The Law of unintended consequences

In a way it doesn’t matter how asylum seekers arrive - Braverman treats them all the same - with inhumanity.

We do know that there was an Afghanistan doctor that arrived by plane and was put onto the Bibby Stockholm.

Those arriving on boats would not be arriving on boats if they were doctors etc.

How can you possibly know that, maddyone?. Have you seen every single one of their applications for asylum?

MaizieD

Doodledog

Hetty58

Doodledog:

'the UK has more than our share of refugees.'

No we don't, they make up just 0.54% of the UK’s total population:

www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/#:~:text=Are%20there%20many%20refugees%20and,of%20the%20UK's%20total%20population.

Excuse me?

Where did I say that the UK has more than our share of refugees?

What I genuinely don't understand is when we are told that refugees have to go to the first safe country they come to and stay there, but at the same time that the UK has more than our share of refugees.

I think she misinterpreted this sentence.

I know you would never say that.

Ah, I see - thanks, Maisie.

No, I was in no way saying that the UK has more than our share od refugees. It may have been misinterpreted, but the clues to my meaning are there, aren't they? 'What I don't understand is. . ', and 'but at the same time [we are told] that. . .' .

maddyone

As soon as the government gets off its arse and sorts out safe routes - the small boats will cease immediately.

It isn’t rocket science but you do wonder at Braverman’s agenda. Well, I don’t actually - I know exactly what her agenda is!

I’m not sure that most people think asylum seekers contribute positively to this country. Immigration certainly contributes positively to this country because doctors, nurses, midwives, dentists, financial experts, IT workers, and many others can come to this country perfectly legally. We have many shortages (unsure why with a population of nearly 70 million) and they are filled by legal immigrants. Over 600,000 came last year. Many were students and families of students. They may well stay on and fill professional jobs in the future. Those arriving on boats would not be arriving on boats if they were doctors etc. Maybe we need them to pick vegetables etc but what we don’t need is a never ending flow of small boats bringing people to stay at great cost to the taxpayer, in hotels up and down the country.
This is not an anti immigration post, it is an anti small boat post. This ridiculous situation needs to stop, and it will not stop until coming to this country via a small boat is not successful long term.

Doodledog

Hetty58

Doodledog:

'the UK has more than our share of refugees.'

No we don't, they make up just 0.54% of the UK’s total population:

www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/#:~:text=Are%20there%20many%20refugees%20and,of%20the%20UK's%20total%20population.

Excuse me?

Where did I say that the UK has more than our share of refugees?

What I genuinely don't understand is when we are told that refugees have to go to the first safe country they come to and stay there, but at the same time that the UK has more than our share of refugees.

I think she misinterpreted this sentence.

I know you would never say that.

No apologies for repeats. If it's the same old, same old it's because that is what the Tories do.

Hetty58

Doodledog:

'the UK has more than our share of refugees.'

No we don't, they make up just 0.54% of the UK’s total population:

www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/#:~:text=Are%20there%20many%20refugees%20and,of%20the%20UK's%20total%20population.

Excuse me?

Where did I say that the UK has more than our share of refugees?

Doodledog:

'the UK has more than our share of refugees.'

No we don't, they make up just 0.54% of the UK’s total population:

www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/#:~:text=Are%20there%20many%20refugees%20and,of%20the%20UK's%20total%20population.

I don't know who they are either. I know plenty of people who are appalled by what the government is doing and saying, but I don't know anybody who thinks immigration shouldn't be controlled.

especially as there are so many people who don’t agree that we should have proper immigration controls.

Who are they, GrannyRose15?.

I don't know of any political party that doesn't want proper immigration controls. So who are these people?

How does what the LP may or not do make what the Tories have done more or less acceptable? We don't know what they would do - we do know what the Tories have done - for 13 years.

Thankyou for clarifying. I can agree with most of what you say. But getting it right is proving very difficult especially as there are so many people who don’t agree that we should have proper immigration controls. Do you think the Labour party has any better ideas? Because I don’t.

