BaaLocks

If they are deemed to be from a safe country they are returned there or, based on the claim they made at their first country of entry (there is a system called Eurodacs that maintains that). Both these are outlined in the Dublin III Regulation, which is often criticized as the last point (return to first country they made claim in) is suggested to put an unfair burden on countries that are the extremity border of the EU (e.g. Greece, Italy). If the country they have fled from is not deemed safe, well, they probably have right to claim asylum.
Interestingly, they omit Ukrainian refugee numbers - all of which have been allowed in via an approved visa scheme. 150,000 to be precise - more than one and a half times as many as crossed in small boats in the last four years. Don't see too many complaints from Braverman and Farage on that one. Don't see Sunak telling them that they can consider themselves to be criminals if they try to come here. Don't see pages of consideration on how we are every going to find space for them in our 'full' country. But the point remains we have allowed twice as many Ukranians into the UK, with a fraction of the paperwork and burden of proof, than we did people fleeing Germany in the 1930s.
Strange how the optics differ - what could it possibly be that makes Ukranians acceptable but Eritreans, Libyans, Yemeni, Afghans, Iranians and Sudanese not? Let me think what could possibly cause such a different view to be applied to their plight?

If they are deemed to be from a safe country they are returned there or, based on the claim they made at their first country of entry (there is a system called Eurodacs that maintains that). Both these are outlined in the Dublin III Regulation, which is often criticized as the last point (return to first country they made claim in) is suggested to put an unfair burden on countries that are the extremity border of the EU (e.g. Greece, Italy). If the country they have fled from is not deemed safe, well, they probably have right to claim asylum.
Interestingly, they omit Ukrainian refugee numbers - all of which have been allowed in via an approved visa scheme. 150,000 to be precise - more than one and a half times as many as crossed in small boats in the last four years. Don't see too many complaints from Braverman and Farage on that one. Don't see Sunak telling them that they can consider themselves to be criminals if they try to come here. Don't see pages of consideration on how we are every going to find space for them in our 'full' country. But the point remains we have allowed twice as many Ukranians into the UK, with a fraction of the paperwork and burden of proof, than we did people fleeing Germany in the 1930s.
Strange how the optics differ - what could it possibly be that makes Ukranians acceptable but Eritreans, Libyans, Yemeni, Afghans, Iranians and Sudanese not? Let me think what could possibly cause such a different view to be applied to their plight?

If they are deemed to be from a safe country they are returned there or, based on the claim they made at their first country of entry (there is a system called Eurodacs that maintains that). Both these are outlined in the Dublin III Regulation, which is often criticized as the last point (return to first country they made claim in) is suggested to put an unfair burden on countries that are the extremity border of the EU (e.g. Greece, Italy). If the country they have fled from is not deemed safe, well, they probably have right to claim asylum.
Interestingly, they omit Ukrainian refugee numbers - all of which have been allowed in via an approved visa scheme. 150,000 to be precise - more than one and a half times as many as crossed in small boats in the last four years. Don't see too many complaints from Braverman and Farage on that one. Don't see Sunak telling them that they can consider themselves to be criminals if they try to come here. Don't see pages of consideration on how we are every going to find space for them in our 'full' country. But the point remains we have allowed twice as many Ukranians into the UK, with a fraction of the paperwork and burden of proof, than we did people fleeing Germany in the 1930s.
Strange how the optics differ - what could it possibly be that makes Ukranians acceptable but Eritreans, Libyans, Yemeni, Afghans, Iranians and Sudanese not? Let me think what could possibly cause such a different view to be applied to their plight?

Intention to seek asylum is considered permission under international law, which is what Suella et al are trying to revoke in this bill.
We're going round in circles now so I will leave you with a quote from the United Nations Refugee Agency who, with respect to every single person posting on this thread, I will hold in higher authority than any other comment in the previous 42 pages of back and forth.
"There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker or an illegal asylum-seeker. As an asylum-seeker, a person has entered into a legal process of refugee status determination. Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country."
It isn't up for debate beyond that point, it is international law. You, personally, might not agree with it but it is still the unrefutable law.

