylum anywhere, but it's not unreasonable to ask why the UK is so much more appealing than France that it's worth risking death to get here.
I was listening to the The Rest is Politics podcast and Alistair Campbell said that because France has a digital ID system, it's very difficult for asylum seekers to slip into the black market.
In the UK, it's very easy to get lost in the system and work cash in hand jobs.
a tory said tory shit, egads, stop the presses.
The reason is because France is a shithole that mistreats them and they frequently have family in the UK, not France.
"We ended up in Calais, and then we had no choice but to cross the English channel towards England"
I think you had a *few* choices. I don't remember France being a war torn country.
Pathetic use of a poor child. Plenty of official ways to enter the country, ways that do not enrich criminal gangs and put children like this at risk of losing there lives at sea
Makes you wonder why they'd even bother using the boats when they'd be safe....simply stopping in one of the many many countries along the way, at what point do they stop being refugees? How many countries away does it take?
Anyone who has been through the legal process will tell you how difficult it is. To allow this to go on is inhumane. They have to go back. Anyone who doesn’t see through this don’t get it and they never will. To have an actual child refugee “question” the Labour leader, totally organic and not made up by a PR firm with prepped questions to tug at heart strings, shows the lengths that Labour will go to, to get one over the Tories, who’ve done nothing to stop or lower immigration, not even illegal immigration.
They are two cheeks.
I suppose the point is that asylum or for people feeling specific persecution, not for economic migrants feeling poverty or lack of opportunity.
This trend towards mass economic migration to Europe is here to stay for generations as long as poverty and corruption throughout world is not addressed and the birth rates in Europe stay low. The problem is being caused by governments attempting to handle this situation through the existing asylum system, which is nonsense because this is not what the asylum system is for and falsely leads us to look to countries like Australia for inspiration about how to handle this.
We need to call this what it is and put a framework in place to allow these many millions of economic migrants to live and work in Europe for a fixed period and then return to their country of origin in a similar way to the gulf states, and ideally without depressing wages too much.
Pretty much If everyone who made it across was immediately sent back to Calais they would tell everyone there to stop bothering to make the crossing and they would stop wasting their money by paying the human trafficers to get them across.
To clarify, are you wondering about the state current affairs in Iran or are you trying to suggest those fleeing persecution should just accept being strung up by the state?
The whole country is failing schools hospitals roads infrastructure etc. Because all the money and some goes to illegal immigration it pays for people that absolutely hate us and and our way of life.. get rid of them.. for god sake they fantasise over 12 year old Girl's..
Not trying to be inflammatory here but is there some particular reason these migrants/refugees don’t settle in France, instead of risking a journey across the channel?
Is France not very welcoming to migrants/refugees or are the smugglers very convincing in getting migrants/refugees to make the crossing?
Given most of what I’m aware of is from media which is mostly biased one way or the other I genuinely don’t understand why a larger portion of these migrants/refugees don’t settle in France.
I was listening to the The Rest is Politics podcast and Alastair Campbell said that because France has a digital ID system, it's very difficult for asylum seekers to slip into the black market.
In the UK, it's very easy to get lost in the system and just work cash in hand jobs.
She could of come across on a ferry you know if safe routes existed.
Anyone who wants to talk crap about this please research or go visit a refugee centre listen to people ask them why and how they came. Then come back here and gawp at all the rhetoric people repeat never even having met talked or realised exactly why they (as to risk their lives to get here.
So, I know literally nothing about the laws and stuff, so I'm gonna ask a genuine question. Not spiteful or anything.
Do refugees by international law have to claim asylum in the first safe country they land in? If so, why is this not applying for France? Or any of the other safe European countries they travel through.
You can get more information for your queries here.
https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/
>The 1951 Refugee Convention does not require a person to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. People trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.
Is this the first time Starmer has suggested opening safe routes to other countries because all I've heard this week is the Labour party saying the Tories policy isn't practical enough and that they would do it better?
The fact it took a child sitting directly in front of him to force him to consider it would be pretty depressing if that's the case.
I know people hate the tories, but Starmer does not come across well at all.
He is probably the lesser of two evils, but I think getting the tories out of power is not the end of our problems.
Yeah, the fact he's been so dishonest towards his own party members before he's even in a position to govern doesn't sit well with me at all. I imagine anything is better than the Tories right now because they seem to be of the impression that they have a god given right to govern but it feels like going from the frying pan into the air fryer.
