It is not illegal to be an asylum seeker

[antelopevalley]

It is legal to cross the channel in a boat and claim asylum when you reach Britain. People who do this are not illegal, they are acting within the law.

And here is Braverman confirming there are only illegal routes to get to the UK. No safe and legal routes (unless you are from Hong Kong or Ukraine)

twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1602988807447527427

Braverman is now saying the government would "extend safe and legal routes once we have dealt with the appalling people-smuggling gangs risking people's lives".

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/well-establish-safe-routes-after-boats-are-dealt-with-suella-braverman-says_uk_6399cb3ae4b09e0de498c9b8

But then she dreams of deportation flights.

@Roussette well said. But some people on this thread suffer from severe cognitive dissonance. Yes, of course there should be a way to apply from another country - but the Tories won't do that because it doesn't play with their base, who are more xenophobic than the norm.

@Georgeskitchen the UK takes a few asylum seekers. But it isn't meeting its commitments and it is not making any endeavours to improve that situation - the data on refugees from Afghanistan makes that quite clear.

Many people are stupid and racist. They are wilfully ignorant because the narrative suits them: I don't have housing because of THEM, I don't have a job because of THEM, I didn't get the best education because of THEM. Nonsense.

And it's the same stupid and racist people who have the right to vote. If and when they choose to exercise that right, we're buggered but that's democracy for you!

It's divide and conquer isn't it.

I'm sorry but this is not necessarily 'nonesense'.

My niece, her partner and their daughter (5) have been living with my BIL and SIL for 4 years while being on the waiting list for a housing association property. The last 6 vacancies have gone to people recently arrived in the UK. How do I know this? Because a friend works for the housing association. The strain on this family is immense.

I have relatives in the midlands. Their daughter constantly complains that she is unable to learn much at school (her aim is to study medicine) because English is only the sixth language at her school and teachers have to spend a disproportionate amount of time with pupils whose grasp of English is poor. Not the kids' fault of course but it does hugely impact on her education.

This come one, come all attitude is great if it only affects other people.

The housing shortage is because we haven't built enough houses.
The last 6 houses have gone to people in greater need.
Her learning is affected because schools are chronically underfunded.

Don't fall for the finger pointing

Lefties used to understand that immigration (of which asylum seekers are a part) undercut labour’s bargaining power. It’s a big reason why Tories don’t care to limit immigration, even though that’s what their voters desperately want.

No one is looking out for the working class, do you think Labour cares what happens to the white working class? Iirc boys from that demographic get the worst school results and no one cares or even seems to talk about it.

Tbh the only way asylum seekers would be relatively uncontroversial is if you could recruit the requisite numbers from refugee camps, doing all the background checks first and granting entry visas to the neediest cases.

Instead you have a literal scrum to get in, and you don’t know anything about them before arrival. And the demographics are all wrong—young males should literally be last in line.

@MintyFreshOne Are you suggesting that the Tories are choosing not to limit the number of asylum claims?

Also, I’m quite interested in your point on demographics. What’s your reasoning behind young men being last in line?

@MintyFreshOne if you want your arguments to be taken seriously (and you raise some valid issues) maybe you shouldn't start with 'lefties'. It makes you look ignorant.

Re working class white boys - remember who has been in power for the last 12 years. It isn't Labour. And the only way that achievement gap is going to change is if society changes radically. That means improving social mobility, investing in all kinds of education including excellent vocational schooling, and properly dismantling the toxic remains of the class system. If families see that education brings about genuine high living standards, you will remove that barrier to engaging with it. That isn't what the Tories want.

What you're suggesting in terms of asylum seekers is in fact what many others on this thread have suggested is needed: a system whereby it is possible to apply from outside the UK, and a system that is properly staffed and funded. The Tories also do not want this.

So stop having a go at 'lefties' and direct your ire at this government, where it belongs.

But our government hasn't done that. So do you think allowing safe passage might be a good solution?

We have it in our power to make the channel crossing very safe. Why not do that?

So it's fine if people take a circuitous route via the North Sea, or by air? What is the logic in that?

@pointythings white working class boys were under achieving before Tories came to power

I agree with that, but the Tories have had 12 years to do something about that and have done nothing. They've introduced T-levels - but you need GCSEs grades 7-9 to access those, which doesn't help those who are currently underachieving. The dismantling of the class system and removal of the blinkered academic focus from education should be a cross-party issue as dealing with it would benefit the entire country.

It makes more sense for men to come first and get a job and a home so that the rest of the family has somewhere safe to come to and is not dependent on the state.

Given the transport methods they are also more dangerous for women and children.

Can the asylum seekers fleeing France not pay to use the ferries or Eurotunnel rather than pay the traffickers, if it's all legal and above board?

Ahh yes with their passports and visas. Wonder why they haven't thought of that

yes - the are illegal migrants. Whether or not they are asylum seekers is irrelevant to that - they are not entering the uK as lawful migrants.

The reason they don’t use conventional transport though is because they are not permitted to enter the uK because they are Illegal migrants. You can’t have it both ways!

The channel crossing is very safe - if it’s done on the usual passenger transports instead of illegal and unregulated small boats

logic is clearly to discourage risky small boats that put peoples life at risk.

I assume you're in favour of establishing procedures to apply for asylum outside the UK then?