Channel crossings

[Tevion28]

Whats your thoughts on this are these people really desperate fleeing worn torn countries do you feel sorry for them etc

@Puzzledandpissedoff

A report by the Refugee Council released on Monday using Home Office data and requests under freedom of information laws has concluded that 61% of migrants who travel by boat are likely to be allowed to stay after claiming asylum

I already mentioned this upthread, but the % figure who are allowed to stay will also reflect the amnesties brought in over the years to relieve pressure on the immigration authorities and massage the numbers in order to appear to be "dealing with the situation - I posted a Guardian link last Friday at 20.46 if you want to read it

As so often, what's presented - especially by the hardly-disinterested Refugee Council - and what's the real case can differ

It doesn't actually make a lot of difference anyway - the vast majority of the remaining 39% will never leave the UK anyway. We can't deport them because there is nowhere to send them that will accept them. That's part of the pull factor - a bit like the old adage about possession being 9/10ths - once they are here, the vast majority aren't going anywhere else, whether or not they are granted asylum.

@Puzzledandpissedoff, thanks will read.

vast majority of the remaining 39% will never leave the UK anyway.

It’s not 39% as half win on appeal.

We can't deport them because there is nowhere to send them that will accept them.

If they are refused asylum some are deported back to their home country if you look at govt reports. Those U.K. can’t send back to third countries are those who come through other countries as we have few bilateral agreements, nor is it supposed to happen according to international law.

especially by the hardly-disinterested Refugee Council

The govt don’t give the full story either.

@Zotter

We can't deport them because there is nowhere to send them that will accept them.

If they are refused asylum some are deported back to their home country if you look at govt reports. Those U.K. can’t send back to third countries are those who come through other countries as we have few bilateral agreements, nor is it supposed to happen according to international law.

We have a pretty low rate of repatriation or deportation - this is from Migration Watch, but it's from Home Office Officially Published figures -

On average, over 60% of those who were refused asylum or some other form of international protection after having applied for it during the period 2004-2017 did not leave the country. This amounts to nearly 120,000 failed asylum seekers remaining here over the entire period, or 8,500 people per year (a number have been granted amnesty by stealth – in 2011 it was revealed that the government had given settlement to over 160,000 people as part of what was called a ‘backlog clearance’ exercise, including failed asylum seekers).

France is a safe country.

In fact, rates of people refused leave to stay have been falling even further since those figures (they understandably dropped like a stone when no-one was travelling due to covid of course).

[quote Puzzledandpissedoff]Concerning the % whose claims are successful, it's worth remembering the number may include the many thousands who've been granted an "amnesty" in one of the periodic attempts to fiddle the figures clear backlogs. The link below is from 2011, but it would be interesting to know what that figure is now:

www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/02/160000-asylum-seekers-granted-amnesty[/quote]
I have read now your post above. I have now read in full the Refugee Council report too released last week. As said, Refugee Council say it is likely 61% of those coming over on small boats will be granted asylum and 50% of those who appeal after being refused initially are granted asylum, so around 80% in total.

The refugee council say they got this figure by examining the data for the grant rates at initial decision stage for decisions made in the period Jan 2020 – June 2021. I think it’s unlikely there has been any amnesty measures during that period.

I agree there may not have been amnesties from Jan '20 to June '21, Zotter, though there are still plenty of other ways dishonest governments can (and do) fudge the figures over the years

However I understand there's currently pressure for another one, and along with too many who they lose all track of, I'd be surprised if anyone has a definitive idea of just how many are actually in the country, far less who they all actually are since many destroy their ID

As many destroy their IDs how does the Government decide if they are genuine asylum seekers if they dont know where they are from ? Do they just take their word for it ?

This thread makes me desperately sad. I am very close to a large number of asylum seekers through my circumstances and their stories are horrific. You can't begin to imagine what these people have been through.

By sheer luck of the draw we have been born in Britain and I don't think many realise just how lucky they are. I'm not diving into the politics but just want to ask that if people feel strongly either way about this issue, get out and talk to these people before finalising your judgements. Listen to the lives of the people most affected by these politics.

I can't answer for the government, thereisonlyoneofme, but remember once going for an interview at a local "law centre" - who incidentally were lying about being a service for everyone in order to get the funding, but were actually only taking asylum cases

At one point I asked how they approach claims of nationality, past hideous experiences and so on, only to be met with bemusement because they simply couldn't countenance the idea that everything might not be exactly as it was presented

Imagine my embarrassment when they offered me the job ...

@woodhill, why are you allowed to be here? your dgps were foreigners. you have the nerve to say a multicultural society has been forced on 'us'. are you 'us'?

I was born here

How rude

@popapoppadum

This thread makes me desperately sad. I am very close to a large number of asylum seekers through my circumstances and their stories are horrific. You can't begin to imagine what these people have been through.

By sheer luck of the draw we have been born in Britain and I don't think many realise just how lucky they are. I'm not diving into the politics but just want to ask that if people feel strongly either way about this issue, get out and talk to these people before finalising your judgements. Listen to the lives of the people most affected by these politics.

But I don't understand this argument.

Yes it's luck of the draw just as its luck of the draw not being born to a heroin addict or being born to a prince.

But what are Western countries expected to do? Take the entire populations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya etc? If you agree that's an unreasonable stance how is it fair only to take a handful? (Who are probably the strongest, smartest, most capable already).

The other side of the family have been here for generations.

@kaztastic

Is France war torn?

This

They are meant to stop in the first safe country.

@woodhill are you a part of the indigenous population?

@popapoppadum

This thread makes me desperately sad. I am very close to a large number of asylum seekers through my circumstances and their stories are horrific. You can't begin to imagine what these people have been through.

By sheer luck of the draw we have been born in Britain and I don't think many realise just how lucky they are. I'm not diving into the politics but just want to ask that if people feel strongly either way about this issue, get out and talk to these people before finalising your judgements. Listen to the lives of the people most affected by these politics.

Recognising our many blessings and having empathy for others don't preclude the ability to also have some concerns about who we share our island with and what the processes should look like. Having a view about a policy isn't automatic personal hatred, or racism or xenophobia (and I know you didn't level that accusation but it is a common one).

They are meant to stop in the first safe country.

Says who?

It’s so depressing that the “they must claim asylum in the first safe country they reach” zombie fact continues to circulate

This is not true

fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

@daimbarsatemydogsbone I agree. I also have many concerns about the processes of asylum claims but I despair at people's ability to seemingly turn off their humanity when discussing it. What is the point of those politics if not to improve humanity? I'm just asking people to keep emotion and compassion in the mix when deciding what is the best course of action.

@popapoppadum I agree, I worked at a legal aid immigration solicitors. Although I didn't do immigration law myself I did a lot of work on the periphery and what happened to men and women and children in some of these countries is sometimes too horrendous to contemplate. The human rights record in some of the countries they are fleeing is pitiful. We have to give people fleeing persecution a safe haven for as long as they need.

In the UK and internationally we need to look again at the various rules as they are not working for many countries and for people.