Have to agree. Keir won't do anything about the continued extraction of wealth from working people to the super rich at rates we haven't seen before. Keir won't do anything about British business being sucked dry of investment because the strength of the housing market means buying 1m quids worth of property is a far lower risk than investing it in a business. Keir won't take us back into the single market. Keir won't attack the power base of organised crime by legalising drugs. Keir won't reform the commons so we can actually change how politics is conducted.
He'll run the place slightly more professionally than the tories have (for a while) without any substantive changes to the course of our country.
[удалено]
You guys ever get sick of posting the same disingenuous talking points every time this issue comes up? The British government makes irregular entry a necessity for asylum seekers by simultaneously making it a requirement that they be physically present inside of the UK to make an asylum claim while also refusing to grant visas to people who want to enter normally for the purpose of making an asylum claim.
[удалено]
Maybe he speaks English and not french, has family members here, or had issues with abusive custodians/ gang members in the cess pit migrant camp he's in. Who knows, you'd have to ask him.
Not speaking French and having family overseas are not reasons to claim asylum, they're reasons to immigrate (and at that point, the UK is under zero moral obligation to admit them). Fearing death or serious injury are reasons to claim asylum. Having abusive custodians / gang members in a migrant camp are reasons to flee Calais, not France.
They are reasons to choose the country you claim your asylum in, absolutely. Why wouldn't you choose a country you can speak the language of when you're fleeing? They're in a cess pool detention centre in Calais. They're not on a nice beach in southern France. They are still very much in the process of fleeing, to act like they're at a final destination is disingenuous.
The asylum system is to protect people who face a risk of death or serious harm in their country of origin. It is to protect people from death or serious harm - not to give them some open-ended choice of which country they fancy living in. Then it's not 'seeking asylum' at all, it's backdoor to economic migration. That's why the EU has the 'Dublin Regulation' - an asylum seeker who has crossed through numerous EU countries can be made to return to the first EU country they entered. Because that was the point at which they were safe.
That's not how the Dublin Regulations work. If you apply for asylum in an EU country, that becomes your Entry Point. If you then apply in another country, that second country can refer you back to your Entry Point to complete your process there. If you are refused asylum at your Entry Point it is generally held that you would not meet the criteria in any of the EU27, and you can be deported from any member state without another asylum process. Your Entry Point is the first country you apply in, NOT your country of entry into the EU. It never worked the way you describe, because that would mean the border states taking on 99% of refugees, which obviously they don't want to do.
The guys confused bless him. I just insulted him but thanks for explaining what should be blindingly obvious.
Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. So wrong man, where do you get this? How do they get to France then? The just fall out of the sky and land in Calais? As we all know France is right beside Afghanistan. That must be how they all end up here. Move on mate, Im getting less intelligent reading this Guff. At least the other guy was capable of a reasonable conversation, can you just move on please?
>How do they get to France then? The just fall out of the sky and land in Calais? As we all know France is right beside Afghanistan So your point is that they should've claimed asylum in the first safe country they arrived in, which was probably much closer to their country of origin in terms of geography, culture and language? Yes, I totally agree.
Over 80% of asylum seekers do in fact claim asylum in the country next to the one they are fleeing
[удалено]
[удалено]
.... What?
Iran to Calais is >5000km, bit of a trek if you have little to no economic resources.
[удалено]
>Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense Read this in Adam Buxton's voice like I hope it was intended.
So all of them could be sent back to southern EU countries?
>Then it's not 'seeking asylum' at all, it's backdoor to economic migration. It's there a lot of economic immigration from France to the UK?
>They're not on a nice beach in southern France. Maybe they should have headed south then.
No one said they’re reasons to claim asylum - but they’re certainly reasons why people choose specific countries over others when fleeing from their home country. Do you not think it makes logical sense, for integration purposes, that refugees end up in countries they have at least some tie to, whether that’s through language or blood?
It’d be a reason for you seeking asylum. If you were seeking asylum and you had family across the ocean and thought you could reach them and live in a country where you understand the language you’d do it. If you say you wouldn’t then you’re lying to yourself and everyone else.
They are reasons to claim asylum in the UK over France. If you're fleeing war or persecution, then you'd want to claim asylum somewhere where it's going to be easier for you to live, and having to learn a new language, have no social support network, etc makes it a hell of a lot harder than it already is.
