Migrants - Will the new law work?

[irie]

And as for the Dublin country thing, to have to wonder also why the UK government don't just hand back asylum seekers to the French.

The main reason is that the French want them no more than the British. Land a boat full of returned refugees back in France and you will be arrested and deported back to England tout suite

And none of the (Dublin) countries they travel through to get to France want them either ...

[Docca]

Aside from some of the 'my mate is black' comments, what really worries me is the Union Jack/Bulldog avatars on social media leaning heavily on scaremongering: rape gangs, kills squads etc. 'YUR DORTER ISNT SAFE FROM THE SAMBOS' type crap. Just woeful, but then you get called a snowflake for pointing out they might be illiterate psychopaths.

That's what social media would have you believe, but they are not views held by the overwhelming proportion of the population who simply do not engage with this crap.

And the flip side of that is anyone who dares to try and discuss immigration/integration/religious attitudes etc is instantly shouted down as being a racist/nazi etc. There's plenty fools on both ends of the spectrum.

This.

I agree, but I'd be wary about playing too loose and fast with 'overwhelming proportion of the population'. We've seen (on both sides of the pond) just how influential social media can be. Plus, it doesn't change the position that we should be calling it out.

[Horse]

'YUR DORTER ISNT SAFE FROM THE SAMBOS' type crap. Just woeful, but then you get called a snowflake for pointing out they might be illiterate psychopaths.

20230310_103132.jpg (280.4 KiB) Viewed 350 times

[Hoonercat]

The only workable solution I can see is for the UK to allow initial asylum applications to be made in France, possibly at the UK embassy or a subsiduary of the embassy, with safe passage given to those who pass the initial screening. This would encourage legitimate claimants away from Calais and make me a bit more sympathetic to the new proposed rules, as legitimate claimants would no longer have a need to cross illegally.
The downside is that no doubt the French would insist that the initial decisions should be done within a specified timeframe, something unlikely to happen without investment and better management, given the Home Office's woeful record.

As of November 2022

This week, the Home Affairs Select Committee revealed that of all the people who arrived in the UK by boat and claimed asylum in 2021, only 4% of claims have been processed by the Home Office.

[Yambo]

The only workable solution I can see is for the UK to allow initial asylum applications to be made in France, possibly at the UK embassy or a subsiduary of the embassy, with safe passage given to those who pass the initial screening. This would encourage legitimate claimants away from Calais and make me a bit more sympathetic to the new proposed rules, as legitimate claimants would no longer have a need to cross illegally.
The downside is that no doubt the French would insist that the initial decisions should be done within a specified timeframe, something unlikely to happen without investment and better management, given the Home Office's woeful record.

As of November 2022

This week, the Home Affairs Select Committee revealed that of all the people who arrived in the UK by boat and claimed asylum in 2021, only 4% of claims have been processed by the Home Office.

If your only workable solution requires the French to play ball, it is far from being a workable solution.

HTH

[Mr Moofo]

The only workable solution I can see is for the UK to allow initial asylum applications to be made in France, possibly at the UK embassy or a subsiduary of the embassy, with safe passage given to those who pass the initial screening. This would encourage legitimate claimants away from Calais and make me a bit more sympathetic to the new proposed rules, as legitimate claimants would no longer have a need to cross illegally.
The downside is that no doubt the French would insist that the initial decisions should be done within a specified timeframe, something unlikely to happen without investment and better management, given the Home Office's woeful record.

As of November 2022

This week, the Home Affairs Select Committee revealed that of all the people who arrived in the UK by boat and claimed asylum in 2021, only 4% of claims have been processed by the Home Office.

If your only workable solution requires the French to play ball, it is far from being a workable solution.

HTH

That'll change once the Germans take over

[DefTrap]

shifty.jpg (91.87 KiB) Viewed 328 times

[DefTrap]

The most extreme social media I usually see is people on here throwing around words like Nazi and Psychopath without actually knowing what they're on about

Don't forget Marxist.!

Possibly he's taking the piss out of you and you fell right in it? That seems to be a popular conclusion to most of these spats.
It seems to me that if you want a scholarly debate then you need to (a) do what you preach (b) not engage. You can ignore of course, but you can't resist it. Your response to my easy provocation (above) says it all. Quite the dilemma.

[porter_jamie]

of course it wont work, the tories have been promising to do something about immigration levels since they got in however long ago it is now (2010?) and levels have gone up every year. them and starmer are making we need to do something noises, like they always do. I'd bet money nothing will change.

[MyLittleStudPony]

Nice and Brexity. Remember the 17.4 million. Defend the statues.

[DefTrap]

I'm not actually expecting any sort of scholarly debate, but if people say something then they should at least be able to explain it based on something other than they read it on Twitter. Edited to say, you usually can, you're a decent poster who usually uses a bit of brain, so don't lower yourself and throw your lot in with the angry posting people that don't understand what they're saying.