GrannyRose15

Whitewavemark2

Exactly - they are not illegal 😄 not even here, even though the stupid idiots keep calling them so.

Why don’t we just let everyone in who wants to come. Never mind the housing crisis the healthcare crisis the policing crisis the education crisis to name but a few. Let the whole world crowd into one of the smallest countries and see how that works out for everyone.

You don’t seem to understand what my argument is.

I am arguing and pointing out the total incompetence of the Tory government. That they have wasted tax payers money to an eye watering degree and have allowed dogma to get in the way of common sense.

I am not arguing for us to have a totally open border. Quite the reverse in fact. I am asking for a government who understands the law, deals with asylum seekers appropriately and in a timely manner and has a immigration policy that benefits the U.K.

Whitewavemark2

Exactly - they are not illegal 😄 not even here, even though the stupid idiots keep calling them so.

Why don’t we just let everyone in who wants to come. Never mind the housing crisis the healthcare crisis the policing crisis the education crisis to name but a few. Let the whole world crowd into one of the smallest countries and see how that works out for everyone.

I'm not sure who he was - a Tory MP or maybe he is in the Lords, I think. He should be aware of the law, whoever he is though.

The trouble is that people hear this so often and repeat it as though it's fact. It really should be a requirement that these things are corrected (or at least challenged). AQ is pre-recorded, so that would be easy, and live programmes could be expected to make corrections at the beginning of the next episode.

Exactly - they are not illegal 😄 not even here, even though the stupid idiots keep calling them so.

Someone has just said on Any Questions that many 'illegal immigrants' have travelled through several safe countries before they get here, and nobody has challenged him.

Why is this allowed?

It has been found that the Bibby Stockholm has the most deadly strain of legionella - so the Tory minister who announced a couple of days ago that the asylum seekers will be back on board soon is a tad optimistic.

Because it suits them and they are supported by the media, but in fact they are behind the curve as far as the British public is concerned.

These asylum seekers are neither criminal nor illegal ( because the Tories are too frit to enact the Illegal immigrant bill), although even then this is direct contravention of the UN convention which we are signed up to.. they are in fact here perfectly legally, so it is time that the HO got off its arse and dealt with the ridiculous build up it has allowed to happen by pandering to Braverman’s ideology.

This nonsense of “the first safe country” is only an expedient concept for the states convenience, and not written in law, so if you think about it is absolute nonsense as if that was the case countries like Turkey and Italy would be stuffed with asylum seekers.
Exactly my point .

So why are politicians allowed to keep getting away with saying the 'first country' thing?

The law states that those seeking sanctuary are free to choose the country they wish in which to claim asylum.

This nonsense of “the first safe country” is only an expedient concept for the states convenience, and not written in law, so if you think about it is absolute nonsense as if that was the case countries like Turkey and Italy would be stuffed with asylum seekers.

The world needs to recognise that the situation is going to grow ever worse as the climate degenerates.

What I genuinely don't understand is when we are told that refugees have to go to the first safe country they come to and stay there, but at the same time that the UK has more than our share of refugees.

This does not compute, as we are an island. There can never be a situation where the UK is the first safe country, unless people from Eire need to seek refuge. How is that remotely fair to the anyone taking in people from a country with shared borders, or on the same land mass?

So, the latest HO blunder. They are trying very hard to reduce the cost of the hotel bill, now it is clear that the HO will have to bear the cost if the illegal immigration bill is enacted.

Ex-military basis are being chosen to house the asylum seekers.

However, local councils are slapping a notice on the refurbishment because they are “breaching planning control”.

It is also becoming clear that the living conditions are so poor for those already moved to a military base that they are leaving and simply refusing to return, because the conditions are “unbearable”

The government are unable to keep the asylum seekers confined, because they are not criminals and have broken no law in either entering the U.K. or choosing not to stay in accommodation offered.

Yet again a thread that equates economic migrants with asylum seekers. They are not the same. Britain has always been very welcoming to refugees. The fact that many people are suffering from compassion fatigue is exactly because there are too many immigrants - illegal and legal.