Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
He also out ‘wokes’ Starmer as the only party leader with pronouns in his Twitter bio.
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (35 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
He also out ‘wokes’ Starmer as the only party leader with pronouns in his Twitter bio.
fatso
Well-Known Member
Genuine question, what would you regular posters do about the UK immigration policy? Rightly or not, the Government were given a mandate to do something about immigration, and as far as I know (I maybe wrong) we accept a pre set number of immigrants each year, but what about the apparently increasing number of people risking life and limb to arrive on our shores daily, should we let them settle? Should we deport them? Why havnt they settled anywhere on route to the UK?
Should the tax payer cough up for their costs? Should they be allowed to work?
Should we have an open door policy for any of the world's 7+ billion residents who fancy coming here? Should we cap the population? Or is there a practical and workable solution?
Clearly nothing is pleasing everyone at the moment, and I think it's time for a new discussion across political parties, so an agreed policy can be implemented that can be adhered to going forward.
I havnt got the answer, but I'd be interested in any workable ideas, as just using the issue to bash politicians isn't exactly helpful.
Should the tax payer cough up for their costs? Should they be allowed to work?
Should we have an open door policy for any of the world's 7+ billion residents who fancy coming here? Should we cap the population? Or is there a practical and workable solution?
Clearly nothing is pleasing everyone at the moment, and I think it's time for a new discussion across political parties, so an agreed policy can be implemented that can be adhered to going forward.
I havnt got the answer, but I'd be interested in any workable ideas, as just using the issue to bash politicians isn't exactly helpful.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
they would be he can't say it has it adds to the red meat being thrown out for the culture war
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Disgraceful.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
it would be madness to comment either way now and fall into a tory trap
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
It's not an open door policy to allow people to ask for asylum.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Leaving the EU has nothing whatsoever to do with people crossing the channel to claim asylum.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
they would scrap it but the tories what labour to say so they can ramp up a culture war line of attack
fatso
Well-Known Member
I didn't say it did, did I?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
A civilised policy would allow anybody to ask for asylum, and the numbers who do are relatively few compared to populations. If they're found to deserve it, then it's often for some pretty bad shit, where any civilised country and people should be protecting them - however much I may think Johnson is a fool, imbecile etc. I haven't got to the stage of wanting to traverse countries for sanctuary! You have toask yourself, what makes people uproot their home and put themselves in peril? Has anybody on this board been motivated to claim asylum in the USA?
And anybody who's been around certain people, who've been granted asylum - they'll tell you stories that can make your eyebrows raise and your stomach turn, and they're so grateful to this country for helping them, for assisting them, for allowing them the freedoms they're denied elsewhere. They'll be more pro-British than many of the British!
The issue is never allowing people to ask for asylum, the issue is if you repatriate effectively those who aren't granted it. We have (had) a tendency to say your asylum application has failed, rport to this place in seven days for repatriation. Funnily enough, that doesn't work. At the same time, as such people aren't entitled to benefits etc then the cost is not financial, but social.
Point of order too, there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker.
fatso
Well-Known Member
I thought that international law said you had to claim asylum in the first safe haven you came to. (Again I may be wrong, I'm no expert, just trying to learn)
If your a genuine asylum seeker you shouldn't need to enter under the radar (so to speak)
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Labour not saying anything because again they haven’t got the balls is fuelling it just fine
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
If you're entering under the radar, you won't be packed off to Rwanda as they won't know you're here.
fatso
Well-Known Member
I meant through non legal means. (Which is again contentious)
But if you do arrive unannounced so to say, what do you think is the correct way to deal with these people?
Are they asylum seekers or are they economic migrants? Is there even a difference?
Should they get preferential access to housing and schools, should they get access to the NHS? should they be allowed to settle indefinitely And if so who pays?
There is no such law. People can apply for asylum in any country they wish.
