Immigration hits all time record high

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

19 minutes ago, Badger said:

The genuine refugees are following the system, which allows them to apply anywhere, not the closest country. It is the British govt that is trying to abuse the system by not providing routes for them to do so. They are trying to avoid their international responsibilities to the extent that many on the far right want to leave the European Court of Human Rights.

There's no obligation for any country to make it easy for people to get to them to claim asylum; other places of safety are available.

Personally, I'm a fan of France. It's a great country. I don't see why any refugee would rather be in the UK than here. But then you remember that few people on the continent want them any more than many in the UK want them.

I have friends in Frontex who fly over the Med to spot migrant boats to prevent them landing in Europe.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/apr/28/revealed-eu-border-agency-involved-in-hundreds-of-refugee-pushbacks

Edited March 10, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Bort 34]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Goes back to the point that no genuine refugee would seek to get to the UK under their own steam if seeking safety from persecution was their primary concern, The wording of international law on refuge is such that the rules make it a perfect target for abuse by aspiring economic migrants who wouldn't otherwise qualify.

Every single one of them at Calais is seeking to abuse the system. That's the reason they're a target of so much resentment and hostility.

What if someone has family members / friends who already live in the UK? Or if they speak some English as a second language? Or if they have professional skills which are particularly suited to the UK job market?

In those example cases, isn't it completely understandable that they'd want to make their way here eventually?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

4 minutes ago, Bort said:

What if someone has family members / friends who already live in the UK? Or if they speak some English as a second language? Or if they have professional skills which are particularly suited to the UK job market?

In those example cases, isn't it completely understandable that they'd want to make their way here eventually?

That's a migration argument, not an asylum argument. Thousands of families voluntarily live on different continents.

If people have suitable skills for the UK economy then they can walk into any UK embassy and apply for a work visa with a view to naturalisation down the line.

Equally, thousands of people voluntarily live in countries where the main language isn't their first language, including me. Anyone can learn a language well enough to communicate if there's a need.

Edited March 10, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Bort 34]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

That's an economic migration argument, not an asylum argument.

I don't see why there has to be a complete distinction between the two. You can e.g. be a war refugee who then wants to establish the best possible life for yourself and your family in a new country.

As far as I can tell, your argument is that desperate people should accept the bare minimum offering as long as it's enough for them to survive. The same mentality that leads to right wing Brits moaning about people on benefits having flat screen TVs and smartphones (as if they're uncommon luxuries in today's society).

[king canary 7,622]

19 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

There's no obligation for any country to make it easy for people to get to them to claim asylum; other places of safety are available.

Personally, I'm a fan of France. It's a great country. I don't see why any refugee would rather be in the UK than here. But then you remember that few people on the continent want them any more than many in the UK want them.

I have friends in Frontex who fly over the Med to spot migrant boats to prevent them landing in Europe.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/apr/28/revealed-eu-border-agency-involved-in-hundreds-of-refugee-pushbacks

The problem is any solution that actually works needs international cooperation, something we're not really very good at.

It wouldn't be a fair or workable solution to have all refugees remain and claim asylum in the first country they get to as all it will do is create an issue in the neighbouring country. 

In an ideal world you'd have countries agree to take a certain % of asylum seekers, a neutral, likely UN ran processing centre/system that all countries contribute to financially where claims can be assessed in a timely manor and then those who claim successfully can be put into the chosen countries system.

[Badger 2,407]

32 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not just a fair process the UK has, it's an incredibly generous process we have, as evidenced by the fact our acceptance rate is about 76%, versus European acceptance rates of less than 30%, as evidenced by the stats I've provided

Yesterday you said that their rejection rate was 90%? 

 

22 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

On the continent itself, every country has asylum seekers applying, usually with a 90% rejection rate

The evidence is that we accept far more people than other countries. You have interpreted this evidence in a way that is contrary to any analysis that I have heard and certainly not one that is promoted by the govt. If the problem is due to the current govt having an incredibly generous process, why don't they just adjust this rather than do all the things that are damaging the UK's reputation? I don't think that your analysis holds water - you have already admitted that you have no evidence for your interpretation, wheras the govt has frequently told us about our processes and the reasons for asylum being granted - at no stage have they said that they do it to ease integration. 

