FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Failed asylum seeker families to be offered up to £40k to leave UK
Failed asylum seeker families to be offered up to £40k to leave UK
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mahmood says the government will seek to forcibly remove failed asylum seekers if they do not accept "incentive payments" of up to £10,000 per person, capped at four per family, within seven days. The scheme is expected to target about 150 families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation, and the Home Office estimates it could save £20m if successful Is this good value for the taxpayer ? " Why aren't they not just put on a plane back to country of origin? Failed means sorry 👎 Or am I being callous? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mahmood says the government will seek to forcibly remove failed asylum seekers if they do not accept "incentive payments" of up to £10,000 per person, capped at four per family, within seven days. The scheme is expected to target about 150 families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation, and the Home Office estimates it could save £20m if successful Is this good value for the taxpayer ? Why aren't they not just put on a plane back to country of origin? Failed means sorry 👎 Or am I being callous?" In a practical sense, they could end up costing more. Imagine do-gooders sitting on runways, bizarre human rights lawfare (my cat will get lonely) designed to stymie a process (as opposed to genuine cases), etc. Whatever works - pragmatism is key. But if this becomes commonplace, it could encourage others to have a go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How much do the people smugglers charge to bring them here? About £5,000? What stops them from coming back and asking for money again?" Why don't we just pay the people smugglers 10k to stop them coming in the first place 🤔 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry just frustrated At that point in life where i was looking forward to retire Only to find that i have save in to pension that i can only have £22 a year tax is to be paid on the rest All to fund people that shouldnt be here " This is how Labour are spending our tax rises 2p extra on savers income tax to pay illegal migrants | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We need to test some ideas out to become more certain about what's right for people and economically. The rhetoric of these people, many of whom will have experienced much worse things than we have done as if they are criminals, isn't either truth nor helpful " Agreed. All the people that don’t mind them here should be paying for them and/or housing and supporting them Everyone else should have the option not to contribute. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe they've waited so long for a decision they've had children who whether some like it or not qualify for citizenship..? " there kids do the parents don't so either take ya kids with ya or they go into the care system | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How much do the people smugglers charge to bring them here? About £5,000? What stops them from coming back and asking for money again? Why don't we just pay the people smugglers 10k to stop them coming in the first place 🤔 " Genius ! 👏 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mahmood says the government will seek to forcibly remove failed asylum seekers if they do not accept "incentive payments" of up to £10,000 per person, capped at four per family, within seven days. The scheme is expected to target about 150 families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation, and the Home Office estimates it could save £20m if successful Is this good value for the taxpayer ? " What's not making sense to me is that the plan is for failed asylum seekers and says if you don't accept this offer of up to £40,000 we will remove you forcibly. So the government are admitting that they have the ability to forcibly remove them and using it as a stick against the £40,000 carrot. If they are being honest then why not forget the £40,000 and just forcibly remove them? It also has the risk of encouraging people to make the journey purely to pocket the money and return home much richer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What's not making sense to me is that the plan is for failed asylum seekers and says if you don't accept this offer of up to £40,000 we will remove you forcibly. So the government are admitting that they have the ability to forcibly remove them and using it as a stick against the £40,000 carrot. If they are being honest then why not forget the £40,000 and just forcibly remove them? It also has the risk of encouraging people to make the journey purely to pocket the money and return home much richer" Lawfare. Vexatious litigation. Gumming up the justice system. Well-meaning idiots on runways and deportation flights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What's not making sense to me is that the plan is for failed asylum seekers and says if you don't accept this offer of up to £40,000 we will remove you forcibly. So the government are admitting that they have the ability to forcibly remove them and using it as a stick against the £40,000 carrot. If they are being honest then why not forget the £40,000 and just forcibly remove them? It also has the risk of encouraging people to make the journey purely to pocket the money and return home much richer Lawfare. Vexatious litigation. Gumming up the justice system. Well-meaning idiots on runways and deportation flights." I get that but that but it just means the governments threat of forcibly deporting is meaningless for those very reasons. Don't get me wrong, if it works and saves money then great, though paying people who arrive illegally and have no right to be here does stick in the throat a bit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry just frustrated At that point in life where i was looking forward to retire Only to find that i have save in to pension that i can only have £22 a year tax is to be paid on the rest All to fund people that shouldnt be here This is how Labour are spending our tax rises 2p extra on savers income tax to pay illegal migrants" Rupert Lowe has also said Restore Britain will pay for repatriation btw. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What's not making sense to me is that the plan is for failed asylum seekers and says if you don't accept this offer of up to £40,000 we will remove you forcibly. So the government are admitting that they have the ability to forcibly remove them and using it as a stick against the £40,000 carrot. If they are being honest then why not forget the £40,000 and just forcibly remove them? It also has the risk of encouraging people to make the journey purely to pocket the money and return home much richer Lawfare. Vexatious litigation. Gumming up the justice system. Well-meaning idiots on runways and deportation flights. I get that but that but it just means the governments threat of forcibly deporting is meaningless for those very reasons. Don't get me wrong, if it works and saves money then great, though paying people who arrive illegally and have no right to be here does stick in the throat a bit." Agree with all points. Whoever deals with this will take much of the wind out of Reform's sails. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe they've waited so long for a decision they've had children who whether some like it or not qualify for citizenship..? there kids do the parents don't so either take ya kids with ya or they go into the care system" A kid in care cots around £5000 a week. Do the arithmetic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A kid in care costs (sic)around £5000 a week. Do the arithmetic" . The average yearly placement is £318,000 per child. (Avg £6115 a week). . Children with complex care needs cost £20,000 a week. . At least nine councils have reported paying £20,000 or more per week for a single child's residential placement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mahmood says the government will seek to forcibly remove failed asylum seekers if they do not accept "incentive payments" of up to £10,000 per person, capped at four per family, within seven days. The scheme is expected to target about 150 families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation, and the Home Office estimates it could save £20m if successful Is this good value for the taxpayer ? Why aren't they not just put on a plane back to country of origin? Failed means sorry 👎 Or am I being callous? In a practical sense, they could end up costing more. Imagine do-gooders sitting on runways, bizarre human rights lawfare (my cat will get lonely) designed to stymie a process (as opposed to genuine cases), etc. Whatever works - pragmatism is key. But if this becomes commonplace, it could encourage others to have a go." Vote REFORM and have them all removed by Force. You will soon change your minds and vote REFORM when the Sleeping Cells within UK wake up and start their attack on UK citizens | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mahmood says the government will seek to forcibly remove failed asylum seekers if they do not accept "incentive payments" of up to £10,000 per person, capped at four per family, within seven days. The scheme is expected to target about 150 families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation, and the Home Office estimates it could save £20m if successful Is this good value for the taxpayer ? " We might just as well print an invitation on the back of a bank draft! And if they CAN be 'forcibly removed' if they refuse this ridiculous offer, why can't they be forcibly removed BEFORE it? I cannot imagine a better incentive for the arrival of thousands upon thousands - paying them to come here, effectively. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mahmood says the government will seek to forcibly remove failed asylum seekers if they do not accept "incentive payments" of up to £10,000 per person, capped at four per family, within seven days. The scheme is expected to target about 150 families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation, and the Home Office estimates it could save £20m if successful Is this good value for the taxpayer ? Why aren't they not just put on a plane back to country of origin? Failed means sorry 👎 Or am I being callous? In a practical sense, they could end up costing more. Imagine do-gooders sitting on runways, bizarre human rights lawfare (my cat will get lonely) designed to stymie a process (as opposed to genuine cases), etc. Whatever works - pragmatism is key. But if this becomes commonplace, it could encourage others to have a go. Vote REFORM and have them all removed by Force. You will soon change your minds and vote REFORM when the Sleeping Cells within UK wake up and start their attack on UK citizens " Reform have also said they will also offer financial incentives for voluntary repatriation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform have also said they will also offer financial incentives for voluntary repatriation." Can you give us a link or a quote for this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Home Office is a famously incompetent institution which has also got issues with corruption- recently an immigration officer was convicted of helping illegal immigrants and it turned out he was illegal too but working in the HO ! If this mad scheme was ever put into action it would be subject to collosal fraud and abuse." 🤣🤣🤣 Source 😘 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform have also said they will also offer financial incentives for voluntary repatriation. Can you give us a link or a quote for this?" Can't seem to find one, also curious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Home Office is a famously incompetent institution which has also got issues with corruption- recently an immigration officer was convicted of helping illegal immigrants and it turned out he was illegal too but working in the HO ! If this mad scheme was ever put into action it would be subject to collosal fraud and abuse. 🤣🤣🤣 Source 😘" Urban myth, with a grain of truth at its core: https://www.cps.gov.uk/north-west/news/former-home-office-employee-jailed-bribery In June 2025, a Home Office asylum caseworker named Imran Mulla was jailed for four-and-a-half years. He was taking bribes from failed asylum seekers to illegally manipulate the system and grant them status. However, Mulla was a British citizen from Blackburn, not an undocumented immigrant himself. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/may/19/immigrationpolicy.immigrationandpublicservices The part of the story about illegal immigrants working in the government usually stems from a few highly publicized embarrassments. In 2006, it was discovered that the Home Office had inadvertently hired undocumented immigrants as cleaners through a contractor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Home Office is a famously incompetent institution which has also got issues with corruption- recently an immigration officer was convicted of helping illegal immigrants and it turned out he was illegal too but working in the HO ! If this mad scheme was ever put into action it would be subject to collosal fraud and abuse. 🤣🤣🤣 Source 😘 Urban myth, with a grain of truth. In June 2025, a Home Office asylum caseworker named Imran Mulla was jailed for four-and-a-half years. He was taking bribes from failed asylum seekers to illegally manipulate the system and grant them status. However, Mulla was a British citizen from Blackburn, not an undocumented immigrant " No, I was referring to the case of Besmir Matera which is easily found online. As for general criminality in the Home Office, here's a story from far right Guardian about the 'dozens' of cases under investigation. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/15/home-office-staff-under-criminal-investigation-freedom-of-information | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Home Office is a famously incompetent institution which has also got issues with corruption- recently an immigration officer was convicted of helping illegal immigrants and it turned out he was illegal too but working in the HO ! If this mad scheme was ever put into action it would be subject to collosal fraud and abuse. 🤣🤣🤣 Source 😘 Urban myth, with a grain of truth. In June 2025, a Home Office asylum caseworker named Imran Mulla was jailed for four-and-a-half years. He was taking bribes from failed asylum seekers to illegally manipulate the system and grant them status. However, Mulla was a British citizen from Blackburn, not an undocumented immigrant No, I was referring to the case of Besmir Matera which is easily found online. As for general criminality in the Home Office, here's a story from far right Guardian about the 'dozens' of cases under investigation. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/15/home-office-staff-under-criminal-investigation-freedom-of-information " My apologies to the fine Mr Matera, an Albanian national who was allegedly living in the UK illegally and with 5 others allegedly stole money from new arrivals to Dover. His on trial and not yet convicted. I am sure he will be cleared of this terrible persecution.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Home Office is a famously incompetent institution which has also got issues with corruption- recently an immigration officer was convicted of helping illegal immigrants and it turned out he was illegal too but working in the HO ! If this mad scheme was ever put into action it would be subject to collosal fraud and abuse. 🤣🤣🤣 Source 😘 Urban myth, with a grain of truth. In June 2025, a Home Office asylum caseworker named Imran Mulla was jailed for four-and-a-half years. He was taking bribes from failed asylum seekers to illegally manipulate the system and grant them status. However, Mulla was a British citizen from Blackburn, not an undocumented immigrant No, I was referring to the case of Besmir Matera which is easily found online. As for general criminality in the Home Office, here's a story from far right Guardian about the 'dozens' of cases under investigation. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/15/home-office-staff-under-criminal-investigation-freedom-of-information " Oh... had missed this one. Wow. But, innocent until proven guilty - he's bound to be a fine, upstanding citizen, of course. Must be a misunderstanding. Why would an Albanian ever want to forge documents to claim asylum illegally? Would never happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Home Office is a famously incompetent institution which has also got issues with corruption- recently an immigration officer was convicted of helping illegal immigrants and it turned out he was illegal too but working in the HO ! If this mad scheme was ever put into action it would be subject to collosal fraud and abuse. 🤣🤣🤣 Source 😘 Urban myth, with a grain of truth. In June 2025, a Home Office asylum caseworker named Imran Mulla was jailed for four-and-a-half years. He was taking bribes from failed asylum seekers to illegally manipulate the system and grant them status. However, Mulla was a British citizen from Blackburn, not an undocumented immigrant No, I was referring to the case of Besmir Matera which is easily found online. As for general criminality in the Home Office, here's a story from far right Guardian about the 'dozens' of cases under investigation. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/15/home-office-staff-under-criminal-investigation-freedom-of-information Oh... had missed this one. Wow. But, innocent until proven guilty - he's bound to be a fine, upstanding citizen, of course. Must be a misunderstanding. Why would an Albanian ever want to forge documents to claim asylum illegally? Would never happen." 🙊 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Home Office is a famously incompetent institution which has also got issues with corruption- recently an immigration officer was convicted of helping illegal immigrants and it turned out he was illegal too but working in the HO ! If this mad scheme was ever put into action it would be subject to collosal fraud and abuse. 🤣🤣🤣 Source 😘 Urban myth, with a grain of truth. In June 2025, a Home Office asylum caseworker named Imran Mulla was jailed for four-and-a-half years. He was taking bribes from failed asylum seekers to illegally manipulate the system and grant them status. However, Mulla was a British citizen from Blackburn, not an undocumented immigrant No, I was referring to the case of Besmir Matera which is easily found online. As for general criminality in the Home Office, here's a story from far right Guardian about the 'dozens' of cases under investigation. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/15/home-office-staff-under-criminal-investigation-freedom-of-information My apologies to the fine Mr Matera, an Albanian national who was allegedly living in the UK illegally and with 5 others allegedly stole money from new arrivals to Dover. His on trial and not yet convicted. I am sure he will be cleared of this terrible persecution. "How does being accused of stealing from immigrants equate to " convicted of helping illegal immigrants" ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My apologies to the fine Mr Matera, an Albanian national who was allegedly living in the UK illegally and with 5 others allegedly stole money from new arrivals to Dover. His on trial and not yet convicted. I am sure he will be cleared of this terrible persecution.