Intention to seek asylum is considered permission under international law, which is what Suella et al are trying to revoke in this bill.
We're going round in circles now so I will leave you with a quote from the United Nations Refugee Agency who, with respect to every single person posting on this thread, I will hold in higher authority than any other comment in the previous 42 pages of back and forth.
"There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker or an illegal asylum-seeker. As an asylum-seeker, a person has entered into a legal process of refugee status determination. Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country."
It isn't up for debate beyond that point, it is international law. You, personally, might not agree with it but it is still the unrefutable law.

Intention to seek asylum is considered permission under international law, which is what Suella et al are trying to revoke in this bill.
We're going round in circles now so I will leave you with a quote from the United Nations Refugee Agency who, with respect to every single person posting on this thread, I will hold in higher authority than any other comment in the previous 42 pages of back and forth.
"There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker or an illegal asylum-seeker. As an asylum-seeker, a person has entered into a legal process of refugee status determination. Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country."
It isn't up for debate beyond that point, it is international law. You, personally, might not agree with it but it is still the unrefutable law.

As I mentioned a few times - the whole problem is being exacerbated by the complete failure of our government to process asylum claims
In actual fact the real solution is to set up a safe and legal route for asylum seekers to come here and then process their claims quickly  and fairly. That way - no more rubber dinghies in the channel, no more trafficking gangs, no more asylum hotels. And on the upside - we get to manage the immigration that we need to survive as a functioning economy. If your claim is valid and you are someone willing and able to contribute to our society then in you come. If you claim is invalid then back you go. It feels almost too simple for words
Instead the government have consciously chosen to turn it into a political battleground
You wouldn't mind so much if Sunak and Braverman weren't the children of South-east Asian African immigrants themselves! 

Intention to seek asylum is considered permission under international law, which is what Suella et al are trying to revoke in this bill.
We're going round in circles now so I will leave you with a quote from the United Nations Refugee Agency who, with respect to every single person posting on this thread, I will hold in higher authority than any other comment in the previous 42 pages of back and forth.
"There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker or an illegal asylum-seeker. As an asylum-seeker, a person has entered into a legal process of refugee status determination. Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country."
It isn't up for debate beyond that point, it is international law. You, personally, might not agree with it but it is still the unrefutable law.

Intention to seek asylum is considered permission under international law, which is what Suella et al are trying to revoke in this bill.
We're going round in circles now so I will leave you with a quote from the United Nations Refugee Agency who, with respect to every single person posting on this thread, I will hold in higher authority than any other comment in the previous 42 pages of back and forth.
"There is no such thing as a bogus asylum-seeker or an illegal asylum-seeker. As an asylum-seeker, a person has entered into a legal process of refugee status determination. Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country."
It isn't up for debate beyond that point, it is international law. You, personally, might not agree with it but it is still the unrefutable law.

Why the first country they land in? Why? Because it won't ever be the UK and that let's us off the hook? I can think of no other reason.

Amnesty International says there are no safe and legal routes for most people to seek asylum in the UK. Let that settle for a moment - the world's leading non-governmental human rights organization, founded in London by a British lawyer, said that.

Or, alternately, they didn't. I mean, just take a moment to read what you've written here. Where would they claim protection from prosecution? In the UK? But you've already suggested they've entered illegally so not sure how that's going to work. And if they didn't, claiming protection from prosecution is otherwise referred to as asylum, which they can't do based on Rishi's previous assumption that anyone entering will be considered a criminal.
Your whole point just collapses in a pile of lightly dusted logic.

Why the first country they land in? Why? Because it won't ever be the UK and that let's us off the hook? I can think of no other reason.

Amnesty International says there are no safe and legal routes for most people to seek asylum in the UK. Let that settle for a moment - the world's leading non-governmental human rights organization, founded in London by a British lawyer, said that.

Or, alternately, they didn't. I mean, just take a moment to read what you've written here. Where would they claim protection from prosecution? In the UK? But you've already suggested they've entered illegally so not sure how that's going to work. And if they didn't, claiming protection from prosecution is otherwise referred to as asylum, which they can't do based on Rishi's previous assumption that anyone entering will be considered a criminal.
Your whole point just collapses in a pile of lightly dusted logic.

Why the first country they land in? Why? Because it won't ever be the UK and that let's us off the hook? I can think of no other reason.

Why the first country they land in? Why? Because it won't ever be the UK and that let's us off the hook? I can think of no other reason.

Amnesty International says there are no safe and legal routes for most people to seek asylum in the UK. Let that settle for a moment - the world's leading non-governmental human rights organization, founded in London by a British lawyer, said that.