There is -some- discussion that is interesting. I dunno if I would call it scholarly debate. Some of us are happy to leap straight to quoting word-for-word hammed-up 'studies' from so-called experts and ignoring the swathe of actual studies from genuine experts because the what-if?/why-not? crowd seem to be provided equal airtime and column inches these days. At least social media isn't pretending to be wise and clever, it's straight up full of maroons. Outside of social media, this place must be right up there with the nonsensical pseudo intelligent conspiracy theory claptrap.

[Cousin Jack]

Am I the only one on here who has never, ever, read anything on Twitter.

[Yorick]

Am I the only one on here who has never, ever, read anything on Twitter.

Me sir, me

[mangocrazy]

Am I the only one on here who has never, ever, read anything on Twitter.

I have, but only when it's been linked to from Facebook. I have no Twitter account and no intention of ever requesting one.

[irie]

Am I the only one on here who has never, ever, read anything on Twitter.

I have never had a Twitter account, and I closed my Facebook account over 10 years ago.

[DefTrap]

Am I the only one on here who has never, ever, read anything on Twitter.

I have an account and therefore 'used' it on occasion but so sporadic as to be insignificant.
I think we need to be careful of dismissing new services or technologies as irrelevant. You don't have to be glued to it to be aware of the significance and, like TV, take advantage of the good bits whilst remaining aware of the nonsense. Don't end up like my parents who, bless them, are now totally bemused about pretty much every technological event since 2000 - and by association everything that isn't reported on the tellybox or in papery media. It's probably more wholesome to live in a bubble but it causes no end of other problems.

[Horse]

Am I the only one on here who has never, ever, read anything on Twitter.

I signed up for timing updates on the Vulcan final 'tour'. Where we went there was no phone reception

[Ant]

I see yet again, the plastic left have been given an absolutely utter pasting by Potter

[Cousin Jack]

Maybe 'Stop the Boats' could be replaced with 'Start Doing Your Job'? Of those who lost their asylum case, only 113 enforced asylum returns in the whole of 2021.
returns.jpeg

Back in around 2015 or thereabouts I was involved with some asylum seeker cases at CA (or CAB as it was then). The Home Office was painfully slow, but given that most of the cases seemed to get picked up by civil rights lawyers (paid by Legal Aid) and that every aspect was picked over in court they needed to be extremely thorough. The case I remember was a guy from Somalia, or perhaps Kenya. He was claiming to be from Somalia which was a bit of a war zone at the time, whereas Kenya was not. All this hinged on the facts (as argued by the Home Office) that he had zero knowledge or understanding of the Somali clan system. All this of course had to be proved in court, with an expert on Somali clan systems and a native speaker of whatever they speak in Somalia, as well as an expert on Kenyan pastoral culture and how it differed from Somalia. Pages and pages of expert testimony which must have cost a bomb and taken months. The guy was still fighting, so stayed visible, but he openly admitted that if he finally lost he would just vanish, adopt a new name and stay under the radar.

The only real solution to this is to take it out of the normal court system, and have a special court. No lawyers, allow a friend to help, but they establish the facts. If they are a genuine refugee, asylum granted, if they are an economic migrant, deportation, and NO APPEAL. All over in a maximum of 7 days with either deportation or forced incarceration in somewhere deeply unpleasant, perhaps St Kilda? Of course if you apply for asylum properly in another country you get the normal process, including appeals all the way to the top. If you turn up unannounced you forgo all that.

[cheb]

Maybe 'Stop the Boats' could be replaced with 'Start Doing Your Job'? Of those who lost their asylum case, only 113 enforced asylum returns in the whole of 2021.
returns.jpeg

Back in around 2015 or thereabouts I was involved with some asylum seeker cases at CA (or CAB as it was then). The Home Office was painfully slow, but given that most of the cases seemed to get picked up by civil rights lawyers (paid by Legal Aid) and that every aspect was picked over in court they needed to be extremely thorough. The case I remember was a guy from Somalia, or perhaps Kenya. He was claiming to be from Somalia which was a bit of a war zone at the time, whereas Kenya was not. All this hinged on the facts (as argued by the Home Office) that he had zero knowledge or understanding of the Somali clan system. All this of course had to be proved in court, with an expert on Somali clan systems and a native speaker of whatever they speak in Somalia, as well as an expert on Kenyan pastoral culture and how it differed from Somalia. Pages and pages of expert testimony which must have cost a bomb and taken months. The guy was still fighting, so stayed visible, but he openly admitted that if he finally lost he would just vanish, adopt a new name and stay under the radar.

The only real solution to this is to take it out of the normal court system, and have a special court. No lawyers, allow a friend to help, but they establish the facts. If they are a genuine refugee, asylum granted, if they are an economic migrant, deportation, and NO APPEAL. All over in a maximum of 7 days with either deportation or forced incarceration in somewhere deeply unpleasant, perhaps St Kilda? Of course if you apply for asylum properly in another country you get the normal process, including appeals all the way to the top. If you turn up unannounced you forgo all that.

The World Heritage site that also has a military radar station on it? Or is there a different one?