How does being accused of stealing from immigrants equate to " convicted of helping illegal immigrants" ?"Probably a conflation of Imran Mulla and Besmir Matera? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Home Office is a famously incompetent institution which has also got issues with corruption- recently an immigration officer was convicted of helping illegal immigrants and it turned out he was illegal too but working in the HO ! If this mad scheme was ever put into action it would be subject to collosal fraud and abuse. 🤣🤣🤣 Source 😘 Urban myth, with a grain of truth. In June 2025, a Home Office asylum caseworker named Imran Mulla was jailed for four-and-a-half years. He was taking bribes from failed asylum seekers to illegally manipulate the system and grant them status. However, Mulla was a British citizen from Blackburn, not an undocumented immigrant No, I was referring to the case of Besmir Matera which is easily found online. As for general criminality in the Home Office, here's a story from far right Guardian about the 'dozens' of cases under investigation. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/15/home-office-staff-under-criminal-investigation-freedom-of-information My apologies to the fine Mr Matera, an Albanian national who was allegedly living in the UK illegally and with 5 others allegedly stole money from new arrivals to Dover. His on trial and not yet convicted. I am sure he will be cleared of this terrible persecution.
How does being accused of stealing from immigrants equate to " convicted of helping illegal immigrants" ?"I have already issued an apology to Mr Matera and his legal representative for my erroneous reference to his conviction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saving public money is good yes.. "so is shooting the illegal fookers save even more | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does being accused of stealing from immigrants equate to " convicted of helping illegal immigrants" ?" He was accused of taking valuables from immigrants, and others were accused of receiving stolen goods and misconduct in a public office. We don't know the details yet, but that looks like one person took bribes and passed them to another person who 'expedited the paperwork'. Of course that's just speculation and we can't condemn anyone till after the trial. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we could just offset the figure quoted by charging the hundreds of thousands of tax dodgers 20% of their average income for the last three years for a seat on the repatriation flights from dubai etc. "If they were living in Dubai, how have they been “dodging tax” as you put it? If they have committed a crime I’m sure they will be arrested at the airports. The ratio for a tweet is 8 armed police per offender so for tax evasion they better send the sas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we could just offset the figure quoted by charging the hundreds of thousands of tax dodgers 20% of their average income for the last three years for a seat on the repatriation flights from dubai etc.
If they were living in Dubai, how have they been “dodging tax” as you put it? If they have committed a crime I’m sure they will be arrested at the airports.
The ratio for a tweet is 8 armed police per offender so for tax evasion they better send the sas. "are you saying oh the goats? why has that pink bird only got one leg? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we could just offset the figure quoted by charging the hundreds of thousands of tax dodgers 20% of their average income for the last three years for a seat on the repatriation flights from dubai etc.
If they were living in Dubai, how have they been “dodging tax” as you put it? If they have committed a crime I’m sure they will be arrested at the airports.
The ratio for a tweet is 8 armed police per offender so for tax evasion they better send the sas.
are you saying oh the goats? why has that pink bird only got one leg?"Sorry I only speak English and some German. Tiny bit of French. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we could just offset the figure quoted by charging the hundreds of thousands of tax dodgers 20% of their average income for the last three years for a seat on the repatriation flights from dubai etc.
If they were living in Dubai, how have they been “dodging tax” as you put it? If they have committed a crime I’m sure they will be arrested at the airports.
The ratio for a tweet is 8 armed police per offender so for tax evasion they better send the sas.
are you saying oh the goats? why has that pink bird only got one leg?
Sorry I only speak English and some German. Tiny bit of French. "so you're saying margin fictitious landing cat ..... typical  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we could just offset the figure quoted by charging the hundreds of thousands of tax dodgers 20% of their average income for the last three years for a seat on the repatriation flights from dubai etc.
If they were living in Dubai, how have they been “dodging tax” as you put it? If they have committed a crime I’m sure they will be arrested at the airports.
The ratio for a tweet is 8 armed police per offender so for tax evasion they better send the sas.
are you saying oh the goats? why has that pink bird only got one leg?
Sorry I only speak English and some German. Tiny bit of French.
so you're saying margin fictitious landing cat ..... typical "If you want to know what I’m saying, why not read it? I’m not going to engage in this frivolous banter, it’s spoils the thread for sensible people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"we could just offset the figure quoted by charging the hundreds of thousands of tax dodgers 20% of their average income for the last three years for a seat on the repatriation flights from dubai etc.
If they were living in Dubai, how have they been “dodging tax” as you put it? If they have committed a crime I’m sure they will be arrested at the airports.
The ratio for a tweet is 8 armed police per offender so for tax evasion they better send the sas.
are you saying oh the goats? why has that pink bird only got one leg?
Sorry I only speak English and some German. Tiny bit of French.
so you're saying margin fictitious landing cat ..... typical
If you want to know what I’m saying, why not read it?
I’m not going to engage in this frivolous banter, it’s spoils the thread for sensible people "so fervent biscuit cat slander then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sounds a Lucrative deal for the smuggling gangs, they force/send groups of 4 across to the UK, they get deported with £40,000 which the gangs force them to hand over, then the gangs continue sending others. Smash the Gangs, more like pay the gangs" Just about everyone else in politics has realised that a big part of the problem is the incentives. Labour decide to increase the incentive. If get that they think it might save money in the long run if they all claim benefits, but The Ginger Growler told us they all work. Why would you pay doctors and engineers to leave the country? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"40k - leave - return - 40k - leave repeat. Daft." 👍can we all have some please | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"40k - leave - return - 40k - leave repeat. Daft." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform have also said they will also offer financial incentives for voluntary repatriation. Can you give us a link or a quote for this?" https://www.reform-oxfordshire.co.uk/operation-restoring-justice Or you can google reform party ‘carrot and stick’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform have also said they will also offer financial incentives for voluntary repatriation. Can you give us a link or a quote for this? https://www.reform-oxfordshire.co.uk/operation-restoring-justice Or you can google reform party ‘carrot and stick’" Offering £2500 compared to £45k. What an amazing bargain 👏👏 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform have also said they will also offer financial incentives for voluntary repatriation. Can you give us a link or a quote for this? https://www.reform-oxfordshire.co.uk/operation-restoring-justice Or you can google reform party ‘carrot and stick’ Offering £2500 compared to £45k. What an amazing bargain 👏👏" 2.5k is still a financial incentive, is it not? Like I said? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform have also said they will also offer financial incentives for voluntary repatriation. Can you give us a link or a quote for this? https://www.reform-oxfordshire.co.uk/operation-restoring-justice Or you can google reform party ‘carrot and stick’ Offering £2500 compared to £45k. What an amazing bargain 👏👏 2.5k is still a financial incentive, is it not? Like I said? " You're replying to the wrong person. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform have also said they will also offer financial incentives for voluntary repatriation. https://www.reform-oxfordshire.co.uk/operation-restoring-justice Or you can google reform party ‘carrot and stick’" The "carrot and stick" described in that site is the provision of foreign aid to those countries that agree to take back their citizens. It's not money given to individuals, and it's not related to voluntary repatriation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform have also said they will also offer financial incentives for voluntary repatriation. https://www.reform-oxfordshire.co.uk/operation-restoring-justice Or you can google reform party ‘carrot and stick’ The "carrot and stick" described in that site is the provision of foreign aid to those countries that agree to take back their citizens. It's not money given to individuals, and it's not related to voluntary repatriation." “A six-month Assisted Voluntary Return window precedes large-scale raids. Illegal migrants will be offered a financial incentive to self-deport. An app will be launched to facilitate this.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“A six-month Assisted Voluntary Return window precedes large-scale raids. Illegal migrants will be offered a financial incentive to self-deport. An app will be launched to facilitate this.”" Ah, thanks for pointing it out. I was too focused on the "carrot and stick" bit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“A six-month Assisted Voluntary Return window precedes large-scale raids. Illegal migrants will be offered a financial incentive to self-deport. An app will be launched to facilitate this.” Ah, thanks for pointing it out. I was too focused on the "carrot and stick" bit." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“A six-month Assisted Voluntary Return window precedes large-scale raids. Illegal migrants will be offered a financial incentive to self-deport. An app will be launched to facilitate this.” Ah, thanks for pointing it out. I was too focused on the "carrot and stick" bit. "Is that for illegal immigrants or for asylum seekers or for asylum seekers who have been refused asylum ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“A six-month Assisted Voluntary Return window precedes large-scale raids. Illegal migrants will be offered a financial incentive to self-deport. An app will be launched to facilitate this.” Ah, thanks for pointing it out. I was too focused on the "carrot and stick" bit.
Is that for illegal immigrants or for asylum seekers or for asylum seekers who have been refused asylum ?
"It’s possible to be all of the above at the same time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform have also said they will also offer financial incentives for voluntary repatriation. https://www.reform-oxfordshire.co.uk/operation-restoring-justice Or you can google reform party ‘carrot and stick’ The "carrot and stick" described in that site is the provision of foreign aid to those countries that agree to take back their citizens. It's not money given to individuals, and it's not related to voluntary repatriation. “A six-month Assisted Voluntary Return window precedes large-scale raids. Illegal migrants will be offered a financial incentive to self-deport. An app will be launched to facilitate this.” " Letmek ow when you see this app ... Asking for a friend 😜 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“A six-month Assisted Voluntary Return window precedes large-scale raids. Illegal migrants will be offered a financial incentive to self-deport. An app will be launched to facilitate this.” Ah, thanks for pointing it out. I was too focused on the "carrot and stick" bit.
