Pakistan has money now. Some people there act ‘new money’... but wanna be Western, act Western and sometimes go to the West for education. It’s weirdQuote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Printable View
Pakistan has money now. Some people there act ‘new money’... but wanna be Western, act Western and sometimes go to the West for education. It’s weirdQuote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Its about money and status in Azerbaijan. My wife's status went up a bout 1000~% when we got married just because she had an "English" husband. They considered it that she had a "way out". they couldn't get it that we chose to carry on livng there lolQuote:
Originally Posted by adz-a32
France accepts WAY more asylum seekers than the UK. We talking double, triple the numbers
In fact out of the most populous and wealthy EU nations we comfortably accept the least.
So maybe that’s Why we don’t send them back immediately, we’ve got way more than enough capacity to deal with them. We’re talking a few hundred / a thousand a year here On boats, it’s really bugger all
The draw for the boat people is partly to do with the English language. Many of them speak English and not French, German or Italian. However, the Mayor of Calais has indicated that people want to come to the UK because of the generosity of our Benefits system and the only way to stop the migration is to either reduce Benefits here to everyone or give the migrants less. Ridiculous of course but that is what she thinks. Instinctively I would like to think those that arrive here by boat should stay on humanity grounds but that is not the answer as the more hospitable we become the more will be likely to arrive. We pay France £50m a year to Police their borders to stop departures from their shores but clearly they are not doing a very good job. Perhaps the French should allow us to do the job.
Just because we have space we should accept them? They are illegal. If you were rich and someone burgled your house would you say it's OK because you can afford it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitman
If we don't accept people who come here legally and who try to follow the rules and comply with the requirements why should we accept people who do it illegally?
Asylum seekers are illegal?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
They're not illegal though - everyone has a right to asylum, even if you arrive seemingly illegally via a dinghy. And contrary to popular belief its not a stipulation that you must settle in the first safe country you arrive at.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
If they aren't claiming asylum and just searching for work then they get bounced back pretty sharpish. Hell this government was almost bouncing back people whose parents arrived seemingly illegally in the 60s
What's wrong with them coming to the UK?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
You think we should let in anyone and everyone that wants to come?Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
It would save a fortune on border force salaries I suppose.
Lets just let anyone and everyone come - - except the ones who apply in the right manner and the Government decides they don't like them or the person sponsoring them earns £1000 a year less than the required minimum for entry. Seems like a fair plan doesn't it ?
I didn't say let everyone in, I said what's wrong with them coming to the uk?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Net migration to the UK both illegal and legal is miniscule I can't understand why everyone gets so annoyed by it. And I don't understand why anyone would get annoyed at a boat of desperate asylum seekers trying to find a safer or better life.
so we should just let anyone in who wants to come, is that what you're saying?Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
NopeQuote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
I think hes saying that the outrage isn't proportionate to the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Well, if they are fleeing persecution, war or famine then yes, absolutelyQuote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
so how do you regulate them? If they go thruogh the current immigration procedure none of the illegals would comply with the requirements so no change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
How would you decide who stays and who goes?
I think you need to be a bit clearer about whether you're talking about illegal immigrants or asylum seekers, as there's a lot of crossed wires here.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
I'd regulate them with the current method that works just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
It's 17 people on a boat seeking asylum, I don't see the big deal.
Illegals don't go through immigration procedure. If they did, they wouldn't be illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
What gets me about the OP is it's all based on "facts" that have been misrepresented by the media, this hopefully clears thingsup
So again why is it such a big issue?Quote:
The vast majority of refugees – 4 out of 5 – stay in their region of displacement, and consequently are hosted by developing countries. Turkey now hosts the highest number of refugees with 3.7 million, followed by Pakistan with 1.4 million.
The UK offered protection – in the form of grants of asylum, alternative forms of protection and resettlement – to 18,519 people in the year June 2018 - June 2019 (up 29% compared with the previous year). Of these, 25% (or 4,563) were children.
According to UNHCR statistics, in 2018 there were 126,720 refugees, 45,244 pending asylum cases and 125 stateless persons in the UK.
The majority of asylum-seekers do not have the right to work in the United Kingdom and so must rely on state support.
Housing is provided, but asylum-seekers cannot choose where it is, and it is often ‘hard to let’ properties which Council tenants do not want to live in.
Cash support is available, and is currently set at £37.75 per person, per week, which makes it £5.39 a day for food, sanitation and clothing.
Resettlement is the transfer of refugees from a country where they have initially sought asylum - often in the same region as their country of origin - to a third state which has agreed to admit them.In the year ending June 2019, 5,691 people were resettled in the UK, (roughly the same number as the previous year), including 4,200 under the VPRS and 742 under the VCRS.
