Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2024 13:15:24 GMT
What words would you like me to use, On this forum you can use the F word, the C word and pretty much every swear word, use Christ's name as a swear word, but not refer to anyone as that line in the tub after a person has had a bath. I do laugh! |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 6, 2024 13:19:16 GMT
We seem to be in the fantasy world that loads of people who have travelled across hostile land and sea to reach Europe would love to come to the UK but don’t because of the channel. What is the evidence for this? I'm baffled by your trouble here. The only thing needed is significant numbers of people who would like to come to the UK and can get into France. Not particularly controversial |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 6, 2024 13:56:12 GMT
It's even simpler than that. All a prospective UK asylee will have to do is to apply for a 90-day Schengen visa and arrive in any Schengen-area country (Poland, say, or Greece). Travel on then in comfort and security to wherever dappy's Open Reception Centre happens to have been set up and present yourself as an asylum claimant.
Far simpler, safer and probably much cheaper than today's system which relies on paying thousands to traffickers.
Incidentally all of South and Central America, with the exception of Cuba, Equador and Bolivia can enter the Schengen zone visa-free.
Dappy's plan would likely solve Biden's problems on the southern border overnight.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 6, 2024 14:28:44 GMT
So much the same as they could do now then and claim asylum in say Spain (with language benefits) but for some reason they unaccountably don't. I think we are getting into the land of fantasy now so perhaps time to let this one die.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 6, 2024 14:41:16 GMT
But they can and do claim asylum in Spain. In 2022 Spain received 118,000 applications, the top six countries being Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Morocco, Honduras and Nicaragua. The problem if you are a claimant is the miserable acceptance rate, 11.7% in 2022. The UK with its 80%+ acceptance rate would be a much more appealing prospect if only it were in Schengen, and your plan could open up an entirely new segment in the asylum market. I can see why you want us to drop the matter, it's a non-starter isn't it. www.worlddata.info/europe/spain/asylum.php |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 6, 2024 14:55:15 GMT
You seem to be claiming that millions of people would come to the UK from South America to claim asylum here when 100,000 currently do in Spain, a country sharing the same language. You are talking nonsense Dan.
I suspect and hope that Labour's policy for asylum at the next election may well have an element of a safe reporting centre in Calais with appropriate safeguards. If so when the detail of their policy is known we can look then.
I do agree however that we have much to learn from other countries including examining why our acceptance rate is higher than many. Far too much attention from a failing government on high profile tabloid gimmicks like Rwanda than on getting the boring basics right.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 8, 2024 8:09:49 GMT
Oh gosh, are you still taking that seriously. Ok then. Firstly of course there is no such thing as "England" in an international context, we had an act of union a few years back and became the UK. Secondly it is completely wrong that airside at airports is not the UK soil. The UK retains full legal jurisdiction over those areas - so for example you can't murder someone "airside" and then claim its "international land" not "UK" so UK law doesn't apply. There are minor different immigration requirements in UK law relating to designated "airside" areas, such that for example passengers who would normally require a visa to enter the UK do not need one if they are simply transitting through say Heathrow. Airlines face heavy fines (so do ferry companies) if people arrive in UK without valid passports and visas so it really doesn't happen. People with appropriate visas do however still claim asylum fairly regularly at Heathrow. I believe until fairly recently it was the most common port for claiming asylum. That may have changed now. It is impossible to simply "return" people to where they come from without that country agreeing. So basically Steppenwolf's little scheme fails on just about every single count. An impressive effort!! By the way does it not occur to Steppenwolf and his ilk that far cleverer and more informed people than him working for the Government will have thought up all these little schemes and far more and realised they simply don't work. I did enjoy his assertion that "many millions" of people would apply for UK asylum if only they could do so in Calais rather than Dover. Grasshoppperesque in its sheer nonsensicality. What an utter pile of crap, dappy. The fact is that if any asylum seeker attempts to fly to the UK without ID they will fail. Firstly the airline will check their ID and refuse to let them board if they're not entitled to come here. If they manage to get through that check (by faking ID or whatever) they will be checked again when they land at Heathrow and refused entry. They cannot claim asylum because they're not in the UK. What happens then is that they're detained and returned on the next flight to where they flew from. There is no need to get any permission from the country they're returning to. Have you ever travelled by air dappy? You seem to knw very little about it. The reason why these boat people can claim asylum is because they're standing on UK soil. But that can easily be changed. I believe they're done this in Italy. As for the number of people applying for asylum in the UK if we set up a processing centre in France it would certainly be millions. There are probably over a million Algerians in France for a start, who would love to come to the UK where they can get better benefits and better treatment. Then anyone throughout the EU can just go to the French processing centre rather than messing about going by boat. Of course if they get rejected in France they'll just then come by boat anyway. That's WHY we don't have processing centres in France, you fucking numpty. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 8, 2024 9:46:49 GMT
