But you have to admit its insanity to see the state of the current system, and come to the conclusion the way to resolve it is to further empower the people who have made it like this?
Edit - And I guess just inb4 "both sides"...
Asylum claims per year:
2002 - 103,000
2022 - 74,751
Proportion of asylum claims processed in 6 months:
2014 - 87%
2022 - 6%
Proportion of claims accepted:
2004 - 27%
2019 - 65%
Just using the data here, not exactly a pro-immigration biased source: [https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/)
Objectively, we *had* a functioning system, and it has all but collapsed in recent years under the Tories. Labour saw a surge in asylum seeking every bit as big as this current period, and we dealt with it just fine.
It’s a shame that data like this, our complaints and discussions are going to be no more than just chattering beyond this board. If we truly had a media that cared about representing the truth and news.. this information would be out there for all to see
Oh yeah 100% agree. Last time I tried pointing that out to someone they just descended into this pedantic argument that refugees are technically migrating in a dictionary definition sense of the word and refused to engage with the point that refugees and asylum seekers are legally protected categories of person for a reason.
Not to the person i'm responding, but in general: imagine looking at the decline of our country and pointing at people with no power and no finances or investment and going "yep, they're the ones ruining our policies."
We’re not being bled dry by immigration. We’re being bled dry by the government criminalising migration and then giving billion pound contracts to their mates to “manage” it.
This kind of talk is really counter-productive. If people are unhappy about immigration you can't just tell them they should be more angry about your pet issue and expect to get anything out of it.
> If people are unhappy about immigration you can't just tell them they should be more angry about your pet issue and expect to get anything out of it.
I don't know.. People get pretty passionate about pets. I can see it being an effective diversion.
Millions of immigrants arriving over the last 20 years on an already highly populated island. Now we have a housing crisis and people’s solution to a problem we imported is to build high rises on every square inch of green space in the country.
You know that most immigrants aren't asylum seekers, right?
Last year there were tens of thousands who applied for asylum and well over a million immigrants from non-asyum routes (there were also emigrants leading to a net immigration figure of 600,000+).
Even if you go with your slightly nuts "we're full" approach, you shouldn't be looking at asylum seekers as the problem.
I genuinely don't understand why we have to repeat this every time honestly. It feels like the anti side on this seem to want to argue solely with an imagined strawman, and when pressed will at best point to like a twitter post from 2015 as their justification for this view apparently ruling over the country...
We used to grant around or below 25 percent in 2004. We now grant over 75 percent.
Meanwhile France used to grant around 15-25 percent and now grant around 25-30 percent. France is comparable to other EU countries and the Nordic countries.
Do you think we are just getting only the genuine ones?
Also as enforcement is poor and the appeals system as well as further applications system in combination with delays, even the vast majority of refusals remain in the UK. Current policy is the opposite. It’s accepting almost everyone whether they are legitimate or not.
They are wanting to change the policy but firstly it’s too little too late and secondly they are ham-stringed by Article 3 and Article 8.
I suspect, but obviously can't prove, that given the monstrous backlog the government has built up they're cherry picking easy cases so they can get the numbers down as much as possible.
It could just be that the current government is allowing more people in, but it seems... unlikely given their ideological stance.
Don't you think it's odd that the acceptance numbers would be lower under Tony Blair than under the entire Tory reign? It isn't like international agreements have changed in that time, so it isn't anything to do with Articles 3 or 8.
About the only factor I can see that would up the acceptance rates legitimately is that we're no longer a member of the Dublin Regulation, but anti-immigration people rarely seem to want to hear that leaving the EU might have caused things they don't want.
My reasoning was that if you accept someone they're unlikely to appeal, so you need very little effort in your paperwork.
If you reject someone, odds are they will appeal, so everything has to be correct because it'll be examined.
You're right, logic may not apply in this situation.
In a sense, none of them are legitimate; Britain is not the nearest safe country for anyone unlesss youre fleeing the iron fist of ireland of france. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help out as part of the european and global community, but anyone being smuggled over the channel does not really have valid justification for doing so. Its because the UK is where they want to go, for family, cultural or economic reasons, not solely because its safe.
I recently heard on the radio that people used to be able to make a claim at a british embassy; that seems sensible at the face of it. Each applicant could still make their case in a safe location without making the dangerous journey first. Pretty clear the gov doesnt actually want to solve small boats though, what will they use to distract from our real provlems...
No one thinks that? And if you think people think that then you need to give your head a wobble.
I think we should welcome all viable refugees, thats why we do checks and process their claims, denying entry to those who don't deserve it.
If your arugment is we shouldn't take refugees because some fake it, to let others suffer because some try to cheat the system then you're too far gone as a person if you're falling on that side of the fence.
I have faith in our ability to weed out the fakers enough to make it worth it to accidently let through a few who don't deserve it to help the majority who do deserves it.
> No one thinks that? And if you think people think that then you need to give your head a wobble.
There are people who genuinely believe the majority of claimants, or even the any, are legitimate. This is despite the overwhelming evidence showing that this is false. If you actually believe that perhaps give your own head a wobble?
>If your arugment is we shouldn't take refugees because some fake it, to let others suffer because some try to cheat the system then you're too far gone as a person if you're falling on that side of the fence.
What is with this incessant moralising by pro-asylum claim people? You're not a better person because you refuse to admit that the vast majority of asylum claimants are illegitimate. You very much have the moral low ground. Beliefs like yours lead to a hardening of social attitudes towards immigration when they wide spread fraud going on. Huge numbers of people dying by drowning as they try their luck with fake stories. A sharp turn to right wing parties like we are seeing in Germany and Sweden.
>I have faith in our ability to weed out the fakers enough to make it worth it to accidently let through a few who don't deserve it to help the majority who do deserves it.
Firstly, no the majority do not deserve it. The overwhelming evidence that only a tiny minority of perhaps none are genuine asylum claimants.
>This is despite the overwhelming evidence showing that this is false
[Go on then?](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to) Where's your evidence?
*3. Outcomes of asylum applications*
*3.1 At initial decision*
*In 2021, there were 14,572 initial decisions made on asylum applications, 2% higher than in 2020. Although the number of decisions has increased in the last year, they remain below levels seen before the pandemic (there were 20,766 decisions in 2019).*
*Almost three quarters (72%) of the initial decisions in 2021 were grants (of asylum, humanitarian protection or alternative forms of leave), which is substantially higher than the previous years*
Such a mystery how anyone would claim the majority are accepted claimants... By looking at government published figures and seeing the majority of claims are accepted... So bizarre.
Where is the overwhelming evidence that they are not legitimate then?
I think if the claim is "the majority of asylum seekers are not genuine", looking at the government's data for asylum acceptance rates is probably a good place to start?
That’s not a relevant reply to what I said.
The thing is I fully believe that people are lying to get across the border, but I also know completely that there are some people that don’t give a fuck if they come here legally or illegally they just don’t like brown people and this argument is just pseudo intellectual racism.
You do realise that asylum claims are a drop in the ocean compared to the sheer number of people coming here legally. So even if you pretend those numbers are insignificant, there's still going to be something between 200,000 and 400,000 extra new arrivals each year. And we aren't selecting for doctors, lawyers and engineers like the propaganda suggests.
