FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Kent County Council...
Kent County Council...
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I will need to read about this, but on the face of it this is not good. " If accurate then it does sound very bad indeed and maybe the sort of article some would prefer not mentioned | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? " I’m by thought it was only single men of “fighting age” that were invading our shores? You saying there are children too? Hold on a minute…. Next you will be saying that there are women too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m by thought it was only single men of “fighting age” that were invading our shores? You saying there are children too? Hold on a minute…. Next you will be saying that there are women too." Councils pretty take it at face value when someone says they're a child if the home office haven't specifically confirmed their age. There have been many documented cases of grown men lying about their age. Influx of fighting age men means an influx of men lying about their age in proportion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? " The answer remains: safe routes (in conjunction with our friends on the continent) and a proper & fit asylum system that deals with cases promptly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? " So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. " I think this OP demonstrates the Tories are safe. Their supporters would rather blame children seeking asylum than the government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. I think this OP demonstrates the Tories are safe. Their supporters would rather blame children seeking asylum than the government." The OP doesn't say anything about the Tories and speaks in facts. The High Court did indeed make the ruling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. " Totally agree with the Tories being out at the next election. What happens then? I'm not sure I have heard what Labour's plans are. Are they opening the safe routes or have another solution. I suppose it does not change the facts now that young locals are being, affected like this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. I think this OP demonstrates the Tories are safe. Their supporters would rather blame children seeking asylum than the government." Your post makes no sense, who are the tory supporters blaming children seeking asylum? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. " Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings? " 
You appear to have answered your own question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question. "how will it stop them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? I’m by thought it was only single men of “fighting age” that were invading our shores? You saying there are children too? Hold on a minute…. Next you will be saying that there are women too." No one said that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?"Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?"******************************** "Everyone"...??! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? " They will need to de re distributioed all round the up so every council has the same responsibility. But on the hole the councils are all stretched for cash so it's going to be hard. You would like to think the primary age children might get taken in buy families like with Ukrainian but with the cost of living? As for the 14 and up its hard to tell theare age to its a much deeper problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?"you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again. Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings? "Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up. I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings? "Maybe. Should reduce the number though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Maybe. Should reduce the number though."I doubt a reduction would actually happen. It might help genuine asylum seekers, which would be great but those who know they are not going make the cut on a safe route would I expect, continue to arrive by small boat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally."I think you are right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right "They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu. Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media. "They do pay for the boat trips, they are in the region of £2k - £3k each, channel crossing. The traffickers take the money for the Mediterranean trip and try to upsell the UK as a final destination, as it brings in another fee. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media. "Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. I think this OP demonstrates the Tories are safe. Their supporters would rather blame children seeking asylum than the government. The OP doesn't say anything about the Tories and speaks in facts. The High Court did indeed make the ruling. " Thank you...and Johnny doesn't want to answer the question I notice | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?"Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. I think this OP demonstrates the Tories are safe. Their supporters would rather blame children seeking asylum than the government. The OP doesn't say anything about the Tories and speaks in facts. The High Court did indeed make the ruling. Thank you...and Johnny doesn't want to answer the question I notice" I didn't say that the OP mentioned Tories. What question are you suggesting I don't want to answer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. I think this OP demonstrates the Tories are safe. Their supporters would rather blame children seeking asylum than the government. The OP doesn't say anything about the Tories and speaks in facts. The High Court did indeed make the ruling. Thank you...and Johnny doesn't want to answer the question I notice I didn't say that the OP mentioned Tories. What question are you suggesting I don't want to answer? " You suggest the OP was about 'tories' and 'their supporters', you didn't have to say it. I'd assume he means the actual question he asked in the OP. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. I think this OP demonstrates the Tories are safe. Their supporters would rather blame children seeking asylum than the government. The OP doesn't say anything about the Tories and speaks in facts. The High Court did indeed make the ruling. Thank you...and Johnny doesn't want to answer the question I notice I didn't say that the OP mentioned Tories. What question are you suggesting I don't want to answer? You suggest the OP was about 'tories' and 'their supporters', you didn't have to say it. I'd assume he means the actual question he asked in the OP. " You assume correctly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
"Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. I think this OP demonstrates the Tories are safe. Their supporters would rather blame children seeking asylum than the government. The OP doesn't say anything about the Tories and speaks in facts. The High Court did indeed make the ruling. Thank you...and Johnny doesn't want to answer the question I notice I didn't say that the OP mentioned Tories. What question are you suggesting I don't want to answer? You suggest the OP was about 'tories' and 'their supporters', you didn't have to say it. I'd assume he means the actual question he asked in the OP. You assume correctly "Really wasn't hard to understand  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. I think this OP demonstrates the Tories are safe. Their supporters would rather blame children seeking asylum than the government. The OP doesn't say anything about the Tories and speaks in facts. The High Court did indeed make the ruling. Thank you...and Johnny doesn't want to answer the question I notice I didn't say that the OP mentioned Tories. What question are you suggesting I don't want to answer? You suggest the OP was about 'tories' and 'their supporters', you didn't have to say it. I'd assume he means the actual question he asked in the OP. You assume correctly "I answered a paraphrased version of your question from another poster. I am however flattered that you appear more interested in my opinion than anyone elses. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. I think this OP demonstrates the Tories are safe. Their supporters would rather blame children seeking asylum than the government. The OP doesn't say anything about the Tories and speaks in facts. The High Court did indeed make the ruling. Thank you...and Johnny doesn't want to answer the question I notice I didn't say that the OP mentioned Tories. What question are you suggesting I don't want to answer? You suggest the OP was about 'tories' and 'their supporters', you didn't have to say it. I'd assume he means the actual question he asked in the OP. You assume correctly
I answered a paraphrased version of your question from another poster.
I am however flattered that you appear more interested in my opinion than anyone elses."Do you have an answer to the original question, or just patter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. I think this OP demonstrates the Tories are safe. Their supporters would rather blame children seeking asylum than the government. The OP doesn't say anything about the Tories and speaks in facts. The High Court did indeed make the ruling. Thank you...and Johnny doesn't want to answer the question I notice I didn't say that the OP mentioned Tories. What question are you suggesting I don't want to answer? You suggest the OP was about 'tories' and 'their supporters', you didn't have to say it. I'd assume he means the actual question he asked in the OP. You assume correctly
I answered a paraphrased version of your question from another poster.
I am however flattered that you appear more interested in my opinion than anyone elses.
Do you have an answer to the original question, or just patter? ""What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue?" We could blame child asylum seekers and continue to vote in the Tories. How about you, what's your answer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey"That is just hearsay no proof, if they do pay they are not genuine asylum seekers, so they are economic migrants? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
That is just hearsay no proof, if they do pay they are not genuine asylum seekers, so they are economic migrants?"Given that there are no legal routes for most, how are asylum seekers supposed to get here (if they have family here etc)? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
That is just hearsay no proof, if they do pay they are not genuine asylum seekers, so they are economic migrants?
Given that there are no legal routes for most, how are asylum seekers supposed to get here (if they have family here etc)?"The eu is that bad they seek asylum from it. If they pay they are not asylum seekers, are you suggesting unaccompanied children pay thousands for a boat trip. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that there are no legal routes for most, how are asylum seekers supposed to get here (if they have family here etc)?" If they have family over here, then that family can just apply for the asylum seeker to come over here on a family visa. Much safer and simpler than a boat crossing, as well as being legal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe if councils weren't living with a decade of pointless, ideological austerity they could help both refugees and local children. This is all a choice. We just choose as a country to be dickheads." This. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
That is just hearsay no proof, if they do pay they are not genuine asylum seekers, so they are economic migrants?"The alternative explanation is the criminal gangs are doing this for free which I find the hardest to believe | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
That is just hearsay no proof, if they do pay they are not genuine asylum seekers, so they are economic migrants?
The alternative explanation is the criminal gangs are doing this for free which I find the hardest to believe"Buddy is hammering a subtle point home... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
That is just hearsay no proof, if they do pay they are not genuine asylum seekers, so they are economic migrants?
The alternative explanation is the criminal gangs are doing this for free which I find the hardest to believe
Buddy is hammering a subtle point home... "two possibilities... One asylum seekers also pay gangs. I don't see why it's mutually exclusive. Two, like loan sharks, the gamgss are happy for people to become.i debt to them. In reality, we have a broad church of ppl on the boats. It's why 25pc are women and kids. Why the majority aren't Albanian. And why it's possible to be able to pull put "economic migranant, benefit hunting, fake kids" without tripping over contradictions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
That is just hearsay no proof, if they do pay they are not genuine asylum seekers, so they are economic migrants?
The alternative explanation is the criminal gangs are doing this for free which I find the hardest to believe
Buddy is hammering a subtle point home... two possibilities... One asylum seekers also pay gangs. I don't see why it's mutually exclusive.
Two, like loan sharks, the gamgss are happy for people to become.i debt to them.
In reality, we have a broad church of ppl on the boats. It's why 25pc are women and kids. Why the majority aren't Albanian. And why it's possible to be able to pull put "economic migranant, benefit hunting, fake kids" without tripping over contradictions. "I can see an economic migrants becoming a debt to gangs because if they disappear into the underworld then they're probably still with the gangs working on this end. I cannot see asylum seekers becoming a debt because once they claim they'll be sent somewhere and won't be under the control of the gangs. If the gangs are allowing genuine asylum seekers to become debts then it's a terrible terrible business model. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
That is just hearsay no proof, if they do pay they are not genuine asylum seekers, so they are economic migrants?
The alternative explanation is the criminal gangs are doing this for free which I find the hardest to believe
Buddy is hammering a subtle point home... two possibilities... One asylum seekers also pay gangs. I don't see why it's mutually exclusive.
Two, like loan sharks, the gamgss are happy for people to become.i debt to them.
In reality, we have a broad church of ppl on the boats. It's why 25pc are women and kids. Why the majority aren't Albanian. And why it's possible to be able to pull put "economic migranant, benefit hunting, fake kids" without tripping over contradictions.
I can see an economic migrants becoming a debt to gangs because if they disappear into the underworld then they're probably still with the gangs working on this end.
I cannot see asylum seekers becoming a debt because once they claim they'll be sent somewhere and won't be under the control of the gangs.
If the gangs are allowing genuine asylum seekers to become debts then it's a terrible terrible business model. "but isn't the argument people are faking being asylum seekers whereas they are actually economic migrants? (I get lost as different people have different angles that combined are incoherent) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
That is just hearsay no proof, if they do pay they are not genuine asylum seekers, so they are economic migrants?
The alternative explanation is the criminal gangs are doing this for free which I find the hardest to believe
Buddy is hammering a subtle point home... two possibilities... One asylum seekers also pay gangs. I don't see why it's mutually exclusive.
Two, like loan sharks, the gamgss are happy for people to become.i debt to them.
In reality, we have a broad church of ppl on the boats. It's why 25pc are women and kids. Why the majority aren't Albanian. And why it's possible to be able to pull put "economic migranant, benefit hunting, fake kids" without tripping over contradictions.
I can see an economic migrants becoming a debt to gangs because if they disappear into the underworld then they're probably still with the gangs working on this end.
I cannot see asylum seekers becoming a debt because once they claim they'll be sent somewhere and won't be under the control of the gangs.
If the gangs are allowing genuine asylum seekers to become debts then it's a terrible terrible business model. but isn't the argument people are faking being asylum seekers whereas they are actually economic migrants?
(I get lost as different people have different angles that combined are incoherent)"Maybe that is the argument. We don't actually know how many go 'missing' every year I don't think. I think my point was if someone is coming here to seek asylum (falsely or otherwise), it would be stupid for gangs to offer credit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that there are no legal routes for most, how are asylum seekers supposed to get here (if they have family here etc)? If they have family over here, then that family can just apply for the asylum seeker to come over here on a family visa. Much safer and simpler than a boat crossing, as well as being legal." Hes been told and shown time and again the legal routes. Blissful ignorance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that there are no legal routes for most, how are asylum seekers supposed to get here (if they have family here etc)? If they have family over here, then that family can just apply for the asylum seeker to come over here on a family visa. Much safer and simpler than a boat crossing, as well as being legal. Hes been told and shown time and again the legal routes. Blissful ignorance." To recap irrc. Offocal routes for * some hongkongers * Ukrainians (although irrc not strictly asylum seekers) * afghan and syrians * family reunions * UN referred. The vast majority of which are ukranians and hongkongers. Have I missed any? As otherwise this thread will go into the same circles as all the rest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that there are no legal routes for most, how are asylum seekers supposed to get here (if they have family here etc)? If they have family over here, then that family can just apply for the asylum seeker to come over here on a family visa. Much safer and simpler than a boat crossing, as well as being legal. Hes been told and shown time and again the legal routes. Blissful ignorance. To recap irrc. Offocal routes for * some hongkongers * Ukrainians (although irrc not strictly asylum seekers) * afghan and syrians * family reunions * UN referred. The vast majority of which are ukranians and hongkongers. Have I missed any? As otherwise this thread will go into the same circles as all the rest. " So then. Legal routes. You have missed multiple. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
That is just hearsay no proof, if they do pay they are not genuine asylum seekers, so they are economic migrants?
The alternative explanation is the criminal gangs are doing this for free which I find the hardest to believe
Buddy is hammering a subtle point home... two possibilities... One asylum seekers also pay gangs. I don't see why it's mutually exclusive.
Two, like loan sharks, the gamgss are happy for people to become.i debt to them.