Is that for illegal immigrants or for asylum seekers or for asylum seekers who have been refused asylum ?
"Asylum seekers are not illegal. People who have had their asylum claim refused and remain become illegal immigrants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asylum seekers are not illegal. People who have had their asylum claim refused and remain become illegal immigrants." That's still untrue. A person that enters the UK without permission is an illegal immigrant. If they subsequently apply for asylum they are given immunity from prosecution for that crime. Claiming asylum does not make the crime go away, it just means they can't be prosecuted for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asylum seekers are not illegal. People who have had their asylum claim refused and remain become illegal immigrants. That's still untrue. A person that enters the UK without permission is an illegal immigrant. If they subsequently apply for asylum they are given immunity from prosecution for that crime. Claiming asylum does not make the crime go away, it just means they can't be prosecuted for it." This ⬆️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asylum seekers are not illegal. People who have had their asylum claim refused and remain become illegal immigrants. That's still untrue. A person that enters the UK without permission is an illegal immigrant. If they subsequently apply for asylum they are given immunity from prosecution for that crime. Claiming asylum does not make the crime go away, it just means they can't be prosecuted for it." And if they are granted asylum the are no longer an illegal migrant. They have 5 years permissions to stay. The ‘crime’ of entering the country illegally is neither here nor there if they have asylum status. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asylum seekers are not illegal. People who have had their asylum claim refused and remain become illegal immigrants. That's still untrue. A person that enters the UK without permission is an illegal immigrant. If they subsequently apply for asylum they are given immunity from prosecution for that crime. Claiming asylum does not make the crime go away, it just means they can't be prosecuted for it. And if they are granted asylum the are no longer an illegal migrant. They have 5 years permissions to stay. The ‘crime’ of entering the country illegally is neither here nor there if they have asylum status." Everyone who enters the UK illegally should be given a swift kick in the bollocks and sent straight back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asylum seekers are not illegal. People who have had their asylum claim refused and remain become illegal immigrants." "That's still untrue. A person that enters the UK without permission is an illegal immigrant. If they subsequently apply for asylum they are given immunity from prosecution for that crime. Claiming asylum does not make the crime go away, it just means they can't be prosecuted for it." "And if they are granted asylum the are no longer an illegal migrant. They have 5 years permissions to stay. The ‘crime’ of entering the country illegally is neither here nor there if they have asylum status." That contradicts your original statement. Your first post said that they weren't 'illegal' until their claim had failed. Now you're saying that they are 'illegal' all the way up to the point their claim is approved. Either way, it's still incorrect. If their claim is accepted and they gain the right to remain, that doesn't change the fact that their method of entry was illegal. They can't be prosecuted for that, so it's not important, but they are still technically an illegal immigrant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That contradicts your original statement. Your first post said that they weren't 'illegal' until their claim had failed. Now you're saying that they are 'illegal' all the way up to the point their claim is approved. " I actually said neither. Someone arrives here illegally. They then claim asylum. At this point they are now here legally. If their claim is refused, they become illegal (depending upon appeal). If their claim is accepted then they remain legal for the asylum period. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asylum seekers are not illegal. People who have had their asylum claim refused and remain become illegal immigrants. That's still untrue. A person that enters the UK without permission is an illegal immigrant. If they subsequently apply for asylum they are given immunity from prosecution for that crime. Claiming asylum does not make the crime go away, it just means they can't be prosecuted for it. And if they are granted asylum the are no longer an illegal migrant. They have 5 years permissions to stay. The ‘crime’ of entering the country illegally is neither here nor there if they have asylum status." This is why we have a problem with people playing the system and costing us millions. The sooner our laws are updated to meet modern day issues the better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asylum seekers are not illegal. People who have had their asylum claim refused and remain become illegal immigrants. That's still untrue. A person that enters the UK without permission is an illegal immigrant. If they subsequently apply for asylum they are given immunity from prosecution for that crime. Claiming asylum does not make the crime go away, it just means they can't be prosecuted for it. And if they are granted asylum the are no longer an illegal migrant. They have 5 years permissions to stay. The ‘crime’ of entering the country illegally is neither here nor there if they have asylum status. This is why we have a problem with people playing the system and costing us millions. The sooner our laws are updated to meet modern day issues the better." We could update our laws, but were realistically not going to leave the refugee convention, so we’d be far better off improving our asylum processing systems and engaging with our Europeans neighbours more effectively. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asylum seekers are not illegal. People who have had their asylum claim refused and remain become illegal immigrants. That's still untrue. A person that enters the UK without permission is an illegal immigrant. If they subsequently apply for asylum they are given immunity from prosecution for that crime. Claiming asylum does not make the crime go away, it just means they can't be prosecuted for it. And if they are granted asylum the are no longer an illegal migrant. They have 5 years permissions to stay. The ‘crime’ of entering the country illegally is neither here nor there if they have asylum status. This is why we have a problem with people playing the system and costing us millions. The sooner our laws are updated to meet modern day issues the better. We could update our laws, but were realistically not going to leave the refugee convention, so we’d be far better off improving our asylum processing systems and engaging with our Europeans neighbours more effectively. " Until we modernise our laws there is no chance of doing anything that will work efficiently. The law is our front door and right now we don't have one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asylum seekers are not illegal. People who have had their asylum claim refused and remain become illegal immigrants. That's still untrue. A person that enters the UK without permission is an illegal immigrant. If they subsequently apply for asylum they are given immunity from prosecution for that crime. Claiming asylum does not make the crime go away, it just means they can't be prosecuted for it. And if they are granted asylum the are no longer an illegal migrant. They have 5 years permissions to stay. The ‘crime’ of entering the country illegally is neither here nor there if they have asylum status. This is why we have a problem with people playing the system and costing us millions. The sooner our laws are updated to meet modern day issues the better. We could update our laws, but were realistically not going to leave the refugee convention, so we’d be far better off improving our asylum processing systems and engaging with our Europeans neighbours more effectively. Until we modernise our laws there is no chance of doing anything that will work efficiently. The law is our front door and right now we don't have one. " That sounds awfully like an option rather than a statement of fact. How would an improved asylum processing not work more efficiently? More processing centres, more staff, better IT perhaps (I have no idea what systems they use) and more deals like we had with France wil equal a better system and change no laws. If you’re waiting for an end to the refugee convention, you’re in for a a long wait. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How would an improved asylum processing not work more efficiently? More processing centres, more staff, better IT perhaps (I have no idea what systems they use) and more deals like we had with France wil equal a better system and change no laws. If you’re waiting for an end to the refugee convention, you’re in for a a long wait. " The answer is simply that the country cannot take too many people. There must be a limit to how many refugees enter the country. Without the ability to establish and enforce a limit, setting up processing centres elsewhere will only make things worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The laws around asylum were clearly written at a time when people mobility was not as easy as it is today. And the authors of the law clearly did not consider them from the angle of people who will misuse them. End of the day, giving asylum is an act of charity. No country has resources to do charity for an unlimited number of people, nor must charity be forced by law." I agree asylum numbers across Europe are very imbalanced. We’d have to take in far more to alleviate the pressure on some of our European friends. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The laws around asylum were clearly written at a time when people mobility was not as easy as it is today. And the authors of the law clearly did not consider them from the angle of people who will misuse them. End of the day, giving asylum is an act of charity. No country has resources to do charity for an unlimited number of people, nor must charity be forced by law. I agree asylum numbers across Europe are very imbalanced. We’d have to take in far more to alleviate the pressure on some of our European friends. " Why most Europe take anyone at all? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The laws around asylum were clearly written at a time when people mobility was not as easy as it is today. And the authors of the law clearly did not consider them from the angle of people who will misuse them. End of the day, giving asylum is an act of charity. No country has resources to do charity for an unlimited number of people, nor must charity be forced by law. I agree asylum numbers across Europe are very imbalanced. We’d have to take in far more to alleviate the pressure on some of our European friends. Why most Europe take anyone at all?" A very obvious and simple ammendment to refugee laws would be that there are geographic spheres of influence and responsibility. It is absolutely right that Europe looks after Ukrainian refugees, and equally right that rich and safe Gulf nations take in refugees from their region. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The laws around asylum were clearly written at a time when people mobility was not as easy as it is today. And the authors of the law clearly did not consider them from the angle of people who will misuse them. End of the day, giving asylum is an act of charity. No country has resources to do charity for an unlimited number of people, nor must charity be forced by law. I agree asylum numbers across Europe are very imbalanced. We’d have to take in far more to alleviate the pressure on some of our European friends. Why most Europe take anyone at all? A very obvious and simple ammendment to refugee laws would be that there are geographic spheres of influence and responsibility. It is absolutely right that Europe looks after Ukrainian refugees, and equally right that rich and safe Gulf nations take in refugees from their region." I don't think that the middle eastern countries would agree to that  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The laws around asylum were clearly written at a time when people mobility was not as easy as it is today. And the authors of the law clearly did not consider them from the angle of people who will misuse them. End of the day, giving asylum is an act of charity. No country has resources to do charity for an unlimited number of people, nor must charity be forced by law. I agree asylum numbers across Europe are very imbalanced. We’d have to take in far more to alleviate the pressure on some of our European friends. Why most Europe take anyone at all? A very obvious and simple ammendment to refugee laws would be that there are geographic spheres of influence and responsibility. It is absolutely right that Europe looks after Ukrainian refugees, and equally right that rich and safe Gulf nations take in refugees from their region. I don't think that the middle eastern countries would agree to that "Of course most of them aren't even signed up to the Refugee Convention. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The laws around asylum were clearly written at a time when people mobility was not as easy as it is today. And the authors of the law clearly did not consider them from the angle of people who will misuse them. End of the day, giving asylum is an act of charity. No country has resources to do charity for an unlimited number of people, nor must charity be forced by law. I agree asylum numbers across Europe are very imbalanced. We’d have to take in far more to alleviate the pressure on some of our European friends. Why most Europe take anyone at all? A very obvious and simple ammendment to refugee laws would be that there are geographic spheres of influence and responsibility. It is absolutely right that Europe looks after Ukrainian refugees, and equally right that rich and safe Gulf nations take in refugees from their region. I don't think that the middle eastern countries would agree to that "And yet Iran take in the 4th most refugees in the world. Turkey 3rd most. (For those interested, Germany are second and Colombia first) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The laws around asylum were clearly written at a time when people mobility was not as easy as it is today. And the authors of the law clearly did not consider them from the angle of people who will misuse them. End of the day, giving asylum is an act of charity. No country has resources to do charity for an unlimited number of people, nor must charity be forced by law. I agree asylum numbers across Europe are very imbalanced. We’d have to take in far more to alleviate the pressure on some of our European friends. Why most Europe take anyone at all? A very obvious and simple ammendment to refugee laws would be that there are geographic spheres of influence and responsibility. It is absolutely right that Europe looks after Ukrainian refugees, and equally right that rich and safe Gulf nations take in refugees from their region. I don't think that the middle eastern countries would agree to that
And yet Iran take in the 4th most refugees in the world. Turkey 3rd most.
(For those interested, Germany are second and Colombia first)"Must be a lot of Holiday Inns in Iran to house them all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The laws around asylum were clearly written at a time when people mobility was not as easy as it is today. And the authors of the law clearly did not consider them from the angle of people who will misuse them. End of the day, giving asylum is an act of charity. No country has resources to do charity for an unlimited number of people, nor must charity be forced by law. I agree asylum numbers across Europe are very imbalanced. We’d have to take in far more to alleviate the pressure on some of our European friends. Why most Europe take anyone at all? A very obvious and simple ammendment to refugee laws would be that there are geographic spheres of influence and responsibility. It is absolutely right that Europe looks after Ukrainian refugees, and equally right that rich and safe Gulf nations take in refugees from their region. I don't think that the middle eastern countries would agree to that
And yet Iran take in the 4th most refugees in the world. Turkey 3rd most.
