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.

There were enough school places and the NHS was better pre 2020 was it? Where exactly are you living?

I know you don't want to break that down by immigration type or country of origin. Because I've seen those numbers, and so have Denmark's lefties. And that's even with statistics manipulated to within an inch of their lives to support the decades long multiparty mass immigration policy consensus.

But shriek rayyyycisss some more.

@Alexandra2001 I'm not really saying that it's easy. As far as I know, neither Meloni nor Sunak nor anyone else is attempting to change the laws that allow the problem to continue. Europe is a client state of the US, and the current US administration wouldn't permit that without, as they say, 'consequences'.

. IT IS FACT THAT IMMMIGRANTS HAVE A NET POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE ECONOMY.

what the £8 million a day for hotels is having a positive effect -hahahaha

That isn't a fact.

The line of attack (the racist one) will become more difficult to use as numbers increase

I didn't see any "facts" backing your erroneous assertion that we could get a school place pre-brexit, or that the NHS was so wonderful then. They were just assertions based on your beliefs too, weren't they?

But we don’t take our fair share.

The problem is you can not compare people being starved and murdered in their 100’s of thousands because of their ethnicity to being forced to wear coverings and denied education because of gender.

Both are utterly wrong, but they are not comparable.

How much would our "fair share" be?

ZebrasLoveLions · Today 11:48
**
We cannot help everyone, and we shouldn’t try.
**
We need to focus on the people we have here”

And just forget the people who worked as drivers/aides/guides/interpreters to our armed forces in Afghanistan and were unceremoniously left behind when the Taliban took power overnight? Whose lives and loved ones are now in danger. We don’t “focus” on them?

Those aren’t the rules of asylum, technically or otherwise. For obvious reasons. Most do stop in the first safe country though, and we take far less than most (I’d guess less than ‘our fair share based on resources’ as it happens).
Charity begins at home you say? Maybe speak to the same government about that then. They aren’t doing anything to help anyone and are deliberately blowing up the migration/asylum issue as cover.

Well not before the Nazis came knocking to take them to Auschwitz, apparently.

People wrote to the Daily Mail around 1938 or 39 saying Jews coming here were "complaining about nothing". Oh and they were "too well-dressed". Shades of "he's got an i phone".

Let's face it, she doesn't want anyone coming here and neither do some people on here, by the looks of it.

Some bloke on TV this morning was saying that we should not become the "refugee camp for the world" . Bearing in mind we take far less than many other countries that's a bit if a joke really don't you think?

Technically, the rules of asylum are that you should stop in the first safe country

Apart from the fact that's not the case, why should the first country take everybody? You wouldn't say that if WE were the first safe country.

StarbucksSmarterSister

“Some bloke on TV this morning was saying that we should not become the "refugee camp for the world" . Bearing in mind we take far less than many other countries that's a bit if a joke really don't you think?”

Who decides to give these idiots so much air time?

I don’t think many will find any of it a joke fairly soon

Look at Lampedusa and increase in numbers in a short amount of time. It’s not an issue that will go away.

It’s going to be a huge problem for modern day societies to try and deal with

Climate pressures plus structures created in 1951. The strain of those two elements will show and get greater

@Pollyputhekettleon laws aren’t made by judges, activist or not. It’s also mad to think judges might be more left wing than average given the route to becoming one is heavily populated by public school alumni.

Also, who invented this first safe country thing? Just not true.

Isn’t fear of death, fear of death. One wonders what has his country come to when it is suggested we turn a blind eye to the threat of being stoned to death.

I could post links but equally you could spend three minutes of your lives googling 'effect of immigration on the UK economy' or something similar and choose your own source.

The main problem really is the fact that people are being held prisoner in effect, unable to work or make economic choices.

@roroarrfeckingroar if only there were people who could pay more taxes and work in the industries that would plan for and build more infrastructure?

Perhaps as we take far less than others we will have less friction between different religions/ races/ rich and poor/ left and right than the majority of countries.

It’s people confusing the Dublin Convention rule in the EU with general refugee policy. The EU apportions responsibility for processing asylum applications on the country where the claimants first arrived (I think technically where they were first fingerprinted - but happy to be corrected). IIRC Claimants could be removed from one EU country to the processing country.

It's an internal EU rule because of the schengen area having no internal borders. International law allows people to seek asylum in ANY safe country.

But we didn't even take Jewish refugees for nothing, when we finally let them in. Let's not pretend our refugee policy was generous, even then. As well as the financial bond, the families who took them obviously had to pay for their food, clothing, etc, etc.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/when-jewish-kids-fled-nazis-uk-families-took-them-in-now-they-share-their-stories/