In reality, we have a broad church of ppl on the boats. It's why 25pc are women and kids. Why the majority aren't Albanian. And why it's possible to be able to pull put "economic migranant, benefit hunting, fake kids" without tripping over contradictions.
I can see an economic migrants becoming a debt to gangs because if they disappear into the underworld then they're probably still with the gangs working on this end.
I cannot see asylum seekers becoming a debt because once they claim they'll be sent somewhere and won't be under the control of the gangs.
If the gangs are allowing genuine asylum seekers to become debts then it's a terrible terrible business model. but isn't the argument people are faking being asylum seekers whereas they are actually economic migrants?
(I get lost as different people have different angles that combined are incoherent)"Economic migrants are also asylum seekers, which is a legally defined term. All are legal until such time that their case is rejected. Some on here are incapable of understanding that quite simple point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Economic migrants are also asylum seekers ..." Only if they apply for asylum. Those that just disappear into the black market are not asylum seekers. "All are legal until such time that their case is rejected." No, if they arrived by irregular means, they are illegal. If their asylum case is accepted, they become immune from prosecution for that illegal act, but they still acted illegally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
That is just hearsay no proof, if they do pay they are not genuine asylum seekers, so they are economic migrants?
The alternative explanation is the criminal gangs are doing this for free which I find the hardest to believe
Buddy is hammering a subtle point home... two possibilities... One asylum seekers also pay gangs. I don't see why it's mutually exclusive.
Two, like loan sharks, the gamgss are happy for people to become.i debt to them.
In reality, we have a broad church of ppl on the boats. It's why 25pc are women and kids. Why the majority aren't Albanian. And why it's possible to be able to pull put "economic migranant, benefit hunting, fake kids" without tripping over contradictions.
I can see an economic migrants becoming a debt to gangs because if they disappear into the underworld then they're probably still with the gangs working on this end.
I cannot see asylum seekers becoming a debt because once they claim they'll be sent somewhere and won't be under the control of the gangs.
If the gangs are allowing genuine asylum seekers to become debts then it's a terrible terrible business model. but isn't the argument people are faking being asylum seekers whereas they are actually economic migrants?
(I get lost as different people have different angles that combined are incoherent)
Economic migrants are also asylum seekers, which is a legally defined term. All are legal until such time that their case is rejected.
Some on here are incapable of understanding that quite simple point. "you keep pushing this narrative... Economic migrants are not asylum seekers, they are not fleeing persecution and can return home safely. They are also travelling for wages and jobs. Why do you constantly blur the lines? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hong Kong resolved this issue when the Vietnamese boat people were overwhelming countries I wonder why its never mentioned as a solution to the current crisis " Perhaps for the same reason that the Australian or Belgian solutions are ignored | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. I think this OP demonstrates the Tories are safe. Their supporters would rather blame children seeking asylum than the government. The OP doesn't say anything about the Tories and speaks in facts. The High Court did indeed make the ruling. Thank you...and Johnny doesn't want to answer the question I notice I didn't say that the OP mentioned Tories. What question are you suggesting I don't want to answer? You suggest the OP was about 'tories' and 'their supporters', you didn't have to say it. I'd assume he means the actual question he asked in the OP. You assume correctly
I answered a paraphrased version of your question from another poster.
I am however flattered that you appear more interested in my opinion than anyone elses.
Do you have an answer to the original question, or just patter?
"What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue?"
We could blame child asylum seekers and continue to vote in the Tories.
How about you, what's your answer?"I'm in favour of the Australian or Belgian solutions which are proven to work and save lives but I very much doubt you have the stomach for that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. I think this OP demonstrates the Tories are safe. Their supporters would rather blame children seeking asylum than the government. The OP doesn't say anything about the Tories and speaks in facts. The High Court did indeed make the ruling. Thank you...and Johnny doesn't want to answer the question I notice I didn't say that the OP mentioned Tories. What question are you suggesting I don't want to answer? You suggest the OP was about 'tories' and 'their supporters', you didn't have to say it. I'd assume he means the actual question he asked in the OP. You assume correctly
I answered a paraphrased version of your question from another poster.
I am however flattered that you appear more interested in my opinion than anyone elses.
Do you have an answer to the original question, or just patter?
"What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue?"
We could blame child asylum seekers and continue to vote in the Tories.
How about you, what's your answer?
I'm in favour of the Australian or Belgian solutions which are proven to work and save lives but I very much doubt you have the stomach for that"But you still haven't given your solution...you simply ask for the solution of others and then pick away at them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
That is just hearsay no proof, if they do pay they are not genuine asylum seekers, so they are economic migrants?
The alternative explanation is the criminal gangs are doing this for free which I find the hardest to believe
Buddy is hammering a subtle point home... two possibilities... One asylum seekers also pay gangs. I don't see why it's mutually exclusive.
Two, like loan sharks, the gamgss are happy for people to become.i debt to them.
In reality, we have a broad church of ppl on the boats. It's why 25pc are women and kids. Why the majority aren't Albanian. And why it's possible to be able to pull put "economic migranant, benefit hunting, fake kids" without tripping over contradictions.
I can see an economic migrants becoming a debt to gangs because if they disappear into the underworld then they're probably still with the gangs working on this end.
I cannot see asylum seekers becoming a debt because once they claim they'll be sent somewhere and won't be under the control of the gangs.
If the gangs are allowing genuine asylum seekers to become debts then it's a terrible terrible business model. but isn't the argument people are faking being asylum seekers whereas they are actually economic migrants?
(I get lost as different people have different angles that combined are incoherent)
Economic migrants are also asylum seekers, which is a legally defined term. All are legal until such time that their case is rejected.
Some on here are incapable of understanding that quite simple point.
you keep pushing this narrative...
Economic migrants are not asylum seekers, they are not fleeing persecution and can return home safely. They are also travelling for wages and jobs.
Why do you constantly blur the lines?"I’m not blurring anything. I’m pointing out the legal side. If a migrant arrives by boat fleeing war they are an asylum seeker. If they arrive fleeing poverty and seeking relative wealth they are an asylum seeker. It is the asylum system which then determines their status as failed asylum seeker or legal refugee. It’s not narrative, it’s the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
That is just hearsay no proof, if they do pay they are not genuine asylum seekers, so they are economic migrants?
The alternative explanation is the criminal gangs are doing this for free which I find the hardest to believe
Buddy is hammering a subtle point home... two possibilities... One asylum seekers also pay gangs. I don't see why it's mutually exclusive.
Two, like loan sharks, the gamgss are happy for people to become.i debt to them.
In reality, we have a broad church of ppl on the boats. It's why 25pc are women and kids. Why the majority aren't Albanian. And why it's possible to be able to pull put "economic migranant, benefit hunting, fake kids" without tripping over contradictions.
I can see an economic migrants becoming a debt to gangs because if they disappear into the underworld then they're probably still with the gangs working on this end.
I cannot see asylum seekers becoming a debt because once they claim they'll be sent somewhere and won't be under the control of the gangs.
If the gangs are allowing genuine asylum seekers to become debts then it's a terrible terrible business model. but isn't the argument people are faking being asylum seekers whereas they are actually economic migrants?
(I get lost as different people have different angles that combined are incoherent)
Economic migrants are also asylum seekers, which is a legally defined term. All are legal until such time that their case is rejected.
Some on here are incapable of understanding that quite simple point.
you keep pushing this narrative...
Economic migrants are not asylum seekers, they are not fleeing persecution and can return home safely. They are also travelling for wages and jobs.
Why do you constantly blur the lines?
I’m not blurring anything. I’m pointing out the legal side. If a migrant arrives by boat fleeing war they are an asylum seeker. If they arrive fleeing poverty and seeking relative wealth they are an asylum seeker.
It is the asylum system which then determines their status as failed asylum seeker or legal refugee.
It’s not narrative, it’s the law.
you are wrong
"I’m honestly not. The information is freely available online. I’ve already given you several links previously. Glad to see my efforts weren’t wasted  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not blurring anything. I’m pointing out the legal side. If a migrant arrives by boat fleeing war they are an asylum seeker. If they arrive fleeing poverty and seeking relative wealth they are an asylum seeker." You really need to read the convention again. Fleeing war is not an acceptable reason for asylum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
That is just hearsay no proof, if they do pay they are not genuine asylum seekers, so they are economic migrants?
The alternative explanation is the criminal gangs are doing this for free which I find the hardest to believe
Buddy is hammering a subtle point home... two possibilities... One asylum seekers also pay gangs. I don't see why it's mutually exclusive.
Two, like loan sharks, the gamgss are happy for people to become.i debt to them.
In reality, we have a broad church of ppl on the boats. It's why 25pc are women and kids. Why the majority aren't Albanian. And why it's possible to be able to pull put "economic migranant, benefit hunting, fake kids" without tripping over contradictions.
I can see an economic migrants becoming a debt to gangs because if they disappear into the underworld then they're probably still with the gangs working on this end.
I cannot see asylum seekers becoming a debt because once they claim they'll be sent somewhere and won't be under the control of the gangs.
If the gangs are allowing genuine asylum seekers to become debts then it's a terrible terrible business model. but isn't the argument people are faking being asylum seekers whereas they are actually economic migrants?
(I get lost as different people have different angles that combined are incoherent)
Economic migrants are also asylum seekers, which is a legally defined term. All are legal until such time that their case is rejected.
Some on here are incapable of understanding that quite simple point.
you keep pushing this narrative...
Economic migrants are not asylum seekers, they are not fleeing persecution and can return home safely. They are also travelling for wages and jobs.
Why do you constantly blur the lines?
I’m not blurring anything. I’m pointing out the legal side. If a migrant arrives by boat fleeing war they are an asylum seeker. If they arrive fleeing poverty and seeking relative wealth they are an asylum seeker.
It is the asylum system which then determines their status as failed asylum seeker or legal refugee.
It’s not narrative, it’s the law.
you are wrong
I’m honestly not. The information is freely available online. I’ve already given you several links previously. Glad to see my efforts weren’t wasted "I deleted the last but "you are wrong" it wasn't helpful. However, you are wrong on a number of fronts. Firstly, you are using the argument that a group travelling into the country are all asylum seekers, when we know many of them are using asylum as the golden ticket when they are purely economic migrants. There are many reports of this and it is known and understood by all. If the economic migrant issue was addressed, the real asylum seekers would benefit, which makes you part of the proeblem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not blurring anything. I’m pointing out the legal side. If a migrant arrives by boat fleeing war they are an asylum seeker. If they arrive fleeing poverty and seeking relative wealth they are an asylum seeker. You really need to read the convention again. Fleeing war is not an acceptable reason for asylum." And you need to understand that people arriving on boats for any reason are all asylum seekers until such time that their claim has been processed. I personally don’t think it’s that hard to understand, but clearly others do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
That is just hearsay no proof, if they do pay they are not genuine asylum seekers, so they are economic migrants?
The alternative explanation is the criminal gangs are doing this for free which I find the hardest to believe
Buddy is hammering a subtle point home... two possibilities... One asylum seekers also pay gangs. I don't see why it's mutually exclusive.
Two, like loan sharks, the gamgss are happy for people to become.i debt to them.
In reality, we have a broad church of ppl on the boats. It's why 25pc are women and kids. Why the majority aren't Albanian. And why it's possible to be able to pull put "economic migranant, benefit hunting, fake kids" without tripping over contradictions.
I can see an economic migrants becoming a debt to gangs because if they disappear into the underworld then they're probably still with the gangs working on this end.
I cannot see asylum seekers becoming a debt because once they claim they'll be sent somewhere and won't be under the control of the gangs.
If the gangs are allowing genuine asylum seekers to become debts then it's a terrible terrible business model. but isn't the argument people are faking being asylum seekers whereas they are actually economic migrants?
(I get lost as different people have different angles that combined are incoherent)
Economic migrants are also asylum seekers, which is a legally defined term. All are legal until such time that their case is rejected.
Some on here are incapable of understanding that quite simple point.
you keep pushing this narrative...
Economic migrants are not asylum seekers, they are not fleeing persecution and can return home safely. They are also travelling for wages and jobs.
Why do you constantly blur the lines?
I’m not blurring anything. I’m pointing out the legal side. If a migrant arrives by boat fleeing war they are an asylum seeker. If they arrive fleeing poverty and seeking relative wealth they are an asylum seeker.
It is the asylum system which then determines their status as failed asylum seeker or legal refugee.
It’s not narrative, it’s the law.
you are wrong
I’m honestly not. The information is freely available online. I’ve already given you several links previously. Glad to see my efforts weren’t wasted
I deleted the last but "you are wrong" it wasn't helpful.
However, you are wrong on a number of fronts.
Firstly, you are using the argument that a group travelling into the country are all asylum seekers, when we know many of them are using asylum as the golden ticket when they are purely economic migrants.
There are many reports of this and it is known and understood by all. If the economic migrant issue was addressed, the real asylum seekers would benefit, which makes you part of the proeblem.