Oh gosh, are you still taking that seriously. Ok then. Firstly of course there is no such thing as "England" in an international context, we had an act of union a few years back and became the UK. Secondly it is completely wrong that airside at airports is not the UK soil. The UK retains full legal jurisdiction over those areas - so for example you can't murder someone "airside" and then claim its "international land" not "UK" so UK law doesn't apply. There are minor different immigration requirements in UK law relating to designated "airside" areas, such that for example passengers who would normally require a visa to enter the UK do not need one if they are simply transitting through say Heathrow. Airlines face heavy fines (so do ferry companies) if people arrive in UK without valid passports and visas so it really doesn't happen. People with appropriate visas do however still claim asylum fairly regularly at Heathrow. I believe until fairly recently it was the most common port for claiming asylum. That may have changed now. It is impossible to simply "return" people to where they come from without that country agreeing. So basically Steppenwolf's little scheme fails on just about every single count. An impressive effort!! By the way does it not occur to Steppenwolf and his ilk that far cleverer and more informed people than him working for the Government will have thought up all these little schemes and far more and realised they simply don't work. I did enjoy his assertion that "many millions" of people would apply for UK asylum if only they could do so in Calais rather than Dover. Grasshoppperesque in its sheer nonsensicality. What an utter pile of crap, dappy. The fact is that if any asylum seeker attempts to fly to the UK without ID they will fail. Firstly the airline will check their ID and refuse to let them board if they're not entitled to come here. If they manage to get through that check (by faking ID or whatever) they will be checked again when they land at Heathrow and refused entry. They cannot claim asylum because they're not in the UK. What happens then is that they're detained and returned on the next flight to where they flew from. There is no need to get any permission from the country they're returning to. Have you ever travelled by air dappy? You seem to knw very little about it. The reason why these boat people can claim asylum is because they're standing on UK soil. But that can easily be changed. I believe they're done this in Italy. As for the number of people applying for asylum in the UK if we set up a processing centre in France it would certainly be millions. There are probably over a million Algerians in France for a start, who would love to come to the UK where they can get better benefits and better treatment. Then anyone throughout the EU can just go to the French processing centre rather than messing about going by boat. Of course if they get rejected in France they'll just then come by boat anyway. That's WHY we don't have processing centres in France, you fucking numpty. Quite sweet how after I explained to you that airlines face heavy fines if people arrive in the UK without passport and visas, you then try to claim you knew this already. Bless. There remain lots of factual inaccuracies in your post. Concentrate now, learn and then you can claim in your next post that you already knew those too. "Airside" is not international territory. It is UK soil under UK jurisdiction. People do claim asylum at Heathrow, indeed for a while it was the port with the highest number of asylum claimants. Don't know if that is the case now. You do need permission from the host country to deport people there, although in the case of air travel arrivals it is part of air travel treaty commitments. Obviously that wouldn't be the case for boat travellers. Your last paragraph is so full of nonsensical projections, it really isnt worth wasting time refuting. Calm down, cut out the insults and try to understand the facts. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 10, 2024 8:37:39 GMT
What an utter pile of crap, dappy. The fact is that if any asylum seeker attempts to fly to the UK without ID they will fail. Firstly the airline will check their ID and refuse to let them board if they're not entitled to come here. If they manage to get through that check (by faking ID or whatever) they will be checked again when they land at Heathrow and refused entry. They cannot claim asylum because they're not in the UK. What happens then is that they're detained and returned on the next flight to where they flew from. There is no need to get any permission from the country they're returning to. Have you ever travelled by air dappy? You seem to knw very little about it. The reason why these boat people can claim asylum is because they're standing on UK soil. But that can easily be changed. I believe they're done this in Italy. As for the number of people applying for asylum in the UK if we set up a processing centre in France it would certainly be millions. There are probably over a million Algerians in France for a start, who would love to come to the UK where they can get better benefits and better treatment. Then anyone throughout the EU can just go to the French processing centre rather than messing about going by boat. Of course if they get rejected in France they'll just then come by boat anyway. That's WHY we don't have processing centres in France, you fucking numpty. Quite sweet how after I explained to you that