Hotels emptying

[cornflakecrunchie]

..of asylum seekers..
On the news. Are we supposed to be impressed? They are just being shuffled elsewhere, aren't they?

So you do agree that people from certain countries pose more of a risk to the general British people than others?

Thank you.

Nobody answered where all these folks going to be housed when they are all given leave to remain?

And we wonder why so many adult children are still living at home or back living at home, there's not enough affordable housing to go around as it is.

No, it's not really.

There are nearly 30 million homes in England. Many will have one spare bedroom and almost all will have a sitting room with floor space for a blow up bed that could be stashed away in the daytime.

Let's say 10 million of those homes were occupied by a person who believed that asylum seekers have a right the here and who welcomed them-very much of the World Without Borders thinking-that would be 10 million spaces.

However, I don't think that will happen because all those who support asylum seekers will always come out with the old shite of

"I haven't got room."

Yes you have. It may not be spacious, it may not be a bedroom even but you will have floor space.

Take one each-feed them at your own expense-it used to be called putting your money where your mouth is- and that would be very helpful.

Let's see if Zach "I can grow your tits" Polanski will lead the way.

Don't hold your breath. Like you, @ExtraOnions , he won't have room.

So all the interpreters who helped our troops in Afghanistan, the lesbians from East Africa that are beaten up or raped due to their sexuality, Christians from Syria, back home to be killed?
Would you have sent back the Kindertransport children to die in the gas chambers too?

89% in prison are born here

As far as I am aware, prison statistics do not tell us how many prisoners were born elsewhere, only their nationality now. Many foreign-born people obtain British citizenship.

I really wish we had high quality data on these things.

Since 1980 the ECHR has ruled on just 29 immigration cases - and only overturned 16 of them

The House of Commons Library published a helpful new research briefing examining how the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) affects immigration decisions and appeals in the UK.

According to figures in the briefing, around 61,000 appeals based on ECHR rights succeeded in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) from 2015 to 2024, which represents a success rate of around 53%.

https://www.ein.org.uk/news/house-commons-library-examines-effect-echr-uk-immigration-law

The man that shot 2 national guardsmen in DC actively worked and aided the CIA. He then killed one guardsman and injured another.

Yes that’s what annoys me so much about immigration

There is plenty of high quality data. The question we should be asking is why it isn't publicly available.

Well indeed. But I am skeptical about the existence of it

Thanks for the link, and it’s interesting reading - when you read it you can see the majority of the decisions are through a mix of U.K. laws, U.K. caselaw and ECHR, with just 3% being based on solely ECHR grounds.

Are we going to start unpicking our laws, cases, and protections as well as leaving the ECHR?

If you read example cases you will see some of the balances of family life decided on can still be decided quite strictly - children here for many, many years since birth must surely be reasonable though, whereas marriages for even around 15 or more years can be deemed not - but it is a balancing act considered on a case by case basis that we trust our U.K. judges to make within our laws, our caselaw and having heed of the ECHR. I will not go into Article 3 as I hope we don’t wish to send people to be tortured and cases are not so much a balancing act anyhow.

Other countries manage to remove or deport under their laws but within the ECHR, and leaving it due to immigration would not be the silver bullet people here seem to think whilst undermining everyone’s rights at the same time. Our own HRA incorporates it - so that would go as well.

Whilst my own views on immigration are doubtless different to many on here, I would actually (maybe surprisingly to some) accept different approaches and outcomes - that’s always up for debate in a democratic country.

However, I do struggle with inhumane suggestions on dealing with it and also misinformed suggestions and particularly the hatred on here against other people, not you personally Clav.

I do also think governments, of any/all shades need to start being honest about asylum seekers continuing to arrive, the international and national laws and reasons, differences between legal, illegal, refugees, asylum seekers. The numbers needed economically. Reasons and funding for better integration. I think they don’t do any of this as they can simply use it as a distraction and ongoing political football.

Worse, and apparent on here, the media sway a lot of thoughts on it and they work for the rich and the powerful who benefit from this disruption and fighting between ourselves.