I thought voting Brexit meant “taking back control” which meant we were allowed to machine gun these Covid carrying miscreants and their dinghies whilst in range of our beloved white cliffs?
Don’t tell me that’s another Brexit fib?
****ing fuming here!
Thats very nasty, even if said in the spitiit of irony. you'll end up on the naughty step with me!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordi Culé
He’s taking the piss out of you, you numpty.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
I don't disagree with any of that. However if you just let anyone in the flood will grow greater and greater, but that is not my point. I asked why when they are picked up in the sea are they not returned to the country from which they embarked. Take them back to France and Belgium and put them off there. If were not going to do that we may as well send across a channel ferry and say, "Come on chaps hops aboard we don't mind. It is no argument to say we should take more because we have less than this or that country. If that was the yard stick every time country was not at the top of the list they would be obliged to take more and more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
#you said we should not just take anyone who wants to come so how are you gonig to regulate them, decide who comes and who doesn't?
What is your reason for not wanting to help a desperate refugee in a boat trying to reach the UK?
Nevermind about why they should or shouldn't be allowed in.
What is your motivation for your stance?
I said that if they are found at sea they should be returned to the country they came from. Is your opinion that we should let in anyone who attempts to enter the country illegally?Quote:
Originally Posted by insider
And if we should help them then why don't we let in the people who apply through the proper channels and attempt to honestly comply with the immigration requirements?
For like, the fiftieth time, just because they are in a dinghy doesn't make them illegal immigrantsQuote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Asylum is a proper channel.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
These people are seeking asylum which is legal, there are proper channels to process them so we aren't just taking everyone in.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
What makes you think we are letting anyone in and the flood will grow greater and greater?
Net immigration last year was about 200,000, asylum seekers are a tiny minority of this. What makes you think too many people are getting in?
No I'm saying if they are in the middle of the sea we should help them and not turn them around.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Bring them here and then start the process of them starting to apply for asylum. (I'm not saying they will get it)
Why do you have the stance of send them back.
What does that achieve apart from putting an obviously desperate person in even more hardship
2 questions, why should we return them to the country they came from? And if they've crossed all of Europe from Iran how do you decide which country that is?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
What makes you think we don't let people in who apply through the "proper channels"?
Asylum starts in the coun try in which you first sat foot, it is that county's responsibility, whic hte EU countries are conspicuosly failing to action.Quote:
Originally Posted by rudy gestede
And asylum only pertains when they reach British soil which is why for many many years airport areas before cu
stoms have been deemed to be outside that countries borders. If they are found at sea they should be returned to the country from when they came where they can apply for asylum in the internationally recognised manner.What is wrong about that?
someone arriving from any airport in the world into another county's air port, if found to not have the correct visa or documents is put on a plane back to the airport he or she came from. What's the difference?
Sounds perfect for an island country off the north coast. Never gonna be our problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Are the EU failing? Italy, Spain, France and Germany all take more than the U.K.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
So using your argument the U.K. should never have any asylum seekers then?
The difference is these people are usually fleeing something and sending them back can result in Something bad happening to them.
Yes those countries are failing in their duty to obey their own laws because it does not suit them. they have a legal obligation to process and accept every illegal immigrant that lands in the EU until such time as they can show they have no claim and can be returned to where they came from.Quote:
Originally Posted by rudy gestede
How many any particular country takes or does not take isn't relevant to this point.
he UK has a system which allows people to apply for asylum in the country they are in, be processed and then flown to UK and be taken care of. In this way the UK fulfills its obligation. These people have actively avoided using that facility. If they don't care about doing it right they should be aware of the consequences of their actions.
you are followi
ng me aren't you? :hehe:
you're a troll.
That's not how asylum seeking works, to seek asylum you land in the country first then seek asylum. The whole point of asylum is you have left your home country and can't go back. Otherwise it's just applying for normal immigration.
I don't understand why you're so angry about it, can you explain that please?
For someone with such a strong opinion on seeking asylum and illegal immigration you don’t seem to understand any of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Often something we're at least partly responsible for... :hide::hide:Quote:
Originally Posted by rudy gestede
you mean you don't agree, I understand far more than you know. I also knoe yuour a troll and a keyboard warrior.Quote:
Originally Posted by rudy gestede
You just said they have to apply for asylum from their home country - wrong
You keep calling refugees illegal immigrants - wrong
It’s hard to agree or disagree with you when it’s impossible to see what you’re talking about.