Asylum seekers

I entirely agree, process them quickly, give them work permits, don’t waste millions holding them in concentration camps.

I just found this:
www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/03/we-were-left-by-the-road-asylum-seekers-stranded-in-london-describe-experience

Doesn't explain it though to be honest.

I still want to know why the asylum seekers were homeless in London.
The Home Office said it wasn't a mistake!
What was it then?

I've often thought that Grantanow. If I were on an interview panel with somebody who had traipsed thousands of miles across the world and risked life and limb, I'd be keen to appoint.

The asylum seekers arriving across the Channel have demonstrated considerable initiative and fortitude in getting themselves to the UK. Surely they are mostly the kind of citizens we need and ought to be allowed to work while the Home Office drags its feet assessing their case rather than twiddling their thumbs in Manston and other detention centres.

I agree NotSpag that it is not right. Why should we make it difficult for refugees to find refuge in this country. Someone ask where they should all go and another poster hinted that they should settle in the first friendly country they encounter.

The reason many choose the U.K. is because they speak enough of the language to get by and they have family already here. Of the 50 refugees abandoned at Victoria station all but 11 were able to contact family members to come and get them (according to todays Guardian). They can go to relatives after they have been processed.

And if they were allowed to work then they could probably support themselves.

We have too many old folk (like most of us) in this country and too many sick folk (like quite a lot of us) but not enough young healthy folk who are keen to work (like most of these asylum seekers)

It could be a win-win situation if we granted asylum to those doctors, nurses, care workers, engineers, architects, accountants, HGV drivers, vets, butchers, abattoir workers, fruit pickers, farm workers, factory workers, carpenters, plumbers, teaching assistants, shop assistants and flexible talented people who are willing to give it a go.

JenniferEccles

It’s very defeatist to say we can’t keep these people out.
There must be a way. Australia managed it a few years ago.

Why di you want to 'keep these people out'? At least 75% of them are accepted as bona fide asylum seekers once their applications have been processed and a significant number more win appeals against a negative decision.

We have always accepted asylum seekers and the nasty, xenophobic Brexit vote shouldn't make any difference to that. Even though many Brexit voters clearly think it should have done.

Asylum seekers are human beings fleeing intolerable circumstances, not flies to be swatted away.

Re the OP. Yes, as others have said, it is correct. But it's not right in my opinion, Quokka

And yes, Glorianny, some of us do realise but this government doesn't care. Writing to my MP yields nothing.

Do people not realise that this country has been in breech of basic human rights since June? That this government has made people who come seeking asylum criminals, no matter what they may have undergone in their own country.
Here's what cam into operation in June.
www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/campaigns-blog/dire-day-refugees-and-all-who-care-about-justice

Some people on here scare me.I suggest you read this. Key point:
Asylum applications to the UK are relatively low – 35,566 in the year to December 2019. This is significantly lower than the peak of 84,000 applications back in 2002. There’s a graph on the second attachment with year on year totals.
www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/
And this: ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/promoting-our-european-way-life/statistics-migration-europe_en
I don’t suppose you will read it though, because it’s a lot easier to sit in your comfortable houses throwing stones at things you don’t understand. It makes me so angry.

It’s very defeatist to say we can’t keep these people out.
There must be a way. Australia managed it a few years ago.

Quokka

ronib

From government website
Your claim for asylum might not be considered if you
Are from an Eu country
Travelled to the Uk through a ‘safe third country’
Etc
A safe third country is one that
You are not a citizen of
You would not be harmed in
Would not send you on to another country where you would be harmed

Just another get out.

The government website is wrong. There is no legal reason why a person should apply for asylum in a safe country they have travelled through.

When we were in the EU we could return them to a safe country in the EU that they'd travelled through, under the Terms of the Dublin Agreement. That has lapsed now that we no longer an EU member.

Now we're finding out what 'control your own borders' actually means and the Brexit lot really don't like it...

It's time that they faced reality, though we cannot keep these people out, they will contrive to come whatever we do.

So, instead of concocting expensive schemes to offload a small number onto a third country, and illegally keeping them in what almost amounts to concentration camps, they should get their fingers out to do something constructive about the situation.

the asylum seeker whom i knew was offered £35 a week subsistence. but she declined to take it as she was staying somewhere, helping the household and getting food. a bit like an au pair.
that was a few years ago. so i assume equates to the £40 allowance.
the £8 is for those who have accomm provided, with meals. although in reality the food is often poor.
her application took about 6 years to be granted.

In the meantime how can all these thousands of people be accommodated and funded?

JenniferEccles

As the vast majority of these immigrants are young males from perfectly safe European countries like, most recently, Albania, they are most definitely economic migrants not refugees or asylum seekers.

As GG13 said, where are they all supposed to live eventually? We have a housing shortage due to our rapidly increasing population. Then there’s the added burden on an already stretched NHS.
Every country has a right to control its borders doesn’t it?
It’s an intolerable situation.

Government could actually properly fund the NHS and social housing

Brexit was supposed to find the NHS was it not? How’s that working out?

This is how Brexit works isn't it.? Thousands of EU nationality workers return home sensing they aren't wanted here, leaving thousands of jobs unfilled, esp in our hospitals and care homes.
Thousands more coming the other way only too willing to fill those jobs are treated harshly, kept hanging around for months at great cost, and if the govt is on a lucky strike sent back again.
Meanwhile the UK grinds to a halt because important work is being done by no one.
Nevertheless we're told that this was the wish of the British people.

Completely agree it’s intolerable situation. Government can decide to leave all current conventions surrounding migration and form its own legislation . Parliament to decide policies and civil servants to aid government ministers frame and implement legislation. Sir Humphrey permitting…..

As the vast majority of these immigrants are young males from perfectly safe European countries like, most recently, Albania, they are most definitely economic migrants not refugees or asylum seekers.

As GG13 said, where are they all supposed to live eventually? We have a housing shortage due to our rapidly increasing population. Then there’s the added burden on an already stretched NHS.
Every country has a right to control its borders doesn’t it?
It’s an intolerable situation.

Also even when asylum is granted, the asylum seeker is allowed refuge for a limited time. If the country of origin is deemed to be safe after a change of circumstances, the asylum seeker may be returned to that country. I was told this by a young lady from Afghanistan!

Katie59

The French are doing nothing, because there is no law that stops a group of people getting into a boat and sailing west.

Why should they do anything? The UK hasn't exactly made efforts to remain cordial with France. From France's point of view, they're glad to see the back of refugees. The UK would do the same.

However, there is some evidence that criminal gangs have gained a foothold in Northern France and Belgium and are making their money from trafficking. It would be in France's, Belgium's and the UK's interest, if the gangs could be broken up, but that's not easy when the countries aren't co-operating with each other.

ronib

From government website
Your claim for asylum might not be considered if you
Are from an Eu country
Travelled to the Uk through a ‘safe third country’
Etc
A safe third country is one that
You are not a citizen of
You would not be harmed in
Would not send you on to another country where you would be harmed

Just another get out.

From government website
Your claim for asylum might not be considered if you
Are from an Eu country
Travelled to the Uk through a ‘safe third country’
Etc
A safe third country is one that
You are not a citizen of
You would not be harmed in
Would not send you on to another country where you would be harmed

In answer to Baggs' question about the 14% of immigrants in the UK, there was a statistical chart on twitter today. Basically UK similar to France and Spain, lower than Ireland, Scandinavian countries and Germany. IIRC Sweden was the highest on 20%.

TerriBull I’ve heard that many of the young men coming from Afghanistan leave rather than be forced into the Taliban.