Applying for asylum in the UK - we'll send you to Ascension Island whilst we process your application

[chomalungma]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54349796

Ascension Island is a small island 5000 miles away in the South Atlantic. Used as a staging post during the Falkland conflict.

To be fair - it' definitely a place where people would be safe from persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, gender identity or sexual orientation.

And it's not like other countries do something similar....

I also suspect that it would appeal to many people - a way to discourage people trying to enter this country by sending them 1000s of miles away to a small Atlantic island.

If they wanted to do off shore processing, surely there are uninhabited/lightly populated islands closer than that? I don't disagree that they need to do something about the current shambolic approach but that seems like a very expensive and over-complicated solution. Its obviously meant to deter the people smugglers, like the Australians have done.

I think it's a great idea, the asylum seekers will be safe from harm. They would probably have more freedom than they do here because they won't need to be kept in what is effectively a prison.

I wonder how many people we could pack into our more remote islands like Ascension? Ideally those who are approved for asylum could remain there indefinitely, until it is safe for them to return to their country of origin. I think it would massively help with the PR side of things, to get the public on side.

I do not think they would be safe from harm in such a situation. I think there would be enormous harms done, isolated from scrutiny, bullying and exploitation would be rife. How would access to health, education and welfare services be administered, funded and monitored to ensure it was of a reasonable quality? Someone gets a serious health condition and they are 5000 miles away from UK hospitals, are we going to establish a fully functioning hospital out there, or do asylum seekers not deserve access to medical treatment? Life is hell in any kind of concentration camp wherever it is located, but locating it somewhere that is so inaccessible that campaigners and independent observers can't easily get there is a recipe to turn an already awful situation into a Crime against Humanity.

Holy fuck, contrmary, you're being sarcastic, yes? Safe from harm? PR side of things? We need to work on the PR of people who are seeking asylum?
Just in case that wasn't a joke and anyone else out there thinks this batshit policy might be a good idea, I'd suggest you look at Naaru and how well that's going for Australia, and more importantly, the shocking mental health effects on those imprisoned there.

Appalling idea.

From so many perspectives. Environmental impact of flying people thousands of miles. How do you look after healthcare needs - which will be high in asylum seekers - on an island with a population of 800? How does it help asylum seekers build a new life and integrate into a community?

I could go on and on and on.

And it's not like other countries do something similar....
Do you mean it's not like other countries don't do something similar"?
Are you referring to the way Australia sends asylum seekers to Nauru and Papua New Guinea and leaves them there for as long as five years after they've been granted asylum in Australia? They live in very unsafe, unhygenic conditions. There are sexual assaults of children by guards. They end up with a lot of suicides.

I think it's a better option than the current one, it seems that a large number of highly organised criminals benefit hugely from the systems that are in place now why not break that chain ?

Wonderful, let's intern people who have suffered torture, political imprisonment or persecution. Because thats the British way right?

Ascension Islands are still used by the MOD, its an 8 hour flight from the UK. Beautiful place(I've been), but not a lot there. Can't see it working

Even if it wasn't ethically dodgy, the cost and logistics would be unworkable.

Horrifying. I can’t believe anyone thinks this is reasonable. Where is your humanity?

Sadly I think the logistics are workable.

But no I don’t think we should be doing this. Asylum seekers are people. Not numbers for processing.

FFS, I really hate our current government. This is an insane idea, on so many different levels. I'm sure that it will be popular among the DM readers, though.

Isn't Ascension where they have the new airport with the runway with the dangerous cross-winds?

Rather them than me. Mind you, the prospect of a flight there might make migrants decide that France (or Germany) is actually ok to live in, after all.

(I mention Germany because I read an article a few weeks ago in the Times that some migrants in Calais originally from Iran have come via Germany - goodness only knows why they want to come here rather than stay in Germany).

Isn't Ascension where they have the new airport with the runway with the dangerous cross-winds?

That’s St Helena.

Ascension has an old runway which is currently out of service and the U.K. military can’t even land their own planes there at the moment - they have to route through Senegal or Cape Verde to reach the Falklands.

They whole idea is ridiculous. I'm amazed anyone is taking this seriously.

So, so grim. Why so far away? Feels a lot like they want to hide what they'll be doing away from the general public, and probably journalists too. This really stinks.

The article says they considered it and decided not to proceed. Are you angry that they even considered it? Fair enough. But your post makes out like it hasn't already been shelved.

This is madness because of the distance. It makes far more sense to, say, clear out the Isle of Wight and turn that into a giant refugee centre.

I hope the government is listening.

Sounds like what the Australians did at Nauru and that's not exactly gone well. www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/10/a-short-history-of-nauru-australias-dumping-ground-for-refugees

@Shepherdspyreads

Thanks for that information - I actually feel relieved!

Hopefully it is true and there are no plans for it now.

It seems a blue-sky idea born out of desperation, and let's face it the migration crisis is a desperate problem. It won't break the criminal chain, how could it? Criminals don't use official channels, by definition, and will continue on their current illegal routes.

What the scheme in Australia has done, has stopped the boats. As the desired result, residency in Australia is not possible if you arrive by boat, their business model is dead. I assume, that is the goal here. An offshore model does make sense, as it would be reasonable to sift through applicants to weed out the chancers, before they then clog up the system with baseless claims. But I thought that's what the EU has been talking about for years and that has gone nowhere. I would prefer that the Govt take refugees directly from UN camps anyway as they have been assessed already and are more likely to be vulnerable.

I actually thought a much better system would be that you have to apply for asylum outside the UK only that way it would stop all the boats.
Whatever the politics of it are we are now getting into a situation where there are children on dodgy boats crossing the Channel. At some point there will be deaths.