|
|
Asylum
Nov 2, 2022 12:14:20 GMT
Post by dappy on Nov 2, 2022 12:14:20 GMT
Partly testing whether the more moderated section of the forum is effective in facilitating more grown up conversations
a) Zany wrote this in a different sub-forums above
Indeed.
I am generally one of those Lefties who want asylum seekers given asylum. But when the system is being so obviously misused why are all the Leftie bleedin hearts like me still talking about treating them well, overcrowding etc.
Listen fellow lefties. You are doing huge amounts of harm to real refugees, you are making it far to easy for those who don't care to win the argument.
That argument is that most asylum seekers are just economic migrants using us. And its an argument I find all but impossible to argue against now.
With the BBC discussing whether the word "Invasion" is offensive to them?
Jeez.
Zany could you expand on what you mean when you say "the system is being so obviously misused". I may even agree with you but could you explain what aspects you see as being misused
Could you also explain what you mean by "real refugees" as opposed to "economic migrants" I presume. How would the two apart.
Even if people do come here as economic migrants, they remain human beings. Should they not be treated reasonably well while they are here regardless. We treat people in prisons reasonably well - avoiding excessive overcrowding, protecting them from disease etc. Why would you treat "economic migrants" - even if these could be seperated easily from genuine people in need of asylum worse.
b) In another thread I outlined the below as a suggested outline of how to deal with asylum more sensibly. I would welcome your views and if you disagree suggestions.
If we want to address this issue, lets do it, but do it in a grown-up way copying the best of our neighbours systems.
1) Put a reporting point in Calais whereby potential applicants can apply for asylum avoiding the dangerous and emotive channel crossing
2) Bring those that apply here safely, accommodate in adequate safe but not luxurious accommodation while their application is processed.
3) Expect them to work to (at least partially) fund themselves while their application is processed.
4) Invest the money saved in processing applications far more quickly
5) restrict appeals to one and prioritise hearing those appeals promptly
6) Quid pro quo for the Calais reporting centre is that France agrees to allow us to repatriate to them those whose applications fail
7) If one nation is an issue (eg Albania) - your 50% number is nonsensical by the way - then address it potentially with secure accommodation being used for nationals of that country - but understand that those intending t work here illegally will simply witch to other non-asylum ways of arriving (eg lorries and containers)
If we want to mitigate the impact of asylum, it is relatively simple to do so, but politicians have to want to do so and not instead try to exploit the situation to earn votes from gullible elderly tabloid readers. Until we have a change of government, I fear nothing will change.
|
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 2, 2022 12:23:37 GMT
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 2, 2022 12:23:37 GMT
"Partly testing whether the more moderated section of the forum is effective in facilitating more grown up conversations"
Glad to see someone else doing their bit.
|
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 2, 2022 13:30:52 GMT
Post by zanygame on Nov 2, 2022 13:30:52 GMT
Partly testing whether the more moderated section of the forum is effective in facilitating more grown up conversations a) Zany wrote this in a different sub-forums above Indeed.
I am generally one of those Lefties who want asylum seekers given asylum. But when the system is being so obviously misused why are all the Leftie bleedin hearts like me still talking about treating them well, overcrowding etc.
Listen fellow lefties. You are doing huge amounts of harm to real refugees, you are making it far to easy for those who don't care to win the argument.
That argument is that most asylum seekers are just economic migrants using us. And its an argument I find all but impossible to argue against now.With the BBC discussing whether the word "Invasion" is offensive to them?
