|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 23, 2023 10:17:21 GMT
I suspect that there are several scores of million people in war zones and authoritarian countries that would qualify for asylum . How many should we accept ? Theoretically all of them qualify - the entire population. It's completely berserk but there you go |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 23, 2023 10:21:38 GMT
I don't disagree, I'm just questioning whether what Zany meant to say is that the claims of those who assist the authorities in their identification should be accepted whether bogus or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 23, 2023 10:24:04 GMT
I suspect that there are several scores of million people in war zones and authoritarian countries that would qualify for asylum . How many should we accept ? Theoretically all of them qualify - the entire population. It's completely berserk but there you go This is of course the flaw underlying the proposal for offshore 'asylum reception centres'.
In order to implement such a plan it would be necessary to either
(a) replicate the infrastructure for assessing and adjudicating claims at each offshore centre, including case management, legal support, tribunals and courts of appeal - not forgetting support for all claimants who request it;
or
(b) accept all claims and forward the claimants to the UK for further processing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 23, 2023 10:25:07 GMT
I suspect that there are several scores of million people in war zones and authoritarian countries that would qualify for asylum . How many should we accept ? Theoretically all of them qualify - the entire population. It's completely berserk but there you go That’s the point I am making . We have to separate the wheat from the chaff . Give the wheat homes and income . Deal with the chaff. This is an endless process unless we want it to end. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 23, 2023 11:06:29 GMT
Agreed. My only added condition is that if they help the authorities to identify themselves so their claims can be verified, that they are processed quickly and accepted. accepted? They have entered the UK illegally from a safe country. Why would they be just 'accepted'? If you use this procedure to let everyone who arrives into the country anyway, you are back to square one. Sorry, should have qualified this. If they are a genuine asylum seeker escaping death and persecution they would be accepted. The argument about the first safe country they arrive in having to take them is IMO unfair and wrong. But entirely separate from the argument that very many of them are fraudsters and economic migrants anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 23, 2023 11:07:49 GMT
I suspect that there are several scores of million people in war zones and authoritarian countries that would qualify for asylum . How many should we accept ? Those are rules for our government alongside the civilised world to make. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Sept 23, 2023 11:13:46 GMT
I suspect that there are several scores of million people in war zones and authoritarian countries that would qualify for asylum . How many should we accept ? Those are rules for our government alongside the civilised world to make. Cleverly put but not exactly true, the rules come down from some unelected body or another, without a thought of fairness about those who are affected by it on the receiving end. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 23, 2023 11:21:23 GMT
Zany: "The argument about the first safe country they arrive in having to take them is IMO unfair and wrong."
In general migrants from Afro-Asia arrive one of the Mediterranean countries: Greece, Italy or Spain. For each of these countries their long and open Mediterranean coastline gives them a huge advantage in terms of the tourist business especially with respect to other European countries. Doesn't that seem unfair too?
Shouldn't they take an extra responsibility by not admitting unwanted migrants who are more likely than not going to attempt to move on to other countries? That is, after all, what they signed up for when joining the Schengen Area.
It seems to me that the operative rule ought to be if you admit migrants for whatever reason then they are yours to keep. There should be no obligation on other European countries to take them off your hands and, if there is any 'leakage', you should be obliged to take them back on request.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 23, 2023 11:35:40 GMT
I suspect that there are several scores of million people in war zones and authoritarian countries that would qualify for asylum . How many should we accept ? Those are rules for our government alongside the civilised world to make. Meaningless clap trap . |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 23, 2023 12:49:04 GMT
I assumed that Zany meant claims would be accepted if verified i.e. proven to be true. The idea will only work if those who really shouldn't have made the journey end up with not much to show for it. It would be relatively simple to completely sabotage by 'accepting' people. Those who shouldn't have made the journey, have your choice. Stay locked up on a cold island or leave the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 23, 2023 12:49:58 GMT
I don't disagree, I'm just questioning whether what Zany meant to say is that the claims of those who assist the authorities in their identification should be accepted whether bogus or not. No not. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 23, 2023 12:55:21 GMT
Zany: "The argument about the first safe country they arrive in having to take them is IMO unfair and wrong." In general migrants from Afro-Asia arrive one of the Mediterranean countries: Greece, Italy or Spain. For each of these countries their long and open Mediterranean coastline gives them a huge advantage in terms of the tourist business especially with respect to other European countries. Doesn't that seem unfair too? Shouldn't they take an extra responsibility by not admitting unwanted migrants who are more likely than not going to attempt to move on to other countries? That is, after all, what they signed up for when joining the Schengen Area. It seems to me that the operative rule ought to be if you admit migrants for whatever reason then they are yours to keep. There should be no obligation on other European countries to take them off your hands and, if there is any 'leakage', you should be obliged to take them back on request. I disagree. But its just a matter of opinion. Some think "Its better them than us" some think "Its not our problem" some think "I couldn't give a stuff if they all just die" I think part of being human is to care for others and we cannot insulate ourselves from the worlds storms in this way. But no opinion carries more weight than any other. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 23, 2023 13:24:16 GMT
accepted? They have entered the UK illegally from a safe country. Why would they be just 'accepted'? If you use this procedure to let everyone who arrives into the country anyway, you are back to square one. The argument about the first safe country they arrive in having to take them is IMO unfair and wrong. But entirely separate from the argument that very many of them are fraudsters and economic migrants anyway. It must be wrong - it would leave minimal scope for moving people into the UK against the wishes of the bulk of the UK public. The 'first country' thing is in any case a bit of straw-man - nobody is compelled. The actual notion is that asylum provides w hat is necessary to allow escape from danger. Its objective isn't to get people into the UK or to travel across the planet without a passport |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 23, 2023 13:35:02 GMT
Zany: "The argument about the first safe country they arrive in having to take them is IMO unfair and wrong." In general migrants from Afro-Asia arrive one of the Mediterranean countries: Greece, Italy or Spain. For each of these countries their long and open Mediterranean coastline gives them a huge advantage in terms of the tourist business especially with respect to other European countries. Doesn't that seem unfair too? Shouldn't they take an extra responsibility by not admitting unwanted migrants who are more likely than not going to attempt to move on to other countries? That is, after all, what they signed up for when joining the Schengen Area. It seems to me that the operative rule ought to be if you admit migrants for whatever reason then they are yours to keep. There should be no obligation on other European countries to take them off your hands and, if there is any 'leakage', you should be obliged to take them back on request. One compelling argument for above is that, once you allow migrant offloading, you create an imbalance of costs /responsibilities vs control Person A has no motivation to solve a problem because he can reliably offload it on to person B - and person B has no control of the problem or of person A's actions.This is important part of what is going on here and imho it was deliberately engineered to be un-addressable. You don't set up a system that daft by accident |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 23, 2023 14:17:35 GMT
Zany says we cannot insulate ourselves from the world's storms because to attempt to do so would render us un-human. Now, besides being an advocate for compassion when confronted by the problems of others, I believe that Zany is also a strong supporter of the theory that the climate is changing for the worse in large parts of the world if not so much where we live. Indeed closely associated with the climate change theory is the belief that one outcome will be that large parts of the world will be very adversely impacted in terms of their agricultural productivity and loss of habitat due to rising seawater levels. According to some observers, the net result is likely to be anywhere 200 million and 1.2 billion 'climate refugees' by 2050. Should we be taking steps now to help with this problem by planning to re-settle some of these refugees in Europe generally and the UK in particular? What would our 'fair share' then be? There could be 1.2 billion climate refugees by 2050 |
|