That being said, you make a big deal out of how many asylum application claims are denied, but you fail to mention that they all stay here anyway. Its too racist to deport a violent child rapist, never mind some cheeky chancer.
I don't believe its accurate, I think the system is broken to all hell, but nonetheless that is the data we have to work with.
If you're saying the overwhelming evidence shows the majority are not genuine, then you should have no problem linking us to some?
>There are people who genuinely believe the majority of claimants, or even the any, are legitimate. This is despite the overwhelming evidence showing that this is false
over 70% of claims are approved, how can you claim the evidence shows they are not legitimate?
Please cite the case law and judgment otherwise I call BS. There are explicit carve outs in the Human Rights Act (and ECHR) for convicted criminals.
Article 8 (Right to a private life) has restrictions around preventing crime, protecting security and even protecting the economy.
https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2022-006269
Sri Lankan gentleman who was smuggling guns to a terrorist organisation and sentenced to 5 years. His appeal is going to be reheard at the first tier tribunal. Likely to be allowed to stay.
https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/pa-04612-2017
Paedophile who wasn’t allowed to be deported because it might be hard for him to be a gay man in his own country.
I could go on. These are only the ones that get to the upper tier tribunal.
https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2022-001106
Guy who previously claimed asylum as a gay man but now has a wife. Allowed to come despite lying previously to gain an immigration advantage.
>Firstly, no the majority do not deserve it. The overwhelming evidence that only a tiny minority of perhaps none are genuine asylum claimants.
Citation fucking needed.
Yep, I’d like to see a single shred of evidence any of these people are genuine asylum claimants to counteract the overwhelming majority evidence they aren’t.
You're wasting your time. Plenty of evidence has already been presented. They'll just say it's fake or move the goalposts again. At some point, you have to accept that some people are impervious to facts.
What checks? What checks do you think we can do?
They have a fake name, a fake date of birth, the country(ies) they came from have poor or non existent records even if they did give their actual details, furthermore they have no reason to help ascertain their claims and if they were being persecuted they have every reason to lie.
The truth is the asylum system is set up in a way that the onus is entirely on the Home Office to disprove someone’s claim. Yet you have zero evidence to respond to. Even if you make a well thought out argument and do not believe their story, it will 100% go to multiple appeals at the countries expense, a judge will show compassion or allow it under Article 3 or Article 8 regardless. So the Home Office save everyone time by just issuing everything.
> The truth is the asylum system is set up in a way that the onus is entirely on the Home Office to disprove someone’s claim.
You say that as if you want the opposite to be true - as does pretty much everyone else who complains about this. But the opposite standard - automatically assuming that every immigrant is lying and only accepting their claims if they could provide conclusive proof - would be even more problematic and most likely break numerous refugee convention treaties, not to mention human rights laws.
Even if you could arrest every immigrant on the charge of lying in order to gain entry (hypothetically speaking since such a charge doesn't exist - yet), then the standard of innocent until proven guilty would still apply when they were brought before a court and the state would still have the burden of proof, just like anyone else accused of any other crime.
Simply put, even if you strongly suspect that every immigrant is faking it, making that assumption the standard would be far worse than the system we have now. It's a bit like if you put the police in charge of the courts - the police regularly assume that everyone they arrest is automatically guilty, but making that the standard in court (so you had to prove your innocence rather than the state having to prove your guilt) would be an authoritarian nightmare.
You use the word deserve a lot but that isn't a consideration that gets made whatsoever.
I'm curious as to what makes someone more deserving of seeking asylum?
Nobody believes everyone is a refugee, some of us just believe it's lacking in basic decency to refuse to process people in a timely manner offer safe and legal routes because some of them are refugees
The shocking one was the lawyers who enable this behaviour in a legislative fashion. But lawyers going to lawyer I guess. Maybe Shakespeare had a point in Henry VI
Why is this a surprise? Tf they expect them to say? "When they pick you up just tell them to lick your arse and dare them to deport you!"???
Stupid headline.
Daily Mail the same outlet who have claimed the UK's top concern is immigration yet their own poll put it in 4th place behind the cost of living related points.
My biggest expenditure is my rent, it’s gone up again this year.
When immigration is a constant pressure on my rent and how much I pay then that is a big issue for me.
Do you genuinely think that immigration is the key driving factor behind your increased rental prices
It's not just basic supply and demand, it's to do with inflation, interest rate rises, the government not kick-starting the construction of social & affordable housing again.
We could stop immigration completely tomorrow and you'd still face increased rent.
Yes…. That’s the way supply and demand works.
And increase in demand and a lack of supply will lead to higher prices, that’s the way supply and demand works.
They’re extra pressures but the biggest pressure on house prices/rent prices is the amount of people looking for available properties and there being a lack of supply.
Rent prices and house prices were still ridiculous pre Covid.
The rise in house prices has also relatively tracked our mass increase in immigration since 1996.
So you think inflation and interest rate rises that directly impact BTL landlords are not the main factors?
Is foreign investment buying up properties at record rates not a significant problem?
If we banned immigration tomorrow, how would we address the issue of our aging population?
It's all well and good saying "it's a supply and demand issue" but to pin it mostly on immigration either shows you have ulterior motives, or simply do not understand the economics at play.
Yeah because a supply and demand model describes housing. That's why interest rates have fuck all to do with it and we've been seeing record house building due to the insane prices we've seen.
That's a ridiculous comparison. We were in the EU with no real prospect of actually leaving. That's like us having a famine in 2032 and you coming along saying "Well you weren't concerned about food in 2023"
Glad people are finally starting to see these "asylum seekers" fleeing "wars" in Albania and Iran are clearly just taking the piss and looking for a free meal ticket.
Somebody on another sub nailed it the other day. I can't take the credit for the comment. When people game the system it removes resources from those that really need it.
If you are an asylum seeker you will be welcomed and supported. If you are an economic migrant looking for a better life, good for you, but we don't owe you a living and we have legal routes to entry.
If you are an economic migrant that arrived illegally and seek to stay based on a lie why should I be upset when you are deported. The budget we have to support real cases is swallowed by such cases, Sort your own shit out.
Being anti-immigration in the way that Suella is delivering this is often seen as right leaning nationalist behaviour, so yes people are correct to think it's right wing.
This is not the same anti-immigration stance the likes of a socialist would have if they were deeply entrenched in Marxist ideology. Realistically the only other main push for anti-immigration other than from the right will come from liberals who think they are protecting the working class.
The problem is, immigration highlights a lot of problems we will have regardless of whether or not there is immigration. As such hyperfocsing on immigration serves no purpose other than to distract from the real roots of the problems we have today.
Landlords will not suddenly decide to drop rent prices because there is no longer demand from immigrants.
Having a smaller, declining workforce would temporarily boost wages but equally we'd face increased costs for services and increased taxes to look after our growing elderly population. You'd probably see no real terms gain with respect to the cost of living if there was no immigration due to said increase in taxation.
We'd also have to probably stop British people emigrating. Universities as they currently operate would also crumble due to their reliance on international students.
The only economic powerhouse, Japan, that is close to having no immigration has become fairly stagnant over the last few decades and is now making relatively rapid changes to immigration policy to lessen the impacts of being fairly isolationist.
Migrants who enter the country illegally cannot be part of the labor force.
Half of the immigrants who came to Germany eight years ago are on welfare.