Jeez.Ok. IMO The BBC should have been making it clear that the illegal immigrants coming from peaceful Albania do not deserve the same treatment as refugees fleeing war in Sudan etc. Even for me who sympathises with left wing views it is obvious that some people deserve better treatment than others. No wonder so many people claim Woke has gone mad when we are worried about offending these men coming from Albania by using the word "Invasion" For me a real refugee is someone either escaping threat to life or freedom. Or someone forced to leave an area due to risk of starvation or drought. An economic migrant, is someone capable of etching a living in their home country but who would like to have the advantages they see in living in a first world country. They should be treated as criminals. Yes they should be fed and watered but overcrowding? Have you seen the refugee camps on Turkeys borders? I do not think it is necessary to offer those refugees arriving here hotel rooms, I do think beds in dormitories, safe from attack and starvation is quite sufficient. After asylum is given is a different matter. However I do think the processing is lamentably slow. b) In another thread I outlined the below as a suggested outline of how to deal with asylum more sensibly. I would welcome your views and if you disagree suggestions. If we want to address this issue, lets do it, but do it in a grown-up way copying the best of our neighbours systems. 1) Put a reporting point in Calais whereby potential applicants can apply for asylum avoiding the dangerous and emotive channel crossing2) Bring those that apply here safely, accommodate in adequate safe but not luxurious accommodation while their application is processed.3) Expect them to work to (at least partially) fund themselves while their application is processed. 4) Invest the money saved in processing applications far more quickly5) restrict appeals to one and prioritise hearing those appeals promptly6) Quid pro quo for the Calais reporting centre is that France agrees to allow us to repatriate to them those whose applications fail7) If one nation is an issue (eg Albania) - your 50% number is nonsensical by the way - then address it potentially with secure accommodation being used for nationals of that country - but understand that those intending t work here illegally will simply witch to other non-asylum ways of arriving (eg lorries and containers)1, I would prefer the process to begin before they paid the smugglers at all. 2, I would put applicants in safe camps with security, medical staff and food. 3, Too difficult IMO, it would cost more than it would make. 4, Money saved? Can you specify 5, Disagree, I think if someone has second grounds to appeal they should be heard. But I would not allow them in until they are successful. 6, Doesn't apply in my version. 7, My 50% number? 7, Doesn't apply in my version, but for your version (those arriving here) I would put them all into secure accommodation until they have been given asylum but make the process faster and in two stages. Stage 1, Establish reasonable confidence of country of origin and assess risk to UK society. Then release, provide accommodation and allow to work. Stage 2, Offer or reject asylum claim based on more detailed investigation of the individual and the evolving situation in their home country. NB. Any claim taking more than 2 years should result in automatic right to remain being given. My view is they would like to keep kicking it down the road and that this is reflect across the world where the system no longer matches the world it exists in. No. Not all, but if its an obvious majority then the BBC should be honest and report it as such. And more, they should explain the difference and the evidence available |
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 2, 2022 13:51:23 GMT
Post by zanygame on Nov 2, 2022 13:51:23 GMT
The fire bombing has nothing to do with the BBC. However I would argue the refusal to acknowledge the depth of feeling is more dangerous than discussing it.
By example, those stupid people at airline desks who are more interested in telling you you're not allowed to be angry, than they are in solving your problem.
I see a vast difference between the use of the word traitor aimed at specific persons and the use of the word invasion to describe thousands of people doing something illegal.
I do not think the word invasion used in this fashion inspires people to join the military to defend their homeland.
I do think the word traitor used against a judge was used to try and imply the legal system should not be separate from the state as required in a democracy.
|
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 2, 2022 14:37:28 GMT
Post by dappy on Nov 2, 2022 14:37:28 GMT
Thank you for a considered response Zany.
We do have some common ground - not least in respect of the baffling quote system on this forum.
I disagree with you about the use of the word "invasion". It is designed to be emotive and to enflame the concerns and anger that some feel about asylum. It was designed to deflect attention from her repeated breaching of the ministerial code. The guy who firebombed the building in Dover was radicalised by such language. It is perfectly possible to make the point -if she believes it to be true - that she believes we have a problem with particularly Albanians claiming asylum inappropriately without stirring up hatred against all people claiming asylum. Other government ministers (eg Robert Jenrick) to their credit have made that point - the Prime Minister is noticably silent, which either means either he condones such language or that he is too weak to take his Home Secretary to task. I think that is shameful.
If I have understood you correctly your particular ire is directed towards Albanians claiming asylum, so if OK with you I will deal with general asylum first and come back to Albania later.
I agree broadly with your basic definitions of what someone deserving asylum is and what someone who is an economic migrant is. The problem is of course to work out what category an individual arriving here to claim asylum should fairly be placed in.
