Criminalisation of refugees

I won't moan any more, nanna8

I know of some desperate tales of friends and relatives who can't travel to and from Australia because of bl**dy Covid.

Callistemon

^Who on earth would seek asylum here anyway? We are not close to anywhere^

Me for a start nanna8
I wish I'd torn up my return ticket in November 2019.

I do know a few Australians who are descendants of Original Peoples, some whose families have been there for generations (one or two descended from First and Second Fleeters) and very many who have immigrated since WW2 from all over the world.

You’ll get here eventually Cally. Perhaps it will be all the sweeter for your long wait. Avoid Sydney just now though. We have a big trip booked for August and are just hoping and praying it will happen. We have been looking forward to it for months. I am really sorry for all those who can’t get back here , mainly because our lovely government stuffed up the vaccine rollout.

It was in this paper as well.

www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2021/07/08/migrants-crossing-channel-to-claim-asylum-in-uk-will-no-longer-be-prosecuted/

The actual quote from the CPS is:

“The guidance therefore advises that passengers of boats and other vehicles should not be prosecuted unless they are repeat offenders or have previously been deported – and should instead be with dealt with by administrative removal channels.”

i.e., their claims treated the same as everybody else's, that's how I read it.

NotSpaghetti

I don't understand this then.
No prosecution but removal instead?

That doesn't make sense.
Can someone explain please? It sounds pretty grim to just be "removed" if you are seeking asylum - and is this the "new" Patel version of "illegal entry"?

I have to confess I read it to imply 'removal if asylum application fails', though that clearly isn't in the text.

I don't understand this then.
No prosecution but removal instead?

That doesn't make sense.
Can someone explain please? It sounds pretty grim to just be "removed" if you are seeking asylum - and is this the "new" Patel version of "illegal entry"?

P.S no link because I have transcribed this from a paper copy of the Times.

Interesting article in The Times yesterday. Apparently that hot bed of leftie enemies of the people, the CPS, has said in new guidance that they will no longer prosecute migrants.

The CPS said that asylum seekers not involved in any criminal activity other than illegal entry should not be prosecuted because they could 'usually be better dealt with by removal'

OTOH, they said that: those involved in people smuggling and channel crossings can expect to face prosecution where this is supported by the evidence

Asylum seekers often have no choice in how they travel and face exploitation by organised crime groups. The guidance therefore advises that passengers of boats and other vehicles should not be prosecuted unless they are repeat offenders or have previously been deported.

Absolutely, send them up here.

Let us have our own immigration policy so that we don't have to live with this wicked "hostile environment" policy.

Perhaps they could all be sent to Scotland to live ?

I do.

I want something much less "rigorous" if "rigorous" means keeping people in unsuitable accommodation until they lose their minds, if it means spiriting people off so they don't have access to their legal rights, and all the rest of it.

The covid excuse doesn't work, sorry, since numbers dropped significantly in 2020; and economic migrants don't get assessed for asylum so that doesn't work either Not enough staff? Employ more people with this Brexit Bonus we kept on hearing about.

Staff shortages/Covid/more economic migrants/ who knows.
However, what we don’t want is a less rigorous routine for sorting out genuine/ non genuine cases.

lemongrove

Keep on posting Stormy your opinions are as valid as anyone else's

welbeck with respect, you know one asylum seeker’s story,
Or at least what they choose to say. The Home Office has to sort out thousands of cases and try and work out the truth of them.The UK has a good history of granting asylum but is no doubt overwhelmed these days with so many cases arriving here in a short space of time.It can’t be easy I know, for genuine asylum cases, but the HO owe it to all of us to make sure they are getting it right.

Oh would some power teh gifite gi'e us, to see ourselves as others see us.

www.salfordcvs.co.uk/asylum-seekers-flee-horrific-conditions-only-be-criminalised-unfair-uk-policies

www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/23/asylum-seekers-treated-in-dehumanising-way-by-uk-host-hotels

www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2017/apr/08/asylum-caseworkers-home-office-cuts-syria-war

Overwhelmed are they? Wonder how they managed around 2002 when the number of asylum seekers was more than double what it is now?

Lemongrove ???

Keep on posting Stormy your opinions are as valid as anyone else's

welbeck with respect, you know one asylum seeker’s story,
Or at least what they choose to say. The Home Office has to sort out thousands of cases and try and work out the truth of them.The UK has a good history of granting asylum but is no doubt overwhelmed these days with so many cases arriving here in a short space of time.It can’t be easy I know, for genuine asylum cases, but the HO owe it to all of us to make sure they are getting it right.