"I understand that some come for economic reasons, I’ve never denied that. I just accept that until their claims are processed, they’re legally an asylum seeker - that’s not a matter of opinion, but a legal status. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not blurring anything. I’m pointing out the legal side. If a migrant arrives by boat fleeing war they are an asylum seeker. If they arrive fleeing poverty and seeking relative wealth they are an asylum seeker. You really need to read the convention again. Fleeing war is not an acceptable reason for asylum. And you need to understand that people arriving on boats for any reason are all asylum seekers until such time that their claim has been processed. I personally don’t think it’s that hard to understand, but clearly others do." no they are not, they are masquerading as asylum seekers, with you aiding and abetting their attempts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not blurring anything. I’m pointing out the legal side. If a migrant arrives by boat fleeing war they are an asylum seeker. If they arrive fleeing poverty and seeking relative wealth they are an asylum seeker. You really need to read the convention again. Fleeing war is not an acceptable reason for asylum. And you need to understand that people arriving on boats for any reason are all asylum seekers until such time that their claim has been processed. I personally don’t think it’s that hard to understand, but clearly others do. no they are not, they are masquerading as asylum seekers, with you aiding and abetting their attempts" Legally they *are* asylum seekers until their claim has been rejected. Jeez this must be harder to understand than I thought. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that there are no legal routes for most, how are asylum seekers supposed to get here (if they have family here etc)? If they have family over here, then that family can just apply for the asylum seeker to come over here on a family visa. Much safer and simpler than a boat crossing, as well as being legal. Hes been told and shown time and again the legal routes. Blissful ignorance. To recap irrc. Offocal routes for * some hongkongers * Ukrainians (although irrc not strictly asylum seekers) * afghan and syrians * family reunions * UN referred. The vast majority of which are ukranians and hongkongers. Have I missed any? As otherwise this thread will go into the same circles as all the rest. So then. Legal routes. You have missed multiple. " please feel free to add. I've gone back to my source which I took to be complete https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes#:~:text=There%20are%20no%20visa%20routes,such%20as%20Sweden%20or%20Germany. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There are many reports of this and it is known and understood by all. If the economic migrant issue was addressed, the real asylum seekers would benefit, which makes you part of the proeblem. " Interesting that I’m a part of the problem for pointing out the legal status of asylum seekers, but not the home office who control the asylum process and could actually do something about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
That is just hearsay no proof, if they do pay they are not genuine asylum seekers, so they are economic migrants?
The alternative explanation is the criminal gangs are doing this for free which I find the hardest to believe
Buddy is hammering a subtle point home... two possibilities... One asylum seekers also pay gangs. I don't see why it's mutually exclusive.
Two, like loan sharks, the gamgss are happy for people to become.i debt to them.
In reality, we have a broad church of ppl on the boats. It's why 25pc are women and kids. Why the majority aren't Albanian. And why it's possible to be able to pull put "economic migranant, benefit hunting, fake kids" without tripping over contradictions.
I can see an economic migrants becoming a debt to gangs because if they disappear into the underworld then they're probably still with the gangs working on this end.
I cannot see asylum seekers becoming a debt because once they claim they'll be sent somewhere and won't be under the control of the gangs.
If the gangs are allowing genuine asylum seekers to become debts then it's a terrible terrible business model. but isn't the argument people are faking being asylum seekers whereas they are actually economic migrants?
(I get lost as different people have different angles that combined are incoherent)
Economic migrants are also asylum seekers, which is a legally defined term. All are legal until such time that their case is rejected.
Some on here are incapable of understanding that quite simple point.
you keep pushing this narrative...
Economic migrants are not asylum seekers, they are not fleeing persecution and can return home safely. They are also travelling for wages and jobs.
Why do you constantly blur the lines?
I’m not blurring anything. I’m pointing out the legal side. If a migrant arrives by boat fleeing war they are an asylum seeker. If they arrive fleeing poverty and seeking relative wealth they are an asylum seeker.
It is the asylum system which then determines their status as failed asylum seeker or legal refugee.
It’s not narrative, it’s the law.
you are wrong
I’m honestly not. The information is freely available online. I’ve already given you several links previously. Glad to see my efforts weren’t wasted
I deleted the last but "you are wrong" it wasn't helpful.
However, you are wrong on a number of fronts.
Firstly, you are using the argument that a group travelling into the country are all asylum seekers, when we know many of them are using asylum as the golden ticket when they are purely economic migrants.
There are many reports of this and it is known and understood by all. If the economic migrant issue was addressed, the real asylum seekers would benefit, which makes you part of the proeblem.
"how do you address it? Everyone has the right to claim asylum. Even if they have no real grounds to make a claim. Imo the best way is to process quick. However the paradox here is that these "bogus" cases also seem to flumux our assesors. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that there are no legal routes for most, how are asylum seekers supposed to get here (if they have family here etc)? If they have family over here, then that family can just apply for the asylum seeker to come over here on a family visa. Much safer and simpler than a boat crossing, as well as being legal. Hes been told and shown time and again the legal routes. Blissful ignorance. To recap irrc. Offocal routes for * some hongkongers * Ukrainians (although irrc not strictly asylum seekers) * afghan and syrians * family reunions * UN referred. The vast majority of which are ukranians and hongkongers. Have I missed any? As otherwise this thread will go into the same circles as all the rest. So then. Legal routes. You have missed multiple. please feel free to add. I've gone back to my source which I took to be complete https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes#:~:text=There%20are%20no%20visa%20routes,such%20as%20Sweden%20or%20Germany." Tou can download the quarterly asdy_02 report which gives you the details on all asylum seekers and their method of entering the UK via the routes. Such as ukrs which you missed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that there are no legal routes for most, how are asylum seekers supposed to get here (if they have family here etc)? If they have family over here, then that family can just apply for the asylum seeker to come over here on a family visa. Much safer and simpler than a boat crossing, as well as being legal. Hes been told and shown time and again the legal routes. Blissful ignorance. To recap irrc. Offocal routes for * some hongkongers * Ukrainians (although irrc not strictly asylum seekers) * afghan and syrians * family reunions * UN referred. The vast majority of which are ukranians and hongkongers. Have I missed any? As otherwise this thread will go into the same circles as all the rest. So then. Legal routes. You have missed multiple. please feel free to add. I've gone back to my source which I took to be complete https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes#:~:text=There%20are%20no%20visa%20routes,such%20as%20Sweden%20or%20Germany. Tou can download the quarterly asdy_02 report which gives you the details on all asylum seekers and their method of entering the UK via the routes. Such as ukrs which you missed." ukrs = un referred. I missremembered the name. UN referred would have been better shorthand.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that there are no legal routes for most, how are asylum seekers supposed to get here (if they have family here etc)? If they have family over here, then that family can just apply for the asylum seeker to come over here on a family visa. Much safer and simpler than a boat crossing, as well as being legal. Hes been told and shown time and again the legal routes. Blissful ignorance. To recap irrc. Offocal routes for * some hongkongers * Ukrainians (although irrc not strictly asylum seekers) * afghan and syrians * family reunions * UN referred. The vast majority of which are ukranians and hongkongers. Have I missed any? As otherwise this thread will go into the same circles as all the rest. So then. Legal routes. You have missed multiple. please feel free to add. I've gone back to my source which I took to be complete https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes#:~:text=There%20are%20no%20visa%20routes,such%20as%20Sweden%20or%20Germany. Tou can download the quarterly asdy_02 report which gives you the details on all asylum seekers and their method of entering the UK via the routes. Such as ukrs which you missed.ukrs = un referred. I missremembered the name. UN referred would have been better shorthand. "first glance, nothing jumped out. Given my claification, which have I missed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that there are no legal routes for most, how are asylum seekers supposed to get here (if they have family here etc)? If they have family over here, then that family can just apply for the asylum seeker to come over here on a family visa. Much safer and simpler than a boat crossing, as well as being legal. Hes been told and shown time and again the legal routes. Blissful ignorance. To recap irrc. Offocal routes for * some hongkongers * Ukrainians (although irrc not strictly asylum seekers) * afghan and syrians * family reunions * UN referred. The vast majority of which are ukranians and hongkongers. Have I missed any? As otherwise this thread will go into the same circles as all the rest. So then. Legal routes. You have missed multiple. please feel free to add. I've gone back to my source which I took to be complete https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes#:~:text=There%20are%20no%20visa%20routes,such%20as%20Sweden%20or%20Germany. Tou can download the quarterly asdy_02 report which gives you the details on all asylum seekers and their method of entering the UK via the routes. Such as ukrs which you missed.ukrs = un referred. I missremembered the name. UN referred would have been better shorthand. first glance, nothing jumped out. Given my claification, which have I missed? "Ukrs isn't completely un referred. There's about 20 different entry routes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Total routes for asylum Refugee permission, temporary, refugee permission, humanitarian protection,ARAP,ACRS,community sponsorship, mandate,UKRS,vcrs,vprs,discretionary,other,UASC grants. But yeah. There's absolutely NO legal entry into the UK..." Can you (in layperson terms) explain how each of these work, who is eligible, and where in tje world you can access these? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Total routes for asylum Refugee permission, temporary, refugee permission, humanitarian protection,ARAP,ACRS,community sponsorship, mandate,UKRS,vcrs,vprs,discretionary,other,UASC grants. But yeah. There's absolutely NO legal entry into the UK... Can you (in layperson terms) explain how each of these work, who is eligible, and where in tje world you can access these?" I genuinely can't be arsed. Google is your friend. We've had this discussion time and again. Form when you originally denied they existed. The data is there int he download as to what nationalities used them and when. You still have never downloaded that data almost a year on. So no. I won't do that for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Total routes for asylum Refugee permission, temporary, refugee permission, humanitarian protection,ARAP,ACRS,community sponsorship, mandate,UKRS,vcrs,vprs,discretionary,other,UASC grants. But yeah. There's absolutely NO legal entry into the UK... Can you (in layperson terms) explain how each of these work, who is eligible, and where in tje world you can access these? I genuinely can't be arsed. Google is your friend. We've had this discussion time and again. Form when you originally denied they existed. The data is there int he download as to what nationalities used them and when. You still have never downloaded that data almost a year on. So no. I won't do that for you." It wasn’t for me it was for the benefits of the thread and aiding discussion. Otherwise it is just a load of TLA or FLA and could be ATLOB! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Total routes for asylum Refugee permission, temporary, refugee permission, humanitarian protection,ARAP,ACRS,community sponsorship, mandate,UKRS,vcrs,vprs,discretionary,other,UASC grants. But yeah. There's absolutely NO legal entry into the UK... Can you (in layperson terms) explain how each of these work, who is eligible, and where in tje world you can access these? I genuinely can't be arsed. Google is your friend. We've had this discussion time and again. Form when you originally denied they existed. The data is there int he download as to what nationalities used them and when. You still have never downloaded that data almost a year on. So no. I won't do that for you. It wasn’t for me it was for the benefits of the thread and aiding discussion. Otherwise it is just a load of TLA or FLA and could be ATLOB!" They can Google too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Total routes for asylum Refugee permission, temporary, refugee permission, humanitarian protection,ARAP,ACRS,community sponsorship, mandate,UKRS,vcrs,vprs,discretionary,other,UASC grants. But yeah. There's absolutely NO legal entry into the UK..." the first three are types of types of claims, rather than entry. All the claims via irregular come under the refugee and humanitarian permission. For those that didn't enter irregularly, which sade routes did they use ? Arap and acrs look to be be afghan only UN resettlement looks like it's moving someone who has already got refugee status in another country into the uk, because their new country has dangers too. It's running at a few hundred per quarter. It's not, as far as I can tell, a way of claiming asylum here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that there are no legal routes for most, how are asylum seekers supposed to get here (if they have family here etc)? If they have family over here, then that family can just apply for the asylum seeker to come over here on a family visa. Much safer and simpler than a boat crossing, as well as being legal. Hes been told and shown time and again the legal routes. Blissful ignorance. To recap irrc. Offocal routes for * some hongkongers * Ukrainians (although irrc not strictly asylum seekers) * afghan and syrians * family reunions * UN referred. The vast majority of which are ukranians and hongkongers. Have I missed any? As otherwise this thread will go into the same circles as all the rest. So then. Legal routes. You have missed multiple. please feel free to add. I've gone back to my source which I took to be complete https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes#:~:text=There%20are%20no%20visa%20routes,such%20as%20Sweden%20or%20Germany. Tou can download the quarterly asdy_02 report which gives you the details on all asylum seekers and their method of entering the UK via the routes. Such as ukrs which you missed.ukrs = un referred. I missremembered the name. UN referred would have been better shorthand. first glance, nothing jumped out. Given my claification, which have I missed?
Ukrs isn't completely un referred.
There's about 20 different entry routes.
"confused. "UK Resettlement Scheme The global resettlement scheme is open to vulnerable refugees around the world. Individuals coming through this scheme are assessed and referred by the UNHCR according to their criteria, which is based on people’s needs and vulnerabilities." Can you elaborate on the routes not UN referred. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Total routes for asylum Refugee permission, temporary, refugee permission, humanitarian protection,ARAP,ACRS,community sponsorship, mandate,UKRS,vcrs,vprs,discretionary,other,UASC grants. But yeah. There's absolutely NO legal entry into the UK...the first three are types of types of claims, rather than entry. All the claims via irregular come under the refugee and humanitarian permission. For those that didn't enter irregularly, which sade routes did they use ? Arap and acrs look to be be afghan only UN resettlement looks like it's moving someone who has already got refugee status in another country into the uk, because their new country has dangers too. It's running at a few hundred per quarter. It's not, as far as I can tell, a way of claiming asylum here. " Don’t go bringing facts into the debate. This is fabs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Build a wall around Kent. That’s what I say Possibly a river Either way - cordon them off and declare them to be independent" I'm guess.g a river wouldn't be enough... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. I think this OP demonstrates the Tories are safe. Their supporters would rather blame children seeking asylum than the government. The OP doesn't say anything about the Tories and speaks in facts. The High Court did indeed make the ruling. Thank you...and Johnny doesn't want to answer the question I notice I didn't say that the OP mentioned Tories. What question are you suggesting I don't want to answer? You suggest the OP was about 'tories' and 'their supporters', you didn't have to say it. I'd assume he means the actual question he asked in the OP. You assume correctly
I answered a paraphrased version of your question from another poster.