Even with agreement we don’t want ‘them’ there is no consensus on ‘them’, so even if asylum seekers were stopped tomorrow the arguing would continue over another set of people.

If Restore got in tomorrow they a/couldn’t achieve their supposed outcomes and b/ couldn’t meet this huge range of ideas/expectations of what immigration looks like - cue more in fighting amongst us plebs.

It is very depressing- this thread and the whole situation- the hatred from one person to another based solely on (often misunderstood) status in the U.K. is extremely saddening and worrying for our society.

We have the power to create our own version of "human rights" that would give a more reasonable/reaslistic level of safety for normal people, but not protect foreigners pretending they'd be persecuted back in their home country, or where they'd not be allowed a pet etc.

Which could be changed at the whim of the government of the day. No thanks.

Nail on the head there. We've had a housing shortage for years, with inadequate numbers of new homes being created/brought into use, for our existing population, so bringing in more immigrants will just make it worse. Not to mention public services like the NHS, GPs, schools, roads, public transport, etc.

Yes. That's how government works. Laws can be repealed and changed. Nothing is unrepealable.

The international community version of human rights doesn't seem to be too exercised about the wholescale removal of human rights from women and girls in Afghanistan since they're doing not a huge amount about it.

As we can change our own laws, so can the international community. The values we believe in - such as women's suffrage - I would say are probably far safer if kept 'in house' as worldwide there are plenty of countries where women don't have human rights at all. In this context I find it very disturbing that some people seem to have a main focus of allowing overwhelmingly fit young men to flood into the country. Anyone who claims the moral high ground championing this but not recognising that by doing so that will exclude meaningful help to get women and girls out of Afghanistan must surely be completely disingenuous

And of course there's a point where the UK would just collapse as a civilised society if we just have open borders. Open borders means the most vulnerable and in need refugees will be excluded because it'll be the fit young men who can get here and take up all the resources.

It is if it’s enshrined in other countries’ laws too. I don’t want my human rights to be at the whim of whatever government is currently in power. There are a lot of women in the US who no longer have the right to abortion. I don’t want that sort of nonsense here.

The UK has a system where no parliament can bind it's successor. Other countries' laws don't effect us.

The USA has a more rigid system with a written constitution, more checks and balances and large majorities needed to get things changed.

The US abortion issue is completely separate and not part of the thread. I actually agree with the principle, but think in practice US doctors have been too scared to help women who need a medical termination. The medical exemption implementation needs to be improved. But I actually agree with the moral principles of it and the right to life for the baby. But anyway that's s separate issue and not a topic of this thread.

That sort of nonsense exists in Poland, an EU country.

@MsJinks
Thanks for the link, and it’s interesting reading - when you read it you can see the majority of the decisions are through a mix of U.K. laws, U.K. case law and ECHR, with just 3% being based on solely ECHR grounds.

The 3% figure only relates to foreign national offenders (2015/16 to 2020/21) not the other asylum/immigration cases;

How many ECHR appeals succeed?

From 2015/16 to 2024/25, immigration judges granted 61,000 out of the 115,000 human rights appeals brought against the Home Office (53%).

For foreign national offenders, the success rate for migrants appears to be lower. While the government does not routinely publish data on appeals against deportation for criminal offending, some internal data has come to light:

• From August 2018 to October 2019, the Home Office 'win rate' in ECHR appeals against criminal deportation ranged between 65% and 75%.

• From 2015/16 to 2020/21, the Home Office win rate in all First-tier Tribunal appeals against criminal deportation was 70% (5,900 out of 8,400). Of the appeals won by the person contesting deportation, around 1,000 were successful on ECHR grounds only, although some of the other 1,500 appeals won by migrants may have been a mix of ECHR and non-ECHR reasons.

In the same 2015/16 to 2020/21 period, the Home Office removed 31,400 foreign national offenders from the UK. The 1,000 foreign criminals able to block deportation on ECHR grounds alone represent 3% of that figure.

There’s plenty of successful countries with top of the human rights table placements that determine their own laws as in @womendeserveequalhumanrightspp.

Which are they?