(For those interested, Germany are second and Colombia first)"Iran takes mostly Shia refugees. How many countries were willing to take Palestinian refugees? And not to mention the fact that they aren't giving the refugees benefits that the western countries provide. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The laws around asylum were clearly written at a time when people mobility was not as easy as it is today. And the authors of the law clearly did not consider them from the angle of people who will misuse them. End of the day, giving asylum is an act of charity. No country has resources to do charity for an unlimited number of people, nor must charity be forced by law. I agree asylum numbers across Europe are very imbalanced. We’d have to take in far more to alleviate the pressure on some of our European friends. Why most Europe take anyone at all? A very obvious and simple ammendment to refugee laws would be that there are geographic spheres of influence and responsibility. It is absolutely right that Europe looks after Ukrainian refugees, and equally right that rich and safe Gulf nations take in refugees from their region. I don't think that the middle eastern countries would agree to that
And yet Iran take in the 4th most refugees in the world. Turkey 3rd most.
(For those interested, Germany are second and Colombia first)
Must be a lot of Holiday Inns in Iran to house them all."Well now we’ve decided in the west to bomb the shit out of Tehran, a lot of these people are going to be displaced again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The laws around asylum were clearly written at a time when people mobility was not as easy as it is today. And the authors of the law clearly did not consider them from the angle of people who will misuse them. End of the day, giving asylum is an act of charity. No country has resources to do charity for an unlimited number of people, nor must charity be forced by law. I agree asylum numbers across Europe are very imbalanced. We’d have to take in far more to alleviate the pressure on some of our European friends. Why most Europe take anyone at all? A very obvious and simple ammendment to refugee laws would be that there are geographic spheres of influence and responsibility. It is absolutely right that Europe looks after Ukrainian refugees, and equally right that rich and safe Gulf nations take in refugees from their region. I don't think that the middle eastern countries would agree to that
And yet Iran take in the 4th most refugees in the world. Turkey 3rd most.
(For those interested, Germany are second and Colombia first)
Iran takes mostly Shia refugees. How many countries were willing to take Palestinian refugees?
And not to mention the fact that they aren't giving the refugees benefits that the western countries provide.
"Why pivot away from the numbers argument that you started though? The UK sits below a significant number of other nations on granting asylum, don’t you agree? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The laws around asylum were clearly written at a time when people mobility was not as easy as it is today. And the authors of the law clearly did not consider them from the angle of people who will misuse them. End of the day, giving asylum is an act of charity. No country has resources to do charity for an unlimited number of people, nor must charity be forced by law. I agree asylum numbers across Europe are very imbalanced. We’d have to take in far more to alleviate the pressure on some of our European friends. Why most Europe take anyone at all? A very obvious and simple ammendment to refugee laws would be that there are geographic spheres of influence and responsibility. It is absolutely right that Europe looks after Ukrainian refugees, and equally right that rich and safe Gulf nations take in refugees from their region. I don't think that the middle eastern countries would agree to that
And yet Iran take in the 4th most refugees in the world. Turkey 3rd most.
(For those interested, Germany are second and Colombia first)
Iran takes mostly Shia refugees. How many countries were willing to take Palestinian refugees?
And not to mention the fact that they aren't giving the refugees benefits that the western countries provide.
Why pivot away from the numbers argument that you started though? The UK sits below a significant number of other nations on granting asylum, don’t you agree? "Because the numbers are directly linked to economics and social integration. Refugees are both economic and social burden. I addressed the economic burden by pointing out that Europe spends a lot more on each refugee compared to Turkey or Iran. I addressed the social burden by pointing out that Iran takes refugees who already fit within their religious views. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The problem here is the bureaucrats who think that these conventions are somehow bigger than the will of the people." What’s the will of the people on the ECHR? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The problem here is the bureaucrats who think that these conventions are somehow bigger than the will of the people. What’s the will of the people on the ECHR? " People's will specifically on points addressing asylum seekers have been clear for awhile. Either the bureaucrats go back and fix those parts alone or people have no choice but to vote for a party that will leave ECHR entirely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The laws around asylum were clearly written at a time when people mobility was not as easy as it is today. And the authors of the law clearly did not consider them from the angle of people who will misuse them. End of the day, giving asylum is an act of charity. No country has resources to do charity for an unlimited number of people, nor must charity be forced by law. I agree asylum numbers across Europe are very imbalanced. We’d have to take in far more to alleviate the pressure on some of our European friends. Why most Europe take anyone at all? A very obvious and simple ammendment to refugee laws would be that there are geographic spheres of influence and responsibility. It is absolutely right that Europe looks after Ukrainian refugees, and equally right that rich and safe Gulf nations take in refugees from their region. I don't think that the middle eastern countries would agree to that
And yet Iran take in the 4th most refugees in the world. Turkey 3rd most.
(For those interested, Germany are second and Colombia first)
Iran takes mostly Shia refugees. How many countries were willing to take Palestinian refugees?
And not to mention the fact that they aren't giving the refugees benefits that the western countries provide.
Why pivot away from the numbers argument that you started though? The UK sits below a significant number of other nations on granting asylum, don’t you agree?
Because the numbers are directly linked to economics and social integration. Refugees are both economic and social burden.
I addressed the economic burden by pointing out that Europe spends a lot more on each refugee compared to Turkey or Iran.
I addressed the social burden by pointing out that Iran takes refugees who already fit within their religious views."Have you studied the data on which nations have accepted which asylum seekers? I’m going to tentatively suggest that you haven’t, else you wouldn’t have said things like ‘I don't think that the middle eastern countries would agree to that ’ in response to the suggestion of localised asylum projects - as if you HAD studied the data, you’d know that the vast majority of Middle Eastern refugees do remain in Middle Eastern nations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The problem here is the bureaucrats who think that these conventions are somehow bigger than the will of the people. What’s the will of the people on the ECHR? People's will specifically on points addressing asylum seekers have been clear for awhile. Either the bureaucrats go back and fix those parts alone or people have no choice but to vote for a party that will leave ECHR entirely." But leaving the ECRH doesn’t equal leaving the refugee convention. Are you suggesting that those who want to leave the ECHR to ‘solve’ the asylum problem don’t know what they’re talking about? Are you suggesting that those who say we have to leave the ECHR in order to ‘solve’ the asylum problem are selling snake oil. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Have you studied the data on which nations have accepted which asylum seekers? I’m going to tentatively suggest that you haven’t, else you wouldn’t have said things like ‘I don't think that the middle eastern countries would agree to that ’ in response to the suggestion of localised asylum projects - as if you HAD studied the data, you’d know that the vast majority of Middle Eastern refugees do remain in Middle Eastern nations. "I have read about these enough number of times. I don't have to "study" it again. Will Iran accept Sunni refugees from countries they hate? How many countries are happy to take Palestinian refugees today? Even within the middle east, there are many categories of people and each country will be willing to take some but not the others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The problem here is the bureaucrats who think that these conventions are somehow bigger than the will of the people. What’s the will of the people on the ECHR? People's will specifically on points addressing asylum seekers have been clear for awhile. Either the bureaucrats go back and fix those parts alone or people have no choice but to vote for a party that will leave ECHR entirely. But leaving the ECRH doesn’t equal leaving the refugee convention. " If the country leaves ECHR, the refugee convention won't be far off. The ECHR also plays a huge part in it, especially with deporting criminals who came in as asylum seekers. " Are you suggesting that those who want to leave the ECHR to ‘solve’ the asylum problem don’t know what they’re talking about? " Where did I say that? " Are you suggesting that those who say we have to leave the ECHR in order to ‘solve’ the asylum problem are selling snake oil. " Where did I say that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The problem here is the bureaucrats who think that these conventions are somehow bigger than the will of the people. What’s the will of the people on the ECHR? People's will specifically on points addressing asylum seekers have been clear for awhile. Either the bureaucrats go back and fix those parts alone or people have no choice but to vote for a party that will leave ECHR entirely. But leaving the ECRH doesn’t equal leaving the refugee convention. If the country leaves ECHR, the refugee convention won't be far off. The ECHR also plays a huge part in it, especially with deporting criminals who came in as asylum seekers. Are you suggesting that those who want to leave the ECHR to ‘solve’ the asylum problem don’t know what they’re talking about? Where did I say that? Are you suggesting that those who say we have to leave the ECHR in order to ‘solve’ the asylum problem are selling snake oil. Where did I say that?" You said that people will vote for a party to leave the ECHR in order to resolve this - but you accept that the ECHR and the refugee convention are not intrinsically linked. So the voters are being sold a lemon, you agree? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Have you studied the data on which nations have accepted which asylum seekers? I’m going to tentatively suggest that you haven’t, else you wouldn’t have said things like ‘I don't think that the middle eastern countries would agree to that ’ in response to the suggestion of localised asylum projects - as if you HAD studied the data, you’d know that the vast majority of Middle Eastern refugees do remain in Middle Eastern nations.
I have read about these enough number of times. I don't have to "study" it again.
Will Iran accept Sunni refugees from countries they hate? How many countries are happy to take Palestinian refugees today? Even within the middle east, there are many categories of people and each country will be willing to take some but not the others. "Approximately 50% of Afghan refugees to Iran are Sunni. Maybe you should check the data out, it might help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The problem here is the bureaucrats who think that these conventions are somehow bigger than the will of the people. What’s the will of the people on the ECHR? People's will specifically on points addressing asylum seekers have been clear for awhile. Either the bureaucrats go back and fix those parts alone or people have no choice but to vote for a party that will leave ECHR entirely. But leaving the ECRH doesn’t equal leaving the refugee convention. If the country leaves ECHR, the refugee convention won't be far off. The ECHR also plays a huge part in it, especially with deporting criminals who came in as asylum seekers. Are you suggesting that those who want to leave the ECHR to ‘solve’ the asylum problem don’t know what they’re talking about? Where did I say that? Are you suggesting that those who say we have to leave the ECHR in order to ‘solve’ the asylum problem are selling snake oil. Where did I say that? You said that people will vote for a party to leave the ECHR in order to resolve this - but you accept that the ECHR and the refugee convention are not intrinsically linked. " European countries' asylum policies are influenced by both. " So the voters are being sold a lemon, you agree? " Nope. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The problem here is the bureaucrats who think that these conventions are somehow bigger than the will of the people. What’s the will of the people on the ECHR? People's will specifically on points addressing asylum seekers have been clear for awhile. Either the bureaucrats go back and fix those parts alone or people have no choice but to vote for a party that will leave ECHR entirely. But leaving the ECRH doesn’t equal leaving the refugee convention. If the country leaves ECHR, the refugee convention won't be far off. The ECHR also plays a huge part in it, especially with deporting criminals who came in as asylum seekers. Are you suggesting that those who want to leave the ECHR to ‘solve’ the asylum problem don’t know what they’re talking about? Where did I say that? Are you suggesting that those who say we have to leave the ECHR in order to ‘solve’ the asylum problem are selling snake oil. Where did I say that? You said that people will vote for a party to leave the ECHR in order to resolve this - but you accept that the ECHR and the refugee convention are not intrinsically linked. European countries' asylum policies are influenced by both. So the voters are being sold a lemon, you agree? Nope." I mean I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Have you studied the data on which nations have accepted which asylum seekers? I’m going to tentatively suggest that you haven’t, else you wouldn’t have said things like ‘I don't think that the middle eastern countries would agree to that ’ in response to the suggestion of localised asylum projects - as if you HAD studied the data, you’d know that the vast majority of Middle Eastern refugees do remain in Middle Eastern nations.
