Gary Lineker

[PistoldPete]

56 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Fully agree if someone turns up on our shore and never asks for asylum, they should be classified as entering the country illegally.

But if that person seeks out a policeman or any governmental official as soon as they can on arrival and asks for asylum, then they should be classified as an asylum seeker and be processed accordingly.

The new immigration bill presently going through Parliament wants to classify anyone that arrives here, that hasn't already applied for asylum seekers status before they travel to the UK, as an illegal immigrant. Regardless of wether or not they ask for asylum immediately on their arrival into the UK.

I think what you fail to understand is that under present long standing law anyone who arrives in the Uk without permission has already broken the domestic law. But by convention currently they can still be processed as potential asylum seekers. 

The new bill is controversial for sure and I don’t know ie if it is the right answer.

All I am addressing is the objections to language used. There is fundamentally nothing wrong with referring to the people in small boats as illegal immigrants. Because that is what they are. 

 

 

[Stive Pesley]

10 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Proving the point that this country is tolerant of people here and wanting to contribute to society...

Yeah exactly - that's surely the "British Value" in play here? I doubt there is any of us here who don't know someone in our personal lives whose parents were immigrants, and who lives a settled, happy life - contributing to society

This idea that the Conservative Party are pushing at the moment that demonises all immigrants as illegal, wanting to ship people to a third country rather than process their asylum claim - it's about as un-British as it gets in my mind. All we want is a functioning immigration and asylum process. Safe and legal routes, and a fair and speedy judgement 

 

[Ram-Alf]

15 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

All we want is a functioning immigration and asylum process. Safe and legal routes, and a fair and speedy judgement 

 

Where do the British Government send those refugee failed applications too?

[Crewton]

48 minutes ago, The Last Post said:

Where do the British Government send those refugee failed applications too?

Traditionally, they lose track of them and, maybe 20 or 30 years later, they award them an MBE for services to British industry ?

[Stive Pesley]

50 minutes ago, The Last Post said:

Where do the British Government send those refugee failed applications too?

Where does every government send failed asylum seekers?

[Ram-Alf]

16 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Where does every government send failed asylum seekers?

So a question you can't answer about our Government It wasn't a question about other Governments, Your prepared to accept refugees but haven't the foggiest to do when they fail your post of "a fair and speedy judgement"

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by The Last Post

[G STAR RAM]

9 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Where does every government send failed asylum seekers?

Are they allowed to send them anywhere or do they have to wait until some human rights lawyer has their pound of flesh?

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

Yeah exactly - that's surely the "British Value" in play here? I doubt there is any of us here who don't know someone in our personal lives whose parents were immigrants, and who lives a settled, happy life - contributing to society

This idea that the Conservative Party are pushing at the moment that demonises all immigrants as illegal, wanting to ship people to a third country rather than process their asylum claim - it's about as un-British as it gets in my mind. All we want is a functioning immigration and asylum process. Safe and legal routes, and a fair and speedy judgement 

 

Once again Stive you come up with this sort of stuff. Sunak and Braverman are from  immigrant families why on Earth would they demonise all immigrants as illegal. I have set out as clearly as I can what is the distinction between an illegal immigrant and a legal one. And it isn’t that tricky is it? A legal immigrant is someone who didn’t break domestic law to come here and an illegal immigrant is the opposite. Pretty basic really. 

[ramsbottom]

18 hours ago, Archied said:

The real issue is that we can’t have the ever increasing numbers of undocumented people turning up on our shores for many reasons least of all we can’t check they’re background and motivation, we are already seeing the danger in terms of crime , we are seeing people claiming to be children who clearly aren’t which may play a part in the number of recorded children going missing ,

surely nobody can claim we do not have a growing problem that really needs addressing?

Of course it needs addressing, but the reason all our hotels are full of people wishing to claim asylum is that our wonderous government have cut funding and staff to process them.  The number of people wishing to claim asylum in the UK has been relatively stable for years, but the amount of applications processed has declined.  Just like everything else they've screwed up over the past few years, they're using any old excuse & soundbites to convince the electorate that it isn't their fault.