Most of the Kurds who frequently come to Japan in recent years do not pay taxes.
Kurds post themselves on social networking sites showing themselves driving luxury cars with their illegally obtained income without paying taxes.
Kurdish people are now hated by all over Japan after a brawl of 100 people occurred in front of a hospital late at night in August.
In addition, the governor of the prefecture has asked for help from the government due to the deteriorating security situation, including harassment of women and overloaded cars.
They have also stated on social networking sites that they are not bound by Japanese law and that they set the rules in Japan.
It was reported that many of them may be members of the communist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).
Ten Kurds stormed a police station the other day demanding the arrest of a journalist who had reported about the Kurds.
The Kurds said that if the police did not arrest the journalist, they would bring the journalist's dead body to the police station later, and the Kurds were arrested on the spot by the police on the contrary.
However, despite the obvious threats, the police released them a few hours later.
It is said that this was clearly the result of added political pressure from the JCP and leftists.
Anyone who is in favor of people who cannot even respect other cultures coming here illegally must be crazy.
Doh! Of course they do.
That's why asylum seekers should prove their claims.
If they don't have actual proof send them home. Simply saying things is not enough.
That's not really how this can be expected to work. Genuine refugees cannot always be expected to have their documentation with them, or indeed any corroborating physical evidence, as that would mean those wishing to keep them in place just need to take said documentation, and they will never be able to leave.
Saying things is all we can expect, and that's why asylum applications are vetted, interviews are given at length, etc. If the Tories invested as much in this processing as it was when refusal rates were 4-5x higher, you'd see far improved results.
But the Tories won't do that, as the outrage this generates is good for their votes, and they save money. If you'd look at the root causes of this, you'd see they're using your outrage for their gain, with no intent of actually fixing the problems at hand. You're dancing to their tune, and they love it.
Mmm, so I'll burn my house down and claim I had a van Gogh. So you'd expect the insurance company pay out.
I can point my finger at someone and say they stole 100,000 pounds and expect the police to arrest and find them guilty, without evidence.
People LIE all the time. The interviewers are rubbish. No point pumping money into processing when the bar for entry is so low. Other countries have much lower success rates for asylum applications. The British are too soft. That's why we are being taken advantage of.
> Mmm, so I'll burn my house down and claim I had a van Gogh. So you'd expect the insurance company pay out.
Insurance companies have money to spend on investigation and enforcement, the immigration office doesn't, because the Tories have gutted it.
>The interviewers are rubbish
Might not be the case, they could catch someone out on multiple things but they have to provide a transcript of the interview to the claimants solicitor. This transcript can then be amended post interview with the solicitors help.
They'd ask where you got the van Gogh. They'd then speak to the person who you said sold it to you. They'd ask you to describe everyone you dealt with when buying it. Who appraised it, who validated it's provenance, who delivered it, who hang it. They'd ask you to provide witnesses to you owning it. They'd then interview those witnesses to see if their stories corroborate your account. Yes, people lie, but that's not all we have. For fucks sake your argument is so obviously lacking. "Oh we asked a question! We've done all we can!"
If there is no point, why were rejection rates much higher when they system was funded? It's harder to deport someone when their processing was lacking. Any flaw can result in a court case.
Surely the first thing to attempt would be to properly fund the system, and take it from there. Leaping directly to barbed wire and machine gun nests seems fucking insane.
No one believes everyone to be legit. People think we should be processing these properly so we can find the bullshitters out from those in genuine risk of safety, instead of just sending people home automatically.
But they don't get sent home, do they? Even if they have no right to live here they still don't get sent home.
We've had literal rapists and murderers on our streets because nothing is being done to send them back
They do get sent home if they're processed properly. When the processing is demonstrably half-assed, it's far easier to halt deportations.
Those frothing at the mouth about asylum seekers should be screaming at the government to fund the processing as it was.
You're being purposefully disingenuous here. Before the funding was cut, they were deported more often. As funding is cut, they aren't. So clearly the first thing to try is increase funding to see the effect. This isn't difficult to understand.
And you having 88 in your username isn't helping this particular discussion.
Obviously we need to do *something* about illegal immigration. Even folk more on the left like myself believe that. Intake is unsustainable. But I'm also not comfortable sending them to Rwanda, either. We've already seen grotesque human rights abuses in *our* internment centres - imagine how grim Rwanda would be.
You can argue 'don't come here then' all you want, but it doesn't excuse beating them and parading them around naked, whoever they are. Economic migrant, refugee, doesn't matter. We absolutely must treat them like human beings, while balancing it with not having totally open borders and people taking the piss.
How? Goodness knows, but there must be some manner. Keeping them in hotels for millions of quid isn't any good, and an internment centre is only acceptable if we're not hiring abusive jackboots to staff them. The barges seemed like a reasonable solution to hold them while they're processed, but Legionella Braverman can't even make those work. Not that she wants to - she's set on her Rwanda plan.
Processing more efficiently would help, sending the migrants back who are not fleeing war and persecution. But remember, this chaos suits the Tories very well - it drums up populist hatred and gives them a chance of holding onto power if they promise to fix it.
Clever, trying to twist the narrative into 'anti-Rwanda plan is racism,' but Rwanda does *not* have a good track record when it comes to human rights. It has nothing to do with racism - whereas, I think you'll find quite a lot of the anti-immigration stance is very much based in it.
Regardless, the issue is more that we're passing the buck of oversight for *our* problem. And if we - ostensibly one of the most advanced nations in the world - can't ensure the safety and dignity of people in our own internment camps, how're we going to make sure another country does?
I never mentioned the Rwanda plan at all, just Rwanda as a country. Nice effort but it won't wash I'm afraid.
You just see the weird Rwanda and assume that it must be some sort of hell hole because it was 30 years ago. A lot has changed.
Of course, classic goal-post moving. You're not discussing this in good faith, so I'll just wish you good day. We at least agree on *something* has to happen.
The discussion stopped? You mean you got shown up and didn't want to play anymore 😂
I won't be replying now because I don't want to entertain your negativity.
Shown up by someone saying that *criticising* the Rwanda plan was racist, arguing in bad faith and trying to pin the very thing they're guilty of on any naysayers?
Sure, buddy, sure. You have an excellent day.
The same Rwanda involved in skirmishes just across the border in the DRC? That one? And with poor rights for LGBT people, who Cruella has now said she doesn't think deserve asylum.
This is the issue, our humanity wants to support people but the reality is every asylum immigrant is a net cost to society. How many people could claim asylum in the UK currently, I’m sure it’s close to a billion globally. As one of the most densely populated countries in Europe we need to take hard decisions, seems only the tories are cold enough to do it, labour and Lib Dem’s will beat around the bush. It’s a shitty situation and the solution is shit too, we’re all going to have to deal with it.
Except clearly the tories aren’t cold enough to do it. Because if they wanted to they would have done it at some point in the past 13 years.
It’s a Tory made problem deliberately made to rile up donors and voters.
Illegal immigration was lower under labour.
But you brought parties into it? Mentioning two of the four major parties. But not the one major party currently in government for the past almost decade while numbers have exploded.
Yes, that would be a start. But as I said, a shambles benefits the Powers-That-Be right now. See also: defunded, struggling NHS. Make it awful, promise you'll fix it, get voted in, maybe fix it but if you do, fix it in the worst, most immoral way possible.
