Immigration and migrants

Callistemon
I hate to be the one to burst your id bubble, but, 😁 for this to work we need more coppers on the beat, and that isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
Added to that, some scallywag will find a way to counterfeit them, sorry 🤷‍♀️

growstuff

Freya5

Germanshepherdsmum

Cossy

GSM

“Those who claim to have a trade or profession have to undergo exams to prove that they are competent and safe to work here, and they must have a sufficient command of the English language. Those who are to work with children and vulnerable people must pass the appropriate police checks, but how when there is no documentary evidence of who they are and from whence they come? Surely you can understand that?”

I completely understand and actually agree with you to a certain extent, BUT, big huge but, it takes little skill to become part of a team cleaning streets, removing refuse, assisting at a local tip/dump, to be a general labourer, to be a general cleaner as part of a team. Working with others who speak English will improve their understanding and use of English. I’m only suggesting these role until such time as they have their cases processed. We have plenty of “unskilled” roles, and we will simply have to agree to respectfully disagree that asylum seekers ALL arrive here with no English and no skills. I don’t think I suggested they should practice as lawyers ir doctors.

Do we have such a great need of people doing those menial jobs? And when their wages are insufficient to feed them and put roofs over their heads, what happens?

You are an idealist, not a realist.

It's OK. Us tax payers will top up their wages.

No, we wouldn't. They wouldn't even need to be paid. They would be learning skills, which could then be put to good use. Speculate to accumulate!

PS. Who do you think is paying for the Rwanda scheme?

Dear God growstuff. Speculate to accumulate? Will these people exist on thin air whilst training and until they can earn a living wage? Do you live in the real world or in Utopia?

petra

This looks interesting.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13396061/BBC-podcast-migrants-channel-people-smugglers-calais.html

If they can find £18,000 to come here illegally then they are not “poor immigrants”.

There is more I could say about this but last week got a real dressing down from someone who said I should not share “tittle tattle” from a person I know who works for Border Force.

Cossy
Which part was horrifying the amount of money paid or the corruption at Calais. I’ve known about Calais for years through a harbour master at Dover.
Of course I’ve never said anything because it wouldn’t be believed especially on GN. But now it’s out there. It’s the same at Zeebrugge.

Germanshepherdsmum

Fgs, the idea of the Rwanda scheme is to get rid of them. We don’t need them gardening/upcycling furniture/whatever daft idea people have which won’t earn them enough to live on. We don’t need them, full stop.

No country in the West wants them or needs them, that’s why it’s such a problem.
At least arranging terms with Albania has slowed economic migrants from there to a trickle.

I think there is a "down" on any suggestions

because of the abysmal processing system we have in the UK.

Because we fail so badly, and Rwanda has been such an expensive mess, people demonise and ate encouraged to demonise in an "they're all the same" way

Not only that, but there is a deliberate government narrative over the last year when all asylum seekers are painted intrinsically bad, untrustworthy, dangerous, cannot work. Example of the "Bad" are constantly brought out not the many who want to work and live like anyone else. Suggestions of supervision needed s here sound more like prison.

A narrative of hate and blame instead of constructive working on ideas and possible small but valuable initiatives.

I had a look across at Germany, which still has more seekers than the UK

In Germany "The processing of asylum applications in Germany has become slightly faster – on average, people now have to wait around six months for a decision. That's despite a substantial increase in the number of applications.

Figures released by the German interior ministry show that in the first half of 2023, the average asylum procedure took 6.6 months, one month less than in 2022." If you are accepted then you are allowed to apply for jobs."

If you are rejected you are returned to your country of origin.

Unless people have qualifications work typically taken is actually the same as suggestions made here (construction, agriculture, hospitality etc).

Refugees are allowed to do voluntary work in the UK, this of course is organised and led as refugees have not been granted asylum.

The Germans are efficient alright and have always been so.
Presumably we need as many bureaucrats as they do to catch up on waiting times.

I honestly don't see a lot of alternatives Oreo for speedier processing, than a better and larger service than we have. Given how much we spend on numbers arriving,

will it actually be more expensive?

I cant help thinking "how could we have spent the Rwandan money on this".