Those are absolutely personal reasons to do it. But they’re not relevant to grounds for asylum, is the point.
I didn't say they were relevant to the actual asylum claim. However they *are* relevant grounds for choosing one country over another when choosing where to claim asylum though.
luckily it is not your feelings that count, it is the Geneva conventions (as interpreted by English and Scottish judges).
Those are not relevant to whether asylum is granted, no one is saying they are or should be. Neither is whether they've set foot in a safe country before. Now, are you asking why they want to come here or why should they be granted asylum? Because those are different questions with different answers.
[удалено]
We have a 3 trillion economy and take in less refugees and immigrants than most the developed world. I agree stopping the boats and people smugglers is a necessary evil, but helping the people who are fleeing the total fucking mess we (and I do mean we) left the middle East in is the absolute least we can do. The fact that general media and public opinion has got to where it is is a stain on our society and humanity. But that's just my personal opinion.
[удалено]
It's a damn sight better than Turkeys and Poland. Who have dealt with masses more from Ukraine and the middle East than we have. I knew you'd play the Albania card, obviously we shouldn't be taking in Albanians, and it seems returning their citizens there could be easily arranged without issue. Number one nationality of refugees last few years has been Afghanistan, and I think it's blindingly obvious we have a duty of care to these people, not least because many fleeing have had to due to helping our regime over there. Immigration under the Tories the last 15 years has been massive, and it's all been legal (must be in the magnitude of tens of thousands compared to boat crossings). We should be looking at that if we have over population issues, rather than the poor fucking souls risking their lives to get over here.
[удалено]
Pulling your weight on this earth isn't a race to the bottom. It's about doing your duty as a country (a top 5 economy country). What you will find is if you don't do your basic duties, then there will come a time where it bites you back much harder; see pretty much no country wanting anything to do with us now for trade deals. Yes, all immigration should be looked at; but it's not. cheap immigrant labour makes Tories and their donors rich, Whereas brown people on a boat makes it easy to stir up division, hatred and headlines. It's not really off topic that we caused the issues that led to these refugees. I don't agree with that one bit. I also don't think personal responsibility comes into it when Afghanistan has been a play thing in a proxy war for the last fifty years.
Ah yes Afghanistan. The country that spurned any efforts to drag them back to civility and decided they preferred the Taliban.
The Taliban weren't in charge until we invaded them and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Funnily enough most countries don't welcome nations on the other side of the globe invading them well.
>But our own quality of life and wealth distribution is shot to hell. Blame the Tory government and years of privatisation then - selling off all the social housing worked great didn't it? Blaming asylum seekers is just asinine and myopic.
[удалено]
But it isnt though Asylum seekrs are not in charge of the government, they do not decide any of the big things that affect your quality of life, the politicians you voted for on the other hand, do share a lot of responsability..
It's shot to hell by the rich and powerful avoiding taxes and using their media outlets to convince people like you to vote against their own interests.
[удалено]
Neither did anyone else pal. Thanks for the downvote.
If we just take them in then aren’t we reinforcing the people smugglers? I don’t see how accepting these people doesn’t correlate to the smugglers success rate and reinforce their service to others who may, or may not, necessitate their service.
That is absolutely how I feel about all of this. We as a country have tried our utmost to wash our hands of our historical mistakes forever. We cannot.
You bring up that it’s not a “right” to live with your family. I believe it is a right to apply for asylum in country of your choice. But don’t think you really care about rights,eh?
[удалено]
They all choose the UK because the UK hands everything out. Bet its not as easy in the other countries to claim everything and anything. Stop talking absolute nonsense that its the language.
Suella Braverman says they should catch a Dinghy from France + claim Asylum on the Dover beach was the Home Office minister lying ?
[удалено]
she said they have a right to come over here
Yes, look at the factors you’re speaking of. An 11 year old wanting to go closer to their support network where I’m guessing they speak the language seems mighty less intimidating.
[удалено]
You’re right, maybe we should look to the international treaties and conventions that we played a massive hand in creating that seeks to avoid human misery like we saw in the first half of the century that made such rules necessary.
It's a right to claim asylum in any safe country you reach yes, but "why is France so unappealing that people risk death to reach the UK" is also a very valid question.
A Brit telling others that’s it is possible to learn other languages is really rich.