I am however flattered that you appear more interested in my opinion than anyone elses.
Do you have an answer to the original question, or just patter?
"What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue?"
We could blame child asylum seekers and continue to vote in the Tories.
How about you, what's your answer?
I'm in favour of the Australian or Belgian solutions which are proven to work and save lives but I very much doubt you have the stomach for that"Why don't I have the stomach for it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Total routes for asylum Refugee permission, temporary, refugee permission, humanitarian protection,ARAP,ACRS,community sponsorship, mandate,UKRS,vcrs,vprs,discretionary,other,UASC grants. But yeah. There's absolutely NO legal entry into the UK... Can you (in layperson terms) explain how each of these work, who is eligible, and where in tje world you can access these? I genuinely can't be arsed. Google is your friend. We've had this discussion time and again. Form when you originally denied they existed. The data is there int he download as to what nationalities used them and when. You still have never downloaded that data almost a year on. So no. I won't do that for you. It wasn’t for me it was for the benefits of the thread and aiding discussion. Otherwise it is just a load of TLA or FLA and could be ATLOB!" .Surely if anyone had a query they are more than capable of raising the question themselves and do not need a third party to raise it on their behalf. The poster to which you refer is an expert on the topic which he is discussing. Like a lot of people I just accept his posts as being highly informative. If I want further information on a topic this site is hardly the place to ask it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Build a wall around Kent. That’s what I say Possibly a river Either way - cordon them off and declare them to be independent" Let’s divide the U.K into two halves, U.K. north and U.K. south. Have 6 months grace for people to move to the area if their choosing, one will be broadly remain, left leaning, undoubtedly and proudly ‘woke’. The other can be Tory run, read the daily Mail, embrace Brexit and all its benefits, and have a 20ft tall border around it, manned with machine guns if they so choose. It’s the only workable solution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Build a wall around Kent. That’s what I say Possibly a river Either way - cordon them off and declare them to be independent Let’s divide the U.K into two halves, U.K. north and U.K. south. Have 6 months grace for people to move to the area if their choosing, one will be broadly remain, left leaning, undoubtedly and proudly ‘woke’. The other can be Tory run, read the daily Mail, embrace Brexit and all its benefits, and have a 20ft tall border around it, manned with machine guns if they so choose. It’s the only workable solution." I’m a northerner and I whole heartedly agree. I’ve said for years that they need to extend the Scottish border southwards, down to Manchester at lest, and try again for independence Although I think you’ll find you’re still stuck with the woke lot.m down south and not just the Tories. The term woke alone is far too international for us up north. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Build a wall around Kent. That’s what I say Possibly a river Either way - cordon them off and declare them to be independent Let’s divide the U.K into two halves, U.K. north and U.K. south. Have 6 months grace for people to move to the area if their choosing, one will be broadly remain, left leaning, undoubtedly and proudly ‘woke’. The other can be Tory run, read the daily Mail, embrace Brexit and all its benefits, and have a 20ft tall border around it, manned with machine guns if they so choose. It’s the only workable solution. I’m a northerner and I whole heartedly agree. I’ve said for years that they need to extend the Scottish border southwards, down to Manchester at lest, and try again for independence Although I think you’ll find you’re still stuck with the woke lot.m down south and not just the Tories. The term woke alone is far too international for us up north. " In fact, I imagine Liverpool, Birmingham, Nottingham, and wales wouldn’t mind joining us and I would welcome them with glee | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again, from the UNHCR website: “ There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker ..." That would be the UNHCR web page that then goes on to use the phrase 'bogus asylum seeker', and continues by quoting other people using it. Not the best source of information on the topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again, from the UNHCR website: “ There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker ... That would be the UNHCR web page that then goes on to use the phrase 'bogus asylum seeker', and continues by quoting other people using it. Not the best source of information on the topic." Hey, if you know more on the topic than they do, or indeed than Kofi Anann then please, fill your boots. Personally I reckon they’re more likely to be correct than you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again, from the UNHCR website: “ There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker ... That would be the UNHCR web page that then goes on to use the phrase 'bogus asylum seeker', and continues by quoting other people using it. Not the best source of information on the topic. Hey, if you know more on the topic than they do, or indeed than Kofi Anann then please, fill your boots. Personally I reckon they’re more likely to be correct than you. " Are you on mission this morning to tell everyone they are wrong? You blurred the asylum categorisation and got called out on it again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again, from the UNHCR website: “ There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker ... That would be the UNHCR web page that then goes on to use the phrase 'bogus asylum seeker', and continues by quoting other people using it. Not the best source of information on the topic. Hey, if you know more on the topic than they do, or indeed than Kofi Anann then please, fill your boots. Personally I reckon they’re more likely to be correct than you. " He didn't say he knew more, simply, if 'there is no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker', why do they then go on to use those words AND quote Kofi Annan using them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again, from the UNHCR website: “ There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker ... That would be the UNHCR web page that then goes on to use the phrase 'bogus asylum seeker', and continues by quoting other people using it. Not the best source of information on the topic. Hey, if you know more on the topic than they do, or indeed than Kofi Anann then please, fill your boots. Personally I reckon they’re more likely to be correct than you. He didn't say he knew more, simply, if 'there is no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker', why do they then go on to use those words AND quote Kofi Annan using them?" I might say there’s no such thing as monsters, but still use the word monsters correctly in a sentence. He said the UNHCR is ‘not the best source of information on the topic’ - I suspect they’re a better source than he, that’s all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again, from the UNHCR website: “ There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker ... That would be the UNHCR web page that then goes on to use the phrase 'bogus asylum seeker', and continues by quoting other people using it. Not the best source of information on the topic. Hey, if you know more on the topic than they do, or indeed than Kofi Anann then please, fill your boots. Personally I reckon they’re more likely to be correct than you. Are you on mission this morning to tell everyone they are wrong? You blurred the asylum categorisation and got called out on it again. " Once again for the cheap seats, pointing out the legal status of asylum seekers is not ‘blurring’, it’s actually clarifying. Unless of course you don’t want the clarification because it doesn’t fit with your narrative. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again, from the UNHCR website: “ There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker ... That would be the UNHCR web page that then goes on to use the phrase 'bogus asylum seeker', and continues by quoting other people using it. Not the best source of information on the topic. Hey, if you know more on the topic than they do, or indeed than Kofi Anann then please, fill your boots. Personally I reckon they’re more likely to be correct than you. He didn't say he knew more, simply, if 'there is no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker', why do they then go on to use those words AND quote Kofi Annan using them? I might say there’s no such thing as monsters, but still use the word monsters correctly in a sentence. He said the UNHCR is ‘not the best source of information on the topic’ - I suspect they’re a better source than he, that’s all. " Monster has a definition. If you're speaking about 'defintions' and there being no such thing for a 'bogus asylum seeker', you probably shouldn't use that word as a comparator | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again, from the UNHCR website: “ There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker ... That would be the UNHCR web page that then goes on to use the phrase 'bogus asylum seeker', and continues by quoting other people using it. Not the best source of information on the topic. Hey, if you know more on the topic than they do, or indeed than Kofi Anann then please, fill your boots. Personally I reckon they’re more likely to be correct than you. Are you on mission this morning to tell everyone they are wrong? You blurred the asylum categorisation and got called out on it again. Once again for the cheap seats, pointing out the legal status of asylum seekers is not ‘blurring’, it’s actually clarifying. Unless of course you don’t want the clarification because it doesn’t fit with your narrative." Nope, you are certainly blurring the landscape with your language. You have learnt to this well, I will give you that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again, from the UNHCR website: “ There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker ... That would be the UNHCR web page that then goes on to use the phrase 'bogus asylum seeker', and continues by quoting other people using it. Not the best source of information on the topic. Hey, if you know more on the topic than they do, or indeed than Kofi Anann then please, fill your boots. Personally I reckon they’re more likely to be correct than you. Are you on mission this morning to tell everyone they are wrong? You blurred the asylum categorisation and got called out on it again. Once again for the cheap seats, pointing out the legal status of asylum seekers is not ‘blurring’, it’s actually clarifying. Unless of course you don’t want the clarification because it doesn’t fit with your narrative. Nope, you are certainly blurring the landscape with your language. You have learnt to this well, I will give you that " My language is simple and understandable. The issue arises when people don’t accept it. I understand the reticence, because someone arriving in the U.K solely to make a better life and send money home should not be categorised as an asylum seeker. Practically and emotionally they’re not an asylum seeker. Except until their claim is heard and rejected, they quite literally *are* one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again, from the UNHCR website: “ There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker ... That would be the UNHCR web page that then goes on to use the phrase 'bogus asylum seeker', and continues by quoting other people using it. Not the best source of information on the topic. Hey, if you know more on the topic than they do, or indeed than Kofi Anann then please, fill your boots. Personally I reckon they’re more likely to be correct than you. Are you on mission this morning to tell everyone they are wrong? You blurred the asylum categorisation and got called out on it again. Once again for the cheap seats, pointing out the legal status of asylum seekers is not ‘blurring’, it’s actually clarifying. Unless of course you don’t want the clarification because it doesn’t fit with your narrative. Nope, you are certainly blurring the landscape with your language. You have learnt to this well, I will give you that My language is simple and understandable. The issue arises when people don’t accept it. I understand the reticence, because someone arriving in the U.K solely to make a better life and send money home should not be categorised as an asylum seeker. Practically and emotionally they’re not an asylum seeker. Except until their claim is heard and rejected, they quite literally *are* one." If their intentions are economic, they are not asylum seekers. Because you are classing all people travelling over the channel as the same for the sake of the dumbing down, does not change this fact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again, from the UNHCR website: “ There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker ... That would be the UNHCR web page that then goes on to use the phrase 'bogus asylum seeker', and continues by quoting other people using it. Not the best source of information on the topic. Hey, if you know more on the topic than they do, or indeed than Kofi Anann then please, fill your boots. Personally I reckon they’re more likely to be correct than you. Are you on mission this morning to tell everyone they are wrong? You blurred the asylum categorisation and got called out on it again. Once again for the cheap seats, pointing out the legal status of asylum seekers is not ‘blurring’, it’s actually clarifying. Unless of course you don’t want the clarification because it doesn’t fit with your narrative. Nope, you are certainly blurring the landscape with your language. You have learnt to this well, I will give you that My language is simple and understandable. The issue arises when people don’t accept it. I understand the reticence, because someone arriving in the U.K solely to make a better life and send money home should not be categorised as an asylum seeker. Practically and emotionally they’re not an asylum seeker. Except until their claim is heard and rejected, they quite literally *are* one. If their intentions are economic, they are not asylum seekers. Because you are classing all people travelling over the channel as the same for the sake of the dumbing down, does not change this fact." I’m not classing them at all - it’s their legal definition. Just because you don’t like it, it doesn’t change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again, from the UNHCR website: “ There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker ... That would be the UNHCR web page that then goes on to use the phrase 'bogus asylum seeker', and continues by quoting other people using it. Not the best source of information on the topic. Hey, if you know more on the topic than they do, or indeed than Kofi Anann then please, fill your boots. Personally I reckon they’re more likely to be correct than you. Are you on mission this morning to tell everyone they are wrong? You blurred the asylum categorisation and got called out on it again. Once again for the cheap seats, pointing out the legal status of asylum seekers is not ‘blurring’, it’s actually clarifying. Unless of course you don’t want the clarification because it doesn’t fit with your narrative." ****************************** Stop digging. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again, from the UNHCR website: “ There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker ... That would be the UNHCR web page that then goes on to use the phrase 'bogus asylum seeker', and continues by quoting other people using it. Not the best source of information on the topic. Hey, if you know more on the topic than they do, or indeed than Kofi Anann then please, fill your boots. Personally I reckon they’re more likely to be correct than you. Are you on mission this morning to tell everyone they are wrong? You blurred the asylum categorisation and got called out on it again. Once again for the cheap seats, pointing out the legal status of asylum seekers is not ‘blurring’, it’s actually clarifying. Unless of course you don’t want the clarification because it doesn’t fit with your narrative. ****************************** Stop digging." Pointing out facts isn’t digging. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again, from the UNHCR website: “ There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker ... That would be the UNHCR web page that then goes on to use the phrase 'bogus asylum seeker', and continues by quoting other people using it. Not the best source of information on the topic. Hey, if you know more on the topic than they do, or indeed than Kofi Anann then please, fill your boots. Personally I reckon they’re more likely to be correct than you. Are you on mission this morning to tell everyone they are wrong? You blurred the asylum categorisation and got called out on it again. Once again for the cheap seats, pointing out the legal status of asylum seekers is not ‘blurring’, it’s actually clarifying. Unless of course you don’t want the clarification because it doesn’t fit with your narrative. ****************************** Stop digging. Pointing out facts isn’t digging. " ***************************** Whatever you say, Bub. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Total routes for asylum Refugee permission, temporary, refugee permission, humanitarian protection,ARAP,ACRS,community sponsorship, mandate,UKRS,vcrs,vprs,discretionary,other,UASC grants. But yeah. There's absolutely NO legal entry into the UK... Can you (in layperson terms) explain how each of these work, who is eligible, and where in tje world you can access these? I genuinely can't be arsed. Google is your friend. We've had this discussion time and again. Form when you originally denied they existed. The data is there int he download as to what nationalities used them and when. You still have never downloaded that data almost a year on. So no. I won't do that for you. It wasn’t for me it was for the benefits of the thread and aiding discussion. Otherwise it is just a load of TLA or FLA and could be ATLOB!.Surely if anyone had a query they are more than capable of raising the question themselves and do not need a third party to raise it on their behalf. The poster to which you refer is an expert on the topic which he is discussing. Like a lot of people I just accept his posts as being highly informative. If I want further information on a topic this site is hardly the place to ask it. " He may well be an expert but as demonstrated by other posters who did go on to read up on the info, it appears Morley conflated different things to imply there are multiple safe routes. Be also didn’t provide context on eligibility and restrictions or how these “routes” are accessed. Why would he do that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that there are no legal routes for most, how are asylum seekers supposed to get here (if they have family here etc)? If they have family over here, then that family can just apply for the asylum seeker to come over here on a family visa. Much safer and simpler than a boat crossing, as well as being legal. Hes been told and shown time and again the legal routes. Blissful ignorance. To recap irrc. Offocal routes for * some hongkongers * Ukrainians (although irrc not strictly asylum seekers) * afghan and syrians * family reunions * UN referred. The vast majority of which are ukranians and hongkongers. Have I missed any? As otherwise this thread will go into the same circles as all the rest. So then. Legal routes. You have missed multiple. please feel free to add. I've gone back to my source which I took to be complete https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes#:~:text=There%20are%20no%20visa%20routes,such%20as%20Sweden%20or%20Germany. Tou can download the quarterly asdy_02 report which gives you the details on all asylum seekers and their method of entering the UK via the routes. Such as ukrs which you missed.ukrs = un referred. I missremembered the name. UN referred would have been better shorthand. first glance, nothing jumped out. Given my claification, which have I missed?