[Ram-Alf]

21 minutes ago, ramsbottom said:

Of course it needs addressing, but the reason all our hotels are full of people wishing to claim asylum is that our wonderous government have cut funding and staff to process them.  The number of people wishing to claim asylum in the UK has been relatively stable for years, but the amount of applications processed has declined.  Just like everything else they've screwed up over the past few years, they're using any old excuse & soundbites to convince the electorate that it isn't their fault.

True the cuts have come in every Government department, Education, Health, Defence, Tax and of course Immigration, Below is the amount of Immigrants/Refugees that have come to the UK to seek asylum, It's gone up and down after 2002 and peaked again in 2022, The Government weren't prepared for such numbers....again!

Note the graph on boat crossings.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511

Edited March 16, 2023 by The Last Post

[i-Ram]

1 hour ago, ramsbottom said:

Of course it needs addressing, but the reason all our hotels are full of people wishing to claim asylum is that our wonderous government have cut funding and staff to process them.  The number of people wishing to claim asylum in the UK has been relatively stable for years, but the amount of applications processed has declined.  Just like everything else they've screwed up over the past few years, they're using any old excuse & soundbites to convince the electorate that it isn't their fault.

The way I read this is that the Conservative Party should not rely on your vote at the next general election.

[Stive Pesley]

2 hours ago, The Last Post said:

So a question you can't answer about our Government It wasn't a question about other Governments, Your prepared to accept refugees but haven't the foggiest to do when they fail your post of "a fair and speedy judgement"

 

Sorry - i didn't realise that my answer wasn't obviously a rhetorical question. If someone comes here from country X and we process their asylum claim fairly and decide that they have no valid claim then we return them to country X. 

[Stive Pesley]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Once again Stive you come up with this sort of stuff. Sunak and Braverman are from  immigrant families why on Earth would they demonise all immigrants as illegal. I have set out as clearly as I can what is the distinction between an illegal immigrant and a legal one. And it isn’t that tricky is it? A legal immigrant is someone who didn’t break domestic law to come here and an illegal immigrant is the opposite. Pretty basic really. 

i can't imagine what sort of person would need to do *this* much heavy lifting to try and excuse the current government's anti-immigrant rhetoric, but go on. If it makes you happy

But for the record, that's my point - Braverman should be the last person demonising immigrants - but have you heard her speeches??

Edited March 16, 2023 by Stive Pesley

[i-Ram]

8 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

But for the record, that's my point - Braverman should be the last person demonising immigrants - but have you heard her speeches??

Maybe she is like one of those baddies in the Scooby Doo programmes. If someone can get close up behind her and rip off her face mask, we will probably find she is actually Paul Nuttall. 

[PistoldPete]

50 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

i can't imagine what sort of person would need to do *this* much heavy lifting to try and excuse the current government's anti-immigrant rhetoric, but go on. If it makes you happy

But for the record, that's my point - Braverman should be the last person demonising immigrants - but have you heard her speeches??

I just don’t see how you can call it anti immigrant when we have allowed 1million immigrants in last year.  
 

I don’t listen to political speeches I’m afraid except for Liz Truss ones and that’s just for laughs. 

[BaaLocks]

4 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

Where does every government send failed asylum seekers?

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.

2 hours ago, The Last Post said:

Note the graph on boat crossings.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511

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?

[Ram-Alf]

22 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

 

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?

 purely guesswork ? 

[BaaLocks]

39 minutes ago, The Last Post said:

 purely guesswork ? 

[Crewton]

Maybe it's because most Ukrainians have had to apply through official channels and had the correct paperwork that made it easier to process their claims. Also, it was easier for them to reasonably claim they were fleeing a war-zone rather than having to prove that they were "in fear of their life" or "suffering persecution", which is the difficulty that many asylum seekers have. The number that Britain has taken is also tiny compared to Poland (1,5M), Germany (0.9M) and the Czech Republic (0.5M). 

That's not to say that racist or Islamophobic sentiment doesn't influence policy or actions, consciously or subconsciously, but when there's a full-scale war going on, with easily identifiable conflict zones and verified attacks on civilian areas well away from the front line, the risk to life box is much easier to tick.

But this is an all-too typical deflection from the real issues.

[cstand]