I have read about these enough number of times. I don't have to "study" it again.
Will Iran accept Sunni refugees from countries they hate? How many countries are happy to take Palestinian refugees today? Even within the middle east, there are many categories of people and each country will be willing to take some but not the others.
Approximately 50% of Afghan refugees to Iran are Sunni.
Maybe you should check the data out, it might help. "70% of refugees in Iran are Shia. Also read about the rights of Sunni Muslims in Iran. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The problem here is the bureaucrats who think that these conventions are somehow bigger than the will of the people. What’s the will of the people on the ECHR? People's will specifically on points addressing asylum seekers have been clear for awhile. Either the bureaucrats go back and fix those parts alone or people have no choice but to vote for a party that will leave ECHR entirely. But leaving the ECRH doesn’t equal leaving the refugee convention. If the country leaves ECHR, the refugee convention won't be far off. The ECHR also plays a huge part in it, especially with deporting criminals who came in as asylum seekers. Are you suggesting that those who want to leave the ECHR to ‘solve’ the asylum problem don’t know what they’re talking about? Where did I say that? Are you suggesting that those who say we have to leave the ECHR in order to ‘solve’ the asylum problem are selling snake oil. Where did I say that? You said that people will vote for a party to leave the ECHR in order to resolve this - but you accept that the ECHR and the refugee convention are not intrinsically linked. European countries' asylum policies are influenced by both. So the voters are being sold a lemon, you agree? Nope. I mean I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you "It looks like you are the one struggling to understand. I can explain again. Both the UN refugee convention and ECHR influence the asylum policies in Europe. If they aren't working, countries will have to leave both. Hence, politicians offering to leave ECHR aren't really selling lies. Do you still struggle to understand? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The problem here is the bureaucrats who think that these conventions are somehow bigger than the will of the people. What’s the will of the people on the ECHR? People's will specifically on points addressing asylum seekers have been clear for awhile. Either the bureaucrats go back and fix those parts alone or people have no choice but to vote for a party that will leave ECHR entirely. But leaving the ECRH doesn’t equal leaving the refugee convention. If the country leaves ECHR, the refugee convention won't be far off. The ECHR also plays a huge part in it, especially with deporting criminals who came in as asylum seekers. Are you suggesting that those who want to leave the ECHR to ‘solve’ the asylum problem don’t know what they’re talking about? Where did I say that? Are you suggesting that those who say we have to leave the ECHR in order to ‘solve’ the asylum problem are selling snake oil. Where did I say that? You said that people will vote for a party to leave the ECHR in order to resolve this - but you accept that the ECHR and the refugee convention are not intrinsically linked. European countries' asylum policies are influenced by both. So the voters are being sold a lemon, you agree? Nope. I mean I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you
It looks like you are the one struggling to understand. I can explain again.
Both the UN refugee convention and ECHR influence the asylum policies in Europe. If they aren't working, countries will have to leave both. Hence, politicians offering to leave ECHR aren't really selling lies.
Do you still struggle to understand?
"Countries *have* to leave both? That’s your conjecture though. Counties *may* choose to leave one, or the other, or indeed neither. And anyone saying ‘we have to leave the ECHR to resolve the asylum issue’ is *by definition* lying to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you suggesting that those who want to leave the ECHR to ‘solve’ the asylum problem don’t know what they’re talking about? Where did I say that? Are you suggesting that those who say we have to leave the ECHR in order to ‘solve’ the asylum problem are selling snake oil. Where did I say that? You said that people will vote for a party to leave the ECHR in order to resolve this - but you accept that the ECHR and the refugee convention are not intrinsically linked. European countries' asylum policies are influenced by both. So the voters are being sold a lemon, you agree? Nope. I mean I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you
It looks like you are the one struggling to understand. I can explain again.
Both the UN refugee convention and ECHR influence the asylum policies in Europe. If they aren't working, countries will have to leave both. Hence, politicians offering to leave ECHR aren't really selling lies.
Do you still struggle to understand?
Countries *have* to leave both? That’s your conjecture though.
Counties *may* choose to leave one, or the other, or indeed neither.
"That's just you making a strawman argument about what the others are saying. Withdrawal from ECHR will, for example, help us deport foreign criminals. That's not something the UN refugee convention will block us from doing. " And anyone saying ‘we have to leave the ECHR to resolve the asylum issue’ is *by definition* lying to you. " English isn't my first language. But I think this statement is wrong. If someone says we "only" have to leave ECHR to solve "all" asylum problems, then it's a lie. But what you said isn't a lie. We do have to leave ECHR to solve asylum problems. And Farage has mentioned multiple times that we have to leave both the UN refugee convention and ECHR. So your argument doesn't stand either way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you suggesting that those who want to leave the ECHR to ‘solve’ the asylum problem don’t know what they’re talking about? Where did I say that? Are you suggesting that those who say we have to leave the ECHR in order to ‘solve’ the asylum problem are selling snake oil. Where did I say that? You said that people will vote for a party to leave the ECHR in order to resolve this - but you accept that the ECHR and the refugee convention are not intrinsically linked. European countries' asylum policies are influenced by both. So the voters are being sold a lemon, you agree? Nope. I mean I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you
It looks like you are the one struggling to understand. I can explain again.
Both the UN refugee convention and ECHR influence the asylum policies in Europe. If they aren't working, countries will have to leave both. Hence, politicians offering to leave ECHR aren't really selling lies.
Do you still struggle to understand?
Countries *have* to leave both? That’s your conjecture though.
Counties *may* choose to leave one, or the other, or indeed neither.
That's just you making a strawman argument about what the others are saying. Withdrawal from ECHR will, for example, help us deport foreign criminals. That's not something the UN refugee convention will block us from doing.
And anyone saying ‘we have to leave the ECHR to resolve the asylum issue’ is *by definition* lying to you.
English isn't my first language. But I think this statement is wrong. If someone says we "only" have to leave ECHR to solve "all" asylum problems, then it's a lie. But what you said isn't a lie. We do have to leave ECHR to solve asylum problems.
And Farage has mentioned multiple times that we have to leave both the UN refugee convention and ECHR. So your argument doesn't stand either way."Farage wants us to leave the ECHR, absolutely- but it’s nothing to do with asylum seekers, and everything to do with him being an aggressive capitalist who wants to impinge on worker’s rights. Same reason he wanted Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you suggesting that those who want to leave the ECHR to ‘solve’ the asylum problem don’t know what they’re talking about? Where did I say that? Are you suggesting that those who say we have to leave the ECHR in order to ‘solve’ the asylum problem are selling snake oil. Where did I say that? You said that people will vote for a party to leave the ECHR in order to resolve this - but you accept that the ECHR and the refugee convention are not intrinsically linked. European countries' asylum policies are influenced by both. So the voters are being sold a lemon, you agree? Nope. I mean I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you
It looks like you are the one struggling to understand. I can explain again.
Both the UN refugee convention and ECHR influence the asylum policies in Europe. If they aren't working, countries will have to leave both. Hence, politicians offering to leave ECHR aren't really selling lies.
Do you still struggle to understand?
Countries *have* to leave both? That’s your conjecture though.
Counties *may* choose to leave one, or the other, or indeed neither.
That's just you making a strawman argument about what the others are saying. Withdrawal from ECHR will, for example, help us deport foreign criminals. That's not something the UN refugee convention will block us from doing.
And anyone saying ‘we have to leave the ECHR to resolve the asylum issue’ is *by definition* lying to you.
English isn't my first language. But I think this statement is wrong. If someone says we "only" have to leave ECHR to solve "all" asylum problems, then it's a lie. But what you said isn't a lie. We do have to leave ECHR to solve asylum problems.
And Farage has mentioned multiple times that we have to leave both the UN refugee convention and ECHR. So your argument doesn't stand either way.
Farage wants us to leave the ECHR, absolutely- but it’s nothing to do with asylum seekers, and everything to do with him being an aggressive capitalist who wants to impinge on worker’s rights.
Same reason he wanted Brexit."It has nothing to do with what we are talking about, unless you want to talk about a different topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you suggesting that those who want to leave the ECHR to ‘solve’ the asylum problem don’t know what they’re talking about? Where did I say that? Are you suggesting that those who say we have to leave the ECHR in order to ‘solve’ the asylum problem are selling snake oil. Where did I say that? You said that people will vote for a party to leave the ECHR in order to resolve this - but you accept that the ECHR and the refugee convention are not intrinsically linked. European countries' asylum policies are influenced by both. So the voters are being sold a lemon, you agree? Nope. I mean I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you
It looks like you are the one struggling to understand. I can explain again.
Both the UN refugee convention and ECHR influence the asylum policies in Europe. If they aren't working, countries will have to leave both. Hence, politicians offering to leave ECHR aren't really selling lies.
Do you still struggle to understand?
Countries *have* to leave both? That’s your conjecture though.
Counties *may* choose to leave one, or the other, or indeed neither.
That's just you making a strawman argument about what the others are saying. Withdrawal from ECHR will, for example, help us deport foreign criminals. That's not something the UN refugee convention will block us from doing.
And anyone saying ‘we have to leave the ECHR to resolve the asylum issue’ is *by definition* lying to you.
English isn't my first language. But I think this statement is wrong. If someone says we "only" have to leave ECHR to solve "all" asylum problems, then it's a lie. But what you said isn't a lie. We do have to leave ECHR to solve asylum problems.
And Farage has mentioned multiple times that we have to leave both the UN refugee convention and ECHR. So your argument doesn't stand either way.
Farage wants us to leave the ECHR, absolutely- but it’s nothing to do with asylum seekers, and everything to do with him being an aggressive capitalist who wants to impinge on worker’s rights.
Same reason he wanted Brexit.
It has nothing to do with what we are talking about, unless you want to talk about a different topic."You using ‘Farage has mentioned many times…’ is related to this topic (as he’s the only character likely to ever even feasibly come close to the idiotic move of removing us from the ECHR) - so it doesn’t warrant a new thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you suggesting that those who want to leave the ECHR to ‘solve’ the asylum problem don’t know what they’re talking about? Where did I say that? Are you suggesting that those who say we have to leave the ECHR in order to ‘solve’ the asylum problem are selling snake oil. Where did I say that? You said that people will vote for a party to leave the ECHR in order to resolve this - but you accept that the ECHR and the refugee convention are not intrinsically linked. European countries' asylum policies are influenced by both. So the voters are being sold a lemon, you agree? Nope. I mean I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you
It looks like you are the one struggling to understand. I can explain again.
Both the UN refugee convention and ECHR influence the asylum policies in Europe. If they aren't working, countries will have to leave both. Hence, politicians offering to leave ECHR aren't really selling lies.
Do you still struggle to understand?
Countries *have* to leave both? That’s your conjecture though.
Counties *may* choose to leave one, or the other, or indeed neither.
That's just you making a strawman argument about what the others are saying. Withdrawal from ECHR will, for example, help us deport foreign criminals. That's not something the UN refugee convention will block us from doing.
And anyone saying ‘we have to leave the ECHR to resolve the asylum issue’ is *by definition* lying to you.
English isn't my first language. But I think this statement is wrong. If someone says we "only" have to leave ECHR to solve "all" asylum problems, then it's a lie. But what you said isn't a lie. We do have to leave ECHR to solve asylum problems.
And Farage has mentioned multiple times that we have to leave both the UN refugee convention and ECHR. So your argument doesn't stand either way.
Farage wants us to leave the ECHR, absolutely- but it’s nothing to do with asylum seekers, and everything to do with him being an aggressive capitalist who wants to impinge on worker’s rights.
Same reason he wanted Brexit.