Ukrs isn't completely un referred.
There's about 20 different entry routes.
confused.
"UK Resettlement Scheme
The global resettlement scheme is open to vulnerable refugees around the world. Individuals coming through this scheme are assessed and referred by the UNHCR according to their criteria, which is based on people’s needs and vulnerabilities."
Can you elaborate on the routes not UN referred. "It is not strictly limited to those assessed by UNHCR. UNHCR can refer cases but its not the fulls cope of the scheme. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Total routes for asylum Refugee permission, temporary, refugee permission, humanitarian protection,ARAP,ACRS,community sponsorship, mandate,UKRS,vcrs,vprs,discretionary,other,UASC grants. But yeah. There's absolutely NO legal entry into the UK...the first three are types of types of claims, rather than entry. All the claims via irregular come under the refugee and humanitarian permission. For those that didn't enter irregularly, which sade routes did they use ? Arap and acrs look to be be afghan only UN resettlement looks like it's moving someone who has already got refugee status in another country into the uk, because their new country has dangers too. It's running at a few hundred per quarter. It's not, as far as I can tell, a way of claiming asylum here. " They are all types of claims | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Total routes for asylum Refugee permission, temporary, refugee permission, humanitarian protection,ARAP,ACRS,community sponsorship, mandate,UKRS,vcrs,vprs,discretionary,other,UASC grants. But yeah. There's absolutely NO legal entry into the UK...the first three are types of types of claims, rather than entry. All the claims via irregular come under the refugee and humanitarian permission. For those that didn't enter irregularly, which sade routes did they use ? Arap and acrs look to be be afghan only UN resettlement looks like it's moving someone who has already got refugee status in another country into the uk, because their new country has dangers too. It's running at a few hundred per quarter. It's not, as far as I can tell, a way of claiming asylum here. They are all types of claims" agreed. But the data doesn't help me understand the safe routes other than the resettlement options and the afghan type systems. So we quickly get back to: Routes for afghans and syrians Routes for hong kongers. Routes for ukranaians albeit not asylum. Some places for people who have gained asylum elsewhere and now have to be moved. Everyone else....??? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once again, from the UNHCR website: “ There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker ..." "That would be the UNHCR web page that then goes on to use the phrase 'bogus asylum seeker', and continues by quoting other people using it. Not the best source of information on the topic." "Hey, if you know more on the topic than they do, or indeed than Kofi Anann then please, fill your boots." It was Kofi Annan that they quoted, saying "Let us remember that a bogus asylum-seeker is not equivalent to a criminal; and that an unsuccessful asylum application is not equivalent to a bogus one". It looks like he believes that bogus asylum seekers exist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s do this another way. 2 dinghies arrive. On one we have a dozen men, no documentation. No English language. They’re here seeking work and to send money back home. Ok the second dinghy we have a dozen men fleeing a natural disaster. They also have no documentation and speak no English. Which ones are asylum seekers?" None of them. Looking for work is not a valid basis for an asylum claim. Neither is being displaced by a natural disaster. You also only said that the dinghies arrived, you didn't say that anyone on board has applied for asylum. Let's assume that they all do apply. If they are all truthful about their reasons for coming here, they will all be considered 'asylum seekers' for the short time that it takes to reject their applications. Then they will all be 'failed asylum seekers'. The ones seeking work are also 'bogus asylum seekers'. The ones fleeing a natural disaster might not be 'bogus asylum seekers' if they didn't know the rules before they applied. Was that the answer you were looking for? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s do this another way. 2 dinghies arrive. On one we have a dozen men, no documentation. No English language. They’re here seeking work and to send money back home. Ok the second dinghy we have a dozen men fleeing a natural disaster. They also have no documentation and speak no English. Which ones are asylum seekers? None of them. Looking for work is not a valid basis for an asylum claim. Neither is being displaced by a natural disaster. You also only said that the dinghies arrived, you didn't say that anyone on board has applied for asylum. Let's assume that they all do apply. If they are all truthful about their reasons for coming here, they will all be considered 'asylum seekers' for the short time that it takes to reject their applications. Then they will all be 'failed asylum seekers'. The ones seeking work are also 'bogus asylum seekers'. The ones fleeing a natural disaster might not be 'bogus asylum seekers' if they didn't know the rules before they applied. Was that the answer you were looking for?" They probably won’t all be ‘failed asylum seekers’ given that 75% of claims are successful. The point I was making is that you can’t say person x is an asylum seeker and person y is an economic migrant until their respective claims are heard. It’s really not that complicated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s do this another way. 2 dinghies arrive. On one we have a dozen men, no documentation. No English language. They’re here seeking work and to send money back home. Ok the second dinghy we have a dozen men fleeing a natural disaster. They also have no documentation and speak no English. Which ones are asylum seekers? None of them. Looking for work is not a valid basis for an asylum claim. Neither is being displaced by a natural disaster. You also only said that the dinghies arrived, you didn't say that anyone on board has applied for asylum. Let's assume that they all do apply. If they are all truthful about their reasons for coming here, they will all be considered 'asylum seekers' for the short time that it takes to reject their applications. Then they will all be 'failed asylum seekers'. The ones seeking work are also 'bogus asylum seekers'. The ones fleeing a natural disaster might not be 'bogus asylum seekers' if they didn't know the rules before they applied. Was that the answer you were looking for? They probably won’t all be ‘failed asylum seekers’ given that 75% of claims are successful. The point I was making is that you can’t say person x is an asylum seeker and person y is an economic migrant until their respective claims are heard. It’s really not that complicated. " But they are classed as vagrants When they are roaming around the eu, not actually claiming asylum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s do this another way. 2 dinghies arrive. On one we have a dozen men, no documentation. No English language. They’re here seeking work and to send money back home. Ok the second dinghy we have a dozen men fleeing a natural disaster. They also have no documentation and speak no English. Which ones are asylum seekers?" "None of them. Looking for work is not a valid basis for an asylum claim. Neither is being displaced by a natural disaster. You also only said that the dinghies arrived, you didn't say that anyone on board has applied for asylum. Let's assume that they all do apply. If they are all truthful about their reasons for coming here, they will all be considered 'asylum seekers' for the short time that it takes to reject their applications. Then they will all be 'failed asylum seekers'. The ones seeking work are also 'bogus asylum seekers'. The ones fleeing a natural disaster might not be 'bogus asylum seekers' if they didn't know the rules before they applied. Was that the answer you were looking for?" "They probably won’t all be ‘failed asylum seekers’ given that 75% of claims are successful." They definitely will all fail, given the criteria you supplied as their reason for travelling. Unless of course they lie in their application and pretend to be a persecuted minority. If they do that, given that we can't prove their identity or country of origin, they might indeed become part of the 75% that gets accepted. "The point I was making is that you can’t say person x is an asylum seeker and person y is an economic migrant until their respective claims are heard." But no one is saying that. People are saying that economic migrants should be kept out, and genuine refugees allowed in. No one is attempting to determine who falls into which category. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But no one is saying that. People are saying that economic migrants should be kept out, and genuine refugees allowed in. No one is attempting to determine who falls into which category." Some have repeatedly denied that all those who enter the asylum process are legally asylum seekers until deemed otherwise. As a scroll through this and other threads reveals. I have only ever pointed out their error. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But no one is saying that. People are saying that economic migrants should be kept out, and genuine refugees allowed in. No one is attempting to determine who falls into which category." "Some have repeatedly denied that all those who enter the asylum process are legally asylum seekers until deemed otherwise. As a scroll through this and other threads reveals." They deny it because it isn't true. "Asylum Seeker" is not a legal term, and it isn't protected in any way, it's just a description of a person. Likewise "bogus asylum seeker" isn't a legal term, it's just a description. A person can be an 'illegal immigrant', an 'asylum seeker', and a 'genuine refugee', all at the same time. Likewise a person can be both an 'asylum seeker' and a 'bogus asylum seeker' at the same time. "I have only ever pointed out their error." You should stop doing that, since it's clear that you don't know enough to tell others what's right and what's wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But no one is saying that. People are saying that economic migrants should be kept out, and genuine refugees allowed in. No one is attempting to determine who falls into which category. Some have repeatedly denied that all those who enter the asylum process are legally asylum seekers until deemed otherwise. As a scroll through this and other threads reveals. They deny it because it isn't true. "Asylum Seeker" is not a legal term, and it isn't protected in any way, it's just a description of a person. Likewise "bogus asylum seeker" isn't a legal term, it's just a description. A person can be an 'illegal immigrant', an 'asylum seeker', and a 'genuine refugee', all at the same time. Likewise a person can be both an 'asylum seeker' and a 'bogus asylum seeker' at the same time. I have only ever pointed out their error. You should stop doing that, since it's clear that you don't know enough to tell others what's right and what's wrong." One of us in this discussion has been consistently correct on the topic. Unfortunately it’s not you. Go well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But no one is saying that. People are saying that economic migrants should be kept out, and genuine refugees allowed in. No one is attempting to determine who falls into which category. Some have repeatedly denied that all those who enter the asylum process are legally asylum seekers until deemed otherwise. As a scroll through this and other threads reveals. They deny it because it isn't true. "Asylum Seeker" is not a legal term, and it isn't protected in any way, it's just a description of a person. Likewise "bogus asylum seeker" isn't a legal term, it's just a description. A person can be an 'illegal immigrant', an 'asylum seeker', and a 'genuine refugee', all at the same time. Likewise a person can be both an 'asylum seeker' and a 'bogus asylum seeker' at the same time. I have only ever pointed out their error. You should stop doing that, since it's clear that you don't know enough to tell others what's right and what's wrong." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But no one is saying that. People are saying that economic migrants should be kept out, and genuine refugees allowed in. No one is attempting to determine who falls into which category. Some have repeatedly denied that all those who enter the asylum process are legally asylum seekers until deemed otherwise. As a scroll through this and other threads reveals. They deny it because it isn't true. "Asylum Seeker" is not a legal term, and it isn't protected in any way, it's just a description of a person. Likewise "bogus asylum seeker" isn't a legal term, it's just a description. A person can be an 'illegal immigrant', an 'asylum seeker', and a 'genuine refugee', all at the same time. Likewise a person can be both an 'asylum seeker' and a 'bogus asylum seeker' at the same time. I have only ever pointed out their error. You should stop doing that, since it's clear that you don't know enough to tell others what's right and what's wrong. One of us in this discussion has been consistently correct on the topic. Unfortunately it’s not you. Go well." . A slightly bizarre post. I cannot see any evidence that your points are correct . I am not the only poster to think this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But no one is saying that. People are saying that economic migrants should be kept out, and genuine refugees allowed in. No one is attempting to determine who falls into which category. Some have repeatedly denied that all those who enter the asylum process are legally asylum seekers until deemed otherwise. As a scroll through this and other threads reveals. They deny it because it isn't true. "Asylum Seeker" is not a legal term, and it isn't protected in any way, it's just a description of a person. Likewise "bogus asylum seeker" isn't a legal term, it's just a description. A person can be an 'illegal immigrant', an 'asylum seeker', and a 'genuine refugee', all at the same time. Likewise a person can be both an 'asylum seeker' and a 'bogus asylum seeker' at the same time. I have only ever pointed out their error. You should stop doing that, since it's clear that you don't know enough to tell others what's right and what's wrong. One of us in this discussion has been consistently correct on the topic. Unfortunately it’s not you. Go well.. A slightly bizarre post. I cannot see any evidence that your points are correct . I am not the only poster to think this. " Maybe you need to look harder. Or research more. Or perhaps you have comprehension issues. Who knows? Go well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But no one is saying that. People are saying that economic migrants should be kept out, and genuine refugees allowed in. No one is attempting to determine who falls into which category. Some have repeatedly denied that all those who enter the asylum process are legally asylum seekers until deemed otherwise. As a scroll through this and other threads reveals. They deny it because it isn't true. "Asylum Seeker" is not a legal term, and it isn't protected in any way, it's just a description of a person. Likewise "bogus asylum seeker" isn't a legal term, it's just a description. A person can be an 'illegal immigrant', an 'asylum seeker', and a 'genuine refugee', all at the same time. Likewise a person can be both an 'asylum seeker' and a 'bogus asylum seeker' at the same time. I have only ever pointed out their error. You should stop doing that, since it's clear that you don't know enough to tell others what's right and what's wrong. One of us in this discussion has been consistently correct on the topic. Unfortunately it’s not you. Go well.. A slightly bizarre post. I cannot see any evidence that your points are correct . I am not the only poster to think this. Maybe you need to look harder. Or research more. Or perhaps you have comprehension issues. Who knows? Go well." I would prefer to support the Home Secretary . We have a democratically elected government who are tasked with the issue of resolving this crisis . Most people are happy within reason to accept a limited number of refugees. Economic migrants should be deported and they are simply attempting to take advantage of the help which we give to refugees . Lawyers are obstructing the governments efforts at every stage of the operation. These lawyers are simply out to line their own pockets. We should all be very greatfull that Sue Braverman is attempting to resolve the issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But no one is saying that. People are saying that economic migrants should be kept out, and genuine refugees allowed in. No one is attempting to determine who falls into which category. Some have repeatedly denied that all those who enter the asylum process are legally asylum seekers until deemed otherwise. As a scroll through this and other threads reveals. They deny it because it isn't true. "Asylum Seeker" is not a legal term, and it isn't protected in any way, it's just a description of a person. Likewise "bogus asylum seeker" isn't a legal term, it's just a description. A person can be an 'illegal immigrant', an 'asylum seeker', and a 'genuine refugee', all at the same time. Likewise a person can be both an 'asylum seeker' and a 'bogus asylum seeker' at the same time. I have only ever pointed out their error. You should stop doing that, since it's clear that you don't know enough to tell others what's right and what's wrong. One of us in this discussion has been consistently correct on the topic. Unfortunately it’s not you. Go well.. A slightly bizarre post. I cannot see any evidence that your points are correct . I am not the only poster to think this. Maybe you need to look harder. Or research more. Or perhaps you have comprehension issues. Who knows? Go well. I would prefer to support the Home Secretary . We have a democratically elected government who are tasked with the issue of resolving this crisis . Most people are happy within reason to accept a limited number of refugees. Economic migrants should be deported and they are simply attempting to take advantage of the help which we give to refugees . Lawyers are obstructing the governments efforts at every stage of the operation. These lawyers are simply out to line their own pockets. We should all be very greatfull that Sue Braverman is attempting to resolve the issue. " I mean the democratically elected government created this ‘crisis’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK Govt must have also created the crisis in Italy, Greece and Spain too "No I’m just discussion the actions taken re: boats to the U.K If you don’t believe that U.K. govt action/inaction has added to the issue, I’m not sure what to say to you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK Govt must have also created the crisis in Italy, Greece and Spain too
No I’m just discussion the actions taken re: boats to the U.K
If you don’t believe that U.K. govt action/inaction has added to the issue, I’m not sure what to say to you "I'm talking about boats in those countries too. The EU have a serious problem with boats, the US have a serious problem with people crossing rivers. But fear not, if the UK Govt sort it out, it'll all be fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey"How they get the money is another problem, suspect there are loan sharks, as there is no way many can afford the “fees” to travel unless they are lent the money to do so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK Govt must have also created the crisis in Italy, Greece and Spain too
No I’m just discussion the actions taken re: boats to the U.K
If you don’t believe that U.K. govt action/inaction has added to the issue, I’m not sure what to say to you
I'm talking about boats in those countries too.
