|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 27, 2022 16:36:19 GMT
Remember Zany that the majority of people who do claim asylum in this country are found by our authorities to be genuinely escaping persecution. So may I ask why you feel as you do. Those found to be genuinely escaping persecution have been forced out of their homes against their will, have lost pretty much everything they have and are faced with having to rebuild a life in a strange country through (in the vast majority of cases) no fault of their own. Should they not be able to do so where possible in a country where perhaps they have extended family to help them or they at least can speak the language. Is that not in the very nature of why asylum exists? Partly because I don't trust the vetting system (The odds seem stacked against hardly any being economic migrants) Partly because England is crowded but parts are not and beggars should not be choosers. If you offered food to a homeless man would you expect to have him choose from a menu or take what is offered? Equally if you offer an asylum seeker a safe home, should he choose a more crowded and expensive area? I have no objection is said asylum seeker makes good on his own in our great and free country and then moves himself. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 27, 2022 16:38:29 GMT
I think the UK press has been insulting the French and the EU for years, even before Brexit. I think Brexit demonstrated to them that these insults were not the minority but the majority. Calling them Fascists, Nazis unelected bureaucrats and anything else you fancied while expecting them to help you out. You must be nuts. I think Boris in a bid to be popular with Brexiters went on with the same insults. Then you turn up and say 'Why aren't our neighbours doing more to help us, It would be funny if it wasn't so damaging. So your question to me is back to front. I don't think the French authorities would be at all surprised if our efforts were desultory, had they treated us like we have treated them. What a load of bollox. Instead of coming out with all that minority appeasing left wing crap, just say you're not going to answer the question. I answered the question very clearly and truthfully with a great deal of thought. Sorry the answer wasn't a one liner you liked. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 27, 2022 21:11:04 GMT
Remember Zany that the majority of people who do claim asylum in this country are found by our authorities to be genuinely escaping persecution. So may I ask why you feel as you do. Those found to be genuinely escaping persecution have been forced out of their homes against their will, have lost pretty much everything they have and are faced with having to rebuild a life in a strange country through (in the vast majority of cases) no fault of their own. Should they not be able to do so where possible in a country where perhaps they have extended family to help them or they at least can speak the language. Is that not in the very nature of why asylum exists? Partly because I don't trust the vetting system (The odds seem stacked against hardly any being economic migrants) Partly because England is crowded but parts are not and beggars should not be choosers. If you offered food to a homeless man would you expect to have him choose from a menu or take what is offered? Equally if you offer an asylum seeker a safe home, should he choose a more crowded and expensive area? I have no objection is said asylum seeker makes good on his own in our great and free country and then moves himself. Thank you for a grown up answer at least Zany. Tbh not sure this new forum is working out overly well. The standard of posting, low as it was on the old forum in its dying days, seems to have achieved the remarkable feat of being even worse than before. It’s a bit like replacing the worst PM in my lifetime in Johnson yet miraculously finding one even worse in Truss. In truth I hope it settles down or I think I may give it a miss. Anyway back to your answer. I am not sure how you reach your judgement about the vetting system tbh. Without knowing the details of each case, I don’t see how you can form a judgement on the outcomes. The rest of your post I struggled to understand to be honest. Not sure if I have misunderstood you or whether you are laboring under a miscomprehension. It seems you are arguing that those claiming asylum in the UK should not have a choice whereabouts in the UK they live while their case is heard. Fact is they already do not. The Home Office decide where they live and often seemingly arbitrarily relocate them with no notice and often incredibly inhumanely. I could give you examples if you wish. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 27, 2022 21:37:57 GMT
Partly because I don't trust the vetting system (The odds seem stacked against hardly any being economic migrants) Partly because England is crowded but parts are not and beggars should not be choosers. If you offered food to a homeless man would you expect to have him choose from a menu or take what is offered? Equally if you offer an asylum seeker a safe home, should he choose a more crowded and expensive area? I have no objection is said asylum seeker makes good on his own in our great and free country and then moves himself. Thank you for a grown up answer at least Zany. Tbh not sure this new forum is working out overly well. The standard of posting, low as it was on the old forum in its dying days, seems to have achieved the remarkable feat of being even worse than before. It’s a bit like replacing the worst PM in my lifetime in Johnson yet miraculously finding one even worse in Truss. In truth I hope it settles down or I think I may give it a miss. Anyway back to your answer. I am not sure how you reach your judgement about the vetting system tbh. Without knowing the details of each case, I don’t see how you can form a judgement on the outcomes. The rest of your post I struggled to understand to be honest. Not sure if I have misunderstood you or whether you are laboring under a miscomprehension. It seems you are arguing that those claiming asylum in the UK should not have a choice whereabouts in the UK they live while their case is heard. Fact is they already do not. The Home Office decide where they live and often seemingly arbitrarily relocate them with no notice and often incredibly inhumanely. I could give you examples if you wish. LOL brilliant, Dappy that's one of your best. You start by thanking ZG for such a 'grown up' response (How patronising) then go on to say you struggled to understand it. Honestly, you're a natural. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 27, 2022 21:39:49 GMT
Partly because I don't trust the vetting system (The odds seem stacked against hardly any being economic migrants) Partly because England is crowded but parts are not and beggars should not be choosers. If you offered food to a homeless man would you expect to have him choose from a menu or take what is offered? Equally if you offer an asylum seeker a safe home, should he choose a more crowded and expensive area? I have no objection is said asylum seeker makes good on his own in our great and free country and then moves himself. You're welcome. I really didn't expect any improvement on the old site, so I have continued from where I was. That is to say I mostly don't bother too much with the ranters and cherry pick the people I converse with. (Such as yourself)  Just run the percentages. I admit its not possible to prove. I am talking about those given asylum, not those applying. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 28, 2022 8:07:36 GMT
Ah now I understand your point Zany.
