Migrants - Will the new law work?

[demographic]

Kind of weird the different perspectives people have isnt it?
Theres a hotel down from me where asylum seekers are put, Syrians, maybe a few Somali?
I walk the dog past that area a bit and have never felt evan faintly threatened, almost every one smiles, some give a greeting or say something about my dog.

I guess I figure that especially the Syrians have escaped from a proper full on war zone, then will likely have relatives they left behind and are worried about. More now that there's been an earthquake and flattened the bits that Assad and Putin didn't manage. I would like to think that if I had to up sticks in a hurry and leave because of war or persecution that I might be welcomed by another culture and given the chance to get on with my life there.

One problem I do have with the current system is the length of time wasted processing them where they aren't allowed to work and improve their lot. To me having them not allowed to work encourages them to seek alternative ways to make money which seems to be asking for them to turn to crime.

Give em a national insurance number and let em get on with their lives, in no time they'll absolutely love their new country. Win win.

Or we can make em scared of any contact with the police which makes the women more likely to be coerced into prostitution, and other assored shite. How is that helping?

[Cousin Jack]

The USA is seeing it too, and the 1st response is "Build a wall". That isn't working, any more than our ditch is. The real problems will be in the borders (Texas/New Mexico in the USA) Poor people with little to spare (and guns) versus even poorer people with nothing to lose.

[Horse]

I suggested (slightly tongue in cheek) that we should sink the next few boats to discourage the smugglers.

I saw a few days back a suggestion that, because their self-drive system is generally safer than humans, it's 'better', more ethical (fewer casualties) ... for Tesla to use the public as development test drivers.


Anyway, to answer your question: No

The migrants probably won't know about the law, the people smugglers won't care.

[Mr. Dazzle]

In a totally morbid sense...either the boat gets through or everyone sinks and dies? So any deliberate sinking (or otherwise) wouldn't send a message anyway?

[Cousin Jack]

If every people smuggler lost most of the cargo word would soon spread and customers would no longer pay to be smuggled. Neither party cares about the law, the smugglers want money, the refugees want to get to the UK. Stopping either of those transactions will stop, or at least seriously disrupt, the trade.

[irie]

They're not sentiments exactly Jack, more like predictions. We're not going to re-colonise Africa, Russia and China are doing that. You and I won't live to see it so I won't be able to tell you 'I told you so', so I'll say it now. Famine and flood moves people in numbers that we haven't had to deal with, others have. Europe is up next.

It'll be interesting when forced migration due to unstoppable environmental changes starts to impact the haves in the first world economies - whether there will start to be some sympathy for the displaced, initially by the environment, probably also by disease, famine, poverty.

If England was devastated by Tsunami or rising temperatures, what a terrible decision for the Scots to have to make - whether to repel them at the border or round them up and fly them off to a shanty-town in Africa.

Choosing between somewhere like a post SNP Scotland and somewhere in Africa might not be an easy choice to make.

[Cousin Jack]

Choosing between somewhere like a post SNP Scotland and somewhere in Africa might not be an easy choice to make.

Africa would be warmer.

[DefTrap]

Africa would be warmer.

Better food, prettier girls etc.

[Felix]

If England was devastated by Tsunami or rising temperatures, what a terrible decision for the Scots to have to make - whether to repel them at the border or round them up and fly them off to a shanty-town in Africa.

It was not that long ago you lot were on about rebuilding the wall. May be lucky you never. Swim Forrest Swim

[JamJar]

You mean like this?

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/polic ... ulation_en

Brexit saw that end:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... ary%202021.

I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that the above regulation is still incumbent on EU member states. Had it been complied with by EU member states the current streams of migrants who in the main have travelled across multiple EU states would not be ending up on the French channel coast!

Only if they intend to apply for asylum in a member state or the few non member states that are in the agreement. As I understand it, it does not apply to people who intend to apply for asylum in a non member state i.e. UK. If we had stayed in the agreement then the regulation would be incumbent on EU states.

[irie]

Brexit saw that end:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... ary%202021.

I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that the above regulation is still incumbent on EU member states. Had it been complied with by EU member states the current streams of migrants who in the main have travelled across multiple EU states would not be ending up on the French channel coast!

Only if they intend to apply for asylum in a member state or the few non member states that are in the agreement. As I understand it, it does not apply to people who intend to apply for asylum in a non member state i.e. UK. If we had stayed in the agreement then the regulation would be incumbent on EU states.

https://www.udi.no/en/word-definitions/ ... egulation/

What is the Dublin Regulation?

The Dublin Regulation determines which country is responsible for considering an application for protection. An asylum seeker can only have his or her application considered in one of the Dublin countries.

The main rule is that an application will be processed by the first Dublin country the asylum seeker comes to. If the asylum seeker applies for protection in another Dublin country, he or she will be sent back to the country that has already considered his/her application or that is responsible for considering the application.

Asylum is demonstrably not being applied for in the first Dublin country entered, instead "asylum seekers" are passing through multiple Dublin countries to get to the French channel coast, as made clear in my initial post.