I do agree with your point that the system takes far too long to reach a decision. This is bad for the state - as it perpetuates the cost of accommodating the cost of accommodating and paying for basic needs for longer and for the individua held in limbo for far too long. Investing in more officers to determine cases quicker would be a cash saving overall (but of course there are no votes for politicians or photo opportunities or tabloid headlines in doing this).
I didn't understand to be honest yur point about the BBC but its a relatively minor point I think so I will drop that there.
Turning to your critique of my outline better asylum system.
There is no way of say an Eritrean claiming asylum in the UK without getting here first. Either you wish to deny any possibility of that or you wish to establish asylum claim points elsewhere (where?) or you accept that he must make his own way to Dover (or in my suggestion Calais). Perhaps you could clarify what you are asking for here.
I have no particular objection to accommodating asylum seekers overseas while their application is heard as long as we speed up the determination of their case, that that accommodation is safe and in a safe country (Rwanda isnt), that successful applicants are brought here and that doing so isnt vastly more expensive than accommodating here. Not sure what problem you are trying to solve here to be honest. I suspect accommodating here is more appropriate. I don't see any need for secure camps etc for most asylum seekers - they are not trying to escape.
I dont think it would be too difficult to allow - indeed expect people waiting for their asylum application to be processed to work - other countries manage this perfectly simply. Why can't we. I think if you have applied and been rejected and then appealed and been rejected, that is enough chances. I don't see the merit or fairness in allowing unlimited appeals.
I think I may have been answering someone else's claim that 50% of claimants were Albanian (it simply isnt true) and it got caught up in the hopeless quote system. Apols.
Overall on system, it doesn't feel like we disagree too much apart from your desire to do all this offshore and possibly in their home countries which I dont see as practical but perhaps I have misunderstood you.
|
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 2, 2022 14:48:40 GMT
Post by dappy on Nov 2, 2022 14:48:40 GMT
Now as promised on to Albania, which I sense is the root of your frustration (??)
If , big if, there is evidence that large numbers of Albanians are coming here as economic migrants, or as been suggested come here, claim asylum and then rapidly disappear into the black economy to work for a year before going home, then I would agree with you that that is an abuse of the system. If this is happening then I would accept a different approach being taken to people reasonably suspected of being Albanian. This perhaps would result in Albanians applying for Asylum being offered an immediate choice of either being repatriated immediately or being held in secure "prison level" accommodation while their claim is processed. I think again perhaps we have broad agreement (??)
I wouldnt deny the possibility of asylum being appropriate for some Albanians. I gave an example above of a teenage girl trafficked into the sex trade who has escaped from her traffickers but would be killed or injured on her return to Albania as a warning to others.
I do think we have to be cognisant that if the "false asylum claim/disappear into the black economy" is currently happening, then if we cut that route off, it will simply result in those people coming here by other means (back of lorries and containers) and frankly I dont know how to stop that but do we have broad agreement on how to treat Albanian claimants.
|
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 2, 2022 16:08:58 GMT
Post by zanygame on Nov 2, 2022 16:08:58 GMT
Thank you for a considered response Zany. We do have some common ground - not least in respect of the baffling quote system on this forum. To me it was emotive, but designed to show the public that the government understand their anger. That they separated the Albanians from proper asylum seekers, succour to those who feel we have just left the door open. We must remember they represent a fair portion of the country and its theirs as well as ours. Agreed. Though I do feel the success rate for getting asylum is suspect. Oh yes. To cynical for me. Fair do's I wish to establish claim points elsewhere. Ideally they would sit alongside obvious refugee routes when conflicts break out, but if not in a safe country much closer than Europe. I would also like it to be a joint venture where refugees and asylum seekers could begin the process for any of the participating countries (EU UK US. etc) . I think its less the country its placed in and more who runs it. For me its an ideal job for the UN. My reasons for wanting it are two fold. Primarily to defeat the smugglers (Why I want it near to the trouble) Secondly, it prevents those arriving here, asking for asylum and then either disappearing or having a child etc which muddies the application system. Once again I consider those who think we have just left the asylum door open. I see no need if we don't make the process take years. I also fear that many who get asylum do so because they create conditions within the UK. I think it is foolish to assume economic migrants do not play the system. It might be something to do with posts I was involved in. A claim made by Dan which I checked and appears true. Not their home countries, I can't see a Syrian rebel pitching up at the asylum centre in Damascus.  I have explained above. |
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 2, 2022 16:35:09 GMT
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 2, 2022 16:35:09 GMT
I think dappy's proposals for an asylum claims centre in Calais and free transfer to England for all claimants might receive a more sympathetic hearing if he were to explain what other measures will be taken to prevent this becoming just another gigantic pull factor, not only for would-be claimants already in Europe but also for those yet to embark.