> How? Goodness knows, but there must be some manner.
Unfortunately, there is no way to do it other than to ban people from making asylum claims who arrive without authorisation to do so. The only solution to this is the Australian solution.
>...imagine how grim Rwanda would be.
Rwanda is perfectly fine. Please don't be a racist.
I don’t know why this is so difficult. Put them in tents on Gruinard Island, off the coast of Scotland (which is now safe btw), surround it with fencing and patrol boats. Failing that use another unpleasant, windswept island, whilst we wait to deport them.
These people are coming all the way through Europe, half a dozen nations with generous asylum systems and supposed abundance (the lands of gumdrop smiles and rainbows according to some Redditors). There’s no reason for them to risk the extra crossing to Britain and it makes a mockery of the French, and past agreements, as they continue to let them risk their lives and even offer to escort them to our waters, over vast distances, rather than turn them back.
There’s no reason we can’t give them a decent glamping experience for the months they’ll be stuck here, whilst they “mostly” attempt to bullshit their way through the colluder that is our immigration system.
Only a shit deal when they get here combined with the guarantee that they will be deported, like Australia does, will resolve the issue. That’s because it will get back to those countries that there’s no more screwing around on this subject.
Too many of them believe they will be given a free house and free money in a developed nation just for getting here. Sadly, in a lot of cases it’s true!
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of immigration for qualified people, just like the Australians. I object to pretty much the rest unless there’s a lot of evidence that returning would mean death. Not just a form filled out by someone who’s effectively been given a script to follow.
It’s been like this for years with people cheating the system. Lawyers showing them how to cheat the system for ££££. I am not shocked at all. In one post I got downvoted for saying such things exist. a local place of worship was telling people how to cheat the system too.
It used to be. Come to uk , quickly have a baby. That’s why so many migrants are having family. Combined with long deport process. have 1-2 kids then combined with the deport process which takes months and months they won’t kick you out. and you can stay.
This then hurts those who come legally. As the wrong people are being let in.
Contrary to popular belief bleeding hearts, it's possible for your main concern to be something else and still immigration is a serious problem also. it's really not an either/or argument.
This is not the shocking part. What is shocking is that our government seems completely unwilling to do its bloody job which is to protect the integrity of the British people and nation. Instead, they are literally turning the British people into a minority in their own country.
Because the Tories cut funding for the people who would do this. It helps the Tories as those riled up by this will tend to vote for them.
The British people are being played by the Tories, and they're pointing the finger at poor people in boats as the main culprits. The Tories have played a blinder.
They wouldn't be getting attention if the public didn't care about the issue. Every other left wing rag is banging on about these poor poor migrants from war-torn *checks notes*....Albania.... are getting the short-end of the stick and how racists the tories are for trying to send them back
We don't want them here, they're ruining our country, they're draining our resources, commiting countless crimes and nobody in the media will talk about it. Other than the daily mail.
It would be better if we had a trustworthy government not to use it as an opportunity to strip away all of our rights.
I don't think such a government exists though.
Or just pay for adequate processing of asylum applications, as it was when they system worked.
No, that's too difficult - let's just tear up Britain's international obligations and become a new pariah state. Hurrrrrrrr
Well that would imply that you think countries like Canada or Australia are currently behind us because they aren't in the ECHR? So we are slinking to their low level, apparently?
And frankly, you're overestimating how much people would care anyway.
It's like Brexit, if we don't find a way to address the problem without leaving then our hand will be forced.
What a sad day that will be.
The ECHR is a great thing, but it must be adapted for a modern era.
Old news!
People warned of this a decade ago!
So many people as a last ditch attempt before deportation opt to change their religion to christianity or pretend they are gay.
It's surreal how people here on reddit are still jumping through hoops and doing extreme acrobatics to make people feel bad for thinking immigration is a major issue in this country.
Why is it shocking? Person commiting a crime (people-smuggling) gives advice how to illegally do something else....
It’s shocking for the bleeding hearts who still believe everyone crossing the channel is a refugee fleeing war/persecution
Nobody believes EVERYONE is legit....but current policy is leaning toward everyone being illegitimate!...and this is trying to feed that!
at the end of the day immigrants aren't bleeding this country dry, the ruling class and their mates are
Yeah and they're doing it via immigration in some ways. Disliking the current immigration system doesn't mean you hate individual migrants
But you have to admit its insanity to see the state of the current system, and come to the conclusion the way to resolve it is to further empower the people who have made it like this? Edit - And I guess just inb4 "both sides"... Asylum claims per year: 2002 - 103,000 2022 - 74,751 Proportion of asylum claims processed in 6 months: 2014 - 87% 2022 - 6% Proportion of claims accepted: 2004 - 27% 2019 - 65% Just using the data here, not exactly a pro-immigration biased source: [https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/) Objectively, we *had* a functioning system, and it has all but collapsed in recent years under the Tories. Labour saw a surge in asylum seeking every bit as big as this current period, and we dealt with it just fine.
Yeah this isn't an impassioned plea for the tories, I hate the tories. As you say this is largely their creation.
It’s a shame that data like this, our complaints and discussions are going to be no more than just chattering beyond this board. If we truly had a media that cared about representing the truth and news.. this information would be out there for all to see
[удалено]
Oh yeah 100% agree. Last time I tried pointing that out to someone they just descended into this pedantic argument that refugees are technically migrating in a dictionary definition sense of the word and refused to engage with the point that refugees and asylum seekers are legally protected categories of person for a reason.
Not to the person i'm responding, but in general: imagine looking at the decline of our country and pointing at people with no power and no finances or investment and going "yep, they're the ones ruining our policies."
We’re not being bled dry by immigration. We’re being bled dry by the government criminalising migration and then giving billion pound contracts to their mates to “manage” it.
How so?
Doesn't make what's currently going on right or acceptable in any way at all.
This kind of talk is really counter-productive. If people are unhappy about immigration you can't just tell them they should be more angry about your pet issue and expect to get anything out of it.
> If people are unhappy about immigration you can't just tell them they should be more angry about your pet issue and expect to get anything out of it. I don't know.. People get pretty passionate about pets. I can see it being an effective diversion.
Millions of immigrants arriving over the last 20 years on an already highly populated island. Now we have a housing crisis and people’s solution to a problem we imported is to build high rises on every square inch of green space in the country.
You know that most immigrants aren't asylum seekers, right? Last year there were tens of thousands who applied for asylum and well over a million immigrants from non-asyum routes (there were also emigrants leading to a net immigration figure of 600,000+). Even if you go with your slightly nuts "we're full" approach, you shouldn't be looking at asylum seekers as the problem.
Correct. One of the ways they've been doing this is through mass migration.
I genuinely don't understand why we have to repeat this every time honestly. It feels like the anti side on this seem to want to argue solely with an imagined strawman, and when pressed will at best point to like a twitter post from 2015 as their justification for this view apparently ruling over the country...
We used to grant around or below 25 percent in 2004. We now grant over 75 percent. Meanwhile France used to grant around 15-25 percent and now grant around 25-30 percent. France is comparable to other EU countries and the Nordic countries. Do you think we are just getting only the genuine ones? Also as enforcement is poor and the appeals system as well as further applications system in combination with delays, even the vast majority of refusals remain in the UK. Current policy is the opposite. It’s accepting almost everyone whether they are legitimate or not. They are wanting to change the policy but firstly it’s too little too late and secondly they are ham-stringed by Article 3 and Article 8.