Obviously you believe what you say, I don't and I don't think that we are likely to agree as I can't see why the govt would sanction "incredibly generous processes." Unless you produce some evidence, I don't see any point in continuing the discussion

[Bort 34]

27 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That's a migration argument, not an asylum argument. Thousands of families voluntarily live on different continents.

If people have suitable skills for the UK economy then they can walk into any UK embassy and apply for a work visa with a view to naturalisation down the line.

Equally, thousands of people voluntarily live in countries where the main language isn't their first language, including me. Anyone can learn a language well enough to communicate if there's a need.

"Some people choose to do a thing, so everyone should be prepared to do that thing, even in a time that may be incredibly challenging and traumatic for them." Cobblers.

Obtaining a UK work visa is expensive and usually contingent on already having a job offer here. The process effectively excludes those who are most in need.

[Yellow Fever 3,804]

38 minutes ago, king canary said:

The problem is any solution that actually works needs international cooperation, something we're not really very good at.

It wouldn't be a fair or workable solution to have all refugees remain and claim asylum in the first country they get to as all it will do is create an issue in the neighbouring country. 

In an ideal world you'd have countries agree to take a certain % of asylum seekers, a neutral, likely UN ran processing centre/system that all countries contribute to financially where claims can be assessed in a timely manor and then those who claim successfully can be put into the chosen countries system.

I've often thought refugees and asylum seekers could be limited to the same continent from which they came. Yes its a compromise but I think fair.  Regions have to sort out regional problems.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[TheGunnShow 5,951]

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

I've often thought refugees and asylum seekers could be limited to the same continent from which they came. Yes its a compromise but I think fair. 

They generally do - if not indeed staying within their country and going elsewhere within it. If we look at those who cross borders, Turkey has taken on millions. Lebanon has taken on a spectacular proportion considering its population and own levels of poverty. There's a fair bit of criticism that can be aimed at the Gulf States as they don't do much at all and are also very wealthy.

If we look at Ukrainians, then most have gone to Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc.

Another reason why Braverman's comment re. 100 million was unrealistic in the extreme.

[Yellow Fever 3,804]

11 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

They generally do - if not indeed staying within their country and going elsewhere within it. If we look at those who cross borders, Turkey has taken on millions. Lebanon has taken on a spectacular proportion considering its population and own levels of poverty. There's a fair bit of criticism that can be aimed at the Gulf States as they don't do much at all and are also very wealthy.

If we look at Ukrainians, then most have gone to Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc.

Another reason why Braverman's comment re. 100 million was unrealistic in the extreme.

Agreed - If they go further then there has to be good reasons i.e. siblings or family already resident or a 'debt' owed (Afghanistan). I suppose what I would like the UN to do is clarify this to form an easily deducible reason why somebody might be more likely an economic migrant as opposed to a true asylum seeker.

None of this is by the way is an excuse for our current governments behaviour. Many of our current asylum seekers are from Afghanistan, Syria and Iran. Bonafide. 

[Bort 34]

4 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I've often thought refugees and asylum seekers could be limited to the same continent from which they came. Yes its a compromise but I think fair.  Regions have to sort out regional problems.

So e.g. wars in the Middle East are purely a "regional problem", with no Western responsibility? Go in, bomb the infrastructure, dissolve the government, extract the resources and then leave the region to "sort out" the resulting poverty? 

People in e.g. Africa wanting to escape slavelike conditions at the bottom of global supply chains utilised by international corporations for profit extraction are Africa's problem, not ours?

As noted by TGS, you'll be pleased to hear that's pretty much the case already.

[Yellow Fever 3,804]

32 minutes ago, Bort said:

So e.g. wars in the Middle East are purely a "regional problem", with no Western responsibility? Go in, bomb the infrastructure, dissolve the government, extract the resources and then leave the region to "sort out" the resulting poverty? 

People in e.g. Africa wanting to escape slavelike conditions at the bottom of global supply chains utilised by international corporations for profit extraction are Africa's problem, not ours?

As noted by TGS, you'll be pleased to hear that's pretty much the case already.

I'll let you blame everything for your own simplicity on the 'West' if you like. However my first Iraqi refugee I knew in the 80's had escaped Saddam (and the Iran-Iraq war). Then of course we have all those Syrians escaping Assad (and his Russian friends). Not everything is 'our' fault and countries can improve themselves.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[Bort 34]

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

I'll let you blame everything for your own simplicity on the 'West' if you like. However my first Iraqi refugee I knew in the 80's had escaped Saddam (and the Iran-Iraq war). Then of course we have all those Syrians escaping Assad (and his Russian friends). Not everything is 'our' fault and countries can improve themselves.