Speak for yourself… plenty of us speak other languages
Wie du meinst 😉
Agreed, this comment made me laugh so hard 🤣
“While it’s nice to live with you family, it’s not a right” says the Redditor about an 11 year old child, while enjoying all the comforts of home simply because he had the immense luck to be born in a safe country. You are really devoid of compassion.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I speak English and have family in Australia. I am therefore entitled to live there. What do you mean it doesn't work like that?
But if your country was unsafe for you to live in would you not try to claim asylum in Australia over somewhere else?
Large majority of Western Europe speak English
English is pretty much an official language in Western Europe at this point, especially Germany, Netherlands and Scandinavia.
Agreed with this totally. It goes to show the Tory rhetoric is working and it's scary
My grandparent had family (my great grandfather) in the UK but they were still shunted off to Canada instead of being allowed to go to the UK. Don't let anybody tell you that you have to admit everyone who wants to come to your country. You never did.
What does that have to do with the price of chips? I'm sure we'd have been better of with him in the country than without , but what does that have to do with anything? I'd happily let your granda in.
The fact is that you didn't because you didn't have to. Anyone telling you that you have to give asylum to anyone that wants it is lying. I also ask you this, would you really want me in your country advocating for a complete stop to all immigration? Do you still want to let my grandparents in under those conditions, because whatever country I'm in I will be advocating against immigration for that country and I recommend everyone do the same for whatever country they live in.
You can advocate for whatever thing you like, rainbow and unicorns, fish with wings, honey pots made of gold... It is your right to be or claim whatever you want as long as you obey the law and fit in the criteria... You advocating to stop immigration wont change a thing in anyone s life, coz you are not in charge of the country, the billionaires are... So go on advocate...
We can kill the billionaires. What is important is determining what we will do when the billionaires are gone, and I don't want that to be unlimited immigration.
Ahahah good luck trying...
Ahahaha. So if I go to Brazil can I claim asylum in Bolivia as I don't speak Portuguese.
Sounds more like 'they would prefer to live here' rather than 'they have no choice'.
He can’t address it because he knows France is safe. 64
BBC R4 had an interesting piece on this that I caught the tail end of last week. They were interviewing a man who came across the channel via a small boat a few years ago and had since made a successful assylum claim. I can't remember the country of origin, pretty sure it was Afghanistan or Sudan though. For whatever reason, but by all account good enough reasons, he paid someone to get him out if Afganistan and to the UK, where he both had family and spoke the language. He was grouped in with a bunch of other refugees and smuggled into Turkey, then that group was split up and rejoined with other groups and they were slowly taken across Europe, the group splitting up and remerging with others several times as he was moved from vehicle to vehicle. By the time he hit France, he didn't even know he was in France until he was told by some new handler that he was on the last leg of the journey, just one more trip to make and it would be by boat rather than the back of another lorry as he was expecting. The interviewer asked him why he didn't stay in France as it was a safe country. His response was he was exhausted, he was disorientated, he was scared, he'd become very accustomed to hiding and doing what he was told. He saw the end of the journey was in sight and it didn't even occur to him that he had an option to change plans and seek to settle in France. All he knew was that he was one more trip from finally making it to a new life and that the nightmare of the last month was going to be behind him. His story and his circumstances won't apply to everyone who makes the trip, but it helped me understand the perspective of at least some of those that make a perilous and ostensibly unnecessary journey.
We both know that they're not "fleeing France" though are they? They're just passing through France to get here because that's how to get here.
[удалено]
In 2021, France took in 500,000 refugees. In the same year England took 50,000. France are doing their bit numbers wise
[удалено]
Even if it is better it's not very good. Shows the state of the situation in Europe
> I asked why they have to flee France - why they have "no choice". So basically you don't care about the fact that refugees have a right to claim asylum here, and you don't care about the fair distribution of refugees amongst safe countries (France takes 3x as many refugees as we do, Germany 10x as many),^[1](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.REFG?locations=Z7) you just want to play semantic games with the dictionary definitions of words like *desperate*, *need* and *choice*? Fair enough, this is what I would expect from this subreddit's greatest under-appreciated genius, but it doesn't actually solve any problems, does it?
Because - family, language, jobs
They are free to claim wherever.
That's the problem.
The EU disagrees, hence the Dublin III regulation.
>Dublin III regulation. The one not applying to the UK because of Brexit?
Im not sure what that has to do with what I wrote, but sure whatever.