Once people are granted asylum, they are expected to leave their state provided housing within four weeks and at that stage they must find and fund their own housing and find work etc just like anyone else. If I have understood you right it seems you wish to create a special class of resident who is limited by the state in where they choose to live. Haven't heard that argument before to be honest. What problem are you trying to solve
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 28, 2022 10:15:48 GMT
With regard to the success rate for asylum claims, I'd draw attention (again) to the great disparity between approval rates in the UK and in the EU. As I showed a few days ago the former is more than twice the latter but nobody was able to explain why. Wrt to asylum seekers arriving by small boat I'd also draw attention to the hearing of the Home Affairs Committee this week which was dedicated to the matter of channel crossings. In the hot seat were several senior figures from the Home Office, including Dan Mahoney who carries the grand title of "Clandestine Channel Threat Commander". Some of the details from this session appeared in the popular press, usually in garbled form, so I thought I'd highlight here what seemed to be the most important revelations. - So far this year 38,000 people have arrived in small boats, and 93% of them have made claims for asylum, compared to 98% in 2021. - Of those arriving in 2021 whose claims have been decided, 85% were successful in obtaining asylum or some other form of humanitarian protection. - However only 4% of 2021 claims have been decided, 96% are still undecided. - The Home Office is prioritising claims by the 'most vulnerable', including 'families and things like that'; this was acknowledged as likely to have an impact on the grant rate. - In 2020 50 Albanians arrived in small boats; so far this year 12,000 have arrived, 10,000 of whom are adult males. "...a lot of them are not actually interested in seeing their asylum claim through. They just want to get through it as far as they can. We typically put them in a hotel for a couple of days, and then they will disappear. They work illegally in the UK for maybe six months or a year, they send the money home, and then they go back to Albania. They are able to do that because the way the asylum system and the NRM works makes it quite easy for them to do so." Full text here: committees.parliament.uk/event/14980/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/ |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 28, 2022 12:51:33 GMT
Some interesting stuff I hadn't seen there Dan. Thank you.
I don't know why there is a disparity between us and EU in success rates. Whether this is a result of an anomaly with counting Ukrainians and Hong Kongers or a difference in measuring or just different profiles of who claims here (perhaps those with weak claims don't bother with the boat crossing) or whether there are genuine differences in decision standards would be worthy of investigation. I would have no objection to adopting say German standards if they differ materially. Examining that is the sort of gown up policy response designed to address an issue rather than the grandstanding aimed solely at tabloid headlines of the Johnson and Patel days (and sadly I suspect Braverman too).
Hadn't seen the statistics you refer to. If correct, I am surprised that as many as 7% dont claim asylum having arrived by boat. Odd way to travel in easy sight if not wanting to meet immigration authorities on arrival.
The 4% of 2021 claims being determined is crazy. Far better again to invest in faster processing of claims than in the silliness of Rwanda but again Rwanda got better tabloid headlines and that was all Johnson cared about. For everyones sake, quicker response is a good thing.
The Albanian issue is a more difficult issue to crack. If that is happening regularly the cost to the UK is pretty minimal but ideally it should be stopped. The challenge obviously is if we stop the small boat arrival method, they will simply swap to other arrival methods (eg shipping containers) so really need to come up with a holistic solution. Not sure what that could be to be honest. Again I think of solutions that look good in the tabloids but those solutions would make little difference to reality.
Sensible conversation by both you and Zany. I hope such conversations will not be drowned out by the irritating noise from the conflict seekers on this site. Not optimistic if there is to be even less moderation than the old site to be honest. I guess it depends what the owner wants.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Oct 28, 2022 13:18:16 GMT
According to Migrationwatch 98% of these economic migrants coming over in boats have destroyed their identification documents - and chucked their phones overboard on the trip. If they're genuine asylum seekers why should they do that I wonder?