I really don’t think there’s been a government narrative, deliberate or otherwise to paint illegal migrants as ‘bad’ tho some of the media does.However if there weren’t so many cases of any refugees/ asylum seekers/ economic migrants involved in criminal cases in the UK the papers wouldn’t be able to print it.Where people arrive here that we know zilch about there will always be genuine concerns.

Yes of course we need a larger and more efficient service than we have now, whatever it costs it needs to be done.

The media doesn't print "good news" stories tho, do they? Often watching or reading the news you'd think there was little good in the world or people with generosity/cooperation and community in mind (which do come out of our local refugee centre, but are small stories)

There is a tendency to publish the shock horror element especially in some papers.

Oreo

I really don’t think there’s been a government narrative, deliberate or otherwise to paint illegal migrants as ‘bad’ tho some of the media does.However if there weren’t so many cases of any refugees/ asylum seekers/ economic migrants involved in criminal cases in the UK the papers wouldn’t be able to print it.Where people arrive here that we know zilch about there will always be genuine concerns.

The media are highly selective in what they publish.

Has anybody read/heard about the asylum seekers in Wethersfield, who have had to be moved out and back into hotels?

petra

Callistemon
I hate to be the one to burst your id bubble, but, 😁 for this to work we need more coppers on the beat, and that isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
Added to that, some scallywag will find a way to counterfeit them, sorry 🤷‍♀️

Works in Germany. Only once have they been asked by police to see it. You have to have one for health insurance, can't get treated without, to be able to have a bank account, to have housing, to claim benefits, proof of address. So a legal form of identity. Works in France for same reasons, that's why they come here, no proof of who they are, so can easily dissappear.

Wyllow3

I think there is a "down" on any suggestions

because of the abysmal processing system we have in the UK.

Because we fail so badly, and Rwanda has been such an expensive mess, people demonise and ate encouraged to demonise in an "they're all the same" way

Not only that, but there is a deliberate government narrative over the last year when all asylum seekers are painted intrinsically bad, untrustworthy, dangerous, cannot work. Example of the "Bad" are constantly brought out not the many who want to work and live like anyone else. Suggestions of supervision needed s here sound more like prison.

A narrative of hate and blame instead of constructive working on ideas and possible small but valuable initiatives.

I had a look across at Germany, which still has more seekers than the UK

In Germany "The processing of asylum applications in Germany has become slightly faster – on average, people now have to wait around six months for a decision. That's despite a substantial increase in the number of applications.

Figures released by the German interior ministry show that in the first half of 2023, the average asylum procedure took 6.6 months, one month less than in 2022." If you are accepted then you are allowed to apply for jobs."

If you are rejected you are returned to your country of origin.

Unless people have qualifications work typically taken is actually the same as suggestions made here (construction, agriculture, hospitality etc).

Refugees are allowed to do voluntary work in the UK, this of course is organised and led as refugees have not been granted asylum.

Your last sentence is misleading, when they come across they are seeking 'asylum'.
The definition of an asylum seeker is someone who has arrived in a country and asked for asylum. Until they receive a decision as to whether or not they are a refugee, they are known as an asylum seeker. In the UK, this means they do not have the same rights as a refugee or a British citizen would.

Wyllow3

I think there is a "down" on any suggestions

because of the abysmal processing system we have in the UK.

Because we fail so badly, and Rwanda has been such an expensive mess, people demonise and ate encouraged to demonise in an "they're all the same" way

Not only that, but there is a deliberate government narrative over the last year when all asylum seekers are painted intrinsically bad, untrustworthy, dangerous, cannot work. Example of the "Bad" are constantly brought out not the many who want to work and live like anyone else. Suggestions of supervision needed s here sound more like prison.

A narrative of hate and blame instead of constructive working on ideas and possible small but valuable initiatives.

I had a look across at Germany, which still has more seekers than the UK

In Germany "The processing of asylum applications in Germany has become slightly faster – on average, people now have to wait around six months for a decision. That's despite a substantial increase in the number of applications.

Figures released by the German interior ministry show that in the first half of 2023, the average asylum procedure took 6.6 months, one month less than in 2022." If you are accepted then you are allowed to apply for jobs."