It has nothing to do with what we are talking about, unless you want to talk about a different topic.
You using ‘Farage has mentioned many times…’ is related to this topic (as he’s the only character likely to ever even feasibly come close to the idiotic move of removing us from the ECHR) - so it doesn’t warrant a new thread "I used the example to show that the politicians are promising withdrawal from both ECHR and the refugee convention unlike your claim that they were only promising to withdraw from ECHR, which somehow makes it a lie (it's not). And the right wing politicians are offering withdrawal from both ECHR and the refugee conventions. Even AfD offers withdrawal from both. If the bureaucrats keep thinking that their conventions are superior to the will of the people and avoid updating them, people will vote for a party that will leave the conventions entirely. Farage wanting to do it because he hates workers rights is your theory that doesn't have much bearing over people's will to exit these conventions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you suggesting that those who want to leave ECHR to ‘solve’ the asylum problem don’t know what they’re talking about? Where did I say that? Are you suggesting that those who say we have to leave the ECHR in order to ‘solve’ the asylum problem are selling snake oil. Where did I say that? You said that people will vote for a party to leave the ECHR in order to resolve this - but you accept that the ECHR and the refugee convention are not intrinsically linked. European countries' asylum policies are influenced by both. So the voters are being sold a lemon, you agree? Nope. I mean I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you
It looks like you are the one struggling to understand. I can explain again.
Both the UN refugee convention and ECHR influence the asylum policies in Europe. If they aren't working, countries will have to leave both. Hence, politicians offering to leave ECHR aren't really selling lies.
Do you still struggle to understand?
Countries *have* to leave both? That’s your conjecture though.
Counties *may* choose to leave one, or the other, or indeed neither.
That's just you making a strawman argument about what the others are saying. Withdrawal from ECHR will, for example, help us deport foreign criminals. That's not something the UN refugee convention will block us from doing.
And anyone saying ‘we have to leave the ECHR to resolve the asylum issue’ is *by definition* lying to you.
English isn't my first language. But I think this statement is wrong. If someone says we "only" have to leave ECHR to solve "all" asylum problems, then it's a lie. But what you said isn't a lie. We do have to leave ECHR to solve asylum problems.
And Farage has mentioned multiple times that we have to leave both the UN refugee convention and ECHR. So your argument doesn't stand either way.
Farage wants us to leave the ECHR, absolutely- but it’s nothing to do with asylum seekers, and everything to do with him being an aggressive capitalist who wants to impinge on worker’s rights.
Same reason he wanted Brexit.
It has nothing to do with what we are talking about, unless you want to talk about a different topic.
You using ‘Farage has mentioned many times…’ is related to this topic (as he’s the only character likely to ever even feasibly come close to the idiotic move of removing us from the ECHR) - so it doesn’t warrant a new thread
I used the example to show that the politicians are promising withdrawal from both ECHR and the refugee convention unlike your claim that they were only promising to withdraw from ECHR, which somehow makes it a lie (it's not). And the right wing politicians are offering withdrawal from both ECHR and the refugee conventions. Even AfD offers withdrawal from both.
If the bureaucrats keep thinking that their conventions are superior to the will of the people and avoid updating them, people will vote for a party that will leave the conventions entirely.
Farage wanting to do it because he hates workers rights is your theory that doesn't have much bearing over people's will to exit these conventions."Now of course you’d be insistent that if Farage (or anyone else) proposed leaving the ECHR, that he’d be honest about the total impact of such a move, wouldn’t you? And presumably you’d want him to tell the truth and say ‘we don’t actually need to leave the ECHR or refugee convention to resolve the asylum issue, but I think we should do it anyway’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Farage wanting to do it because he hates workers rights is your theory that doesn't have much bearing over people's will to exit these conventions. Now of course you’d be insistent that if Farage (or anyone else) proposed leaving the ECHR, that he’d be honest about the total impact of such a move, wouldn’t you? " We live in a democracy. Even if Farage had other motives, people will be able to stop him from pulling off anything else. A situation like this will vastly benefit from a referendum. This way, you don't have to elect Farage to get out of these conventions. " And presumably you’d want him to tell the truth and say ‘we don’t actually need to leave the ECHR or refugee convention to resolve the asylum issue, but I think we should do it anyway’" But the quoted part is not the truth. We do need to leave both to resolve the asylum issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"’ But the quoted part is not the truth. We do need to leave both to resolve the asylum issue." Untrue. Demonstrably untrue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"’ But the quoted part is not the truth. We do need to leave both to resolve the asylum issue. Untrue. Demonstrably untrue." I have already addressed why these conventions aren't fit for modern day. Instead of going around in circles, you can go back and read them if you have forgotten. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"’ But the quoted part is not the truth. We do need to leave both to resolve the asylum issue. Untrue. Demonstrably untrue. I have already addressed why these conventions aren't fit for modern day. Instead of going around in circles, you can go back and read them if you have forgotten." You have only provided conjecture. Opinion, if you like. I too have provided opinion as to why we don’t need to leave important broad agreements in order to manage something really quite narrow in scope. In common parlance, there’s no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It’s a moot point anyway. We’ll leave neither the ECHR nor the refugee convention. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"’ But the quoted part is not the truth. We do need to leave both to resolve the asylum issue. Untrue. Demonstrably untrue. I have already addressed why these conventions aren't fit for modern day. Instead of going around in circles, you can go back and read them if you have forgotten. You have only provided conjecture. Opinion, if you like. I too have provided opinion as to why we don’t need to leave important broad agreements in order to manage something really quite narrow in scope. In common parlance, there’s no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. " I made my points clear. The country cannot take too many of them because of the economic and social cost and the current conventions do not allow us to set an upper limit and send back everyone else. Hence, it's unsustainable to follow the current course. The lame idea to set up processing centres elsewhere isn't going to solve this problem. " It’s a moot point anyway. We’ll leave neither the ECHR nor the refugee convention." If we go by the current polls, we will elect someone who will do exactly that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"’ I made my points clear. The country cannot take too many of them because of the economic and social cost and the current conventions do not allow us to set an upper limit and send back everyone else." We’re literally setting new limits and restrictions now. Why? Because within the ECHR we can control our own immigration system. But sure, keep believing Farage Have a great evening | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"’ I made my points clear. The country cannot take too many of them because of the economic and social cost and the current conventions do not allow us to set an upper limit and send back everyone else. We’re literally setting new limits and restrictions now. Why? Because within the ECHR we can control our own immigration system. But sure, keep believing Farage Have a great evening "Are we setting an upper limit on the number of refugees we take? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"’ I made my points clear. The country cannot take too many of them because of the economic and social cost and the current conventions do not allow us to set an upper limit and send back everyone else. We’re literally setting new limits and restrictions now. Why? Because within the ECHR we can control our own immigration system. But sure, keep believing Farage Have a great evening
Are we setting an upper limit on the number of refugees we take?"That’s just your desire is it not? Another of your opinions as to what we should do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"’ I made my points clear. The country cannot take too many of them because of the economic and social cost and the current conventions do not allow us to set an upper limit and send back everyone else. We’re literally setting new limits and restrictions now. Why? Because within the ECHR we can control our own immigration system. But sure, keep believing Farage Have a great evening
Are we setting an upper limit on the number of refugees we take?
That’s just your desire is it not? Another of your opinions as to what we should do?
"I explained the reason why we have the upper limit and how the current refugee conventions don't allow us to do it in my post. Instead of reading that you replied with something completely irrelevant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"’ I made my points clear. The country cannot take too many of them because of the economic and social cost and the current conventions do not allow us to set an upper limit and send back everyone else. We’re literally setting new limits and restrictions now. Why? Because within the ECHR we can control our own immigration system. But sure, keep believing Farage Have a great evening
Are we setting an upper limit on the number of refugees we take?
That’s just your desire is it not? Another of your opinions as to what we should do?
I explained the reason why we have the upper limit and how the current refugee conventions don't allow us to do it in my post. Instead of reading that you replied with something completely irrelevant."No i understand completely. You believe that your conjecture is correct, and anything else incorrect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just saw this on fb Dear Prime Minister & Home Secretary, I hope this letter finds you well, fully caffeinated, and in possession of a calculator. I’m writing with what I believe is a modest, fiscally responsible proposal. I understand the Government is offering up to £40,000 to certain individuals to voluntarily leave the United Kingdom. First of all — bold strategy. Nothing says “strong borders” quite like a cashback scheme. Now, I regret to inform you that I am, in fact, a fully tax-paying, law-abiding British citizen. I know — awkward. I appreciate this may disqualify me from the premium exit package, but I’m willing to negotiate. I would like to formally apply for £35,000 to leave. You see, unlike some applicants, I haven’t broken any laws to get here. I didn’t arrive by dinghy. I didn’t require processing, housing, or legal appeals. I’ve actually been funding the whole operation through PAYE for years — which I believe makes me a loyal shareholder in this enterprise. Given that you’re prepared to offer £40,000 for someone to depart voluntarily after entering illegally, I feel £35,000 for someone who’s been here legally all along represents excellent value for money. Think of it as a “Buy British, Get One Gone” discount. For £35,000 I will: • Leave quietly. • Not require a press conference. • Not demand a diversity officer to wave me off. • Even carry my own suitcase to the airport. I may also tweet a polite thank-you note on departure, praising the efficiency of the scheme. Frankly, it feels like I’ve misunderstood how incentives work in modern Britain. All these years I thought obeying the law, paying taxes, and contributing to society were the winning strategy. Turns out the real pro-move is to arrive unlawfully and wait for a loyalty bonus. Who knew? While British families are juggling rent, energy bills, and the weekly food shop like contestants on a dystopian game show, it’s reassuring to know the Treasury has located a spare £40,000 per head for voluntary goodbyes. May I ask — is there a points card? Ten years of National Insurance contributions and I get a free exit bonus? If so, I believe I’m overdue. In the spirit of fairness and fiscal responsibility, I am not even asking for the full £40,000. I’m trimming £5,000 off to help balance the books. That’s the kind of responsible budgeting I was raised on. If successful, I promise to: • Leave via a scheduled flight (economy is fine). • Not stage a protest on the runway. • And refrain from re-entering on a small boat to see if I qualify twice. All I ask is equal treatment. If departure is now a funded career pathway, I would very much like to submit my CV. Yours in hopeful relocation, A slightly confused taxpayer " Dear applicant. As you have admitted that you are a law abiding British citizen who pays tax, this, as you predicted, automatically excludes you from any assistance to stay or leave. You may however take comfort in the knowledge that your tax rates may have to be increased to pay for all of this. P.S your name will be sent to the thought police for not falling into line. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asylum seekers are not illegal. People who have had their asylum claim refused and remain become illegal immigrants." "That's still untrue. A person that enters the UK without permission is an illegal immigrant. If they subsequently apply for asylum they are given immunity from prosecution for that crime. Claiming asylum does not make the crime go away, it just means they can't be prosecuted for it." "And if they are granted asylum the are no longer an illegal migrant. They have 5 years permissions to stay. The ‘crime’ of entering the country illegally is neither here nor there if they have asylum status." "That contradicts your original statement. Your first post said that they weren't 'illegal' until their claim had failed. Now you're saying that they are 'illegal' all the way up to the point their claim is approved." "I actually said neither." In your first post (it's quoted at the top of this one) you said that people only become illegal once their asylum claim has been refused. In your second post you said that once asylum is granted that are no longer an illegal migrants, which by implication means that they must have been illegal beforehand. "Someone arrives here illegally. They then claim asylum. At this point they are now here legally. If their claim is refused, they become illegal (depending upon appeal). If their claim is accepted then they remain legal for the asylum period." Now you're back to saying that lodging an asylum claim makes their arrival legal. It doesn't. They remain an illegal immigrant for the duration of their stay, since they arrived illegally. Having a legal right to residency means that they can stay here, but it doesn't change the manner of their arrival. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that think they would like to leave the ECHR and replace it with a bill of rights - ask yourself one question. Do you trust, not only this government, but every potential future government? Because any bill of rights will be at the behest of the incumbent govt. and it can be modified with a simple parliamentary vote. " The posts between you and Lostindreams open the curtains on accepting laws that are in place today that were written in a time that had no understanding of the future as the gold standard that should not be challenged. I think it is a really simple idea to get behind if you want to protect people who are desperately seeking asylum, we need to update our laws to remove those who are gaming the system. If we do this, those who are genuine will be supported and with dignity, those who are chancing their arms will not and with that the millions being spent on them can be redirected into public services. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that think they would like to leave the ECHR and replace it with a bill of rights - ask yourself one question. Do you trust, not only this government, but every potential future government? Because any bill of rights will be at the behest of the incumbent govt. and it can be modified with a simple parliamentary vote. " A government that wants to take away the fundamental rights of the people will do it with or without the ECHR. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that think they would like to leave the ECHR and replace it with a bill of rights - ask yourself one question. Do you trust, not only this government, but every potential future government? Because any bill of rights will be at the behest of the incumbent govt. and it can be modified with a simple parliamentary vote. The posts between you and Lostindreams open the curtains on accepting laws that are in place today that were written in a time that had no understanding of the future as the gold standard that should not be challenged. I think it is a really simple idea to get behind if you want to protect people who are desperately seeking asylum, we need to update our laws to remove those who are gaming the system. If we do this, those who are genuine will be supported and with dignity, those who are chancing their arms will not and with that the millions being spent on them can be redirected into public services. " Ditching the ECHR impacts *far* more than immigration though - a point that appears missed. Not only is it inessential for dealing with asylum, it also risks greater changes ti the fundamental rights of every British citizen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that think they would like to leave the ECHR and replace it with a bill of rights - ask yourself one question. Do you trust, not only this government, but every potential future government? Because any bill of rights will be at the behest of the incumbent govt. and it can be modified with a simple parliamentary vote. A government that wants to take away the fundamental rights of the people will do it with or without the ECHR. " Very true. This current government is taking away our rights and the ECHR isn’t stopping them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that think they would like to leave the ECHR and replace it with a bill of rights - ask yourself one question. Do you trust, not only this government, but every potential future government? Because any bill of rights will be at the behest of the incumbent govt. and it can be modified with a simple parliamentary vote. The posts between you and Lostindreams open the curtains on accepting laws that are in place today that were written in a time that had no understanding of the future as the gold standard that should not be challenged. I think it is a really simple idea to get behind if you want to protect people who are desperately seeking asylum, we need to update our laws to remove those who are gaming the system. If we do this, those who are genuine will be supported and with dignity, those who are chancing their arms will not and with that the millions being spent on them can be redirected into public services. Ditching the ECHR impacts *far* more than immigration though - a point that appears missed. Not only is it inessential for dealing with asylum, it also risks greater changes ti the fundamental rights of every British citizen. " There are numerous countries without ECHR and are doing perfectly fine when it comes to fundamental rights. And if ECHR is so valuable as you say, then it's probably on the bureaucrats to listen to the people and update it to solve the modern challenges. If they won't, people will want to leave it. People's will prevails one way or the other. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that think they would like to leave the ECHR and replace it with a bill of rights - ask yourself one question. Do you trust, not only this government, but every potential future government? Because any bill of rights will be at the behest of the incumbent govt. and it can be modified with a simple parliamentary vote. A government that wants to take away the fundamental rights of the people will do it with or without the ECHR. Very true. This current government is taking away our rights and the ECHR isn’t stopping them. " So you’d be happy with a bill of rights that can be changed at will by any incumbent government of the future? Be careful what you wish for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you’d be happy with a bill of rights that can be changed at will by any incumbent government of the future? Be careful what you wish for. " Who should be in charge of UK-jurisdiction legislation on human rights, in your view? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you’d be happy with a bill of rights that can be changed at will by any incumbent government of the future? Be careful what you wish for. Who should be in charge of UK-jurisdiction legislation on human rights, in your view?" As a sovereign nation, we have control as we should. I just happen to believe in checks and balances, the right of appeal etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who should be in charge of UK-jurisdiction legislation on human rights, in your view?" "As a sovereign nation, we have control as we should. I just happen to believe in checks and balances, the right of appeal etc." Who would apply those checks and balances? Would it be us because we're in charge, or would it be someone else because they're in charge? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who should be in charge of UK-jurisdiction legislation on human rights, in your view? As a sovereign nation, we have control as we should. I just happen to believe in checks and balances, the right of appeal etc. Who would apply those checks and balances? Would it be us because we're in charge, or would it be someone else because they're in charge?" Well right now the ECHR plays that role but only an imbecile or someone with a vested interest would claim that they’re ’in charge’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who should be in charge of UK-jurisdiction legislation on human rights, in your view? As a sovereign nation, we have control as we should. I just happen to believe in checks and balances, the right of appeal etc. Who would apply those checks and balances? Would it be us because we're in charge, or would it be someone else because they're in charge? Well right now the ECHR plays that role but only an imbecile or someone with a vested interest would claim that they’re ’in charge’ " Starmer claims he’s in charge…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" government spokesman on LBC radio today said the £40k was cheaper than the £158k each one would cost the taxpayer. If they are all working and net contributors to the exchequer, how are they costing us anything? These idiots couldn’t tell the truth if you offered em £40k to do so. So each one costs £158,000 and there’s been over 50,000 since Labour got in? Well there’s £8billion to start with. Giving away taxpayers money is our biggest strength" Who said that failed asylum seekers are working and net contributors? They’re not allowed to work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" government spokesman on LBC radio today said the £40k was cheaper than the £158k each one would cost the taxpayer. If they are all working and net contributors to the exchequer, how are they costing us anything? These idiots couldn’t tell the truth if you offered em £40k to do so. So each one costs £158,000 and there’s been over 50,000 since Labour got in? Well there’s £8billion to start with. Giving away taxpayers money is our biggest strength Who said that failed asylum seekers are working and net contributors? They’re not allowed to work." Do you know what percentage of them actually work once they are allowed to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" government spokesman on LBC radio today said the £40k was cheaper than the £158k each one would cost the taxpayer. If they are all working and net contributors to the exchequer, how are they costing us anything? These idiots couldn’t tell the truth if you offered em £40k to do so. So each one costs £158,000 and there’s been over 50,000 since Labour got in? Well there’s £8billion to start with. Giving away taxpayers money is our biggest strength Who said that failed asylum seekers are working and net contributors? They’re not allowed to work. Do you know what percentage of them actually work once they are allowed to?" Since we’re discussing illegal immigrants (which failed asylum seekers are), the answer is 0% as they’re not allowed to work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So let’s be clear, we’re talking about the people who arrive here illegally, make false asylum claims of which some fail and some don’t. " You say: “make false asylum claims of which some fail and some don’t” - So let me be blunt with you, whether *you* think their claims are false or not is utterly irrelevant. If they come here and make asylum claims, and are accepted, they are refugees and have the right to stay for up to 5 years.. If they fail, they’re are failed asylum seekers and should be deported. End of story. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So let’s be clear, we’re talking about the people who arrive here illegally, make false asylum claims of which some fail and some don’t. You say: “make false asylum claims of which some fail and some don’t” - So let me be blunt with you, whether *you* think their claims are false or not is utterly irrelevant. If they come here and make asylum claims, and are accepted, they are refugees and have the right to stay for up to 5 years.. If they fail, they’re are failed asylum seekers and should be deported. End of story. " And whether *you* think their claims are false or not is also utterly irrelevant. End of story | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So let’s be clear, we’re talking about the people who arrive here illegally, make false asylum claims of which some fail and some don’t. You say: “make false asylum claims of which some fail and some don’t” - So let me be blunt with you, whether *you* think their claims are false or not is utterly irrelevant. If they come here and make asylum claims, and are accepted, they are refugees and have the right to stay for up to 5 years.. If they fail, they’re are failed asylum seekers and should be deported. End of story. And whether *you* think their claims are false or not is also utterly irrelevant. End of story " I agree. The only people who matter are the asylum officials. Who are you or I to say whether ther decisions are right or wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who should be in charge of UK-jurisdiction legislation on human rights, in your view?" "As a sovereign nation, we have control as we should. I just happen to believe in checks and balances, the right of appeal etc." "Who would apply those checks and balances? Would it be us because we're in charge, or would it be someone else because they're in charge?" "Well right now the ECHR plays that role but only an imbecile or someone with a vested interest would claim that they’re ’in charge’" How can it be claimed that they're not 'in charge' if they get to overrule British laws when they don't agree with them? What definition of 'in charge' are you using? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who should be in charge of UK-jurisdiction legislation on human rights, in your view? As a sovereign nation, we have control as we should. I just happen to believe in checks and balances, the right of appeal etc. Who would apply those checks and balances? Would it be us because we're in charge, or would it be someone else because they're in charge? Well right now the ECHR plays that role but only an imbecile or someone with a vested interest would claim that they’re ’in charge’ How can it be claimed that they're not 'in charge' if they get to overrule British laws when they don't agree with them? What definition of 'in charge' are you using?" The ECHR has no direct power to change British law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who should be in charge of UK-jurisdiction legislation on human rights, in your view?" "As a sovereign nation, we have control as we should. I just happen to believe in checks and balances, the right of appeal etc." "Who would apply those checks and balances? Would it be us because we're in charge, or would it be someone else because they're in charge?" "Well right now the ECHR plays that role but only an imbecile or someone with a vested interest would claim that they’re ’in charge’" "How can it be claimed that they're not 'in charge' if they get to overrule British laws when they don't agree with them? What definition of 'in charge' are you using?" "The ECHR has no direct power to change British law." Correct, only the British parliament can make or change British laws. But the ECHR has the power to tell the British parliament that a law isn't good enough, and it needs to be changed. So who's "in charge" there? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who should be in charge of UK-jurisdiction legislation on human rights, in your view? As a sovereign nation, we have control as we should. I just happen to believe in checks and balances, the right of appeal etc. Who would apply those checks and balances? Would it be us because we're in charge, or would it be someone else because they're in charge? Well right now the ECHR plays that role but only an imbecile or someone with a vested interest would claim that they’re ’in charge’ How can it be claimed that they're not 'in charge' if they get to overrule British laws when they don't agree with them? What definition of 'in charge' are you using? The ECHR has no direct power to change British law. Correct, only the British parliament can make or change British laws. But the ECHR has the power to tell the British parliament that a law isn't good enough, and it needs to be changed. So who's "in charge" there?" Parliament. Because they can ignore the ECHR (if they really want to open that can of worms) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who should be in charge of UK-jurisdiction legislation on human rights, in your view? As a sovereign nation, we have control as we should. I just happen to believe in checks and balances, the right of appeal etc. Who would apply those checks and balances? Would it be us because we're in charge, or would it be someone else because they're in charge? Well right now the ECHR plays that role but only an imbecile or someone with a vested interest would claim that they’re ’in charge’ How can it be claimed that they're not 'in charge' if they get to overrule British laws when they don't agree with them? What definition of 'in charge' are you using? The ECHR has no direct power to change British law. Correct, only the British parliament can make or change British laws. But the ECHR has the power to tell the British parliament that a law isn't good enough, and it needs to be changed. So who's "in charge" there? Parliament. Because they can ignore the ECHR (if they really want to open that can of worms)" My original point seems to have been arrived at, we need to update our laws to reflect the modern day issues we are facing today. Not doing so is causing the fragmentation and extreme political rivalry, and the people who are suffering the most are the genuine asylum seekers not the ones playing the system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who should be in charge of UK-jurisdiction legislation on human rights, in your view?" "As