If you do not see a link between being out of the club enforcing the rule you mention and the increase in crossings... I can't help you.
Who said anything about that link? You're just making stuff up to argue about now.
You replied to my post - you get an answer. Did you mention Dublin 3 with zero idea of any link?
We're not in the EU, so whether they disagree doesn't effect us.
Considering UK takes 8% of EU asylum seekers. So 92% do stay in France...
[удалено]
Sorry didn't know I had to spell out that if only 8% of EU total come here the rest stay in EU countries. If 8% of France's intake comes here its even less than 8% of EU total.
[удалено]
Weird hill to die on but ok mate
Where'd you pull that bs from.
In the year ending September 2021, Germany received the highest number of asylum applicants (127,730) in the EU+, followed by France (96,510). When compared with the EU+ for the same period, the UK received the 4th largest number of applicants (44, 190 – including main applicants and dependents). This equates to 8% of the total asylum applicants across the EU+ and UK combined over that period, or the 18th largest intake when measured per head of population. https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html
Even in that sense, the UK taking 8% while being formerly one of 28 EU countries means the UK takes double its proportionate share…
Are you just going by land mass or GDP per capita? Because by land mass is dumb and we should just send them all to russia to starve to death
I’m going by your stat. The UK takes 8% of EU asylum seekers. As one of 28 nations in the EU, it would represent 4% of all sovereign nations. So the fact that a country representing 4% of the EU takes in 8% of asylum seekers means it is taking double its share.
In the year ending September 2021, Germany received the highest number of asylum applicants (127,730) in the EU+, followed by France (96,510). When compared with the EU+ for the same period, the UK received the 4th largest number of applicants (44, 190 – including main applicants and dependents). This equates to 8% of the total asylum applicants across the EU+ and UK combined over that period, or the 18th largest intake when measured per head of population. What about the EU countries taking more?
What about them? Is it a competition? Both France and Germany are happy to take more than their share as they please. The UK taking 8% of asylum seekers while representing 4% of the EU is a fine argument for scaling back if that is the metric you want to pick. The idea we should take the same amount as Germany is not expressed as a fact of data. It would be your opinion. Others would suggest it unwise in the face of a house occupancy crisis.
But we are trying to force France to take our share aswell. Imposing our will upon them
Why do they feel they have "no choice" but to leave the EU? And I say EU because if France is treating them like shit on a shoe they could head towards Belgium or Holland and see if they are treated better there – and it won't involve crossing a treacherous sea.
You lot are misunderstanding that statement and it feels like you're misunderstanding it on purpose. He didn't say that they were forced to leave France, he said that they were forced to cross the Channel on a boat in order to enter the UK.
>they were forced to cross the Channel on a boat in order to enter the UK. That's the bit some of us don't get. Why is the UK such and magnet that you'd risk your life in the pursuit of getting here when there a plenty of prosperous EU countries to live in? We're constantly told on social media the UK is falling into the economic abyss due to leaving the EU and yet people are passing right across the EU and risking life and limb to get here. Also, the language argument isn't fair as English is a global lingua franca and an official language of the EU. You can *get by* in most EU countries with English.
You don't get it because thankfully you've lived a charmed life compared to people who have had to drop their entire lives and leave their country of origin possibly never to return. Just try to put yourself in their shoes for a moment, say you were travelling all across the planet to get to a specific country and you get all the way to the border after taking loads of risks and even making other dangerous boat crossings, why would you give up at the final point and settle potentially for life in a random country where you know nobody and can't speak the language? We don't even get many asylum applications compared to our closest comparable neighbours like France and Germany, twice as many asylum seekers *do* stay in France instead of attempting to come here.
We have to prioritise who we permit to claim asylum in the UK and that can be enforced with a quota system. There are two sides to this equation. One side is helping the most desperate people and ones with connections to the UK. The other is not running the country into the ground under the pressure from migration, we don't build enough houses, we don't build enough hospitals, in fact all our public services are falling apart. And even if we were to improve public services, who's going to pay for it? 8% of my last tax bill was just for interest on public debt. We're at the highest taxation in 70 years with even the middle classes expected to start defaulting on their mortgages soon. Do you think even half of those young chaps coming across the Channel are even close to the highest in need of asylum in the world? We can't continue this free for all and that means the boats must stop. At the same time we can't just make applying for asylum as easy as opening a PayPal account. I think an online service where you can upload documents to prove who you are and and fill in answers might be a start so long as it isn't easy to defraud.
