To be surprised that any 'failed' asylum seekers were not removed from the UK?

[DangerQuakeRhinoSnake]

Because surely by not being removed... they were not in fact failed asylum seekers, they were successful!

And why is the aim only to remove 'more' failed asylum seekers and not 'all' of them?

Is it just me not computing this?

My point is, you can't resolve this situation without addressing what has caused it in the first place.

Handing out work visas to foreign nationals isn't the cause here, it's a symptom.

He thinks the AI bubble is vulnerable. I am sure the interview is online

There’s plenty taking spaces in our prisons…

oh you mean about the bubble bursting?

Yeah, people have been predicting that for ages, sure it's likely to happen. The first time I got made redundant was when the tech bubble burst. Actually, I couldn't even tell you which one! Kind of lost track.

I'm not sure what it's got to do with this

I had a moment of worry there when I thought you were saying there was an issue with essential services being dependent on AI that might collapse.

What has this got to do with asylum seekers please?

Thoroughly confused now.

As a (legal) migrant - I think the biggest hole in the colander is that the UK doesn't do exit checks (please someone correct me if this has changed). So we have no sodding idea which of the people we let in on any visas / via any routes are still here.

I remember once being stopped at the Eurotunnel - my name and DOB had flagged up on some system. Except that I already had a British passport by then, and had held one for five years or so. So the system flagging up my previous citizenship AND failing to link it to me now wasn't much use.

Sometimes it’s a logistical reason like the country the failed asylum seeker is from does not have diplomatic relations with the UK or a direct flight, e.g., Yemen. I don’t think people can be deported to/through a third country as they would have to agree to take the asylum seeker.

A PP says that an argument against asylum is that (a) we have too many NEETs and (b) AI is already coming for their jobs.

I responded to (a) above and the AI comments concern (b).

The immigration judges are so wet, a total bunch of flannels. Asylum seekers run circles round them. These judges should be deported themselves.

@poetryandwine oh I see, thank you

@1457bloom it's worse than that. The judges know damn fine how to use the law so that you can't stay here just because your child doesn't like the chicken nuggets in whatever country it was. (for the naysayers yes, this is true). They choose not to. They want to undermine the country for some reason.

Why would we want to remove any of them?

According to some, they are all genuinely fleeing for their lives, looking to live a better, honest life, wanting to assimilate into a country they have links with and know the language, pay their taxes and be generally all round good eggs.

I can’t see the problem with letting everyone stay. After all, we’re a huge country with tons of space and plenty of spare cash to fund it all.

It will be like one big happy community.

I think this is the chicken nugget case

tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2024-004546

Yes, one of the significant impacts of Brexit was that we lost access to the eurodac database that kept record of failed asylum seekers within the EU. If the U.K. was still in, they wouldn’t be eligible to apply here either, but they can now.

It's not true. The appellant was resisting deportation on the basis that he met one of the stringent exceptions to deportation, namely that it would be "unduly harsh" for his child to move to his home country and also "unduly harsh" to remain here without him. In support of his appeal he adduced a considerable amount of evidence, accepted by the Home Office, that his child had additional needs - restricted eating being an example of this but not the sole example. The First Tier allowed the appeal. The Upper Tribunal overturned the decision and remitted it.

So it is not true that he was allowed to stay - because the UT overturned the decision - and it is not true that it was "just because the child doesn't like chicken nuggets" abroad. The error in law identified by the UT was giving only the chicken nugget example in the reasoning as to why it would be unduly harsh for the child to move abroad, but it is in the context of what was clearly a lot of evidence about the child's sensory and communication needs.

There has been a really persistent problem with reporting of immigration tribunal decisions ever since the Bolivian cat. The only undermining of the country happening here IMO is not from the judges who are applying the law, but from those who persistently misrepresent their decisions to chip away at the rule of law.

@WiggyPig the reason I linked to the case paper is because I know "chicken nugget" is not the summation of the case

Apologies if that was unclear

However, I do think all of these family situations and "human rights" situations all being misapplied.

It is not our responsibility to house everyone.

i'm not even familiar with the Bolivian cat. I generally read the paper from the court if I'm interested enough to do so. I do think these things get misrepresented.

However, usually when you read the legal papers, it's even more shocking what's going on!

what do you consider to be the actual reason that the case is still ongoing and deportation is not complete?

All countries where English is widely spoken…and have University courses taught in English.

Agree. They couldn’t even count the number of British emigrating accurately!,

And all countries where the native language is expected to be used in official comms and where it is required for residency.

1. they don't have what to do with them
2. the seekers have proven to just come back by any means of transport

Ah I see, all these illegals are gay? Then women and children wouldn't be sexually assaulted then would they?

A common trope is that discontent about demographic change is being encouraged by elites who would stand to benefit from the populace being divided, so that we may be easily conquered. This doesn't really accord with the reality I see.

I see oligarchs who make a lot of money from migration and are therefore imposing it on a population who have not been asked and are ignored and maligned when they express dissatisfaction with this. This is entirely in the interests of the oligarchy and it is therefore also in their interests to suppress the inevitable complaining which could cost them money if governments did have to start listening to them.

A common trope is that discontent about demographic change is being encouraged by elites who would stand to benefit from the populace being divided, so that we may be easily conquered.

Which elites? British ones or Russian and/or Chinese and/or American?