|
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 2, 2022 16:56:25 GMT
Post by zanygame on Nov 2, 2022 16:56:25 GMT
I think dappy's proposals for an asylum claims centre in Calais and free transfer to England for all claimants might receive a more sympathetic hearing if he were to explain what other measures will be taken to prevent this becoming just another gigantic pull factor, not only for would-be claimants already in Europe but also for those yet to embark. you can point that out to him as an objection you would have, but I don't think he is as worried as you about potentially making getting asylum easier. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 2, 2022 18:34:20 GMT
I wish to establish claim points elsewhere. Ideally they would sit alongside obvious refugee routes when conflicts break out, but if not in a safe country much closer than Europe. I would also like it to be a joint venture where refugees and asylum seekers could begin the process for any of the participating countries (EU UK US. etc) I 'd agree about having the ability to only claim at foreign points near conflict zones (certainly not in Europe) - I'd also like to see the UN doing the selection. Parliament could agree on a quota each year and then give that number to the UN who would then select those who were to be given asylum in the UK. That process would take a lot of the politics out of the issue and allow the system to be managed in a much more humane and effective way. |
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 2, 2022 19:09:08 GMT
Post by zanygame on Nov 2, 2022 19:09:08 GMT
I wish to establish claim points elsewhere. Ideally they would sit alongside obvious refugee routes when conflicts break out, but if not in a safe country much closer than Europe. I would also like it to be a joint venture where refugees and asylum seekers could begin the process for any of the participating countries (EU UK US. etc) I 'd agree about having the ability to only claim at foreign points near conflict zones (certainly not in Europe) - I'd also like to see the UN doing the selection. Parliament could agree on a quota each year and then give that number to the UN who would then select those who were to be given asylum in the UK. That process would take a lot of the politics out of the issue and allow the system to be managed in a much more humane and effective way. Yes, I agree entirely with that summary. |
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 2, 2022 21:26:27 GMT
Post by dappy on Nov 2, 2022 21:26:27 GMT
With the greatest respect, while I would love to see better international cooperation on the global refugee crisis, and th UK should lead on trying to work towards it, realistically we are many many years away from achieving that. In the mean time your solution Zany would effectively replicate what we already have - refugee camps in neighbouring often poor countries largely ignored bythe west. Some palestinians have lived in UN licensed refugee camps for over 50 years. I dont think that is a realistic solution.
I would love to have a Europe wide coordinated response as a second best but even that feels like decades away even if bigger richer countries of which we are one engaged.
In the meantime we need to come up with a more workable solution ourselves. Our asylum, system like so many public services is crap. It has been neglected for years by a government which for many years intensifying recently has been more interested in seeking tabloid headlines and votes than devising a workable system. The system has decayed by neglect. Rather than reinvent the wheel, we would be well advised to review and copy the system i place in say Germany, which does allow asylum seekers to work while their claim is processed and does achieve far quicker decision times (for the benefit of both claimant and state). If someone has a system that works better than yours, copy it - hardly rocket science.
I agree of course Zany some people who come clear seeking asylum are gaming the system and are purely "economic migrants". Some may try to exploit weaknesses in the system. Others may feel they have a valid claim but fail the test we impose. While the decision timescales are so ridiculously long, yes of course some may have children here, either with partners they travelled with or with partners they meet here - they are just human and frankly living on hardly any money, there often isn't much else to do in the evening! it almost feels like you are forgetting the humanity of these people, with all its related cock up and folly and judging them as cunning calculating machines - I am sure not intentionally but it is so easy to do when judging a group you dont know rather than individuals.