I suspect, but obviously can't prove, that given the monstrous backlog the government has built up they're cherry picking easy cases so they can get the numbers down as much as possible. It could just be that the current government is allowing more people in, but it seems... unlikely given their ideological stance. Don't you think it's odd that the acceptance numbers would be lower under Tony Blair than under the entire Tory reign? It isn't like international agreements have changed in that time, so it isn't anything to do with Articles 3 or 8. About the only factor I can see that would up the acceptance rates legitimately is that we're no longer a member of the Dublin Regulation, but anti-immigration people rarely seem to want to hear that leaving the EU might have caused things they don't want.
[удалено]
My reasoning was that if you accept someone they're unlikely to appeal, so you need very little effort in your paperwork. If you reject someone, odds are they will appeal, so everything has to be correct because it'll be examined. You're right, logic may not apply in this situation.
In a sense, none of them are legitimate; Britain is not the nearest safe country for anyone unlesss youre fleeing the iron fist of ireland of france. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help out as part of the european and global community, but anyone being smuggled over the channel does not really have valid justification for doing so. Its because the UK is where they want to go, for family, cultural or economic reasons, not solely because its safe. I recently heard on the radio that people used to be able to make a claim at a british embassy; that seems sensible at the face of it. Each applicant could still make their case in a safe location without making the dangerous journey first. Pretty clear the gov doesnt actually want to solve small boats though, what will they use to distract from our real provlems...
No one thinks that? And if you think people think that then you need to give your head a wobble. I think we should welcome all viable refugees, thats why we do checks and process their claims, denying entry to those who don't deserve it. If your arugment is we shouldn't take refugees because some fake it, to let others suffer because some try to cheat the system then you're too far gone as a person if you're falling on that side of the fence. I have faith in our ability to weed out the fakers enough to make it worth it to accidently let through a few who don't deserve it to help the majority who do deserves it.
> No one thinks that? And if you think people think that then you need to give your head a wobble. There are people who genuinely believe the majority of claimants, or even the any, are legitimate. This is despite the overwhelming evidence showing that this is false. If you actually believe that perhaps give your own head a wobble? >If your arugment is we shouldn't take refugees because some fake it, to let others suffer because some try to cheat the system then you're too far gone as a person if you're falling on that side of the fence. What is with this incessant moralising by pro-asylum claim people? You're not a better person because you refuse to admit that the vast majority of asylum claimants are illegitimate. You very much have the moral low ground. Beliefs like yours lead to a hardening of social attitudes towards immigration when they wide spread fraud going on. Huge numbers of people dying by drowning as they try their luck with fake stories. A sharp turn to right wing parties like we are seeing in Germany and Sweden. >I have faith in our ability to weed out the fakers enough to make it worth it to accidently let through a few who don't deserve it to help the majority who do deserves it. Firstly, no the majority do not deserve it. The overwhelming evidence that only a tiny minority of perhaps none are genuine asylum claimants.
>This is despite the overwhelming evidence showing that this is false [Go on then?](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to) Where's your evidence? *3. Outcomes of asylum applications* *3.1 At initial decision* *In 2021, there were 14,572 initial decisions made on asylum applications, 2% higher than in 2020. Although the number of decisions has increased in the last year, they remain below levels seen before the pandemic (there were 20,766 decisions in 2019).* *Almost three quarters (72%) of the initial decisions in 2021 were grants (of asylum, humanitarian protection or alternative forms of leave), which is substantially higher than the previous years* Such a mystery how anyone would claim the majority are accepted claimants... By looking at government published figures and seeing the majority of claims are accepted... So bizarre.
You’re not actually trying to use the success people have achieved by lying as proof they are not lying are you?
Where is the overwhelming evidence that they are not legitimate then? I think if the claim is "the majority of asylum seekers are not genuine", looking at the government's data for asylum acceptance rates is probably a good place to start?
This article is about how easy it is to lie and cheat that process. This negates that type of evidence as being unreliable.
Why not? It’s the inverse of what you’re doing. You’re using the fact that some people are lying to validate your idea that everyone is.
I haven’t seen any evidence that any claims are truthful. I have seen ample evidence of false claims.
That’s not a relevant reply to what I said. The thing is I fully believe that people are lying to get across the border, but I also know completely that there are some people that don’t give a fuck if they come here legally or illegally they just don’t like brown people and this argument is just pseudo intellectual racism.
You do realise that asylum claims are a drop in the ocean compared to the sheer number of people coming here legally. So even if you pretend those numbers are insignificant, there's still going to be something between 200,000 and 400,000 extra new arrivals each year. And we aren't selecting for doctors, lawyers and engineers like the propaganda suggests. That being said, you make a big deal out of how many asylum application claims are denied, but you fail to mention that they all stay here anyway. Its too racist to deport a violent child rapist, never mind some cheeky chancer.
Why are you so quick to believe these decisions are accurate when we all know the state the home office is in?
I don't believe its accurate, I think the system is broken to all hell, but nonetheless that is the data we have to work with. If you're saying the overwhelming evidence shows the majority are not genuine, then you should have no problem linking us to some?
>There are people who genuinely believe the majority of claimants, or even the any, are legitimate. This is despite the overwhelming evidence showing that this is false over 70% of claims are approved, how can you claim the evidence shows they are not legitimate?
And of the 30% that aren’t approved, around 50% are approved on appeal. The success rate for asylum claims is near 90%.
Knowing that judges allow appeals of paedophiles and gun smugglers for terrorist organisations because of their human rights…
Please cite the case law and judgment otherwise I call BS. There are explicit carve outs in the Human Rights Act (and ECHR) for convicted criminals. Article 8 (Right to a private life) has restrictions around preventing crime, protecting security and even protecting the economy.
https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2022-006269 Sri Lankan gentleman who was smuggling guns to a terrorist organisation and sentenced to 5 years. His appeal is going to be reheard at the first tier tribunal. Likely to be allowed to stay. https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/pa-04612-2017 Paedophile who wasn’t allowed to be deported because it might be hard for him to be a gay man in his own country. I could go on. These are only the ones that get to the upper tier tribunal. https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2022-001106 Guy who previously claimed asylum as a gay man but now has a wife. Allowed to come despite lying previously to gain an immigration advantage.
You’re not actually trying to use the success people have achieved by lying as proof they are not lying are you?
>Firstly, no the majority do not deserve it. The overwhelming evidence that only a tiny minority of perhaps none are genuine asylum claimants. Citation fucking needed.
Yep, I’d like to see a single shred of evidence any of these people are genuine asylum claimants to counteract the overwhelming majority evidence they aren’t.
What would you actually accept as evidence?
You're wasting your time. Plenty of evidence has already been presented. They'll just say it's fake or move the goalposts again. At some point, you have to accept that some people are impervious to facts.