a sovereign nation, we have control as we should. I just happen to believe in checks and balances, the right of appeal etc." "Who would apply those checks and balances? Would it be us because we're in charge, or would it be someone else because they're in charge?" "Well right now the ECHR plays that role but only an imbecile or someone with a vested interest would claim that they’re ’in charge’" "How can it be claimed that they're not 'in charge' if they get to overrule British laws when they don't agree with them? What definition of 'in charge' are you using?" "The ECHR has no direct power to change British law." "Correct, only the British parliament can make or change British laws. But the ECHR has the power to tell the British parliament that a law isn't good enough, and it needs to be changed. So who's "in charge" there?" "Parliament. Because they can ignore the ECHR (if they really want to open that can of worms)" Earlier on you were saying that the ECHR is important because it provides "checks and balances, the right of appeal etc.". Now you're saying that the UK parliament and legal system can just ignore the ECHR if it wants to. How does the ECHR provide a right of appeal if the UK parliament can just ignore it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who should be in charge of UK-jurisdiction legislation on human rights, in your view? As a sovereign nation, we have control as we should. I just happen to believe in checks and balances, the right of appeal etc. Who would apply those checks and balances? Would it be us because we're in charge, or would it be someone else because they're in charge? Well right now the ECHR plays that role but only an imbecile or someone with a vested interest would claim that they’re ’in charge’ How can it be claimed that they're not 'in charge' if they get to overrule British laws when they don't agree with them? What definition of 'in charge' are you using? The ECHR has no direct power to change British law. Correct, only the British parliament can make or change British laws. But the ECHR has the power to tell the British parliament that a law isn't good enough, and it needs to be changed. So who's "in charge" there? Parliament. Because they can ignore the ECHR (if they really want to open that can of worms) Earlier on you were saying that the ECHR is important because it provides "checks and balances, the right of appeal etc.". Now you're saying that the UK parliament and legal system can just ignore the ECHR if it wants to. How does the ECHR provide a right of appeal if the UK parliament can just ignore it?" Because ignoring it would have likely ramifications. But you know that already. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who should be in charge of UK-jurisdiction legislation on human rights, in your view? As a sovereign nation, we have control as we should. I just happen to believe in checks and balances, the right of appeal etc. Who would apply those checks and balances? Would it be us because we're in charge, or would it be someone else because they're in charge? Well right now the ECHR plays that role but only an imbecile or someone with a vested interest would claim that they’re ’in charge’ How can it be claimed that they're not 'in charge' if they get to overrule British laws when they don't agree with them? What definition of 'in charge' are you using? The ECHR has no direct power to change British law. Correct, only the British parliament can make or change British laws. But the ECHR has the power to tell the British parliament that a law isn't good enough, and it needs to be changed. So who's "in charge" there? Parliament. Because they can ignore the ECHR (if they really want to open that can of worms) My original point seems to have been arrived at, we need to update our laws to reflect the modern day issues we are facing today. Not doing so is causing the fragmentation and extreme political rivalry, and the people who are suffering the most are the genuine asylum seekers not the ones playing the system. " So it’s important to have a robust asylum system in place to protect the genuine asylum seekers and return the fake ones promptly, correct? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who should be in charge of UK-jurisdiction legislation on human rights, in your view? As a sovereign nation, we have control as we should. I just happen to believe in checks and balances, the right of appeal etc. Who would apply those checks and balances? Would it be us because we're in charge, or would it be someone else because they're in charge? Well right now the ECHR plays that role but only an imbecile or someone with a vested interest would claim that they’re ’in charge’ How can it be claimed that they're not 'in charge' if they get to overrule British laws when they don't agree with them? What definition of 'in charge' are you using? The ECHR has no direct power to change British law. Correct, only the British parliament can make or change British laws. But the ECHR has the power to tell the British parliament that a law isn't good enough, and it needs to be changed. So who's "in charge" there? Parliament. Because they can ignore the ECHR (if they really want to open that can of worms) My original point seems to have been arrived at, we need to update our laws to reflect the modern day issues we are facing today. Not doing so is causing the fragmentation and extreme political rivalry, and the people who are suffering the most are the genuine asylum seekers not the ones playing the system. So it’s important to have a robust asylum system in place to protect the genuine asylum seekers and return the fake ones promptly, correct? " It is yes and right now we do not have that in place, which is allowing exploitation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who should be in charge of UK-jurisdiction legislation on human rights, in your view? As a sovereign nation, we have control as we should. I just happen to believe in checks and balances, the right of appeal etc. Who would apply those checks and balances? Would it be us because we're in charge, or would it be someone else because they're in charge? Well right now the ECHR plays that role but only an imbecile or someone with a vested interest would claim that they’re ’in charge’ How can it be claimed that they're not 'in charge' if they get to overrule British laws when they don't agree with them? What definition of 'in charge' are you using? The ECHR has no direct power to change British law. Correct, only the British parliament can make or change British laws. But the ECHR has the power to tell the British parliament that a law isn't good enough, and it needs to be changed. So who's "in charge" there? Parliament. Because they can ignore the ECHR (if they really want to open that can of worms) My original point seems to have been arrived at, we need to update our laws to reflect the modern day issues we are facing today. Not doing so is causing the fragmentation and extreme political rivalry, and the people who are suffering the most are the genuine asylum seekers not the ones playing the system. So it’s important to have a robust asylum system in place to protect the genuine asylum seekers and return the fake ones promptly, correct? It is yes and right now we do not have that in place, which is allowing exploitation." So we’re agreed that’s where the problem is. Now if anyone wants to explain how leaving the ECHR fixes that, I’m all ears. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who should be in charge of UK-jurisdiction legislation on human rights, in your view? As a sovereign nation, we have control as we should. I just happen to believe in checks and balances, the right of appeal etc. Who would apply those checks and balances? Would it be us because we're in charge, or would it be someone else because they're in charge? Well right now the ECHR plays that role but only an imbecile or someone with a vested interest would claim that they’re ’in charge’ How can it be claimed that they're not 'in charge' if they get to overrule British laws when they don't agree with them? What definition of 'in charge' are you using? The ECHR has no direct power to change British law. Correct, only the British parliament can make or change British laws. But the ECHR has the power to tell the British parliament that a law isn't good enough, and it needs to be changed. So who's "in charge" there? Parliament. Because they can ignore the ECHR (if they really want to open that can of worms) My original point seems to have been arrived at, we need to update our laws to reflect the modern day issues we are facing today. Not doing so is causing the fragmentation and extreme political rivalry, and the people who are suffering the most are the genuine asylum seekers not the ones playing the system. So it’s important to have a robust asylum system in place to protect the genuine asylum seekers and return the fake ones promptly, correct? It is yes and right now we do not have that in place, which is allowing exploitation. So we’re agreed that’s where the problem is. Now if anyone wants to explain how leaving the ECHR fixes that, I’m all ears. " Imagine a job that involves training people to become police officers. To be considered, candidates will need to have passed a series of tests and assessments, ensuring a basic standard before any training begins. Now imagine there was a convention written decades ago that overruled those basic entry requirements and said anyone who wanted to take the test and become a police officer had to be allowed into the process. Would the job become unmanageable? Would it start to feel as though places were being taken by people who shouldn’t be there and those with the right skills and entry requirements struggled to get in? That is roughly the situation we face today. The answer might not be to leave the convention all together, it is to update it so that outdated elements being being exploited can no longer be used to circumnavigate the system. It was mentioned further up, if we don't address this those who throw the idea of leaving will find support. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is roughly the situation we face today. The answer might not be to leave the convention all together, it is to update it so that outdated elements being being exploited can no longer be used to circumnavigate the system. It was mentioned further up, if we don't address this those who throw the idea of leaving will find support. " We don’t need to change the ECHR when we can change our own laws and immigration rules - that’s the point. The ECHR is a red herring so that other protections can be done away with. Sick pay, trades unions, maternity benefits, pensions etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who should be in charge of UK-jurisdiction legislation on human rights, in your view? As a sovereign nation, we have control as we should. I just happen to believe in checks and balances, the right of appeal etc. Who would apply those checks and balances? Would it be us because we're in charge, or would it be someone else because they're in charge? Well right now the ECHR plays that role but only an imbecile or someone with a vested interest would claim that they’re ’in charge’ How can it be claimed that they're not 'in charge' if they get to overrule British laws when they don't agree with them? What definition of 'in charge' are you using? The ECHR has no direct power to change British law. Correct, only the British parliament can make or change British laws. But the ECHR has the power to tell the British parliament that a law isn't good enough, and it needs to be changed. So who's "in charge" there? Parliament. Because they can ignore the ECHR (if they really want to open that can of worms) My original point seems to have been arrived at, we need to update our laws to reflect the modern day issues we are facing today. Not doing so is causing the fragmentation and extreme political rivalry, and the people who are suffering the most are the genuine asylum seekers not the ones playing the system. So it’s important to have a robust asylum system in place to protect the genuine asylum seekers and return the fake ones promptly, correct? It is yes and right now we do not have that in place, which is allowing exploitation. So we’re agreed that’s where the problem is. Now if anyone wants to explain how leaving the ECHR fixes that, I’m all ears. Imagine a job that involves training people to become police officers. To be considered, candidates will need to have passed a series of tests and assessments, ensuring a basic standard before any training begins. Now imagine there was a convention written decades ago that overruled those basic entry requirements and said anyone who wanted to take the test and become a police officer had to be allowed into the process. Would the job become unmanageable? Would it start to feel as though places were being taken by people who shouldn’t be there and those with the right skills and entry requirements struggled to get in? That is roughly the situation we face today. The answer might not be to leave the convention all together, it is to update it so that outdated elements being being exploited can no longer be used to circumnavigate the system. It was mentioned further up, if we don't address this those who throw the idea of leaving will find support. " Very well put | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is roughly the situation we face today. The answer might not be to leave the convention all together, it is to update it so that outdated elements being being exploited can no longer be used to circumnavigate the system. It was mentioned further up, if we don't address this those who throw the idea of leaving will find support. We don’t need to change the ECHR when we can change our own laws and immigration rules - that’s the point. The ECHR is a red herring so that other protections can be done away with. Sick pay, trades unions, maternity benefits, pensions etc." Ridiculous conspiracy theory stuff. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That is roughly the situation we face today. The answer might not be to leave the convention all together, it is to update it so that outdated elements being being exploited can no longer be used to circumnavigate the system. It was mentioned further up, if we don't address this those who throw the idea of leaving will find support. We don’t need to change the ECHR when we can change our own laws and immigration rules - that’s the point. The ECHR is a red herring so that other protections can be done away with. Sick pay, trades unions, maternity benefits, pensions etc. Ridiculous conspiracy theory stuff." More or less ridiculous than leaving the ECHR to control immigration when the two subjects are unconnected? How are we presently about to change immigration and asylum rules (as we have done in the past couple of years) whist in the ECHR? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How does the ECHR provide a right of appeal if the UK parliament can just ignore it?" "Because ignoring it would have likely ramifications. But you know that already." I did know that already, but now that you've admitted it, we can go back to where we started. If there's an overarching organisation that can punish a government for non-compliance, then that government isn't really in control. Your position is akin to saying that children be allowed to play wherever they want, but insisting that parents follow them around to shout "no ice cream if you go near the canal". Those kids might feel like they're in control of their own play, but they aren't, it's the parents that decide where the limits are. We can argue for ages over the exact meanings of "in charge" and "in control", but if the ECHR exists as a final level of appeal, then we're putting ECHR rulings above those of British law. While Britain is bound by the ECHR, it can't be truly sovereign. If you think that Britain is a better place with the ECHR protecting us all, then fine, say that. But don't pretend that Britain can be both sovereign *and* subject to the ECHR at the same time. That clearly isn't true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