It is simply untrue by the way that 50% of asylum claimants are Albanian - the number is far less - Q2 analysis is on the government website. Q3 will be out shortly. The number may still be too high but 50% is simply wrong.
I notice you haven't really commented on my post re Albanians. Does that mean we are broadly agreed (or have I just missed it)
|
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 2, 2022 21:49:35 GMT
Post by dappy on Nov 2, 2022 21:49:35 GMT
I think dappy's proposals for an asylum claims centre in Calais and free transfer to England for all claimants might receive a more sympathetic hearing if he were to explain what other measures will be taken to prevent this becoming just another gigantic pull factor, not only for would-be claimants already in Europe but also for those yet to embark. Happy to have a grown up conversation about your point Dan even if we may not agree. hopefully this section of the forum may work. Your point relies on the premise that large numbers of people seeking asylum in Europe would actually like to seek that asylum in the UK but are currently deterred by the channel and so claim that asylum instead in say Germany. It relies on someone from say Eritrea travelling thousands of miles across often very hostile unstable countries, crossing at least one large sea but somehow being completely stumped by a 20 mile wide stretch of water crossed by 40,000 other asylum seekers to the extent that they give up and seek their sanctuary elsewhere. There seems no evidence for this and seems logically very unlikely. It seems to are raising a concern that doesn't exist. It seems also that you concerned about a minor issue overall. You mentioned elsewhere that there are 10 million foreign born people in England and Wales. In 2018 there were less than 200,000 refugees and asylum seekers in the UK as a whole. www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/Even if that number has doubled since (unlikely), they represent less than 4% of the total foreign born population. It seems a strangely minor issue t obsess about. But I understand sometimes perception is more important than reality. So lets see if we are seeking a grown up conversation and solution to the overall problem, lets see if we can come up with some solutions to your concerns. Firstly of course as we have noted above, we intend to speed up decision times and reduce the number of appeals and allow people to work massively reducing the impact on the country. Then we are going to review our whole asylum system including our application acceptance parameters. If Germany has better criteria than us, lets adopt theirs hence reducing the pull factors you were concerned about. Then lets understand that we are solving a big problem for France as well. So who knows what we can negotiate with them. As a quid pro quo with them, perhaps we can negotiate with them that we set a limit of say 50,000 applicants that may be accepted by our Calais reporting point. Once that number is reached the centre closes and any then arriving from France may immediately be returned to the french authorities for processing. Who knows perhaps they will even allow us to build a processing camp in France to accommodate the applicants while we consider their application (subject to maximum application processing time limits) such that we only bring over successful applicants, with any travelling here independently being returned to our processing camp in France. If we engage positively, there are loads of potential solutions and possibilities. While we try to be King Canute and pander to the tabloid headlines and grub for votes amongst those too gullible to see what the Government is doing (bogeymen are really helpful if you get the electorate to believe in them and believe only you can protect them from them), we end up with the shambles we have now. |
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 4, 2022 3:26:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 4, 2022 3:26:48 GMT
I’m going to take one tiny bit of the early post and run with it.
I’d like any replies to stick squarely to that.
The suggestion was made that asylum seekers be made (shall I use “invited”) to work here while waiting for their claim to be processed.
That would be illegal under all sorts of legislation ironically much introduced in the past 20 years to do lip service to making it appear this country cares about not giving illegal entrants the ability to make money here …
Are we to repeal all that ?
|
|
|
|
Asylum
Nov 4, 2022 3:39:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 4, 2022 3:39:15 GMT
I think I’d like to challenge this assertion that only the left want asylum seekers given asylum.
The fact is there are far too many places on this planet where someone who can quite legally be, think, say or do something in Hyde Park will get hauled off by the secret police if they stand being, thinking, saying or doing that very same thing in Teheran, Baghdad, Moscow, Beijing…. I could go on but I’m sure you get my point. The ASYLUM system is there to protect the lives and well being of people who, if they had a British Passport and manifested their wishes in London would have the protection of the law but in the country for which that have a passport it is a very different story
The problem, which I think everyone knows but most wish to
Ignore, is that the left want anyone and everyone to be able to wander in and help themselves. The devolved governments are even giving the people that make it the Damon VOTE to push the see saw even harder to one tilt.
|
|