airlines face heavy fines if people arrive in the UK without passport and visas, you then try to claim you knew this already. Bless. There remain lots of factual inaccuracies in your post. Concentrate now, learn and then you can claim in your next post that you already knew those too. "Airside" is not international territory. It is UK soil under UK jurisdiction. People do claim asylum at Heathrow, indeed for a while it was the port with the highest number of asylum claimants. Don't know if that is the case now. You do need permission from the host country to deport people there, although in the case of air travel arrivals it is part of air travel treaty commitments. Obviously that wouldn't be the case for boat travellers. Your last paragraph is so full of nonsensical projections, it really isnt worth wasting time refuting. Calm down, cut out the insults and try to understand the facts. You really are a tiresome prat. At no time have I said anything about the fines that airlines face if they deliver people without correct ID. So your first paragraph is nonsense. Whether the airlines levy fines on each other is irrelevant - the fact is that these people have attempted to enter the country illegally and CANNOT claim asylum - you'll just get charged with breaking the law. They are returned on the first available flight back whence they came. And yo don't need permission to "deport" these people because they've not even been admitted to the UK. THESE are the facts that YOU need to understand. The statement that "in the case of air travel arrivals it is part of air travel treaty commitments. Obviously that wouldn't be the case for boat travellers" is exactly the point. If you fly into the UK illegally you'll be returned without even entering the UK which is probably part of "air travel treaties". MY point is that this could also be put into the laws applying to boat travel. In fact I seem to remember that we have already made a law that anyone who arrives illegally by boat cannot claim asylum. As for my "nonsensical projections" I remember that when Blair didn't apply transitional relief when Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU Blair said that only about 13,000 people would enter the country.  In actual fact over 500,000 came from Romania alone. If we put an asylum processing centre in France the number of applications would be HUGE. And it would come from ALL over the EU. You Lefties never understand the huge pull factor of our exceedingly generous asylum terms. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 10, 2024 9:43:39 GMT
I tend towards Steppenwolf's assessment of the likely demand on any UK asylum reception centre anywhere on the continent rather than dappy's pollyannaist reassurances that applications will be no more than at present.
My view is that it will open up a whole new market segment consisting of people desperate to get to the UK but who would never take the risk of entrusting themselves to smugglers etc. Given the UK's now universal reputation as a uniquely generous destination for would-be asylum seekers plus the certainty that once inside you will never be removed, the magnetic attraction for millions of third-worlders is obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 10, 2024 9:47:47 GMT
Steppenwolf , I have tried to patiently and politely explain the facts relating to air travel and hence the factual inaccuracies on which you have based your scheme. You have chosen to ignore the inconvenient facts in order to preserve in ignorance your fantasy. I’ll leave you to wallow in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 12, 2024 14:31:43 GMT
There are no factual inaccuracies in my argument at all. The fact is that if someone arrives at an airport without documentation that entitles them to entry they are put on the first return flight back. No ifs or buts.
I used to travel back and to to Italy a few years ago and they have far tighter control on their borders. They always took my passport and examined it for some time with their computer before letting me through. And anyone of the tinted persuasion was virtually routinely taken into the back room for a proper grilling. It was something of a standing joke in that you always tried to avoid any queues with blacks in it because it always caused delays.
Exactly the same thing can be done with the boats. You just have to avoid them landing on UK soil and claiming asylum. And that's easily done. But if they land you can NEVER get rid of them. I don't know why this hasn't dawned on our stupid politicians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 12, 2024 19:36:07 GMT
Dappy (Who else) don't talk bloody rubbish. The acts of union 1707 and 1800 did not dissolve the constituent countries that make up Great Briton and The United Kingdom, pillock. Exactly England , Scotland , Wales and Scotland are four separate countries and each one has its own National Flag and Anthem |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 1, 2024 16:23:57 GMT
All to predictable...
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 8, 2024 16:31:33 GMT
This is what we need to introduce in the UK - not this money for nothing culture.
Now a local municipality wants to implement a work scheme for asylum seekers living in collective housing who have no work permit allowing them to take on a regular job. Generally, a work permit is only granted six months after an asylum application has been successful.
They are to be obliged to do up to four hours of community service every day, for an hourly allowance of 80 cents. The idea is for them to keep the area clean or risk having up to 180 euros ($196) every month deducted from their card.
|
|
In actual fact over 500,000 came from Romania alone. If we put an asylum processing centre in France the number of applications would be HUGE. And it would come from ALL over the EU. You Lefties never understand the huge pull factor of our exceedingly generous asylum terms. 