The problem here is the only way to do that is to cross the channel on a boat.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
It's impossible to be an illegal asylum seeker.
fatso
Well-Known Member
Again, your picking up on words, how about having a bash at answering a few of the straight forward questions?
I'm all ears
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
You said through non legal means. It's impossible to be an illegal asylum seeker.Again, your picking up on words, how about having a bash at answering a few of the straight forward questions?
I'm all ears
fatso
Well-Known Member
So then you'd be an economic migrant?
Is that what your saying?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
You would be somebody who they wouldn't know was here, so they would be unable to send you to Rwanda.
fatso
Well-Known Member
So what about the ones who they do know are here, presumably the ones who get off boats on the coastline and are apprehended ? Or who are discovered while still in the act of crossing.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Well if they're not seeking asylum, then they wouldn't be sent to Rwanda anyway. We have the right to return them to their home state. Rwanda makes no difference to them whatsoever.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Again, at that point we have the right to return them to their home state, and Rwanda makes no difference to that.
fatso
Well-Known Member
OK, I get that, then why not just return them to their home state?
Any Genuine asylum case can be dealt with through the asylum system (whatever that is) the rest should be treated with humanity and respect while awaiting extradition/deportation to their homeland.
OK I know that's very simplistic, but why has Rwander replaced their country of origin?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
He's decided to take a cheapshot at Corbyn (and by extension millions who vote for Labour at two general elections) at PMQs to distract from his own ineptness again I think.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
That's what they are going to do regardless so you have to face it off at some point.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Rwanda has become the destination for asylum seekers. They are repatriated there for their asylum case to be sorted out there, rather than here. This is being done before any decision has been made as to the validity of their case.
Apparently, this is a deterrant.
fatso
Well-Known Member
Seems bizarre, if they are successful in their claim, do we have to pay to fly them back to the UK? And if they are unsuccessful do we then have a responsibility to fly them to their country of origin? If their claims take time, who pays for their stay in Rwanda?
Again I can't see this ever being a longtime workable solution. And the Labour Party don't seem to offer any realistic alternative other just opposing the government on everything while having no alternative option to offer.
Hence why I think its time for a cross party solution, and a all party think tank to address the issue for the future.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
If they're successful, they get to live in Rwanda. If they're unsuccessful, they can apply to stay in Rwanda anyway!
It's a barbaric, uncaring policy brought about by oafs. As I mentioned above, the current system is more than appropriate, the only trouble is (or was, I'm not up to date, so don't want to cast aspersions) the control once an asylum claim was processed and deemed unsuccessful.
What realistic alternative is there to the right to claim asylum? I really think people should meet some of those who have claimed asylum, and hear their stories. They might understand then that it ain't a lifestyle choice.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
What mandate were you referring to then?
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
It's utterly shameful.
It certainly hasn't acted as a deterrent so far.
Yesterday (or one day this week, not sure which) had the highest number of channel crossings for 2 months.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The government could start by dealing with the real big issue for illegal immigration. Visa overstay. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are through Visa overstay, in other words they arrive at Heathrow or wherever with a valid short stay visa, clear customs and then disappear, presumably into the black employment market for the majority of them. Start by A) acknowledging that then B) dealing with that.
The people coming by dingy represent a fraction of arrivals, an even smaller percentage will have no genuine claim for refugee status, something like 65% of them successfully claim asylum. Including a young man from Syria who came by boat, successfully claimed asylum, finished his education here and then last year was voted NHS doctor of the year. If the government were serious about stopping the boats they’d open asylum claims in France and then give anyone successful safe passage. The current system doesn’t work as the Ukrainian refugee crisis has highlighted. Thousands of Ukrainians are currently stranded on the continent waiting to be placed with either family or sponsors already based in the UK, the government promised months ago to sort it by making the process simpler and quicker for them. They haven’t.
Unfortunately we have a government who think the electorate is stupid so as long as they whip up hysterical paranoia and trick the people they think are stupid into believing that they are the only ones who can save them they’ll keep voting for them. It’s pure Trumpism.