No migrants welcome.

The Single Market was hailed as her greatest legacy - but the Bruges Group "claim" she was against the formation of the EU from her famous speech in Bruges (despite it being public knowledge in 1975). Given the effects of federalization to reduce the powers of "those behind the scenes", she'd probably have voted Leave in 2016 - which could have been enough to swing the vote the other way.

Off the asylum seekers that enter France, roughly 70% stay in France and we get around 30%.

 

I hated her with a passion, but she was intelligent and was on the side of being in Europe, whether she would have been in 2016 I don't know. She may have done the same as Cameron and put party before country we can only speculate.

 

Fair dos but looking at it from the other side.. multiply that figure by the thousands of claims and appeals a proportion of which end up in the High court and appeals courts combined with the cost of acvcomodation and subsistence paid out over many months, the cost to the taxpayer is unnecessarily
high. Even a simplex change in rules to allow pending cases to take gainful employment until a decision is reached would lessen the burden.
.

 

People can be advised, but they should not be prevented arbitrarily from pursuing their rights. And those rights cannot be definitively determined until their case is heard. Unless you want a different type of country?

 

Whole system is a complete mess, including the vague UN policies.

Set up a simple process where you can apply from anywhere, not just on entering the country. Surely not rocket science that.
Then it's fair for all. If after the processes are in place we get people using illegal routes of entry, stipulate that they will not be allowed entry.

Where we have people fleeing war torn countries in fear of their lives, we should 100% be doing our bit but we are essentially a small island in terms of capacity and our infrastructure is currently in tatters so I also understand the outrage somewhat from sections of society.

It does also make we wonder how bad France must be to live in if eastern Europeans are hellbent on getting across the channel. What are we offering that other countries aren't?
Risk your life or apply for asylum in France surely isn't a hard choice (I'm not suggesting we close the doors in any way), it just baffles me on the lengths people go to get into the UK.

 

The majority of those that come here do so because they have family here or speak the language.

 

Of those that enter the EU to claim asylum (roughly 600,000 per annum), around 10% reach the UK. Those that reach the UK receive less money and benefits than in comparative countries (France, Germany, etc), take longer to be processed *and* are unable to work while their claim is processed.

France takes 3-4x what the UK takes. But people speak English as a second language (Empire innit), have family here, or just believe the hype that the UK is a caring, mature democracy that helps the weak in their hour of need.

 

If they have family already here, they 100% have a case of course but for the amount of cash they pay out, they could quite easily arrive by traditional methods of transport and then claim asylum as many are economic migrants not fleeing war torn countries etc.

Just because we speak English though isn't a valid reason to enter the UK though.

Another comparison. In 2021 the UK granted 64% of first time applications against France granting only 25%.

Biggest issue we have is the state of our national infrastructure to cope with any such numbers, something has to give but it has to be fair to legitimate applications whilst holding a strong line against those not so.

 

National infrastructure? If NI spending was based on providing for the needs of the NATION rather than obscene profits for tories and their cronies, the country would be far better off as a whole. Immigration is just a smoke screen to keep the plebs occupied while those just mentioned loot the public chest.

 

100% would be yes. But equally so under every government since 1970's minimum.

 

You don't need to flee a "war-torn" country to be a refugee. You could be a victim of discrimination by the government/authorities - for instance being gay in many Middle Eastern/African countries carries a death sentence - or displaced by a natural disaster such as the recent earthquake in Turkey (who already host 3.5 million refugees from Syria) or climate change.

69% of refugees are hosted in the nearest country - with Turkey, Pakistan, Colombia and Uganda hosting far, far more than any Western European country - with the exception of Germany.

The majority of people around the world have no official documentation for travel - even in USA its only around 37% with a valid passport. Its more in Europe because we are used to quick journeys to France, Spain or Italy for our annual holidays but still 8 million people have no passport. If your home was destroyed and you had to flee with only what you could carry, how would you get to another country? You might have enough cash to pay people smugglers but you couldn't get a passport to fly - in many cases, a genuine asylum seeker would face arrest and mistreatment if they applied for a passport or went to an airport.

And for the people smugglers, they only exist because of a demand. Remove that demand - by opening a centre in France and bringing applicants across on the ferry/Eurostar - and you force the people smugglers out of business.

 

That will achieve nothing, just create an open door policy. France will just see it as a green light to reduce their granted applications down from the 25% level now.

 

How will it create an open door policy? Surely it's the opposite - why would you risk a small boat crossing if your application has already been denied?

 

I think we should have a vote on whether we should take back control of our borders. We could ask that nice Nigel Farage to run it.

 

I don't think many will know how to apply or even be aware of this legislation.

 

We are rapidly turning our country into something between North Korea & Myanmar.

Great result.

I copied this off the BBC website regarding "legal routes":

The Home Office says there are a number of "safe and legal" routes to the UK. However, some are only available to people from specific countries such as Afghanistan and Ukraine, or British National status holders in Hong Kong.

Other asylum routes only accept a limited number of refugees:

UK Resettlement Scheme - prioritises those from regions in conflict. It planned to resettle 5,000 in its first year, but resettled 1,125

Community Sponsorship Scheme - for local community groups to provide accommodation and support for refugees. In 2021, 144 people used this route

Refugee Family Reunion - for partners and children under 18 of those already granted protection in the UK. In 2021, 6,134 visas were granted

Mandate Resettlement Scheme - to resettle refugees who have a close family member in the UK who can offer a home. The scheme has resettled about 430 refugees since 2004, but just two people in 2021

Organisations including the Refugee Council and Amnesty International says there are no safe and legal routes for most people to seek asylum in the UK.

 

PS **** the Tories.

 

Bottom line for me (and I have read all the legal/international law stuff) is do we treat people as human beings? ALL these people are human beings. They aren't cattle for slaughter. They are human beings. I have no doubt that some of these people will be nasty, horrible, spongeing adulterers, rapists etc etc because a cross-section of any society would reveal as much. However, what about the majority here? The pains taken to do what they do? The dangers? The abuse? The racism? And they still come. Why? The method of arrival is surely not the biggest issue here per se its the number of people coming - period - and the reasons for them coming. At least have a processing system that is well-staffed and robust and as a more difficult job for any government look into the reasons why they come and try to address the causes of it ( tough cookie I know). If you just play to the crowd by saying you're stopping people coming ( which is basically what the bill will do) are you really dealing with the real issue and are you treating people like human beings?
I dont think I'm being naive here btw.

 

Since when have the Tories funded and well staffed any department?

They see any public position as a drain on the profits they could otherwise generate for their chums

 

I love them I do. Improved the railways. Improved the rivers. Improved the beaches. Improved the NHS. Improved schools. Improved mortgage rates. Reduced inequality. Improved homelessness. Improved food bank use. Improved social care. In fact I could go on about everything they've done that has made society better and more functional so stfu mate