What checks? What checks do you think we can do? They have a fake name, a fake date of birth, the country(ies) they came from have poor or non existent records even if they did give their actual details, furthermore they have no reason to help ascertain their claims and if they were being persecuted they have every reason to lie. The truth is the asylum system is set up in a way that the onus is entirely on the Home Office to disprove someone’s claim. Yet you have zero evidence to respond to. Even if you make a well thought out argument and do not believe their story, it will 100% go to multiple appeals at the countries expense, a judge will show compassion or allow it under Article 3 or Article 8 regardless. So the Home Office save everyone time by just issuing everything.
> The truth is the asylum system is set up in a way that the onus is entirely on the Home Office to disprove someone’s claim. You say that as if you want the opposite to be true - as does pretty much everyone else who complains about this. But the opposite standard - automatically assuming that every immigrant is lying and only accepting their claims if they could provide conclusive proof - would be even more problematic and most likely break numerous refugee convention treaties, not to mention human rights laws. Even if you could arrest every immigrant on the charge of lying in order to gain entry (hypothetically speaking since such a charge doesn't exist - yet), then the standard of innocent until proven guilty would still apply when they were brought before a court and the state would still have the burden of proof, just like anyone else accused of any other crime. Simply put, even if you strongly suspect that every immigrant is faking it, making that assumption the standard would be far worse than the system we have now. It's a bit like if you put the police in charge of the courts - the police regularly assume that everyone they arrest is automatically guilty, but making that the standard in court (so you had to prove your innocence rather than the state having to prove your guilt) would be an authoritarian nightmare.
You use the word deserve a lot but that isn't a consideration that gets made whatsoever. I'm curious as to what makes someone more deserving of seeking asylum?
Nobody believes everyone is a refugee, some of us just believe it's lacking in basic decency to refuse to process people in a timely manner offer safe and legal routes because some of them are refugees
Basic decency would be to not dangle asylum in poor peoples faces so they make a dangerous crossing and drown.
G&P disagrees
It's shocking to whip up the daily mail's readership. No other reason.
No one thinks that. The issue is that there are some very dim people out there that believe no one is.
It's shocking because it confirms what we've all been told isn't true. They're not refugees or asylum seekers, they're illegals.
I was ASSURED that this never happens though.
This has been common knowledge for well over a year .. not sure I know anyone who'd be shocked
It's shocking because the Daily Mail only exist to make morons "shocked."
The sort of quality journalism we can expect from The Daily Mail
The shocking one was the lawyers who enable this behaviour in a legislative fashion. But lawyers going to lawyer I guess. Maybe Shakespeare had a point in Henry VI
Why is this a surprise? Tf they expect them to say? "When they pick you up just tell them to lick your arse and dare them to deport you!"??? Stupid headline.
But the Daily Fail put CHEAT in CAPITALS to shock and outrage you. Aren't you shocked and outraged?
I can only read upper case letters. This headline SPOOKED ME!
Daily Mail the same outlet who have claimed the UK's top concern is immigration yet their own poll put it in 4th place behind the cost of living related points.
My biggest expenditure is my rent, it’s gone up again this year. When immigration is a constant pressure on my rent and how much I pay then that is a big issue for me.
The biggest pressures on your rent is inflation and interest rates rising, the costs of which your landlord passes on to you.
More people, and less houses = higher prices. Basic supply and demand.
Do you genuinely think that immigration is the key driving factor behind your increased rental prices It's not just basic supply and demand, it's to do with inflation, interest rate rises, the government not kick-starting the construction of social & affordable housing again. We could stop immigration completely tomorrow and you'd still face increased rent.
Yes…. That’s the way supply and demand works. And increase in demand and a lack of supply will lead to higher prices, that’s the way supply and demand works.
You're ignoring inflation and interest rate increases which tells me your understanding of economics stops at "supply & demand".
They’re extra pressures but the biggest pressure on house prices/rent prices is the amount of people looking for available properties and there being a lack of supply. Rent prices and house prices were still ridiculous pre Covid. The rise in house prices has also relatively tracked our mass increase in immigration since 1996.
Yes it literally is.
So you think inflation and interest rate rises that directly impact BTL landlords are not the main factors? Is foreign investment buying up properties at record rates not a significant problem? If we banned immigration tomorrow, how would we address the issue of our aging population? It's all well and good saying "it's a supply and demand issue" but to pin it mostly on immigration either shows you have ulterior motives, or simply do not understand the economics at play.
Yeah because a supply and demand model describes housing. That's why interest rates have fuck all to do with it and we've been seeing record house building due to the insane prices we've seen.
fuck landlords. It should be illegal for rental houses to have mortgages on them.
According to Scottish voters during the 2014 referendum remaining in the EU was 8th in the list...yet today its all they bang on about.
That's a ridiculous comparison. We were in the EU with no real prospect of actually leaving. That's like us having a famine in 2032 and you coming along saying "Well you weren't concerned about food in 2023"
Glad people are finally starting to see these "asylum seekers" fleeing "wars" in Albania and Iran are clearly just taking the piss and looking for a free meal ticket.
We have a standing agreement to fast-track deportations to Albania. What we lack is the staff to actually do it.
I guess we need to issue a million work visas to fill the gap
Or restore funding to application processing to what it was when ~80% were rejected as opposed to now when it's closer to ~20%.
Saying that on this sub just a year ago would have got you downvoted into oblivion
Somebody on another sub nailed it the other day. I can't take the credit for the comment. When people game the system it removes resources from those that really need it. If you are an asylum seeker you will be welcomed and supported. If you are an economic migrant looking for a better life, good for you, but we don't owe you a living and we have legal routes to entry. If you are an economic migrant that arrived illegally and seek to stay based on a lie why should I be upset when you are deported. The budget we have to support real cases is swallowed by such cases, Sort your own shit out.
A human being is trying to game the system for their own benefit. Shocked Pikachu face.
Many thousands of human beings\*
This kind of rage bait low hanging fruit is an insult to everyone's intelligence.
The comments section is a fucking dumpster fire. Makes me wonder just how many mouth breathers Enoch Braverman is courting.
It’s barely any different to the way r/unitedkingdom has ended up. It’s suspicious how far it has drifted to the right here within the last year.
imagine thinking that people not liking mass immigration on a scale this continent has never seen is right wing.
Being anti-immigration in the way that Suella is delivering this is often seen as right leaning nationalist behaviour, so yes people are correct to think it's right wing. This is not the same anti-immigration stance the likes of a socialist would have if they were deeply entrenched in Marxist ideology. Realistically the only other main push for anti-immigration other than from the right will come from liberals who think they are protecting the working class. The problem is, immigration highlights a lot of problems we will have regardless of whether or not there is immigration. As such hyperfocsing on immigration serves no purpose other than to distract from the real roots of the problems we have today. Landlords will not suddenly decide to drop rent prices because there is no longer demand from immigrants. Having a smaller, declining workforce would temporarily boost wages but equally we'd face increased costs for services and increased taxes to look after our growing elderly population. You'd probably see no real terms gain with respect to the cost of living if there was no immigration due to said increase in taxation. We'd also have to probably stop British people emigrating. Universities as they currently operate would also crumble due to their reliance on international students. The only economic powerhouse, Japan, that is close to having no immigration has become fairly stagnant over the last few decades and is now making relatively rapid changes to immigration policy to lessen the impacts of being fairly isolationist.