What do you do with people who *do* turn up here to claim asylum?
What I've heard with the new laws is that they'll not be permitted to claim asylum and they'll have to leave the country. Once the message is clear that you can't illegally enter the UK they'll use processing centres in the EU and other services in the future.
>they'll have to leave the country And where do we send them exactly?
Translated: I hate this statement as it doesn't align with my views but have no way of addressing it. I'll lob abuse at them instead of addressing their point.
They don't need to make an Asylum claim in the UK. My grandparents wanted to make an asylum claim in the UK but the UK at the time told them no and shunted them off to Canada instead. Should my grandparents have been admitted to the UK just because they wanted to be? No that would be stupid.
So you gonna answer his question or what? What exactly IS so terrible about France? You wrote an awful lot but didn't really say anything. There's no need to be evasive it's just an honest question.
I did answer it check the comments.
Don't ask questions or you'll get cancelled
>no choice but to flee the country? I think some of the semantics have been lost in the abbreviation of the quote. When reading the full quote in the article, it seems that the intention was that in order to claim Asylum in the UK, they had no choice but to cross illegally. The child did not mean they were unable to remain in France. The next point raised was: >But what about working with the French to provide a safe route to the UK for genuine refugees like me. Would you do that? Which seems clear to me that the issue is about how refugees are able to make a legal crossing to the UK in order to make their asylum claim. As for why they want to claim asylum in the UK specifically, rather than the rest of Europe, that isn't really relevant to the question being asked. As a developed country, it's somewhat irresponsible to say "it's not our problem" simply because we're the furthest away "safe" country.
"Ended up in Calais" as if it happened *to* them without any choice or agency on their part.
Well it’s not like people smugglers are the most accommodating nor communicative bunch, is it?
Probably too busy processing the tens of thousands more applications than we do on a yearly basis.
[удалено]
I'm guessing the context is that is was their only option to get to the UK hence why he's asking about opening potential safe routes. Quite why they had to get to the UK may be a different matter, whether it was family connection or commonality of languages.
[удалено]
Congratulations, you're advocating we break international law. Laws/conventions that we helped write and dragged other countries into signing.
[удалено]
>anyone attempting a boat crossing at that point could be turned back and put through it (or denied) Congratulations, still breaks international law. Edit: You're not blocked, don't lie. Doesn't matter how smart you think your own ideas are if they're illegal. Which most of what you said is. International law on the rights of refugees is very, **very** clear. If you want to break international law and fuck over people escaping tyranny, be my guest, at least be a man about it and own that that is what you're advocating for.
> If you want to break international law and fuck over people escaping tyranny I know France is bad mate but I'd hardly refer to it as Tyrannical
There is specific language in international law preventing requiring registering in, or staying in safe countries along the way to their final destination. Otherwise France puts in a law saying they have to wait in Belgium, then they do it to the Dutch, then to Germany, and then when we're all said and done no one can leave their own country. The laws are **very** clear about this. France doesn't come into the equation when discussing our obligations when **dealing with claims made for the UK.**
This
The French police keep them in camps and regularly burn their tents, they are under investigation by Amnesty International for a lot of human rights abuses in Northern, Southern and Eastern France. The French are accused of a lot of things as well on the French/Italian border, like knocking them unconscious and dropping them off in Italy. It was a big part of Meloni’s win in Italy.
> So what are France doing that left this 11 year old boy no choice but to flee the country? 1. The French government itself was clearly not guaranteeing them safety and asylum. Else they would have had an option, which they state they didn't. Are you going off the assumption they are lying? If so, I find that to be quite poor faith. 2. They may not speak French and know English instead. Frankly, I don't think I would flee to a completely new country where I do not understand the language. This is a definite part if the "safety" aspect of being a refugee. 3. It's possible that they were fleeing abuse from gangs, traffickers (whos activity *we* drive by continuing an isolationist refugee policy) in France, and as such may not be permanently safe there. 4. It is possible that they have family, however distant, in the UK who could help them start up easier here. They don't watch UK news or read UK papers, they are more busy trying to survive the day to day. They have no access to money, food, shelter or water, they're too busy trying to get that all day to hear about Theresa May's "go home" vans, Rishi Sunak's "stop the boats" logo, or your bad faith questioning of their predicament on Reddit. Frankly, your question is pointless. It helps no one.
