Andy Burnham says wealthy areas must house more migrants after leafy village revolts over 1,250 asylum seekers

You know what AB can do! Move them in No 10 or better still his other home in Manchester, then tell us who we should have and where,

Rights are not God given or immutable. We could relegislate to allow us more control of who enters the country.

The UK already does control how many regular immigrant applications are granted

However ss there a way to legislate to prevent asylum seekers seeking asylum?

Has any other country in the world ever managed to do that- if so how?

Aveline

Rights are not God given or immutable. We could relegislate to allow us more control of who enters the country.

We have - and over the years the legislation has changed, The numbers coming with visas have dramatically reduced

It's not the ones with visas that people are concerned about.

I wish that were true Aveline. It isn’t. When the racist attacks and riots have taken place in recent years, migrants homes have been targeted, regardless of whether those people worked for the NHS or were here legitimately in other roles, were from the country or religion being targeted or not.

Aveline

It's not the ones with visas that people are concerned about.

If that's the case in what way would you want a UK government to relegislate to allow us more control of asylum seekers who enter the country.

To be able to return boat people to France

Aveline

To be able to return boat people to France

Er the word France is doing a lot of the heavy lifting in this sentence.

But why would France agree to accept asylum seekers the UK takes to France against the asylum seekers will? It is not legally obliged to do so. France has already responded to Reform UK Operation Fortress proposals with a firm no! The UK does not legislate on behalf of France and most would recognise the UK cannot tell France what to do.

So in what way would you relegislate as you suggest to be able to return boat people to France- what would this law say? What laws should the UK also decide not to comply with any more?

Which new laws could possibly allow the UK not needing adhere to existing maritime and international asylum seeker laws?

Well of course if we were in the EU but there you go, sovereign nation and all that - cuts both ways. Nige and his merry band forgot that bit

These boatloads come from France. Return them to France. If France don't want them then they can work out their own means of deterring this constant trail of young men.

Aveline

These boatloads come from France. Return them to France. If France don't want them then they can work out their own means of deterring this constant trail of young men.

OFGS I give up.

Somebody drew up the international asylum seeker laws that your refer to. They can be changed. They're not God given. They were not designed for the current situation. If European governments including us need to get their heads together then so be it.

Just Google or use AI

Tuliptree

Aveline

These boatloads come from France. Return them to France. If France don't want them then they can work out their own means of deterring this constant trail of young men.

OFGS I give up.

The asylum seeker has already left France territory en route with an intention to claim asylum in the UK.

Firstly what does return them to France actually involve- who is going to do this- why and by what method. How would this be done in compliance with international maritime laws and international laws relating to asylum seekers? This is just your first major legal hurdle.

Secondly, if that can be achieved legally, doubtful there is no legal agreement that France must take asylum seekers the UK does not want. So returning to my earlier question how can the UK magic up a law forcing to accept asylum seekers the UK does not want to process

Why do you expect France to work out a deterrent for people whose intention is to claim asylum in the UK? France has no legal obligation to do this on UK's behalf.

Similarly the UK has no legal obligation to work to a deterrent for asylum seekers with an intention to claim asylum in France or any other country.

Forcing France ...

Cossy does the truth hurt you ?

I used to be a bleeding heart liberal but I've had a good think.
As previously stated. The current situation is not as it was when asylum laws were drawn up. Asylum laws can be redrafted by European heads of govt including us. Other European countries are struggling with this problem too. Some are sending people home or closing borders.
We don't have to just say, 'Oh this is awful there's nothing we can do'.

Well at least Aveline you appear to accept that the UK cannot in fact unilaterally change applicable refugeee/asylum seeker legislation.

You may describe yourself previously by the term a 'bleeding heart liberal' which is often sued as a criticism of others, but I will trust that you are not intentionally seeking to criticise other posters.

The United Nations treaty lead to the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Are you now saying that the UK government should seek out other countries in the world to overturn and get rid of the 1951 Refugee Convention via the United Nations ? Good luck with that! Not currently part of any party manifesto to put it to an electorate vote at a General Election.

Or are you suggesting the UK government should seek out other countries to try and lead a process whereby all the countries in the world signed up to the 1951 Refugee should seek to revise that law? If so and in what way could it be revised force France to process asylum seekers the UK does not want to process?

How to win friends, allies and influence/force France as a neighbouring country- not!

Nobody and no government is saying 'this is awful there's nothing we can do'. Conservatives had their approach- the current government has their approach. Both parties processed applications and housed during that period in varying ways as legal obliged to do. Rwanda idea never got off the ground.

Lemonjam - that's exactly what you are all saying! You just quote a set of international laws drawn up 70 years ago as the reason we must all accept the current status quo.

Absolutely not the case Aveline- no poster has stated "this is awful there's nothing we can do about it'. You are the poster that actually wrote "We don't have to just say, 'Oh this is awful there's nothing we can do' at 14.59.

There is plenty that the Government can do and is doing regarding this complex issue. To be clear I am not in the category of "this is awful there's nothing we can do about it' at all. I do not believe this Government simply "accepts the status quo" in your words and neither have I suggested "we must all accept the status quo".

There are laws in place as Im are you are aware- the UK can decide whther to comply with international laws or not. Where do you stand on that. The UK only has powers to make domestic laws not international laws.

You're the one that's saying that there is a solution to the 'status quo'. You're the poster that said UK "should 'relegislate' so that the UK can return asylum seekers to France" but you haven't explained how that can be done in the context that France has publicly stated it will not accept asylum seekers from the UK it does not want to process. So you're making a statement without taking into account the reality of France's position.

You haven't said what and how specifically the UK should or can 'relegislate' its domestic laws. You are aware of the 1951 Refugee Convention as you posted "Asylum laws can be redrafted by European heads of govt including us" but haven't a clue how that will come to pass in reality and in the context that the UK is a founding member and original signatory of the United Nations. The Untied Nations does not just comprise of EU countries. If you are proposing the UK leaves the United Nations and will no longer comply to United Nation international laws and conventions come out and be clear on your position.

Neither in fact have you explained how the UK change international maritime law unilaterally.

There literally is no point in telling me I have said something I have not actually said.

All you do is quote the status quo re laws. I'm trying to get over to you that changed times need changed management in whatever form it takes.
Obviously you're stuck in a groove but it's one that isn't inevitable.
We're never going to agree on this so no point in continuing. Pile on the insults at will if it helps you.

Aveline

All you do is quote the status quo re laws. I'm trying to get over to you that changed times need changed management in whatever form it takes.
Obviously you're stuck in a groove but it's one that isn't inevitable.
We're never going to agree on this so no point in continuing. Pile on the insults at will if it helps you.

You will never be able to make convincing points to some posters on here no matter how true they are. Its better to just give up, otherwise it just leads to you feeling frustrated as your words are twisted.

The Australian politician responsible for stopping illegal immigration there wrote an excellent article recently.

He advocated the UK sending all illegal immigrants to an offshore island owned by the UK for processing, somewhere they will not want to be,

He said by Australia doing this it stopped illegal immigration completely.

Apparently the UK does own islands we could use. I do not understand why this is not done.