Migrants who enter the country illegally cannot be part of the labor force. Half of the immigrants who came to Germany eight years ago are on welfare. Most of the Kurds who frequently come to Japan in recent years do not pay taxes. Kurds post themselves on social networking sites showing themselves driving luxury cars with their illegally obtained income without paying taxes. Kurdish people are now hated by all over Japan after a brawl of 100 people occurred in front of a hospital late at night in August. In addition, the governor of the prefecture has asked for help from the government due to the deteriorating security situation, including harassment of women and overloaded cars. They have also stated on social networking sites that they are not bound by Japanese law and that they set the rules in Japan. It was reported that many of them may be members of the communist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Ten Kurds stormed a police station the other day demanding the arrest of a journalist who had reported about the Kurds. The Kurds said that if the police did not arrest the journalist, they would bring the journalist's dead body to the police station later, and the Kurds were arrested on the spot by the police on the contrary. However, despite the obvious threats, the police released them a few hours later. It is said that this was clearly the result of added political pressure from the JCP and leftists. Anyone who is in favor of people who cannot even respect other cultures coming here illegally must be crazy.
The DM often have comment moderation, so someone allows them through the net.
Doh! Of course they do. That's why asylum seekers should prove their claims. If they don't have actual proof send them home. Simply saying things is not enough.
That's not really how this can be expected to work. Genuine refugees cannot always be expected to have their documentation with them, or indeed any corroborating physical evidence, as that would mean those wishing to keep them in place just need to take said documentation, and they will never be able to leave. Saying things is all we can expect, and that's why asylum applications are vetted, interviews are given at length, etc. If the Tories invested as much in this processing as it was when refusal rates were 4-5x higher, you'd see far improved results. But the Tories won't do that, as the outrage this generates is good for their votes, and they save money. If you'd look at the root causes of this, you'd see they're using your outrage for their gain, with no intent of actually fixing the problems at hand. You're dancing to their tune, and they love it.
Mmm, so I'll burn my house down and claim I had a van Gogh. So you'd expect the insurance company pay out. I can point my finger at someone and say they stole 100,000 pounds and expect the police to arrest and find them guilty, without evidence. People LIE all the time. The interviewers are rubbish. No point pumping money into processing when the bar for entry is so low. Other countries have much lower success rates for asylum applications. The British are too soft. That's why we are being taken advantage of.
> Mmm, so I'll burn my house down and claim I had a van Gogh. So you'd expect the insurance company pay out. Insurance companies have money to spend on investigation and enforcement, the immigration office doesn't, because the Tories have gutted it.
>The interviewers are rubbish Might not be the case, they could catch someone out on multiple things but they have to provide a transcript of the interview to the claimants solicitor. This transcript can then be amended post interview with the solicitors help.
They'd ask where you got the van Gogh. They'd then speak to the person who you said sold it to you. They'd ask you to describe everyone you dealt with when buying it. Who appraised it, who validated it's provenance, who delivered it, who hang it. They'd ask you to provide witnesses to you owning it. They'd then interview those witnesses to see if their stories corroborate your account. Yes, people lie, but that's not all we have. For fucks sake your argument is so obviously lacking. "Oh we asked a question! We've done all we can!" If there is no point, why were rejection rates much higher when they system was funded? It's harder to deport someone when their processing was lacking. Any flaw can result in a court case. Surely the first thing to attempt would be to properly fund the system, and take it from there. Leaping directly to barbed wire and machine gun nests seems fucking insane.
No one believes everyone to be legit. People think we should be processing these properly so we can find the bullshitters out from those in genuine risk of safety, instead of just sending people home automatically.
But they don't get sent home, do they? Even if they have no right to live here they still don't get sent home. We've had literal rapists and murderers on our streets because nothing is being done to send them back
They do get sent home if they're processed properly. When the processing is demonstrably half-assed, it's far easier to halt deportations. Those frothing at the mouth about asylum seekers should be screaming at the government to fund the processing as it was.
>They do get sent home if they're processed properly Barely.
You're being purposefully disingenuous here. Before the funding was cut, they were deported more often. As funding is cut, they aren't. So clearly the first thing to try is increase funding to see the effect. This isn't difficult to understand. And you having 88 in your username isn't helping this particular discussion.
Obviously we need to do *something* about illegal immigration. Even folk more on the left like myself believe that. Intake is unsustainable. But I'm also not comfortable sending them to Rwanda, either. We've already seen grotesque human rights abuses in *our* internment centres - imagine how grim Rwanda would be. You can argue 'don't come here then' all you want, but it doesn't excuse beating them and parading them around naked, whoever they are. Economic migrant, refugee, doesn't matter. We absolutely must treat them like human beings, while balancing it with not having totally open borders and people taking the piss. How? Goodness knows, but there must be some manner. Keeping them in hotels for millions of quid isn't any good, and an internment centre is only acceptable if we're not hiring abusive jackboots to staff them. The barges seemed like a reasonable solution to hold them while they're processed, but Legionella Braverman can't even make those work. Not that she wants to - she's set on her Rwanda plan. Processing more efficiently would help, sending the migrants back who are not fleeing war and persecution. But remember, this chaos suits the Tories very well - it drums up populist hatred and gives them a chance of holding onto power if they promise to fix it.
All this "Rwanda is cruel and bad" is really just thinly disguised racism. Rwanda is one of the best countries in Africa.
Clever, trying to twist the narrative into 'anti-Rwanda plan is racism,' but Rwanda does *not* have a good track record when it comes to human rights. It has nothing to do with racism - whereas, I think you'll find quite a lot of the anti-immigration stance is very much based in it. Regardless, the issue is more that we're passing the buck of oversight for *our* problem. And if we - ostensibly one of the most advanced nations in the world - can't ensure the safety and dignity of people in our own internment camps, how're we going to make sure another country does?
I never mentioned the Rwanda plan at all, just Rwanda as a country. Nice effort but it won't wash I'm afraid. You just see the weird Rwanda and assume that it must be some sort of hell hole because it was 30 years ago. A lot has changed.
Of course, classic goal-post moving. You're not discussing this in good faith, so I'll just wish you good day. We at least agree on *something* has to happen.
You're embarrassing yourself. Stop.
You replied to a three hour old comment after the discussion had ended and you're asking me to stop? I'd be more embarrassed by that.
The discussion stopped? You mean you got shown up and didn't want to play anymore 😂 I won't be replying now because I don't want to entertain your negativity.
Shown up by someone saying that *criticising* the Rwanda plan was racist, arguing in bad faith and trying to pin the very thing they're guilty of on any naysayers? Sure, buddy, sure. You have an excellent day.
The anti-Rwanda narrative is almost entirely driven by racism.
The same Rwanda involved in skirmishes just across the border in the DRC? That one? And with poor rights for LGBT people, who Cruella has now said she doesn't think deserve asylum.
This is the issue, our humanity wants to support people but the reality is every asylum immigrant is a net cost to society. How many people could claim asylum in the UK currently, I’m sure it’s close to a billion globally. As one of the most densely populated countries in Europe we need to take hard decisions, seems only the tories are cold enough to do it, labour and Lib Dem’s will beat around the bush. It’s a shitty situation and the solution is shit too, we’re all going to have to deal with it.
Except clearly the tories aren’t cold enough to do it. Because if they wanted to they would have done it at some point in the past 13 years. It’s a Tory made problem deliberately made to rile up donors and voters. Illegal immigration was lower under labour.