Growstuff haha ha such a shame your so fed up and intolerant of Sloppy terminology, such judgemental arrogance are you one of those people who silence others opinions with put downs, I was totally unaware there was such an invisible high barr set in knowledge or use of language before one could dare to offer an opinion. I thought this was a space for open minded discussion exchange of thoughts, I feel like I’ve gone back into a bullying school playground. .

asylum applicants have no recourse to public funds, ie benefits, except the £35 a week maintenance which they can apply for.
even those who are granted leave to remain, and who work and pay taxes, often still have no recourse to public funds.
asylum applicants are forbidden to work, even though most of them are eager to do so.

as for lemongrove's comment,
Genuine asylum seekers will always be assessed sympathetically here in the UK,
i might have thought/hoped so, before i became acquainted with an applicant, and read their file.
the home office is rarely sympathetic, seem to want to trip people up, confuse them, and burden them with complicated conditions of bail.

Genuine asylum seekers will always be assessed sympathetically here in the UK and always have been.Many of those who say they are are often economic migrants.
What’s to be done? The risky crossings on the open sea and the lorries will continue ad infinitum until we find some way to stop it.The drownings will continue as well, and the swine who make money from all this will continue to do so.

If I were a recruiter with a candidate who had organised travel halfway across the world, had relied on inner resources and resilience to survive, had faced dangers, hunger and living in the open, had sold all they had for a purpose and was prepared to do a job possibly far below what they were capable of doing, I think I'd be impressed.

Stormystar Please get something straight. Anybody is entitled to enter the UK (or any other country) and immediately seek asylum. They are not "illegal", unless a request for asylum is refused.

There are, of course, people who don't seek asylum, so they are in the UK illegally, but I'm fed up with the sloppy use of terminology.

In 2020, the top five most common countries of nationality of people seeking asylum in the UK were Iran, Iraq, Albania, Eritrea, and Sudan. In Eritrea, for example, people are not issued with passports, so it is extremely difficult for them to apply to travel anywhere, never mind apply for citizenship elsewhere.

Because U.K. is an island it is very difficult for people to enter in a normal way . These people have travelled a long long way and have lost their papers or destroyed them for fear of being caught and torture etc. They cannot just get on a plane or ferry as they would not have the necessary documents etc. All these things conspire to make it necessary to resort to the small boats. Ask yourself would you take your children on a dangerous crossing if you could take the safe ferry?

Yes of course but as citizens they do have access to the NHS schooling the law and our benefits system etc etc. Those who are here illegally are prey to horrendous abuse without any means to seek recourse within the system.

Unfortunately, StormyStar, people who are within the system are often treated badly.

There are legal procedures for economic migrants and asylums seekers to become UK citizens. And to enjoy the prosperity and safety of this country, people who wish to live here need to be living legally within the State system. People outside the system who live in the shadows, are open to degrading abuse from those who exploit their plight. Are we really helping by condoning/ encouraging those who want to enter illegally, those who have to pay thousands of pounds to get here, and then having to remain under constant fear of exposure working for a pittance or being prostituted to pay pay off a never ending debt. Are we encouraging the perpetuation of a virtual slave trade.

i have no idea how any of the above workers arrived here.
i do know in detail of one asylum applicant, not a boat person.
their life is hardly enviable. and the home office system is brutal. including having to sign on monthly at a distant centre, seemingly picked to be the most difficult to reach, where people including frail elderly have to queue outside in the rain, snow, storm etc unsheltered for possible hours. if they are even 2 minutes ate they are marked down as not complying with bail conditions, and can be put in a detention/removal centre.
if everyone has to sign on at 9am, with a journey involving 3 buses, 2 trains, and a long walk to some outlandish industrial estate, in rush hour. there are hundreds already there, queuing outside. people with tiny children, and elderly, scared they will not be able to sign on in time because so many are ahead of them, long before the centre opens.
and then shouted at rudely by private security guards.
that is one mere detail of their lives. and living on £35 a week.

the birth rate has fallen in uk over recent years, and we will need more younger people working to support the vast numbers of elder inc GNers, both financially through taxation and practically.
the vast majority of care workers i have come across, over 90%, were born overseas, mostly Africa and Asia, with a few east europeans, but i guess that group will be cut off now.
they would hardly achieve the income/qualifications tests.
they were not taking anyone's jobs; they were doing the jobs others won't do. so without them, the care crisis increases.