This is why the very act of claiming asylum makes all other legal concerns secondary. Asylum seekers are more often than not forced to break the law/make illegal crossings, because other means aren’t open to them.
2 Likes
Yes, and yet it’s still being perpetuated in the media, and it is regardless a real problem in the number of people taking the risks to make the crossings.
1 Like
Did this fall by the wayside?
Is it being resurected by Labour?
I can’t seem to find details on this.
It seems like the Home Office is institutionally rotten…
I wonder how much influence the US military had in this decision, being that they are so close to Diego Garcia?
I’m less concerned about the Chagos Islands details as I haven’t read that much about it, but I’m talking about how they’re deporting people who are unable to access legal services to defend themselves.
The half billion quid ended up behind the bar in ‘Le Lion Rouge’ in Calais.
Maybe there is an argument to be had that it is mainly because they are being forced to come to the UK by Human trafficking gangs.
According to the 2021 census, Albanian nationals account for the highest foreign population in UK prisons with an incarceration figure per 1000 nationals of 18.54. The second highest…
Iraq at 2.90.
Now, to me those figures suggest that there is an organised element involved.
1 Like
But that’s because it is illegal to just travel into other countries and they are not forced to break the Law, they choose to. I accept that a lot are put in a position where they feel there is no other option.
The sad part is that there is most likely a high number of genuine AS who don’t have the funds to pay traffickers for illegal routes and so are stuck.
1 Like
I do some work with migrant workers here in Singapore working in the manual labour sector and each individual has a story that will touch your heart, no one really wants to leave their home and family to come so far.
However, laws are laws and we cannot disregard laws because of compassion, as much that compassion can and should find it’s place in dispensation of laws.
And the norm for anyone arriving a country, the basic agreement is that they must arrive legally. No if’s and buts. Only when this foundation is agreed on, then you can start filtering out the exceptions based on compassion. It would be unfair to lambast any government for applying the law, neither is it as simple as having an asylum process. Because in the crux of any asylum process is the question, how do you verify that each individual is really in danger? I understand from some people that the UK does not seem to have a proper asylum process and accepting and deporting people randomly? So they probably can start there but even then the basis must be the law and the message is that acceptance of asylum is not an exception to the laws.
1 Like
Your post raises some good points but also some I would question.
IMO the “stop the boats” is not a charade or Manufactured to distract from them stripping public services. It’s a real thing, which is why Labour have also acknowledged it.
*nb. I am not denying that the Tories may have used it for their own reasons.
Yes, I believe you are right, a system would see more refugees being situated in the UK. I have no problem with this but there would need to be a structure in place for housing them and integrating them into society and also a limit as to numbers. Europe cannot take every person seeking Asylum.
Regarding the third point, we have no obligation to support those fleeing persecution but we do so on ethical terms. I agree, we could do more but where do you draw the line?
As mentioned on this forum, we already have a large population living in poverty. Struggling for adequate housing, going without heating, food, etc.
Finally, if the politicians ignore the public who have concerns about immigration - not necessarily Racist or Xenophobic. You just promote parties who play off that. All you have to do is look at mainland Europe and the rise in popularity of “Right Wing” parties.
There are 6 European countries governed by parties you could label RW. You then have Le Penn in France and the AFD in Germany polling at 30%.
So to put it more simply, the governments of the two biggest countries in the EU - in terms of power/influence - are under a realistic threat of being ousted out of power, by RW political parties.
So, whilst it may not be favourable to many, I think it would be wise to listen to people concerns and not just dismiss them all as being Racist.
1 Like
A really good and well worded post. As you touched upon, how do you verify that each individual is really in danger.
I think you have hit the nail on the head when you say that the UK does not seem to have a proper asylum process and I think that’s my biggest frustration.
The Tories wasted a large amount of money on the idea of deporting people to Rwanda. For me that is a reactive, rather than a proactive way of addressing the problem. The UK gives France a large amount of money, a figure which seems to be growing per year. Maybe, we should just cancel that and invest the money in creating a process to deal with the issue in an effective manner.
The only problem with this, is that it may potentially lead to more boat crossings and the risk of more lives being lost.
1 Like
Just as a jumping off point, regarding the asylum debate, what is Europe going to when Climate Change makes the tropics inhospitable, and billions - not millions - of people start heading north?
Can we still peddle the idea that Europe is full when people are deserting Africa and Asia because of a global crisis that we have caused?
I think the conservative government deliberately wound the processing system down in order to manufacture a crisis that they could then claim to be the solution to.
It’s going to take a long time for Labour to sort this out.
In the meantime, I’ve never understood frustrations about migration. We’re an ageing population in an economy with a desperate shortage of labour. It’s fucking bizarre to me that the are people out there who want to throw up walls and borders.
3 Likes
“They’re not like us!”
Says the people who have very little actual personal experience with immigrants. It’s so odd (not really) that it’s usually the places which have really low proportions of migrants that have a really big problem with immigration.
3 Likes
‘But we’re overpopulated and services can’t cope.’
1 Like
The uk has signed up to the 1951 refugee convention. The tories chose to ignore it and rip the system apart.
Again, having signed up to the 1951 convention we are legally obliged to accept asylum seekers and house them until their claims are processed.
And just to add some weight to the question of legality, people have a legal right to enter and claim asylum. They do not become illegal immigrants until their claim has been processed and they have failed.
Aside from all of that it really bugs me how easy this information is to obtain, but sound bites from those shouting loudly seen to stick more.
2 Likes
It does, it is just the governments since 2010 decided to pull up much of the integrated support available around the process and failed to invest sufficiently in the system itself - instead, as you say, choosing theatrics of the Rwanda scheme. It has then been made worse by the under resourcing of Local Authorities and the housing system.
4 Likes
Streeting claims that the jabs would not be made compulsory.
1 Like
But the rabid rightwing press will carry on scaremongering anyway.