If you support Farage, would you be able to explain why please.

Thanks. I didn't know that....

I don't disagree.....as long as we see things from a balanced viewpoint

Although we spend more per person than other comparable countries.

@EvieBB I read that the UK take in less asylum seekers than other European countries in any case...

Quite rightly too.

UK is the most densely populated country in Europe after -

Malta
Holy See (Vatican City)
San Marino
Netherlands
Belgium

But they set off from a war torn country didn't they? Wouldn't you if you were unlucky enough to be born in those parts of the world? You'd do anything for your children......so you can't really blame them.
I read that the UK take in less asylum seekers than other European countries in any case...

But they don't come to UK from these "war-torn countries" do they?

They cross many safe countries on the way and try their luck at getting asylum in one of those.

www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/map-shows-8-countries-where-most-migrants-heading-to-uk-are-from-25k-from-1-country/ar-AA1O4eA2

No, the actual war torn countries.

Which war-torn country is that? France ?

?

War torn countries like France?

I'd love to hear your ideas.

I’d redesign the system for women. It’d be a big change though after 75 odd years.

Yes, you make a valid point. I don't know what the answer is though.

Same. But I think Mahmood’s policies will do the opposite.

No. Because if the men are considered in need of asylum, goodness knows what their wives and children are suffering.
Ideally I'd prefer there to be a means of prioritising asylum to women and children over men.

We’ll see but if it does drastically limit spouses and children and we just see single men take asylum are you ok with that?

The court over ruled them because it was applying the extended rules intended for Ukraine. If it had been applying the 'regular rules' then only the persons immediate family would have been allowed to join them under the right to family life, not the 18 extended family members thats got everyone (understandably) in a tizzy. So now that's been suspended we should be back to immediate family only again.
Whether imposing the visa, income and language criteria on refugees conflicts with the right to family life will no doubt be a topic for hot debate between the government and human rights lawyers. At present the government are arguing that being able to live independently is part of family life, and that this requires a certain income and language level. This is naturally strongly criticised by the other side, so we will have to watch this space I guess.

Apparently 98% of our benefits are for British born people who have never worked.....and yet you Reformists are wanting to concentrate on the 2% of benefits that go to desperate people feeling from a war torn country....

Well yes but the court still over ruled them. I can’t see how the criteria you’ve listed would meet the right to family life within the ECHR.

The convention doesn’t say you only get that right if you earn enough and speak the language.

I'm no expert, but as I understand it the rights usually apply only to 'immediate family members'.
This was extended in respect of refugees from Ukraine to wider family. Then an Immigration tribunal applied this to refugees from Gaza, and in the case of the 18 the tribunal appeared to have followed this precedent.
The government in September suspended the family reunion scheme that extended rights beyond immediate family, and are now looking at tightening the rules so refugees have to meet the same requirements as all British Citizens with regards to visas, income and language before family members can join them.
Certainly, given the home secretary appealed the tribunals decision on this case twice, there is no appetite in government to allow such cases to become the norm.

How does tightening the rules work with the ECHR right to family life?

The exceptional case I'm referring to is the one I was speaking to PP about. That of the 18 family members who had been refused entry by our home secretary. A decision that was overturned by an immigration tribunal. This situation has come about due to legal technicalities, and the government are expected to tighten rules accordingly. It is by no means an everyday occurance.
If it were, do you really think the Mail wouldn't be running such stories every day? Tribunals are after all a matter of public record.

@5128gap So not something to rush at like a bull at a gate for the sake of an exceptional case.

"Exceptional case" My Fat Aunt !

There are 100s of migrants crossing the channel every week and applying for asylum because they are "fleeing war and persecution."
The last I heard was, that there wasn't actually a war in France. The last war in France was WW2 🙄

I wonder how many Reform voters go beyond the headline and their view that this government is allowing it and Reform would stop it though?
Because this decision was made against the judgement of our government, a decision to refuse them was overturned at appeal.
The only way a different outcome could have been achieved here is by leaving the European Convention, which is not without serious ramifications for our own rights and protections and for trade. So not something to rush at like a bull at a gate for the sake of an exceptional case.

I haven't denied Reform's existence and rise. Neither of those things surprises me at all. Your view is that they've gained in popularity because people don't want refugees coming to the UK. Mine is that it's happened because a certain proportion of the electorate welcomes the chance to be openly racist and to see that racism normalised and made acceptable by the move of the far right into mainstream politics.