You said refugees are a regional problem which should be addressed by those regions alone.

I pointed out circumstances where the problems are clearly not the sole responsibility of the particular region.

You respond by saying "not everything is the fault of the West!"

Well yeah, duh. Some things - some very significant things at that - are though, don't you agree?

Funny you should mention the Iran-Iraq war actually - the US gave significant support to Iraq at the time, billions of dollars' worth, (and have been accused of endorsing the invasion before it took place) because it suited their interests following the breakdown in formal relations with Iran after the revolution there. At the same time, the US were secretly selling arms to Iran, to fund their support for anti-socialist rebels in Nicaragua. A protracted Iran-Iraq war suited the US, as it would weaken both countries and help them maintain influence in the region. Half a million people were killed in the conflict.

You're right though, those countries should have simply "improved themselves".

[Yellow Fever 3,804]

59 minutes ago, Bort said:

You said refugees are a regional problem which should be addressed by those regions alone.

I pointed out circumstances where the problems are clearly not the sole responsibility of the particular region.

You respond by saying "not everything is the fault of the West!"

Well yeah, duh. Some things - some very significant things at that - are though, don't you agree?

Funny you should mention the Iran-Iraq war actually - the US gave significant support to Iraq at the time, billions of dollars' worth, (and have been accused of endorsing the invasion before it took place) because it suited their interests following the breakdown in formal relations with Iran after the revolution there. At the same time, the US were secretly selling arms to Iran, to fund their support for anti-socialist rebels in Nicaragua. A protracted Iran-Iraq war suited the US, as it would weaken both countries and help them maintain influence in the region. Half a million people were killed in the conflict.

You're right though, those countries should have simply "improved themselves".

I see no point in arguing with you on this. See my earlier email where I specifically mentioned areas where a debt is due.

What I am saying is there should be a UN endorsed refugee presumption (as born out in practice) that refugees will at first seek asylum in their own regional area (and where people are likely to be more culturally similar) as opposed to moving to the other side of the world.

However - I blame Eve (as in Adam and Eve ) for everything that has happened since.......

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

Indeed some 550.000 legal immigrants per year, with visas and or enough money to invest in a business or the stock markets. The Tories have developed a penchant for Russian oligarch who are spending money on their party/campaigns.

They can't stop the gangs that fill these desperate people into dinghies,  so they punish the end user of this hazardous and sad way to immigrate here instead.

Edited March 10, 2023 by nevermind, neoliberalism has had it

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

4 hours ago, Bort said:

I don't see why there has to be a complete distinction between the two. You can e.g. be a war refugee who then wants to establish the best possible life for yourself and your family in a new country.

As far as I can tell, your argument is that desperate people should accept the bare minimum offering as long as it's enough for them to survive. The same mentality that leads to right wing Brits moaning about people on benefits having flat screen TVs and smartphones (as if they're uncommon luxuries in today's society).

The UK is not responsible for dealing with the world's refugee problems unilaterally, nor is it in the UK's interests to attempt to do so.

My fundamental argument is that until there is a viable mechanism to remove failed applicants then it's logical to want as few applicants to arrive in the first place in order to minimise the people you're stuck with who shouldn't be there. There is no such viable mechanisms and all attempts to create viable mechanisms are met with legal resistance at huge cost to the taxpayer, which leaves no choice other than to make it as difficult as possible for claimants to arrive in the first place.

As already pointed out, our acceptance level as a proportion of applicants is vastly greater than on the continent through which all applicants pass on their way to the UK; our existing rules for processing applicants are clearly not a problem; the problem is that we're effectively stuck with everyone who arrives, whether they're bona fide or not and whether anyone likes it or not.

 

Edited March 10, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Van wink 2,994]

Le Bromance….Oh la la…

[BigFish 1,988]

 

[king canary 7,622]

19 minutes ago, BigFish said:

 

Crikey that age split on the top question is really something.

The video in the 4th tweet in that thread is also really interesting, made me question some of my own perceptions.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

There are some misleading figures being published about immigration. You can choose to publish which ones suit your argument.

