No migrants welcome.

Cheers Rishi, you migrant.

We have no process to let the poor folks into our country. Send them to Rwanda. Great. Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

We no longer agree to basic human rights via the UN.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848101

I hope the Tory party never get elected again.

Fascist lovely people.

 

Compared to the likes of Braverman and Patel, Maggie Thatcher looks almost saintly.

Jees, did I just really say that? I need a drink...

 

I think the 'No migrants welcome' is OTT. The 'gravy train' of lawyers clogging up the system is not only hugely expensive to the taxpayer but hugely damaging to the genuine asylum seekers due to the massive delays in processing due to appeal after appeal many spurious . Something drastic has to be done to break the log jam.
Now before you jump down my throat and call me an 'apologist', 'racist' I have to point out IMO the 'drasticc measure required is not this proposed solution.
What is needed is a clear, simple and , above all, accessible process to eliminate th catch 22 of having to actually be in the UK to claim asylum at the same time having no legal means of doing so. The cost of clamping down on smugglers, search and rescue, hunting people smugglers, housing asylum seekers in hotels and centres for months on end could easily fund a substantial increase in Border Agency staff staffing centres overseas to process applications. Eliminating tìeh tragic loss of life in these deadly crossings alone would be worth the money.

 

He doesn't say no migrants welcome. The article says...

Make no mistake, if you come here illegally, you will not be able to stay.

 

My uncle Jefferson in Zambia is a cracking disk jockey he just wants to get on that Airplane and find somebody to love.

 

Can you please provide evidence of this "gravy train" of lawyers and spurious appeals?

 

Am mostly in agreement with Tektyke. we need to make the system work and the appeals are a big part of the issue. I remember reading that one guy had continually filed appeal for 7 or 8 years while still remaining here. We need a application system that is then genuinely looked at and after the decision,if its a refusal, one appeal is allowed. BBC news article yesterday said removal of refused asylum seekers fell from 2010 figure of 10k to last year 2k..we need as a rich nation to help the vulnerable and needy sadly as said this issue is now a Tory football to be kicked about when they need to look popular..it's disgraceful

 

The issue being, what is the legal way for those fleeing persecution to enter the country?

Sally Nugent has just asked a Tory minister and she clearly had no idea.

 

Said one appeal in post but if more is required so be it but set a limit..what else can ya do to unblock the system.the immigration department unable to process the number of migrants coming g here so what's your solution because the current system isn't working and like I said we need to help the vulnerable and needy but we need to identify which applicants are and which arnt. if it's 86% as you quoted then that's what we need to deal with let's do it but let's do it right..

 

Alright...spurious may have been an inappropriate term but there is clearly a lot of money to be made given how much it costs to hire barristers for any cases and legal Aid IS avalable for many asylum seekers. The very fact that there are ' adverts' on the internet (one example below) shows the specialist immigration lawyers find it a profitable area
https://iasservices.org.uk/private-asylum/#:~:text=The asylum system can be,today on 0333 455 3524.

I am not arguing that it is the system and Government at fault, but some of the appeals reaching the High Court and Appeals Court.
One example in the Guardian is


Lawyers for Sudanese man launching action say questionnaire being circulated to 12,000 asylum seekers in an attempt to speed up their claims is discriminatory

• A Sudanese asylum seeker is planning a legal challenge to a new Home Office questionnaire that is being circulated to 12,000 asylum seekers to speed up their claims.

No doubt this has been prompted by lawyers. One standout point is.. they are arguing that the questionnaire asks about sexual abuse, torture and trafficking "which claimants may be reluctant to answer".
Now whilst we should have sympathy adn empathy for those that may have suffered the above, it is not unreasonable to expect someone claiming asylum due to having suffered those abuses to actually state on the form that they are victims of such abuses. It is surely like a domestic rape victim in interview stating they don't want to talk about it.

There is no doubt that most of the blame lies with the system but 'ambulance chasing' for want of a better term, does exist in the legal profession and lowers peoples perceptions of the work they carry out. It has become harder for Law firms to take the high moral ground since advertising was legalised. There may well be a small number of pro-bono practitioners in the field and whilst many 'new' barristers are very poorly paid overall the legal profession overall is a relatively well rewarded career.

 

Dealing swiftly and in accordance with the law, and swiftly removing those whose claims are unsubstantiated is acceptable. Attempting to block their right to present their legal case is not. It is against our Convention (and therefore Treaty) obligations and is inconsistent with a civilized society where the rule of law prevails. Every day in our courts even the worst of villains are entitled to representation. It is a vital safeguard that they are so represented. Asylum seekers are no different (and most of them succeed - under the law). It is not for the lawyer to make a determination (although he/she may wish to advise on the likelihood of success). The court/tribunal must decide the case, and sufficient resources should be provided to ensure that justice is swiftly administered - whatever the outcome.

 

Legal aid doesn't apply for asylum cases, so these lawyers working for the asylum seekers are generally working pro-bono or employed by charities on low pay (to gain experience).

It seems likely that given the number of appeals that succeed the government would be better off employing sufficient resources to process the claims accurately and more efficiently. Remember that the figure for last year - 75000 - was roughly 10% lower than the peak year (84000 in 2002). Given that we didn't then see the small boat crossings (safe routes were closed), the high cost of using hotels (accommodation was privatized) or the constant newspaper culture war headlines, it suggests to me that this is a result of failures of the Conservative governments policies since 2010 (which saw the lowest level of asylum claims - 17000)

 

Various websites including Gov.UK below (entry highlighted below) state you can... (what am I missing?)

What you can get legal aid for
You might be able to get legal aid for problems like:

• homelessness or losing your home, or if it’s in serious disrepair
• protecting yourself or your child from abuse or harassment, for example domestic violence or forced marriage
• poor quality care you or a family member are getting due to age, disability or special educational needs
• needing advice on finances, children or divorce if you’ve been in an abusive relationship
• a child in your family being at risk of being taken into care
• family mediation, for example if you’re separating or getting a divorce
• discrimination
• challenging the way the government has made a decision about you
• seeking asylum or if you’ve been the victim of human trafficking
• being arrested, charged or questioned by the police
• needing advice if a family member’s death is going to a coroner’s inquest
• appealing a decision made by the social security tribunal about your benefits to the Upper Tribunal, Court of Appeal or Supreme Court

EDIT: BTW Agree with the rest of your post.

 

But surely the likelihood of success should be a factored in to in the decision to appeal rather than spinning it out. Certain high profile cases (not just immigration) appear, to at least lay people like myself. appear to do just that.

 

Going off on a tangent, if Mrs. T were still about, which side of the BreXit argument would she have taken? In the 1975 version she was on the side of staying in. Had the referendum gone the other way we may have achieved a better level of cooperation from France, although I am pretty sure the French are not too unhappy that these desperate people prefer the UK.

Do not get the wrong end of the stick, I was never ever a supporter of Thatcher, I am just speculating.

 

So you don't know how much they are paid but are happy to call it a "gravy train" on the basis that firms exist which do the work?

 

First line "might". Also the government are proposing to limit the fees paid to lawyers (https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...d-a-consultation-on-new-fees-for-new-services). While £669 for a first-tier asylum claim that does not go to hearing might sound a lot, its probably not that much above minimum wage when the amount of work is taken into account.