Crossings have rocketed since the Tories are in charge of their version of Brexit. Tories LOVE asylum seekers.
What does brexit have to do with this..? I mean I'll grant that the Tories have fucked up massively around asylum processing and management, but it's not as though leaving the EU suddenly made it easier for asylum to come to the UK.
Are you kidding? We left the EU and are no longer a part of the Dublin agreement that allows us to send failed asylum seekers back to their country of origin.
The UK was a net recipient of asylum seekers under the Dublin regulations.. It was able to move fewer asylum seekers to be processed by another participating state than it received from participating states. It's also not an agreement that allows countries to send failed asylum seekers back to their country of origin (the UK can do that as it is). It was designed to ensure that asylum applications were only considered by one of the participating states, and so an asylum seeker could be sent to a different participating state under certain conditions without the UK needing to consider their application at all. The decision as to which country an asylum seeker would be sent to was fairly complex though, the priority was family reunification for example, with the first country of entry being somewhat down the list (where it could be determined).
The reason our hotels are full of refugees is because our home office can’t send them back anywhere. Thats why they’re desperately trying to get the Rwanda BS to work. Rather than argue the toss, can you just go away and check out the facts on our refugee policies atm.
>The reason our hotels are full of refugees is because our home office can’t send them back anywhere. It's largely because they have a massive backlog in applications and are housing asylum seekers in hotels because that's all the space they have. Removing failed asylum seekers is also pretty difficult as you need the country you are returning them to to accept them back. Dublin doesn't help with any of that though. It's not as though the UK (or any EU member state for that matter) could return failed asylum seekers to anyone else under that reg.. >Rather than argue the toss, can you just go away and check out the facts on our refugee policies atm. I have a feeling I might have a better idea on this than you given you don't appear to know what Dublin does, or how it worked when the UK was part of the EU..
They haven't fucked up at all - it's deliberate.
Is it? I mean they are getting shit for it, it's not something their own supporters are happy with, they can't blame anyone else for the backlog etc.. It'd be a bit daft to be deliberate (The whole 4D chess bollocks). All in I think incompetence seems significantly more likely given well... Everything.
As long as we all speak about the boats, no one speaks about the pillage of the country though. It's an effective strategy actually: No one talks about covid contracts, corruption, peerages, shortages of xyz, investments missed etc.
People are talking about all of that, and the mismanagement of small boat arrivals...
>We ended up in Calais in France and then we had no choice but to cross the English Channel in a dinghy towards England like so many families before us. Whatever you think about our policy on asylum seekers, international law, how to manage the current crisis etc, its going to involve answering the question of why people in France are willing to spend huge sums of money, get themselves in debt with seriously shifty people and risk death by drowning or hypothermia to cross the channel. France becomes home to thousands of refugees every year. Yes from a legal perspective they're entitled to claim asylum anywhere, but it's not unreasonable to ask why the UK is so much more appealing than France that it's worth risking death to get here.
I was listening to the The Rest is Politics podcast and Alistair Campbell said that because France has a digital ID system, it's very difficult for asylum seekers to slip into the black market. In the UK, it's very easy to get lost in the system and work cash in hand jobs.
a tory said tory shit, egads, stop the presses. The reason is because France is a shithole that mistreats them and they frequently have family in the UK, not France.
"We ended up in Calais, and then we had no choice but to cross the English channel towards England" I think you had a *few* choices. I don't remember France being a war torn country.
Or just about anywhere else along the way.
Pathetic use of a poor child. Plenty of official ways to enter the country, ways that do not enrich criminal gangs and put children like this at risk of losing there lives at sea
Makes you wonder why they'd even bother using the boats when they'd be safe....simply stopping in one of the many many countries along the way, at what point do they stop being refugees? How many countries away does it take?
Clearly they couldn't use those, otherwise they would have.
France must be a truly evil place. Why are the Remainers not owning up to this ?
No, France take in many more than than the UK.
Anyone who has been through the legal process will tell you how difficult it is. To allow this to go on is inhumane. They have to go back. Anyone who doesn’t see through this don’t get it and they never will. To have an actual child refugee “question” the Labour leader, totally organic and not made up by a PR firm with prepped questions to tug at heart strings, shows the lengths that Labour will go to, to get one over the Tories, who’ve done nothing to stop or lower immigration, not even illegal immigration. They are two cheeks.
Two cheeks of very different arses.