[Lutin]

Martyn Turner's latest cartoon from the Irish Times -

Martyn Turner 230310.jpg (278.08 KiB) Viewed 290 times

You really do have to wonder why they bother with the state the the UK has been brought down to.


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.

[Docca]

Kind of weird the different perspectives people have isnt it?
Theres a hotel down from me where asylum seekers are put, Syrians, maybe a few Somali?
I walk the dog past that area a bit and have never felt evan faintly threatened, almost every one smiles, some give a greeting or say something about my dog.

I guess I figure that especially the Syrians have escaped from a proper full on war zone, then will likely have relatives they left behind and are worried about. More now that there's been an earthquake and flattened the bits that Assad and Putin didn't manage. I would like to think that if I had to up sticks in a hurry and leave because of war or persecution that I might be welcomed by another culture and given the chance to get on with my life there.

One problem I do have with the current system is the length of time wasted processing them where they aren't allowed to work and improve their lot. To me having them not allowed to work encourages them to seek alternative ways to make money which seems to be asking for them to turn to crime.

Give em a national insurance number and let em get on with their lives, in no time they'll absolutely love their new country. Win win.

Or we can make em scared of any contact with the police which makes the women more likely to be coerced into prostitution, and other assored shite. How is that helping?

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.

[JamJar]

I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that the above regulation is still incumbent on EU member states. Had it been complied with by EU member states the current streams of migrants who in the main have travelled across multiple EU states would not be ending up on the French channel coast!

Only if they intend to apply for asylum in a member state or the few non member states that are in the agreement. As I understand it, it does not apply to people who intend to apply for asylum in a non member state i.e. UK. If we had stayed in the agreement then the regulation would be incumbent on EU states.

https://www.udi.no/en/word-definitions/ ... egulation/

What is the Dublin Regulation?

The Dublin Regulation determines which country is responsible for considering an application for protection. An asylum seeker can only have his or her application considered in one of the Dublin countries.

The main rule is that an application will be processed by the first Dublin country the asylum seeker comes to. If the asylum seeker applies for protection in another Dublin country, he or she will be sent back to the country that has already considered his/her application or that is responsible for considering the application.

Asylum is demonstrably not being applied for in the first Dublin country entered, instead "asylum seekers" are passing through multiple Dublin countries to get to the French channel coast, as made clear in my initial post.

They are not applying for asylum in any Dublin country they are waiting till/if they get to the UK and so the regulation does not come into affect.

[Hoonercat]

I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that the above regulation is still incumbent on EU member states. Had it been complied with by EU member states the current streams of migrants who in the main have travelled across multiple EU states would not be ending up on the French channel coast!

Only if they intend to apply for asylum in a member state or the few non member states that are in the agreement. As I understand it, it does not apply to people who intend to apply for asylum in a non member state i.e. UK. If we had stayed in the agreement then the regulation would be incumbent on EU states.

https://www.udi.no/en/word-definitions/ ... egulation/

What is the Dublin Regulation?

The Dublin Regulation determines which country is responsible for considering an application for protection. An asylum seeker can only have his or her application considered in one of the Dublin countries.

The main rule is that an application will be processed by the first Dublin country the asylum seeker comes to. If the asylum seeker applies for protection in another Dublin country, he or she will be sent back to the country that has already considered his/her application or that is responsible for considering the application.

Asylum is demonstrably not being applied for in the first Dublin country entered, instead "asylum seekers" are passing through multiple Dublin countries to get to the French channel coast, as made clear in my initial post.

In order for France to send them back to the first safe country, there needs to be a record of which safe country that was, in the form of biometric data. Anyone entering the EU illegally won't be on that database, therefore they cannot be sent back.
As already posted, refugees can no longer make UK asylum claims from an EU country, they need to be on UK soil. For those who do make the crossing, the UK no longer has access to EURODAC (the biometric database) and is no longer part of the Dublin agreement. It's what you voted for, get over it

[Hoonercat]

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.

Because they're not French? Because France would have to agree to this, and why would they when clearly, France isn't the first safe country they arrived in?

[cheb]

Kind of weird the different perspectives people have isnt it?
Theres a hotel down from me where asylum seekers are put, Syrians, maybe a few Somali?
I walk the dog past that area a bit and have never felt evan faintly threatened, almost every one smiles, some give a greeting or say something about my dog.

I guess I figure that especially the Syrians have escaped from a proper full on war zone, then will likely have relatives they left behind and are worried about. More now that there's been an earthquake and flattened the bits that Assad and Putin didn't manage. I would like to think that if I had to up sticks in a hurry and leave because of war or persecution that I might be welcomed by another culture and given the chance to get on with my life there.

One problem I do have with the current system is the length of time wasted processing them where they aren't allowed to work and improve their lot. To me having them not allowed to work encourages them to seek alternative ways to make money which seems to be asking for them to turn to crime.

Give em a national insurance number and let em get on with their lives, in no time they'll absolutely love their new country. Win win.

Or we can make em scared of any contact with the police which makes the women more likely to be coerced into prostitution, and other assored shite. How is that helping?

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.

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.

[Cousin Jack]

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

[Hoonercat]

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 (74.67 KiB) Viewed 370 times

[irie]

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.