I just know that I lived through the Ugandan crisis in 1972 when Amin forcibly kicked out non Africans. Britain, under Ted Heath, did not want to rehome any of the 60+K Asians thrown out. He wanted them anywhere but the UK. But in the end was forced to accept around 25K. And I remember the protest and clashes because of the influx of Asians. 

So when people talk of a migrant crisis, its nothing new. This country has always had those who welcome people to this country unequivocally and others who are racist enough to say they should not come here. 

The question of legality or entitlement doesn't apply at grass root level. It really doesn't matter whether its in rubber dinghys or via a flight to Heathrow with a visa, there will always be a clamour that it will spoil the UK. 

Of course Albanians seeking a cushy life in the UK aren't welcome. But stop pretending its France's problem because they are drifting across the Channel. We could quite easily, with France's permission, stop the majority before they got into the boats. 

What we are now doing is just paying somebody else to clear up our part of the mess.

 

[Herman 9,793]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

There are some misleading figures being published about immigration. You can choose to publish which ones suit your argument.

I just know that I lived through the Ugandan crisis in 1972 when Amin forcibly kicked out non Africans. Britain, under Ted Heath, did not want to rehome any of the 60+K Asians thrown out. He wanted them anywhere but the UK. But in the end was forced to accept around 25K. And I remember the protest and clashes because of the influx of Asians. 

So when people talk of a migrant crisis, its nothing new. This country has always had those who welcome people to this country unequivocally and others who are racist enough to say they should not come here. 

The question of legality or entitlement doesn't apply at grass root level. It really doesn't matter whether its in rubber dinghys or via a flight to Heathrow with a visa, there will always be a clamour that it will spoil the UK. 

Of course Albanians seeking a cushy life in the UK aren't welcome. But stop pretending its France's problem because they are drifting across the Channel. We could quite easily, with France's permission, stop the majority before they got into the boats. 

What we are now doing is just paying somebody else to clear up our part of the mess.

 

Yep.👍

There is a contradiction too in what the government are telling. They were crowing about our returns agreement with Albania while at the same time saying the majority coming over were Albanians. Surely if the first one is true the second one should be very easy to resolve.

This may be a shock but I don't think they are telling the truth.

[king canary 7,622]

Wonder if the small boats policy and publicly rowing with popular sports presenters has given the Tories the bounce they were looking for in the polls...

 

Ah.

[benchwarmer 625]

There's a detail in the Illegal Immigration Bill which has escaped notice until now (interview on Radio 5Live about half an hour ago):

No matter how long it takes for the Bill to become law, it will apply to anyone who arrived by boat since last Tuesday, 7th March 2023.

"There's a 50% chance it could be against international law".  Make that 100%. 

Edited March 13, 2023 by benchwarmer

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

On 10/03/2023 at 12:29, Yellow Fever said:

I've often thought refugees and asylum seekers could be limited to the same continent from which they came. Yes its a compromise but I think fair.  Regions have to sort out regional problems.

Agreed. This is the way forward.

Countries like Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia should  have taken Syrian refugees.

Suppose some exception has to be made in some circumstances though. E.g. the Aghans who worked for the British Army. That's a problem of our own making.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

25 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Agreed. This is the way forward.

Countries like Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia should  have taken Syrian refugees.

Suppose some exception has to be made in some circumstances though. E.g. the Aghans who worked for the British Army. That's a problem of our own making.

So is Israel/Palestine.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

So is Israel/Palestine.

Sure, but the land now known ad Jordan was the bulk of Palestine, Jordanians are Palestians... so Jordan should take Palestinian refugees.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

14 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Sure, but the land now known ad Jordan was the bulk of Palestine, Jordanians are Palestians... so Jordan should take Palestinian refugees.

It does. They have 2,000,000 registered Palestinian refugees with full Jordanian citizenship rights, but they keep the refugee tag on there to keep the conflict alive politically.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

Full time students should be taken out of the immigration figures. Let's face it, they are here as customers of UK plc, plus our education system relies on the dosh.

[Pyro Pete 1,902]

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

16 minutes ago, Pyro Pete said:

 

Never ceases to amaze me how strident the UN gets over these sorts of things when it comes to the countries that actually abuse human rights the least.

Talk about going for the low-hanging fruit.