I think you're lying. TBH - grammar pedant that I am my whole body was tingling wanting to remind you lot it's Prostate, not Prostrate but then I kind of told myself that this is people talking about pretty serious stuff (well, everyone except @i-Ram).
Factsfor the day: 
About 2% of all men will die of prostate cancer It is the second biggest male cancer killer 50% of men over the age of 90 will die with it, if not of it Your likelihood to get high grade prostate cancer doubles every ten years Which means, by my maths, if you live to 110 you will be 200% likely to get it (I've obviously got something wrong in there)

BBC are to talk to Gary Lineker about his tweets. What people say outside the workplace, on their own personal accounts, as long as it is not discriminatory or abusive, is completely their own business - no matter what it is that they say. Particularly if they are completely unrelated to the capacity in which they are employed (e.g. Laura Kuennsberg talking about football). And if you have a problem with media stars using social media then you put it in their contract that they are not allowed to have a personal account. But you don't selectively speak to one person just because what they say irritates people in high places.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64883655

Do I infer from this that the point is that if I say I live in a nice house - good luck me - then the same logic applies for what country I was born in? Didn't have your sperm and egg say hello to each other in Helmand province - good luck you? I get the point, and it's a good challenge.
But my point above is that I can live in a nice house but still be left wing, still enjoy the benefit of my labour (small L) and still expect my government to do more, to be better. And I can still argue and expect greater equality without having to be the first to lead on making that happen by giving up my hard earned savings while others in better positions stand by and watch. I don't think anyone is asking for reparations to the point of absolute communism.
Same with asylum seekers and migrants. I might recognize that the ultimate solution is to invest in their countries so they have the same opportunities, infrastructure and standard of living as I enjoy. Given many are in this situation thanks to the centuries of harm caused to them by colonial powers like the UK, France and the US it can be suggested that is the ultimate path forward. Like it or not, we are a large part of their problem.
But we do know, at least I think I do, that isn't really workable so in the meantime we can do at least something by offering safe refuge and at least a modicum of support to those that need our help most. I feel oblidged to caveat that last sentence to say that doesn't mean we open the floodgates and allow everyone in (as many in support of this bill seem to suggest is the only alternative). Totally agree we need structure and transparency to how we assist but if we want to be seen as anyway near credible on the international stage we must have a properly implemented tolerant and fair asylum and immigration system.
The sad, sad truth is that this isn't too difficult, if it is dealt with as a cross party initiatve and not politicised as a right wing dog whistle in a desperate hope it will magically close a 25% gap in the polls.

When I was in my early thirties I went out with this girl a lot younger than me, we had quite a long term relationship actually. The age difference didn't worry me but people did used to comment, say horrible things like I was a paedo, I should find someone my own age etc. I remember one time, I was 31 at the time and she was 19, we went to this restaurant and this woman came up and said, out loud and in front of everyone, we should be ashamed of ourselves. It was really sad, totally spoiled our tenth anniversary dinner.

No, don't worry - you'll have to be a bit more blunt than that if you want to have a dig ?
I find the 'hate' against Lineker really surprising, I had no idea there was such bile against him until this episode. I have always thought he seperates himself pretty well, if you only want to hear his views on football then don't follow his personal account on Twitter. I also find it really surprising (been an education, every day's a school day) that he makes one comment on the tone of government messaging and a week later he's a tax dodger who does nothing of any help and favours immigrants over homeless on our streets. 
I'm with you on tax btw, but I have no different view on him than I have on Rishi Sunak heating his swimming pool with money his wife garnered via her non-dom status or Jimmy Carr paying accountants he can afford to save money we don't have. It's not political for me, it's not where you came from - if we continue to allow the gap between the richest and the poorest to widen then we are in for trouble. Interestingly, without wanting to cross pollute this thread with the one on Ukraine that I have chosen to avoid now for a few months, history tells us that the single biggest leveller of society is large and sustained war. First World War was a great example, Hundred Years War in the Middle Ages another. Rich end up funding the conflict, poor end up getting paid to fight rather than grow their masters business, the gap closes. Every (nuclear) cloud and all that....

There’s much we agree on , the Ukrainian war topic is one where I certainly miss your input as I found it balanced and informative,I read the topic but tend not to post in there as my knowledge is limited though I have some generalised views on it but it’s one of those ones where hard to question without being seen as one side or another