The EU have a serious problem with boats, the US have a serious problem with people crossing rivers.
But fear not, if the UK Govt sort it out, it'll all be fine. "They have the power to help the situation in the U.K, do they not? I’m really not sure what point you’re making here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK Govt must have also created the crisis in Italy, Greece and Spain too
No I’m just discussion the actions taken re: boats to the U.K
If you don’t believe that U.K. govt action/inaction has added to the issue, I’m not sure what to say to you
I'm talking about boats in those countries too.
The EU have a serious problem with boats, the US have a serious problem with people crossing rivers.
But fear not, if the UK Govt sort it out, it'll all be fine.
They have the power to help the situation in the U.K, do they not?
I’m really not sure what point you’re making here. "I believe my point is clear. You can't see that 'illegal entry' is a worldwide problem because you're too busy blaming our Govt. Apart from your usual 'open safe routes', what do you suggest any Govt can do to calm the problem? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK Govt must have also created the crisis in Italy, Greece and Spain too
No I’m just discussion the actions taken re: boats to the U.K
If you don’t believe that U.K. govt action/inaction has added to the issue, I’m not sure what to say to you
I'm talking about boats in those countries too.
The EU have a serious problem with boats, the US have a serious problem with people crossing rivers.
But fear not, if the UK Govt sort it out, it'll all be fine.
They have the power to help the situation in the U.K, do they not?
I’m really not sure what point you’re making here.
I believe my point is clear.
You can't see that 'illegal entry' is a worldwide problem because you're too busy blaming our Govt.
Apart from your usual 'open safe routes', what do you suggest any Govt can do to calm the problem?
"‘Open safe routes’ is a valid suggestion, as you’re smart enough to understand. As is allowing visa application from abroad, and working with EU nations to facilitate holding centres on the continent, and improving the asylum system (including staffing) to speed up the claim process. I’ve said all this previously. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK Govt must have also created the crisis in Italy, Greece and Spain too
No I’m just discussion the actions taken re: boats to the U.K
If you don’t believe that U.K. govt action/inaction has added to the issue, I’m not sure what to say to you
I'm talking about boats in those countries too.
The EU have a serious problem with boats, the US have a serious problem with people crossing rivers.
But fear not, if the UK Govt sort it out, it'll all be fine.
They have the power to help the situation in the U.K, do they not?
I’m really not sure what point you’re making here.
I believe my point is clear.
You can't see that 'illegal entry' is a worldwide problem because you're too busy blaming our Govt.
Apart from your usual 'open safe routes', what do you suggest any Govt can do to calm the problem?
‘Open safe routes’ is a valid suggestion, as you’re smart enough to understand. As is allowing visa application from abroad, and working with EU nations to facilitate holding centres on the continent, and improving the asylum system (including staffing) to speed up the claim process.
I’ve said all this previously. "Will any of the above stop the illegal entry by small boat? Or are your suggestions soundbites that on paper look great but in reality a lot of money that will not stop those economic migrants from crossing the channel? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK Govt must have also created the crisis in Italy, Greece and Spain too
No I’m just discussion the actions taken re: boats to the U.K
If you don’t believe that U.K. govt action/inaction has added to the issue, I’m not sure what to say to you
I'm talking about boats in those countries too.
The EU have a serious problem with boats, the US have a serious problem with people crossing rivers.
But fear not, if the UK Govt sort it out, it'll all be fine.
They have the power to help the situation in the U.K, do they not?
I’m really not sure what point you’re making here.
I believe my point is clear.
You can't see that 'illegal entry' is a worldwide problem because you're too busy blaming our Govt.
Apart from your usual 'open safe routes', what do you suggest any Govt can do to calm the problem?
‘Open safe routes’ is a valid suggestion, as you’re smart enough to understand. As is allowing visa application from abroad, and working with EU nations to facilitate holding centres on the continent, and improving the asylum system (including staffing) to speed up the claim process.
I’ve said all this previously.
Will any of the above stop the illegal entry by small boat? Or are your suggestions soundbites that on paper look great but in reality a lot of money that will not stop those economic migrants from crossing the channel?"If you want to stop illegal crossings altogether you’d be the first person in the history of these isles to do so. The above would (I believe, along with others) all drastically reduce the number of illegal crossings - I’m sure you’d agree that’s a good thing. Make crossings safer, fewer in number, and hurt the vile people smuggling gangs in the process. What’s not to like? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK Govt must have also created the crisis in Italy, Greece and Spain too
No I’m just discussion the actions taken re: boats to the U.K
If you don’t believe that U.K. govt action/inaction has added to the issue, I’m not sure what to say to you
I'm talking about boats in those countries too.
The EU have a serious problem with boats, the US have a serious problem with people crossing rivers.
But fear not, if the UK Govt sort it out, it'll all be fine.
They have the power to help the situation in the U.K, do they not?
I’m really not sure what point you’re making here.
I believe my point is clear.
You can't see that 'illegal entry' is a worldwide problem because you're too busy blaming our Govt.
Apart from your usual 'open safe routes', what do you suggest any Govt can do to calm the problem?
‘Open safe routes’ is a valid suggestion, as you’re smart enough to understand. As is allowing visa application from abroad, and working with EU nations to facilitate holding centres on the continent, and improving the asylum system (including staffing) to speed up the claim process.
I’ve said all this previously.
Will any of the above stop the illegal entry by small boat? Or are your suggestions soundbites that on paper look great but in reality a lot of money that will not stop those economic migrants from crossing the channel?
If you want to stop illegal crossings altogether you’d be the first person in the history of these isles to do so.
The above would (I believe, along with others) all drastically reduce the number of illegal crossings - I’m sure you’d agree that’s a good thing. Make crossings safer, fewer in number, and hurt the vile people smuggling gangs in the process.
What’s not to like?"What would be the plan for those arriving here by small boat, if these measures were in place? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK Govt must have also created the crisis in Italy, Greece and Spain too
No I’m just discussion the actions taken re: boats to the U.K
If you don’t believe that U.K. govt action/inaction has added to the issue, I’m not sure what to say to you
I'm talking about boats in those countries too.
The EU have a serious problem with boats, the US have a serious problem with people crossing rivers.
But fear not, if the UK Govt sort it out, it'll all be fine.
They have the power to help the situation in the U.K, do they not?
I’m really not sure what point you’re making here.
I believe my point is clear.
You can't see that 'illegal entry' is a worldwide problem because you're too busy blaming our Govt.
Apart from your usual 'open safe routes', what do you suggest any Govt can do to calm the problem?
‘Open safe routes’ is a valid suggestion, as you’re smart enough to understand. As is allowing visa application from abroad, and working with EU nations to facilitate holding centres on the continent, and improving the asylum system (including staffing) to speed up the claim process.
I’ve said all this previously. "It's a soundbite. Plenty of people use it but never offer any suggestion to how it would work in reality. I'm for it on the face but I need details. It wouldn't stop boats though. Allowing visa applications from abroad is part of it, not a separate entity. Don't we already try to 'work with the EU (France)'?, doesn't appear to be helping. As much as I agree that we need to speed up the process, I actually believe it could make it seem 'even more desirable' to migrants if they know they're in and processed quickly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK Govt must have also created the crisis in Italy, Greece and Spain too
No I’m just discussion the actions taken re: boats to the U.K
If you don’t believe that U.K. govt action/inaction has added to the issue, I’m not sure what to say to you
I'm talking about boats in those countries too.
The EU have a serious problem with boats, the US have a serious problem with people crossing rivers.
But fear not, if the UK Govt sort it out, it'll all be fine.
They have the power to help the situation in the U.K, do they not?
I’m really not sure what point you’re making here.
I believe my point is clear.
You can't see that 'illegal entry' is a worldwide problem because you're too busy blaming our Govt.
Apart from your usual 'open safe routes', what do you suggest any Govt can do to calm the problem?
‘Open safe routes’ is a valid suggestion, as you’re smart enough to understand. As is allowing visa application from abroad, and working with EU nations to facilitate holding centres on the continent, and improving the asylum system (including staffing) to speed up the claim process.
I’ve said all this previously.
Will any of the above stop the illegal entry by small boat? Or are your suggestions soundbites that on paper look great but in reality a lot of money that will not stop those economic migrants from crossing the channel?
If you want to stop illegal crossings altogether you’d be the first person in the history of these isles to do so.
The above would (I believe, along with others) all drastically reduce the number of illegal crossings - I’m sure you’d agree that’s a good thing. Make crossings safer, fewer in number, and hurt the vile people smuggling gangs in the process.
What’s not to like?
What would be the plan for those arriving here by small boat, if these measures were in place?"They would be entered into the asylum process as they are now. A caveat could easily be placed into the process that benefits those using holding centres/safe routes to travel, increasing their chance of a successful asylum case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK Govt must have also created the crisis in Italy, Greece and Spain too
No I’m just discussion the actions taken re: boats to the U.K
If you don’t believe that U.K. govt action/inaction has added to the issue, I’m not sure what to say to you
I'm talking about boats in those countries too.
The EU have a serious problem with boats, the US have a serious problem with people crossing rivers.
But fear not, if the UK Govt sort it out, it'll all be fine.
They have the power to help the situation in the U.K, do they not?
I’m really not sure what point you’re making here.
I believe my point is clear.
You can't see that 'illegal entry' is a worldwide problem because you're too busy blaming our Govt.
Apart from your usual 'open safe routes', what do you suggest any Govt can do to calm the problem?
‘Open safe routes’ is a valid suggestion, as you’re smart enough to understand. As is allowing visa application from abroad, and working with EU nations to facilitate holding centres on the continent, and improving the asylum system (including staffing) to speed up the claim process.
I’ve said all this previously.
It's a soundbite. Plenty of people use it but never offer any suggestion to how it would work in reality.
I'm for it on the face but I need details. It wouldn't stop boats though.
Allowing visa applications from abroad is part of it, not a separate entity. Don't we already try to 'work with the EU (France)'?, doesn't appear to be helping.