And the reason why the acceptance rate is so high in the UK is:
- because the claim processing rate is so low that by the time they're dealt with they've stayed so long that they just appeal to the ECHR
- because we have a large number of leftie lawyers who make a living out of appealing
- Our legal system is garbage allowing interminable appeals
- And most of them abscond anyway. We have such a thriving black economy that they can work without being legal. That's the one thing that the French have got right. They say that part of the pull factor is that we don't control the black economy. The French do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 28, 2022 15:26:27 GMT
According to Migrationwatch 98% of these economic migrants coming over in boats have destroyed their identification documents - and chucked their phones overboard on the trip. If they're genuine asylum seekers why should they do that I wonder? And the reason why the acceptance rate is so high in the UK is: - because the claim processing rate is so low that by the time they're dealt with they've stayed so long that they just appeal to the ECHR - because we have a large number of leftie lawyers who make a living out of appealing - Our legal system is garbage allowing interminable appeals - And most of them abscond anyway. We have such a thriving black economy that they can work without being legal. That's the one thing that the French have got right. They say that part of the pull factor is that we don't control the black economy. The French do. All valid points. We need an overhaul of our ridiculously generous Legal Aid System that pays for all these legal appeals and makes a lot of lawyers incredibly rich. We also need to look at the black economy - perhaps it is time to introduce ID requirements and police it a lot stricter. But there would be no point in doing that without overhauling Legal Aid. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 28, 2022 16:39:44 GMT
Ah now I understand your point Zany. Once people are granted asylum, they are expected to leave their state provided housing within four weeks and at that stage they must find and fund their own housing and find work etc just like anyone else. If I have understood you right it seems you wish to create a special class of resident who is limited by the state in where they choose to live. Haven't heard that argument before to be honest. What problem are you trying to solve That's not entirely true Dappy. No one expects a successful asylum seeker to become self supporting after just 4 weeks, its just that other benefits kick in instead. The thing I'm trying to resolve is the cost of providing asylum which would be considerably cheaper in some areas than others. And also that certain areas of the UK have struggling infrastructure and others don't. A step short of sending them to Rwanda if you like, a compromise. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 28, 2022 16:43:09 GMT
With regard to the success rate for asylum claims, I'd draw attention (again) to the great disparity between approval rates in the UK and in the EU. As I showed a few days ago the former is more than twice the latter but nobody was able to explain why. Wrt to asylum seekers arriving by small boat I'd also draw attention to the hearing of the Home Affairs Committee this week which was dedicated to the matter of channel crossings. In the hot seat were several senior figures from the Home Office, including Dan Mahoney who carries the grand title of "Clandestine Channel Threat Commander". Some of the details from this session appeared in the popular press, usually in garbled form, so I thought I'd highlight here what seemed to be the most important revelations. - So far this year 38,000 people have arrived in small boats, and 93% of them have made claims for asylum, compared to 98% in 2021. - Of those arriving in 2021 whose claims have been decided, 85% were successful in obtaining asylum or some other form of humanitarian protection. - However only 4% of 2021 claims have been decided, 96% are still undecided. - The Home Office is prioritising claims by the 'most vulnerable', including 'families and things like that'; this was acknowledged as likely to have an impact on the grant rate. - In 2020 50 Albanians arrived in small boats; so far this year 12,000 have arrived, 10,000 of whom are adult males. "...a lot of them are not actually interested in seeing their asylum claim through. They just want to get through it as far as they can. We typically put them in a hotel for a couple of days, and then they will disappear. They work illegally in the UK for maybe six months or a year, they send the money home, and then they go back to Albania. They are able to do that because the way the asylum system and the NRM works makes it quite easy for them to do so." Full text here: committees.parliament.uk/event/14980/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/Thanks Dan. That's really interesting and falls in with my impression of what's been happening. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 28, 2022 16:53:01 GMT
According to Migrationwatch 98% of these economic migrants coming over in boats have destroyed their identification documents - and chucked their phones overboard on the trip. If they're genuine asylum seekers why should they do that I wonder? And the reason why the acceptance rate is so high in the UK is: - because the claim processing rate is so low that by the time they're dealt with they've stayed so long that they just appeal to the ECHR - because we have a large number of leftie lawyers who make a living out of appealing - Our legal system is garbage allowing interminable appeals - And most of them abscond anyway. We have such a thriving black economy that they can work without being legal. That's the one thing that the French have got right. They say that part of the pull factor is that we don't control the black economy. The French do. All valid points. We need an overhaul of our ridiculously generous Legal Aid System that pays for all these legal appeals and makes a lot of lawyers incredibly rich. We also need to look at the black economy - perhaps it is time to introduce ID requirements and police it a lot stricter. But there would be no point in doing that without overhauling Legal Aid. There are already hefty fines for businesses not checking someones right to employment in the UK. So I wonder where these people are working? Not saying they are not, but it wont be in anywhere that's checking ID. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 28, 2022 16:54:48 GMT
All valid points. We need an overhaul of our ridiculously generous Legal Aid System that pays for all these legal appeals and makes a lot of lawyers incredibly rich. We also need to look at the black economy - perhaps it is time to introduce ID requirements and police it a lot stricter. But there would be no point in doing that without overhauling Legal Aid. There are already hefty fines for businesses not checking someones right to employment in the UK. So I wonder where these people are working? Not saying they are not, but it wont be in anywhere that's checking ID. Hand car wash - Turkish barbers - American sweet shops... Not sure there is much checking going on.. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 28, 2022 17:11:01 GMT
|
|