If you are rejected you are returned to your country of origin.

Unless people have qualifications work typically taken is actually the same as suggestions made here (construction, agriculture, hospitality etc).

Refugees are allowed to do voluntary work in the UK, this of course is organised and led as refugees have not been granted asylum.

I wonder how many asylum seekers in Germany have destroyed their papers?

Who is an asylum seeker?
An asylum seeker is a person who has left their country and is seeking protection from persecution and serious human rights violations in another country, but who hasn’t yet been legally recognized as a refugee and is waiting to receive a decision on their asylum claim.
www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/refugees-asylum-seekers-and-migrants/#:~:text=Who%20is%20an%20asylum%20seeker,decision%20on%20their%20asylum%20claim.

I think everyone has said they think the asylum procedure should be speeded up and then those granted leave to stay can work; others should be deported quickly. As you say is happening in Germany.
Obviously Belgium and Sweden are not managing to do so as was evidenced by the recent tragic case.

The problem is, if they have destroyed their papers, then where to?

They can’t change their DNA profile Callistemon21, so EU countries use the Eurodac database to get a very close match to identify which country their origins are, it’s building all the time. If we were part of that again we would be in a much stronger position to return failed asylum seekers.

It is estimated that Germany needs a net migration of 400,000 people a year until 2035 to maintain the Labour volume.

www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2023RP03/#hd-d35124e474

Yes, I wondered about using DNA but that again throws up questions about individuals' rights, whether or not the DNA would be kept on a database etc.
Can it prove exact country of origin too?

Callistemon21

Yes, I wondered about using DNA but that again throws up questions about individuals' rights, whether or not the DNA would be kept on a database etc.
Can it prove exact country of origin too?

No, it can't.

growstuff

Callistemon21

Yes, I wondered about using DNA but that again throws up questions about individuals' rights, whether or not the DNA would be kept on a database etc.
Can it prove exact country of origin too?

No, it can't.

I believe the theory is that the more DNA samples there are, the closer it’s possible to link individuals to families. It can prove exact country of origin if there are very close matches already on the system, ie family members, but only then. However, as part of the information gathering process when people first enter Europe they are more likely to have documentation, and to volunteer personal information, so it’s all recorded,

What am I not understanding here? It’s being said that when asylum seekers enter Europe, they have documentation but by the time they enter Britain they don’t have documentation. I’m confused.

Asylum seekers, those seeking protection from harm would just go to first country. Migrants come here because were an easy touch, what country would put up with gangs of them causing mayhem about their living conditions in a hotel,. We’ve become a dumping ground, someone ie., those working their socks off have to fund it, people are fed up. Those that do claim asylum should be on temporary visas allowed to work for 5 years and pledge allegiance to this country, if not back to where their allegiance is, also no illegal activity, drugs, violence etc, we don’t know who we’ve here now. I do think that’s too simple for any government though , like stopping the boats in the first place.

Casdon

growstuff

Callistemon21

Yes, I wondered about using DNA but that again throws up questions about individuals' rights, whether or not the DNA would be kept on a database etc.
Can it prove exact country of origin too?

No, it can't.

I believe the theory is that the more DNA samples there are, the closer it’s possible to link individuals to families. It can prove exact country of origin if there are very close matches already on the system, ie family members, but only then. However, as part of the information gathering process when people first enter Europe they are more likely to have documentation, and to volunteer personal information, so it’s all recorded,

If close family members were born in country A, it’s entirely possible that the person being tested was born and lived elsewhere. So DNA cannot conclusively prove an individual’s country of origin.

Allsorts

Asylum seekers, those seeking protection from harm would just go to first country. Migrants come here because were an easy touch, what country would put up with gangs of them causing mayhem about their living conditions in a hotel,. We’ve become a dumping ground, someone ie., those working their socks off have to fund it, people are fed up. Those that do claim asylum should be on temporary visas allowed to work for 5 years and pledge allegiance to this country, if not back to where their allegiance is, also no illegal activity, drugs, violence etc, we don’t know who we’ve here now. I do think that’s too simple for any government though , like stopping the boats in the first place.

Pledging allegiance to this country would be as meaningless as the sham baptisms.