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.

I don't think any passage across any sea is safe in boats of this kind. No I don't think the UK should be providing boats for people to cross or some other means as once that happens we will end up accepting huge numbers of people and other countries will direct them to the UK. I feel there should be a system of processing outside the countries the migrants are fleeing.

I felt very strongly that our actions in Afgahanistan were appalling and we should have taken everyone who wanted to leave - I felt we had a moral responsibility and still feel angry over this. I do not believe that migrants from some country are in danger, Albania for example is a safe country, economic migrants are not the same as those form Afgahanistan.

And in yhe meantime, while we dither and obfuscate, do we expect these people to pile up elsewhere?

My point is you can’t say they can’t use conventional transport because they don’t have a visa then claim they are not illegal. Clearly they are - no point paying £10k yo a people smuggler if you can get Ryanair for £5.99.

Calling people "illegal" isn't going to stop them trying to come. Nor is sending them to Rwanda. Nor will leaving them to drown.

Young men without any community ties are simply more prone to troublemaking. Also, they are the least vulnerable group in a unstable country. Why shouldn’t women, young children and elderly people be welcomed over them?

it’s because they (UK gov’t) don’t want refugees. They want these young men to do menial jobs.

why do you think the Tories have done FA to resolve this issue? They want fruit pickers, by stealth and don’t care what their base voted for

The new Nationality and Borders Act states that anyone who enters the UK without a visa or permission is committing a criminal offence which is punishable by up to 4 years in prison. Regardless of whether they wish to claim asylum.

Furthermore, it also legally gives the UK the right to reject any asylum application if the claimant was previously present in, and eligible to
make a relevant claim to, the safe third State, (b) it would have been reasonable
to expect them to make such a claim, and (c) they failed to do so.

@MintyFreshOne

Also, they are the least vulnerable group in a unstable country. Why shouldn’t women, young children and elderly people be welcomed over them? Well that very much depends on the reason why they’re claiming asylum. There are lots of situations where young men are very much targeted. Eritrea, for example. There are also situations where the patriarchal nature of society means that women and young children are at less risk. Blood feuds involving Kanun Law in Albania, for instance. It’s my experience that the elderly are less likely to be political activists than young men, for example. Apart from situations like Syria, Ukraine etc, where everyone is at risk, when you start placing restrictions on who is the most ‘worthy’ refugee, you’re on a very slippery slope.

it’s because they (UK gov’t) don’t want refugees. They want these young men to do menial jobs Really? Then why haven’t they made it easier for them to enter into employment? Why do they have fines for employers who give them work? The black economy is one thing, but farms etc are legitimate businesses who would struggle to hire enough agricultural workers and pay them cash in hand without accountants noticing.

why do you think the Tories have done FA to resolve this issue? They want fruit pickers, by stealth and don’t care what their base voted for Do you think that things were better under Labour? I’m politically homeless so I don’t favour one party over the other but neither party has been more effective in resolving the situation than the other. This isn’t a left versus right thing.

And it is against international law. It will cause the UK to be viewed as a rogue state and trash any international reputation we had left.

You may have missed it recently but there is a bill currently going through parliament to withdraw from the ECHR. Once that is passed it'll only be a matter of time before other international agreements become a target.

There are also situations where the patriarchal nature of society means that women and young children are at less risk. Blood feuds involving Kanun Law in Albania, for instance

I don’t care about problems concerning male violence in other countries unless it involves women and children. Asylum laws are not intended to help situations like Albania in any case.

when you start placing restrictions on who is the most ‘worthy’ refugee, you’re on a very slippery slope

Sorry it’s not a slippery slope to take the neediest cases and do proper background checks, instead of accepting whoever shows up at your door.

Do you think that things were better under Labour?

Absolutely not. Both parties want to increase immigration (and asylum seekers are a part) by hook or crook, I don’t expect either to seriously solve these problems.

I don’t care about problems concerning male violence in other countries unless it involves women and children It does affect women and children. Whether they’re left behind to deal with whoever the male is running from, or they’re left to feed and keep a roof over the heads of children in a patriarchal society where women are considered second class citizens and working is not the norm. It always affects the women and children.

Asylum laws are not intended to help situations like Albania in any case Not sure where you’ve got that idea from, but that’s not true. They’re designed to help any person from any country who is claiming asylum for a Convention reason. That includes EU nationals who have and do claim asylum. I also recall reading an interview with a British woman who claimed asylum in the US.

Sorry it’s not a slippery slope to take the neediest cases and do proper background checks, instead of accepting whoever shows up at your door You see, this is the trouble when people who have no idea about the asylum process think they have the solution. Who is neediest? And how do you tell until you’ve registered their application for asylum and interviewed them. And what do you think constitutes a proper background check on people who are very often undocumented and fleeing from the authorities of their home country?

@Imnotswallowingthat I did not miss it. It is shredding any last reputation we had as a country.

there’s really something to be said about American dream. They took the initiative and built that wall. We should really be taking a leaf out of their book.

You’ve hit the nail on the head here. People can’t expect greatness to arrive overnight.

I can only assume that you’re both being sarcastic as nobody could possibly be this stupid. Do you know what they do to gay people in some countries? Do you know what happens to you if you’re the ‘wrong’ religion in other countries? Or if you fail to express enough support for the regime in some countries? These people don’t want greatness. They just want to stay alive. If they stay, they die.

Thanks for confirming.

And of course we have no responsibility towards these countries because we only exploited them as our colonies for a few centuries. No big deal.

Some truly disgusting inhumane people on this thread.

So what is your personal contribution to our liberty?

@tobee, it cost £28 for a one way flight from Albania to UK. That is the legal route. Instead economic migrants come across by small boat foolishly risking their lives. They are coming from France a safe country. What do you think will happen to them in France?

@Kabalagala, do t you think Ukrainians get special treatment because they are living in a war zone? I had a Syrian student in my class and his parents applied to come to UK on Syrian border. They came across legally showing legal routes are available in war torn countries just not Albania as they are not at war.

Ukrainians get special treatment because they are white European.
20,000 Syrians were resettled in the UK over a period of about 5 years. It's not really on a comparable scale to the Ukrainian scheme (something like 130,000).
There are wars all over the world, all the time. If you think living in a war zone should be the criteria there should be similar schemes all over the world. But there aren't.

A teenager is among the 4 confirmed dead after Wednesday's channel disaster.

We also know 12 lone children were on board + those rescued include ppl fleeing Afghanistan.

A reminder that govt has closed the Dubs scheme for unaccompanied children & failed to resettle Afghans.

twitter.com/JCWI_UK/status/1603763503734706177?t=5xC5JmJsGsnT5ag_z_I89g&s=19

I regularly see a male rough sleeper on my way to work. Have flagged to the Local Council, their answer is that they are overloaded and have no funding but will be looked at in due course 😳

I live in one of the dispersal towns for the latest arrivals

I expect to be flamed for the following but before long, hard choices will have to made unfortunately 😔

If he hung around a beach on the South Coast and tagged onto the latest arrivals on the beach, he would be fed, clothed and given shelter

To me, there is something seriously wrong with that situation

It is costing the UK Tax Payer millions per day to provide shelter etc to the latest arrivals and is not sustainable unless people are prepared to pay even more in tax😳

Funding has to come from somewhere

It is having a major impact on local services

How about spending that money on people who actually need help I.e. Pensioners who have to choose between heating or eating or single mums in the same situation 😔