As much as I agree that we need to speed up the process, I actually believe it could make it seem 'even more desirable' to migrants if they know they're in and processed quickly. "Being processed quickly does not mean the case wouldn’t be heard correctly though. It wouldn’t improve one’s chance of being accepted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK Govt must have also created the crisis in Italy, Greece and Spain too
No I’m just discussion the actions taken re: boats to the U.K
If you don’t believe that U.K. govt action/inaction has added to the issue, I’m not sure what to say to you
I'm talking about boats in those countries too.
The EU have a serious problem with boats, the US have a serious problem with people crossing rivers.
But fear not, if the UK Govt sort it out, it'll all be fine.
They have the power to help the situation in the U.K, do they not?
I’m really not sure what point you’re making here.
I believe my point is clear.
You can't see that 'illegal entry' is a worldwide problem because you're too busy blaming our Govt.
Apart from your usual 'open safe routes', what do you suggest any Govt can do to calm the problem?
‘Open safe routes’ is a valid suggestion, as you’re smart enough to understand. As is allowing visa application from abroad, and working with EU nations to facilitate holding centres on the continent, and improving the asylum system (including staffing) to speed up the claim process.
I’ve said all this previously.
Will any of the above stop the illegal entry by small boat? Or are your suggestions soundbites that on paper look great but in reality a lot of money that will not stop those economic migrants from crossing the channel?
If you want to stop illegal crossings altogether you’d be the first person in the history of these isles to do so.
The above would (I believe, along with others) all drastically reduce the number of illegal crossings - I’m sure you’d agree that’s a good thing. Make crossings safer, fewer in number, and hurt the vile people smuggling gangs in the process.
What’s not to like?
What would be the plan for those arriving here by small boat, if these measures were in place?
They would be entered into the asylum process as they are now. A caveat could easily be placed into the process that benefits those using holding centres/safe routes to travel, increasing their chance of a successful asylum case. "Would you prefer no checks and allow anyone who wants to be here into the country, would that be a fair summary? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK Govt must have also created the crisis in Italy, Greece and Spain too
No I’m just discussion the actions taken re: boats to the U.K
If you don’t believe that U.K. govt action/inaction has added to the issue, I’m not sure what to say to you
I'm talking about boats in those countries too.
The EU have a serious problem with boats, the US have a serious problem with people crossing rivers.
But fear not, if the UK Govt sort it out, it'll all be fine.
They have the power to help the situation in the U.K, do they not?
I’m really not sure what point you’re making here.
I believe my point is clear.
You can't see that 'illegal entry' is a worldwide problem because you're too busy blaming our Govt.
Apart from your usual 'open safe routes', what do you suggest any Govt can do to calm the problem?
‘Open safe routes’ is a valid suggestion, as you’re smart enough to understand. As is allowing visa application from abroad, and working with EU nations to facilitate holding centres on the continent, and improving the asylum system (including staffing) to speed up the claim process.
I’ve said all this previously.
It's a soundbite. Plenty of people use it but never offer any suggestion to how it would work in reality.
I'm for it on the face but I need details. It wouldn't stop boats though.
Allowing visa applications from abroad is part of it, not a separate entity. Don't we already try to 'work with the EU (France)'?, doesn't appear to be helping.
As much as I agree that we need to speed up the process, I actually believe it could make it seem 'even more desirable' to migrants if they know they're in and processed quickly.
Being processed quickly does not mean the case wouldn’t be heard correctly though. It wouldn’t improve one’s chance of being accepted."I didn't say it would improve the chance of being accepted. I do believe it would offer more hope of a quick resettlement, and that in turn would 'invite' more people to try. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What would be the plan for those arriving here by small boat, if these measures were in place?" "They would be entered into the asylum process as they are now. A caveat could easily be placed into the process that benefits those using holding centres/safe routes to travel, increasing their chance of a successful asylum case." That would be against international law. Asylum is not a gift bestowed by a beneficent nation, it's a human right which *must* be given to all those that fit the criteria. We can't discriminate based on the method of application. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What would be the plan for those arriving here by small boat, if these measures were in place? They would be entered into the asylum process as they are now. A caveat could easily be placed into the process that benefits those using holding centres/safe routes to travel, increasing their chance of a successful asylum case. That would be against international law. Asylum is not a gift bestowed by a beneficent nation, it's a human right which *must* be given to all those that fit the criteria. We can't discriminate based on the method of application." Then you find another way (pretty sure the home office legal boffins could come up with some way) of making the ‘correct’ journey even more appealing than it already would be over paying people traffickers for a dinghy trip. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Then you find another way (pretty sure the home office legal boffins could come up with some way) of making the ‘correct’ journey even more appealing than it already would be over paying people traffickers for a dinghy trip. " The simple existence of a safe route would do that. Who wants to pay and risk drowning when there's a safe route available? Until their safe route application is rejected, because they don't fit the criteria for asylum. At which point the boat crossing starts to look like a good idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Then you find another way (pretty sure the home office legal boffins could come up with some way) of making the ‘correct’ journey even more appealing than it already would be over paying people traffickers for a dinghy trip. The simple existence of a safe route would do that. Who wants to pay and risk drowning when there's a safe route available? Until their safe route application is rejected, because they don't fit the criteria for asylum. At which point the boat crossing starts to look like a good idea." And given the large number of successful applicants, there’ll be a drastically reduced need for subsequent illegal crossings, right? So it achieves its aim of reducing risky crossings, and harms the people trafficking gangs. Excellent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Then you find another way (pretty sure the home office legal boffins could come up with some way) of making the ‘correct’ journey even more appealing than it already would be over paying people traffickers for a dinghy trip. The simple existence of a safe route would do that. Who wants to pay and risk drowning when there's a safe route available? Until their safe route application is rejected, because they don't fit the criteria for asylum. At which point the boat crossing starts to look like a good idea. And given the large number of successful applicants, there’ll be a drastically reduced need for subsequent illegal crossings, right? So it achieves its aim of reducing risky crossings, and harms the people trafficking gangs. Excellent." . A lot of the successfull applicants are probably not genuine . Home Office case workers are advised not to be sceptical or to adppt any form of interrogation that the applicant might find to be traumatic . It is hardly surprising that with such a weak assessment procedure we accept 75 % of claims compared to 33 % in France . It looks like the French assessment system is vastly superior to ours . At least the French are enforcing the law. We all have a moral obligation to ensure that the law is enforced and no one should be encouraging or making a financial gain from those attempting to enter the county illegally. Sadly many of the legal profession just want to use the current situation to line their own pockets . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
How they get the money is another problem, suspect there are loan sharks, as there is no way many can afford the “fees” to travel unless they are lent the money to do so."So you agree the criminal gangs are not doing this for free then. It's not impossible that some use loan sharks but if the applicants are to be believed then they have no ID at all. Not sure about lending money to people who they don't know and have no way of showing who they are in the knowledge they are about to cross the channel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Then you find another way (pretty sure the home office legal boffins could come up with some way) of making the ‘correct’ journey even more appealing than it already would be over paying people traffickers for a dinghy trip." "The simple existence of a safe route would do that. Who wants to pay and risk drowning when there's a safe route available?" "Until their safe route application is rejected, because they don't fit the criteria for asylum. At which point the boat crossing starts to look like a good idea." "And given the large number of successful applicants, there’ll be a drastically reduced need for subsequent illegal crossings, right? So it achieves its aim of reducing risky crossings, and harms the people trafficking gangs. Excellent." But that rate of acceptance couldn't continue. Very few applications are accepted at first review, and those are the only ones that would be eligible for the safe route. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it hard to see why one thinks safe routes wouldn't help tbh. If you believed you had a valid claim, why wouldn't you go via a safe route rather than risk life (and spend 000s) on a crossing? I'd also go one further and say that using a irregular method either than a regular method acts as evidence against your asylum claim, unless you entered unaided and applied voluntarily. Any rescues count as aid. " I don't think anyone thinks that. It's been said on here many times that safe routes WOULD STOP boat crossings. They wouldn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it hard to see why one thinks safe routes wouldn't help tbh. If you believed you had a valid claim, why wouldn't you go via a safe route rather than risk life (and spend 000s) on a crossing? I'd also go one further and say that using a irregular method either than a regular method acts as evidence against your asylum claim, unless you entered unaided and applied voluntarily. Any rescues count as aid. I don't think anyone thinks that. It's been said on here many times that safe routes WOULD STOP boat crossings. They wouldn't. " I don’t think anyone has said they’d stop the boat crossings altogether. I may be wrong, but I can’t recall anyone claiming that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it hard to see why one thinks safe routes wouldn't help tbh." It depends what you mean by 'help'. Some people want to stop the small boats because too many people are dying, and some people want to stop them because too many people are arriving. Safe routes will probably reduce crossings and thereby cut down the number of people dying, so they'll help if that's your concern. If you're more worried about the number of people arriving, then safe routes will only increase that number, so they don't help at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it hard to see why one thinks safe routes wouldn't help tbh. If you believed you had a valid claim, why wouldn't you go via a safe route rather than risk life (and spend 000s) on a crossing? I'd also go one further and say that using a irregular method either than a regular method acts as evidence against your asylum claim, unless you entered unaided and applied voluntarily. Any rescues count as aid. I don't think anyone thinks that. It's been said on here many times that safe routes WOULD STOP boat crossings. They wouldn't. I don’t think anyone has said they’d stop the boat crossings altogether. I may be wrong, but I can’t recall anyone claiming that. " It's often said they would stop crossings and only reduced to 'decrease' when challenged. Uf we really want to stop crossings, we need the help of the French. That's not blaming the French before that's the accusations levelled at me. It's physically impossible for us to stop them as things stand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we really want to stop crossings, we need the help of the French. That's not blaming the French before that's the accusations levelled at me. It's physically impossible for us to stop them as things stand." It is indeed possible for the French to stop the crossings completely, by simply agreeing to accept back any people that cross. It wouldn't take long for the trade to end if migrants could see that they'll just be returned. But France isn't willing to do that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it hard to see why one thinks safe routes wouldn't help tbh. It depends what you mean by 'help'. Some people want to stop the small boats because too many people are dying, and some people want to stop them because too many people are arriving. Safe routes will probably reduce crossings and thereby cut down the number of people dying, so they'll help if that's your concern. If you're more worried about the number of people arriving, then safe routes will only increase that number, so they don't help at all." that's fair. It does mean people need to stand behind their connections and not play a "stop criminalality" card when their motive is to reduce numbers. If motivation is numbers then it's worth noting boat entry is c 45pc of all asylum claims. We've also accepted almost 400k of in migration thru just the Ukrainian and HK scheme in the past few years. In the last year we have granted asylum to 21k. As such, we are looking at the wrong end of the wedge if all we care about is absolute numbers of people. (ignoring that we are already looking at the thin end of the overall immigration wedge) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it hard to see why one thinks safe routes wouldn't help tbh. If you believed you had a valid claim, why wouldn't you go via a safe route rather than risk life (and spend 000s) on a crossing? I'd also go one further and say that using a irregular method either than a regular method acts as evidence against your asylum claim, unless you entered unaided and applied voluntarily. Any rescues count as aid. I don't think anyone thinks that. It's been said on here many times that safe routes WOULD STOP boat crossings. They wouldn't. I don’t think anyone has said they’d stop the boat crossings altogether. I may be wrong, but I can’t recall anyone claiming that. It's often said they would stop crossings and only reduced to 'decrease' when challenged. Uf we really want to stop crossings, we need the help of the French. That's not blaming the French before that's the accusations levelled at me. It's physically impossible for us to stop them as things stand. " Is it? I don’t think it is what us said on here. Reduce yes. Provide a legitimate channel yea. By having a (more) legitimate channels it means those crossing in small boats can ll assume to be bogus. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it hard to see why one thinks safe routes wouldn't help tbh. If you believed you had a valid claim, why wouldn't you go via a safe route rather than risk life (and spend 000s) on a crossing? I'd also go one further and say that using a irregular method either than a regular method acts as evidence against your asylum claim, unless you entered unaided and applied voluntarily. Any rescues count as aid. I don't think anyone thinks that. It's been said on here many times that safe routes WOULD STOP boat crossings. They wouldn't. I don’t think anyone has said they’d stop the boat crossings altogether. I may be wrong, but I can’t recall anyone claiming that. It's often said they would stop crossings and only reduced to 'decrease' when challenged. Uf we really want to stop crossings, we need the help of the French. That's not blaming the French before that's the accusations levelled at me. It's physically impossible for us to stop them as things stand. Is it? I don’t think it is what us said on here. Reduce yes. Provide a legitimate channel yea. By having a (more) legitimate channels it means those crossing in small boats can ll assume to be bogus." Really? Here is just one quote which tool me less than a minute to find. "The conservatives don't want to solve this, they've had 13 years and haven't...they bang on about people traffickers but could stop this overnight by opening safe routes" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it hard to see why one thinks safe routes wouldn't help tbh. If you believed you had a valid claim, why wouldn't you go via a safe route rather than risk life (and spend 000s) on a crossing? I'd also go one further and say that using a irregular method either than a regular method acts as evidence against your asylum claim, unless you entered unaided and applied voluntarily. Any rescues count as aid. I don't think anyone thinks that. It's been said on here many times that safe routes WOULD STOP boat crossings. They wouldn't. I don’t think anyone has said they’d stop the boat crossings altogether. I may be wrong, but I can’t recall anyone claiming that. It's often said they would stop crossings and only reduced to 'decrease' when challenged. Uf we really want to stop crossings, we need the help of the French. That's not blaming the French before that's the accusations levelled at me. It's physically impossible for us to stop them as things stand. Is it? I don’t think it is what us said on here. Reduce yes. Provide a legitimate channel yea. By having a (more) legitimate channels it means those crossing in small boats can ll assume to be bogus. Really? Here is just one quote which tool me less than a minute to find. "The conservatives don't want to solve this, they've had 13 years and haven't...they bang on about people traffickers but could stop this overnight by opening safe routes"" That’s fair, good find. Now have you ever heard of the word ‘rhetoric’? