People facing a fear of discrimination should not be able to claim refugee status apparently.

[cakeorwine]

Women fleeing countries where they could be stoned to death, treated as second class citizens. For example, women from Afghanistan.

LGBT people who live in countries where you can be arrested and face the death penalty for being LGBT.

I'm surprised that this Government allow Ukrainian refugees in. Their country has only been invaded but I guess that's their tough luck

"Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, Ms Braverman is expected to say: “I think most members of the public would recognise those fleeing a real risk of death, torture, oppression or violence, as in need of protection.
“However, as case law has developed, what we have seen in practice is an interpretive shift away from ‘persecution’, in favour of something more akin to a definition of ‘discrimination’.
“And a similar shift away from a ‘well-founded fear’ toward a ‘credible’ or ‘plausible fear’.
“The practical consequence of which has been to expand the number of those who may qualify for asylum, and to lower the threshold for doing so.

“Let me be clear, there are vast swathes of the world where it is extremely difficult to be gay, or to be a woman.

“Where individuals are being persecuted, it is right that we offer sanctuary.
“But we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if in effect, simply being gay, or a woman, and fearful of discrimination in your country of origin, is sufficient to qualify for protection.”

So you have to wait until you actually get persecuted, till you get arrested, tortured etc before you can flee a country.

Oh - and apparently she has an issue with coming through safe countries?

Does she know how many refugees actually come to the UK compared to the rest of the world?

We take very few.

https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/statistics

Turkey has 3 million
Germany has 2 million
1 in 5 refugees are Syrians fleeing the war there.

I am aware of that as we have had that discussion before when you kept asking about a cap on numbers

The fact stands that the UK only takes a small percentage of the 100 million displaced people.

I haven’t asked you a question but if my posts impact you that much well up to you.

I made a statement. It’s not fixed as Lampedusa is not.

Climate pressures will re route movement

I cannot see any reason why citizens will not increasingly shift on this

They already are if you look outside the U.K. The EU is becoming more hardline and I doubt we will buck the trend.

65% vote is yabu

I think this is a shift already. From a few years ago

Your posts don't impact me at all, we have had the discussion about numbers and caps on previous threads about refugees.

I have never said that numbers are fixed so not sure where you get that from

Why refer to old ones? Who keeps track that much

Ok we agree not fixed so 40k per year isn’t that important as it can change, and it’s generally up unless we see new laws etc

It’s a MN poll. Meanwhile in the real world …

https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/05/25/british-voters-want-more-immigrants-but-less-immigration

This. Also - those fleeing religious conflict often move countries and take their own religious views with them and create conflict elsewhere. Likewise young African men who support/promote FGM and the removal of girls and women’s rights.

The ‘real world’ in that article says what I do. Posters are better off splitting out types of immigration

Dominic Cummings, the architect of the Vote Leave campaign in 2016, argued that voters would be happy with high levels of immigration as long as it was controlled. Judging by the positive shift in attitudes on immigrants, he was right. If the government can stop people crossing the English Channel in small boats (some 45,000 arrived last year in this manner) voters will not care about the larger numbers of migrants arriving through official channels. There are few benefits of Brexit. But Britain’s immigration policy could be one.

The real world in that article says that immigration is very low on most people’s list of priorities. And that the whole issue is totally confused in most people’s minds.

you are forgetting the 'silent tories'

They can stop the boat arrivals by providing safe routes but that means sorting out the application process and cooperation with other, mostly EU, countries.

That article isn’t a great one for the argument being made

It talks about controlled immigration being a higher priority now compared to previously

Ie work visas are seen separately to asylum seekers

It is perfectly reasonable to ask why there are so many migrants. However, we need to see the analysis.

A lot of these migrants will have been displaced from countries that have faced wars initiated or contributed to by Western nations.

For example, the Iraq War, which destabilised the entire Middle East.

The war in Afghanistan, which dragged on for far too long for us to achieve our aims.

And Syria, which ended up as the battleground between Western and Eastern powers.

It is also the case different nations seem to find it more difficult than others implementing international legislation.

For example, Sweden crafted its laws - completely within ECHR and ECJ case law - in a way that allows it to turn down 100% of Albanian asylum applicants.

The Home Office failed to do what the Swedes did and, as a result, the UK ended up accepting 61% of Albanian asylum applications.

I pointed out this problem as far back as November last year.

If the Home Office was more capable in managing our immigration policy - both with regard to national and international laws - we might not be facing these difficulties.

Putting that right would certainly be quicker than the tortuous process of negotiating new international settlements, which will, in the immediate term, deliver more headlines than outcomes.

x.com/daviddavismp/status/1706613025346650516?s=46&t=Uw4lJNwxFZFnX0Xs3doHYg

Interesting view from David Davis.

Braverman is just contributing to C02 levels at this point. She should be forced to carry a block of moss to offset herself.

the world needs to get realistic about immigration. The environment alone (before we even look at the unstable political landscapes) is going to force migration. That’s just what happens - humans go where they can survive. You would go where you could survive if your home became inhospitable. So knowing this is practically a certainty in the near future plan for that rather than fighting against it, starting fights only leads one way.

Can you give an example of the racism? You should report it - pretty sure that (quite correctly) is against MN rules.

I agree there should be greater EU cooperation and proper safe routes, but I don't imagine that will stop the boats - why would it?

It would reduce the number of boats significantly as people wouldn't need to make the dangerous crossing to be able to claim asylum in the UK.

@Fightyouforthatpie because a route that has less chance of death is likely to be much more popular than one where there’s a high chance of death.

It wouldn’t because we wouldn’t meet the numbers required

In the same way we already do provide on average 60k per year with safe routes

The numbers outside that still exist hence both methods of arrival continue

Where did you get the 60K number from? And which countries does that cover?

Just google safe passage UK

How many people have been offered safe and legal routes?Between 2015 and 2022, we have offered places to almost half a million (481,804) people seeking safety. This includes:

• 44,659 family reunion grants since 2015
• 233,770 people under Ukraine Scheme visas, of which at least 154,500 have arrived in the UK
• 153,708 BN(O) status holders and their family members, of which 105,200 have arrived in the UK
• 49,667 vulnerable people and children as part of Afghan resettlement and relocation, the Syrian Resettlement programme and other resettlement programmes (e.g. UK Resettlement scheme, which has resettled 2,023 since its launch in 2021)

Half a million over 7 years comes out at 68k per year

Can you provide the website link, thanks

It’s the government site

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes

I cannot trust your judgement on anything if you are incapable of analysing the data and understanding that the situation is far more nuanced than "IMMMIGRANTS HAVE A NET POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE ECONOMY".

Understanding the stats does not make someone racist.

Case law isn’t law.
Laws are made by Parliament.
Judges apply them.
Judges are deeply unlikely to be left wing.
Braverman is a lying extreme right wing POS who shouldn’t be anywhere near government.