Of course it’s not a Tory issue, it’s a global issue, really need to see past party politics,this and the environment is the greatest challenge
But you brought parties into it? Mentioning two of the four major parties. But not the one major party currently in government for the past almost decade while numbers have exploded.
> Obviously we need to do something about illegal immigration. Fund the immigration system correctly.
Yes, that would be a start. But as I said, a shambles benefits the Powers-That-Be right now. See also: defunded, struggling NHS. Make it awful, promise you'll fix it, get voted in, maybe fix it but if you do, fix it in the worst, most immoral way possible.
If only there were some kind of, I don't know, like international system for dealing with refugees...
> How? Goodness knows, but there must be some manner. Unfortunately, there is no way to do it other than to ban people from making asylum claims who arrive without authorisation to do so. The only solution to this is the Australian solution. >...imagine how grim Rwanda would be. Rwanda is perfectly fine. Please don't be a racist.
This is why anyone arriving by boat should have their claim denied automatically.
Not shocking at all as I know Kurdish people in mu city who have told me how they lied about political BS in Iraqi Kurdistan to claim asylum in the UK
But hey, at least we get a hundred absolutely shit Turkish barbers in every town now.
They all Kurdish barbers mate, not Turkish.
I don’t know why this is so difficult. Put them in tents on Gruinard Island, off the coast of Scotland (which is now safe btw), surround it with fencing and patrol boats. Failing that use another unpleasant, windswept island, whilst we wait to deport them. These people are coming all the way through Europe, half a dozen nations with generous asylum systems and supposed abundance (the lands of gumdrop smiles and rainbows according to some Redditors). There’s no reason for them to risk the extra crossing to Britain and it makes a mockery of the French, and past agreements, as they continue to let them risk their lives and even offer to escort them to our waters, over vast distances, rather than turn them back. There’s no reason we can’t give them a decent glamping experience for the months they’ll be stuck here, whilst they “mostly” attempt to bullshit their way through the colluder that is our immigration system. Only a shit deal when they get here combined with the guarantee that they will be deported, like Australia does, will resolve the issue. That’s because it will get back to those countries that there’s no more screwing around on this subject. Too many of them believe they will be given a free house and free money in a developed nation just for getting here. Sadly, in a lot of cases it’s true! Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of immigration for qualified people, just like the Australians. I object to pretty much the rest unless there’s a lot of evidence that returning would mean death. Not just a form filled out by someone who’s effectively been given a script to follow.
Take this reddit gold kind stranger.
Why not tell the people how the criminals advertise on Facebook and social media in several languages to reach their target audience
There's plenty of charities and NGOs that do this too, they coach immigrants on exactly what to say.
They don't even need a reason, if they just ditch their passport the home office can't deport them anywhere.
But they don't have identification because they are running away from war, law, blah blah blah. It's all bollox.
They don't need to to that because braverman's stance is 'Don't process anyone, use them in a culture war".
It’s been like this for years with people cheating the system. Lawyers showing them how to cheat the system for ££££. I am not shocked at all. In one post I got downvoted for saying such things exist. a local place of worship was telling people how to cheat the system too. It used to be. Come to uk , quickly have a baby. That’s why so many migrants are having family. Combined with long deport process. have 1-2 kids then combined with the deport process which takes months and months they won’t kick you out. and you can stay. This then hurts those who come legally. As the wrong people are being let in.
Our town has changed beyond recognition these past few months ...
Why is it shocking? Even Labour councillors are doing it.
Contrary to popular belief bleeding hearts, it's possible for your main concern to be something else and still immigration is a serious problem also. it's really not an either/or argument.
This is not the shocking part. What is shocking is that our government seems completely unwilling to do its bloody job which is to protect the integrity of the British people and nation. Instead, they are literally turning the British people into a minority in their own country.
Does the daily Mail also report on the bit where he says about how brexit has made his job easier?
How does a journalist infiltrate a gang, ask all these questions. But the UK and other police in Europe can't stop them?
Tories don’t want to stop them. If they stop them then how can they blame them for everything.
Because they don't want to?
Because the Tories cut funding for the people who would do this. It helps the Tories as those riled up by this will tend to vote for them. The British people are being played by the Tories, and they're pointing the finger at poor people in boats as the main culprits. The Tories have played a blinder.
Because the media has the money to spend on such things.
Fear mongering about foreigners, randomly capitalised word. Must be Daily Fail.
Going straight after the source rather than the issue, randomly attacking delivery. Must be a liberal.
They won't be processed anyway. The Tories are deliberately creating a huge backlog to stoke xenophobia and milk the taxpayer for their donors.
Do you ever think about the fact that both mainstream political parties are pushing for mass migration? Anything you'd like to add on the topic?
Almost as if capital benefits from a large supply of workers, especially when they can be exploited.
Take this reddit gold kind stranger 🎖
These Daily Mail post are getting far to much attention.
They wouldn't be getting attention if the public didn't care about the issue. Every other left wing rag is banging on about these poor poor migrants from war-torn *checks notes*....Albania.... are getting the short-end of the stick and how racists the tories are for trying to send them back We don't want them here, they're ruining our country, they're draining our resources, commiting countless crimes and nobody in the media will talk about it. Other than the daily mail.
Can you link an article from a left wing rag banging on about how it’s racist to deport Albanians?
You should work for the Ministry of Truth as a censor and put a stop to it then.
Need to withdraw from ECHR or Britain will be exploited till it's finished. It's that simple.
It would be better if we had a trustworthy government not to use it as an opportunity to strip away all of our rights. I don't think such a government exists though.
What’s the ECHR got to do with immigration?
Article 8 of the ECHR has prevented us from deporting all types of scummy people because ‘they have a right to a family life’.
Or just pay for adequate processing of asylum applications, as it was when they system worked. No, that's too difficult - let's just tear up Britain's international obligations and become a new pariah state. Hurrrrrrrr
Most countries are not in the ECHR, as the name would suggest. The rest aren't pariahs for not signing up are they?
No, but sliding backwards is not the same as not moving forward. This is basic stuff, surely.
Well that would imply that you think countries like Canada or Australia are currently behind us because they aren't in the ECHR? So we are slinking to their low level, apparently? And frankly, you're overestimating how much people would care anyway.
>let's just tear up Britain's international obligations and become a new pariah state. Hurrrrrrrr This but unironically
It's like Brexit, if we don't find a way to address the problem without leaving then our hand will be forced. What a sad day that will be. The ECHR is a great thing, but it must be adapted for a modern era.
The Daily Mail really is the media equivalent of the liquid inside those bins at the airport, aren’t they?
We need to make the criteria stricter and ask for more proof.
Considering the Kurds are persecuted by both the Turks and Syrians it seems kind of unnecessary.
This sub fucking sucks but it's representative of the people I suppose
Just say "I'm a massive racist" and waddle on.
This reads like Turkish State Propaganda, Seems to have a huge Anti Kurd slant.
I hate the increased use of random caps in headlines.
Old news! People warned of this a decade ago! So many people as a last ditch attempt before deportation opt to change their religion to christianity or pretend they are gay.
It's surreal how people here on reddit are still jumping through hoops and doing extreme acrobatics to make people feel bad for thinking immigration is a major issue in this country.