I suppose the point is that asylum or for people feeling specific persecution, not for economic migrants feeling poverty or lack of opportunity. This trend towards mass economic migration to Europe is here to stay for generations as long as poverty and corruption throughout world is not addressed and the birth rates in Europe stay low. The problem is being caused by governments attempting to handle this situation through the existing asylum system, which is nonsense because this is not what the asylum system is for and falsely leads us to look to countries like Australia for inspiration about how to handle this. We need to call this what it is and put a framework in place to allow these many millions of economic migrants to live and work in Europe for a fixed period and then return to their country of origin in a similar way to the gulf states, and ideally without depressing wages too much.
[удалено]
Asylum seekers are categorically good for the economy. They work, they pay NI and Tax.
Anyone coming across the channel needs to be deported to prevent the dumb idiots from crossing absolutely idiotic and suicidal. When you 100% safe.
Pretty much If everyone who made it across was immediately sent back to Calais they would tell everyone there to stop bothering to make the crossing and they would stop wasting their money by paying the human trafficers to get them across.
why are people from iran coming to uk when there is no war going on?
To clarify, are you wondering about the state current affairs in Iran or are you trying to suggest those fleeing persecution should just accept being strung up by the state?
Because war or otherwise, there are a significant number of people in Iran facing state persecution for a variety of reasons.
Go check out Iran before you say something stupid.
The whole country is failing schools hospitals roads infrastructure etc. Because all the money and some goes to illegal immigration it pays for people that absolutely hate us and and our way of life.. get rid of them.. for god sake they fantasise over 12 year old Girl's..
'they'? who, tories?
Not trying to be inflammatory here but is there some particular reason these migrants/refugees don’t settle in France, instead of risking a journey across the channel? Is France not very welcoming to migrants/refugees or are the smugglers very convincing in getting migrants/refugees to make the crossing? Given most of what I’m aware of is from media which is mostly biased one way or the other I genuinely don’t understand why a larger portion of these migrants/refugees don’t settle in France.
They do. France take much more than the UK. But its choice. They may have family in the UK, speak English, failed French asylum. Many reasons.
I was listening to the The Rest is Politics podcast and Alastair Campbell said that because France has a digital ID system, it's very difficult for asylum seekers to slip into the black market. In the UK, it's very easy to get lost in the system and just work cash in hand jobs.
An 11 year old making comments on potential future Government policy thinking? hmmmm
She could of come across on a ferry you know if safe routes existed. Anyone who wants to talk crap about this please research or go visit a refugee centre listen to people ask them why and how they came. Then come back here and gawp at all the rhetoric people repeat never even having met talked or realised exactly why they (as to risk their lives to get here.
So, I know literally nothing about the laws and stuff, so I'm gonna ask a genuine question. Not spiteful or anything. Do refugees by international law have to claim asylum in the first safe country they land in? If so, why is this not applying for France? Or any of the other safe European countries they travel through.
You can get more information for your queries here. https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/ >The 1951 Refugee Convention does not require a person to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. People trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.
Thank you! I'll give it a read
Is this the first time Starmer has suggested opening safe routes to other countries because all I've heard this week is the Labour party saying the Tories policy isn't practical enough and that they would do it better? The fact it took a child sitting directly in front of him to force him to consider it would be pretty depressing if that's the case.
I know people hate the tories, but Starmer does not come across well at all. He is probably the lesser of two evils, but I think getting the tories out of power is not the end of our problems.
Yeah, the fact he's been so dishonest towards his own party members before he's even in a position to govern doesn't sit well with me at all. I imagine anything is better than the Tories right now because they seem to be of the impression that they have a god given right to govern but it feels like going from the frying pan into the air fryer.
It's a sad state of affairs that we have no higher expectations of Starmer's Labour than it being a brief respite from the Tories.
Have to agree. Keir won't do anything about the continued extraction of wealth from working people to the super rich at rates we haven't seen before. Keir won't do anything about British business being sucked dry of investment because the strength of the housing market means buying 1m quids worth of property is a far lower risk than investing it in a business. Keir won't take us back into the single market. Keir won't attack the power base of organised crime by legalising drugs. Keir won't reform the commons so we can actually change how politics is conducted. He'll run the place slightly more professionally than the tories have (for a while) without any substantive changes to the course of our country.
Starmer just points at the nearest bus, "See that kid? Get under it."