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it hard to see why one thinks safe routes wouldn't help tbh. If you believed you had a valid claim, why wouldn't you go via a safe route rather than risk life (and spend 000s) on a crossing? I'd also go one further and say that using a irregular method either than a regular method acts as evidence against your asylum claim, unless you entered unaided and applied voluntarily. Any rescues count as aid. I don't think anyone thinks that. It's been said on here many times that safe routes WOULD STOP boat crossings. They wouldn't. I don’t think anyone has said they’d stop the boat crossings altogether. I may be wrong, but I can’t recall anyone claiming that. It's often said they would stop crossings and only reduced to 'decrease' when challenged. Uf we really want to stop crossings, we need the help of the French. That's not blaming the French before that's the accusations levelled at me. It's physically impossible for us to stop them as things stand. Is it? I don’t think it is what us said on here. Reduce yes. Provide a legitimate channel yea. By having a (more) legitimate channels it means those crossing in small boats can ll assume to be bogus. Really? Here is just one quote which tool me less than a minute to find. "The conservatives don't want to solve this, they've had 13 years and haven't...they bang on about people traffickers but could stop this overnight by opening safe routes"" Ok fair enough! Sounds a bit like hyperbole. Nothing is guaranteed but having more safe routes open with wider eligibility combined with a clear message that coming in via any other means will be deemed as illegitimate and dealt with as such, would likely steer the majority of people towards the safe routes. It would also mean people who sympathise with the migrants will be able to more easily discern between legitimate claimants and the others! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it hard to see why one thinks safe routes wouldn't help tbh. If you believed you had a valid claim, why wouldn't you go via a safe route rather than risk life (and spend 000s) on a crossing? I'd also go one further and say that using a irregular method either than a regular method acts as evidence against your asylum claim, unless you entered unaided and applied voluntarily. Any rescues count as aid. I don't think anyone thinks that. It's been said on here many times that safe routes WOULD STOP boat crossings. They wouldn't. I don’t think anyone has said they’d stop the boat crossings altogether. I may be wrong, but I can’t recall anyone claiming that. It's often said they would stop crossings and only reduced to 'decrease' when challenged. Uf we really want to stop crossings, we need the help of the French. That's not blaming the French before that's the accusations levelled at me. It's physically impossible for us to stop them as things stand. Is it? I don’t think it is what us said on here. Reduce yes. Provide a legitimate channel yea. By having a (more) legitimate channels it means those crossing in small boats can ll assume to be bogus. Really? Here is just one quote which tool me less than a minute to find. "The conservatives don't want to solve this, they've had 13 years and haven't...they bang on about people traffickers but could stop this overnight by opening safe routes" Ok fair enough! Sounds a bit like hyperbole. Nothing is guaranteed but having more safe routes open with wider eligibility combined with a clear message that coming in via any other means will be deemed as illegitimate and dealt with as such, would likely steer the majority of people towards the safe routes. It would also mean people who sympathise with the migrants will be able to more easily discern between legitimate claimants and the others!" As posted before send a boat let all on board that want to come to UK. Boat is a prospering point and dose not enter UK water them that pass get safe free passage them that fail get dropped back to EU. All are fingerprint and scaned as biometric photo. Stop giving the cash to France and set up a diferant system that cuts out the small boats and smuggling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it hard to see why one thinks safe routes wouldn't help tbh. If you believed you had a valid claim, why wouldn't you go via a safe route rather than risk life (and spend 000s) on a crossing? I'd also go one further and say that using a irregular method either than a regular method acts as evidence against your asylum claim, unless you entered unaided and applied voluntarily. Any rescues count as aid. I don't think anyone thinks that. It's been said on here many times that safe routes WOULD STOP boat crossings. They wouldn't. I don’t think anyone has said they’d stop the boat crossings altogether. I may be wrong, but I can’t recall anyone claiming that. It's often said they would stop crossings and only reduced to 'decrease' when challenged. Uf we really want to stop crossings, we need the help of the French. That's not blaming the French before that's the accusations levelled at me. It's physically impossible for us to stop them as things stand. Is it? I don’t think it is what us said on here. Reduce yes. Provide a legitimate channel yea. By having a (more) legitimate channels it means those crossing in small boats can ll assume to be bogus. Really? Here is just one quote which tool me less than a minute to find. "The conservatives don't want to solve this, they've had 13 years and haven't...they bang on about people traffickers but could stop this overnight by opening safe routes" Ok fair enough! Sounds a bit like hyperbole. Nothing is guaranteed but having more safe routes open with wider eligibility combined with a clear message that coming in via any other means will be deemed as illegitimate and dealt with as such, would likely steer the majority of people towards the safe routes. It would also mean people who sympathise with the migrants will be able to more easily discern between legitimate claimants and the others!" It is hyperbole. I claimed its said often, which it is. I'd argue the people who use this type of language don't want to distinguish between legitimate claimants and others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
How they get the money is another problem, suspect there are loan sharks, as there is no way many can afford the “fees” to travel unless they are lent the money to do so.
So you agree the criminal gangs are not doing this for free then. It's not impossible that some use loan sharks but if the applicants are to be believed then they have no ID at all. Not sure about lending money to people who they don't know and have no way of showing who they are in the knowledge they are about to cross the channel"Usually the family of those people who take the loans are collateral, if you don’t pay something happens to them. Don’t discount the nefarious ways the criminals will stoop to to get their money back. It’s the ultimate vicious cycle you make something illegal, criminals will find ways to profit, then governments are wasting money on a problem they caused.. Like prohibition in the US, booze became illegal, the mafia swooped in made a fortune, then by the time the US government repealed prohibition, the mafia became so powerful, and the US government wasted millions of dollars over 60 years trying to smash them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it hard to see why one thinks safe routes wouldn't help tbh. If you believed you had a valid claim, why wouldn't you go via a safe route rather than risk life (and spend 000s) on a crossing? I'd also go one further and say that using a irregular method either than a regular method acts as evidence against your asylum claim, unless you entered unaided and applied voluntarily. Any rescues count as aid. I don't think anyone thinks that. It's been said on here many times that safe routes WOULD STOP boat crossings. They wouldn't. I don’t think anyone has said they’d stop the boat crossings altogether. I may be wrong, but I can’t recall anyone claiming that. It's often said they would stop crossings and only reduced to 'decrease' when challenged. Uf we really want to stop crossings, we need the help of the French. That's not blaming the French before that's the accusations levelled at me. It's physically impossible for us to stop them as things stand. Is it? I don’t think it is what us said on here. Reduce yes. Provide a legitimate channel yea. By having a (more) legitimate channels it means those crossing in small boats can ll assume to be bogus. Really? Here is just one quote which tool me less than a minute to find. "The conservatives don't want to solve this, they've had 13 years and haven't...they bang on about people traffickers but could stop this overnight by opening safe routes" Ok fair enough! Sounds a bit like hyperbole. Nothing is guaranteed but having more safe routes open with wider eligibility combined with a clear message that coming in via any other means will be deemed as illegitimate and dealt with as such, would likely steer the majority of people towards the safe routes. It would also mean people who sympathise with the migrants will be able to more easily discern between legitimate claimants and the others! As posted before send a boat let all on board that want to come to UK. Boat is a prospering point and dose not enter UK water them that pass get safe free passage them that fail get dropped back to EU. All are fingerprint and scaned as biometric photo. Stop giving the cash to France and set up a diferant system that cuts out the small boats and smuggling." I wonder if the Norman’s tried to invade the UK now, they would have to claim asylum just to be accepted into the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it hard to see why one thinks safe routes wouldn't help tbh. If you believed you had a valid claim, why wouldn't you go via a safe route rather than risk life (and spend 000s) on a crossing? I'd also go one further and say that using a irregular method either than a regular method acts as evidence against your asylum claim, unless you entered unaided and applied voluntarily. Any rescues count as aid. I don't think anyone thinks that. It's been said on here many times that safe routes WOULD STOP boat crossings. They wouldn't. I don’t think anyone has said they’d stop the boat crossings altogether. I may be wrong, but I can’t recall anyone claiming that. It's often said they would stop crossings and only reduced to 'decrease' when challenged. Uf we really want to stop crossings, we need the help of the French. That's not blaming the French before that's the accusations levelled at me. It's physically impossible for us to stop them as things stand. Is it? I don’t think it is what us said on here. Reduce yes. Provide a legitimate channel yea. By having a (more) legitimate channels it means those crossing in small boats can ll assume to be bogus. Really? Here is just one quote which tool me less than a minute to find. "The conservatives don't want to solve this, they've had 13 years and haven't...they bang on about people traffickers but could stop this overnight by opening safe routes" Ok fair enough! Sounds a bit like hyperbole. Nothing is guaranteed but having more safe routes open with wider eligibility combined with a clear message that coming in via any other means will be deemed as illegitimate and dealt with as such, would likely steer the majority of people towards the safe routes. It would also mean people who sympathise with the migrants will be able to more easily discern between legitimate claimants and the others! As posted before send a boat let all on board that want to come to UK. Boat is a prospering point and dose not enter UK water them that pass get safe free passage them that fail get dropped back to EU. All are fingerprint and scaned as biometric photo. Stop giving the cash to France and set up a diferant system that cuts out the small boats and smuggling. I wonder if the Norman’s tried to invade the UK now, they would have to claim asylum just to be accepted into the UK." Strange thing to think about, what was your conclusion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Total routes for asylum Refugee permission, temporary, refugee permission, humanitarian protection,ARAP,ACRS,community sponsorship, mandate,UKRS,vcrs,vprs,discretionary,other,UASC grants. But yeah. There's absolutely NO legal entry into the UK...the first three are types of types of claims, rather than entry. All the claims via irregular come under the refugee and humanitarian permission. For those that didn't enter irregularly, which sade routes did they use ? Arap and acrs look to be be afghan only UN resettlement looks like it's moving someone who has already got refugee status in another country into the uk, because their new country has dangers too. It's running at a few hundred per quarter. It's not, as far as I can tell, a way of claiming asylum here. They are all types of claimsagreed. But the data doesn't help me understand the safe routes other than the resettlement options and the afghan type systems. So we quickly get back to: Routes for afghans and syrians Routes for hong kongers. Routes for ukranaians albeit not asylum. Some places for people who have gained asylum elsewhere and now have to be moved. Everyone else....??? " No. I gave you the report you can download. You can literally see every nationality that comes in via these routes quarterly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... declares that it is so overwhelmed by asylum seeking children that it may have to stop taking any more local children into care and the High Court has previously ruled that they must continue to accept all young refugees. What's your answer as this clearly cannot continue? So blame the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause of the broken system? Failure at the top, which wreaks havoc at the bottom. I think we all know this next general Election the tories are out. Kent can't cope with the influx of children arriving at its coast line to the point of not being able to support local children. How will opening our borders to all help with this? will it stop the illegal crossings?
You appear to have answered your own question.
how will it stop them?
Maybe if everyone keeps voting Tory relentlessly?
you don't want to even try and answer the question? I will avoid confusion and ask it again.
Will safe routes stop the small boat crossings?
Safe routes will only make a difference to those genuine asylum seekers. It wont make a blind bit of difference for the economic migrants or indeed those being trafficked however, we wont know what effect they would have unless the Government actually set them up.
I personally believe the majority of those comming on the small boats have no entitlement to be here which is why they are investing substantial sums of money to get here illegally.
I think you are right
They have not got any money for boat trips, seriously does anyone really think these people have thousands in euro's on their person while roaming around the eu.
Conspiracy theory pushed by the media.
Are you suggesting that the criminal gangs organising the crossings are doing it for free?
Well if they do pay to be trafficked they are not genuine asylum seekers but are genuine economic migrants not fleeing anything or anyone.
Every thing I have read or watched on this from every outlet says they pay several thousands to take the journey
How they get the money is another problem, suspect there are loan sharks, as there is no way many can afford the “fees” to travel unless they are lent the money to do so.
So you agree the criminal gangs are not doing this for free then. It's not impossible that some use loan sharks but if the applicants are to be believed then they have no ID at all. Not sure about lending money to people who they don't know and have no way of showing who they are in the knowledge they are about to cross the channel
Usually the family of those people who take the loans are collateral, if you don’t pay something happens to them. Don’t discount the nefarious ways the criminals will stoop to to get their money back.
It’s the ultimate vicious cycle you make something illegal, criminals will find ways to profit, then governments are wasting money on a problem they caused.. Like prohibition in the US, booze became illegal, the mafia swooped in made a fortune, then by the time the US government repealed prohibition, the mafia became so powerful, and the US government wasted millions of dollars over 60 years trying to smash them."The problem with that is the criminals do not know who these people are as they have no ID. Unless they hold the families who also have no ID as hostages then it doesn't work. It may work if these asylum seekers actually had ID for getting the money but then mysteriously they all loose their ID documents before arriving in the UK. But that would be accusing them of gaming the system. Same with all the single young men claiming to be alone when they arrive here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
