Another Brexit Bonus!

Fleurpepper

So easy to say, when you are geographically the furthest away, to say they should all stay in first country, or stop in the last but one, hey ! Easy peasy! Let the rest of the world look after those Afghans who worked for us, and we abandonned behind. Hurrah.

Exactly. Such an easy cop out when you can't find a valid reason for trying to prevent asylum seekers arriving in the UK. Well said Fleurpepper.

Tory propaganda about 'illegal' migrants is designed to win votes from racists and people who can't think. The 'illegal' migrants are a small percentage of the total, most of whom are here on visas to study or work. We need them because we are an ageing population. Brexit shot the UK in the foot by discouraging EU migrants coming here to work.

M0nica

The reason immigrants head for the UK, is the heritage of empire. Most speak English as a second language and we have a reputation for justice and fairness and a lack of racial violence and prejudice compared with other countries in Europe and elsewhere. There is still a belief that the streets of London are paved with gold.

When you consider the privations and dangers most of these people have undergone on their journey here, ending with those dangerous boat crossings, the idea, that they risk, rape, murder, starvation, slavery, and long journeys on foot through deserts and mointains for the miserable treatment, housing and minimal income they will be given when they reach the UK is quite ludicrous.

Anyway, as I keep saying, the number of immigrants coming here 'illegally', however you define that is mere froth on the coffee, compared with the 100s of thousands coming here quite legally to fill vacancies in the NHS and other industries, study here - and then return home, which the majority do.

So why people like Katie59 get so uptight over the small number of those coming here illegally, while happily benefitting from all those immigrant doctors, nurses etc that look after her health, care for people, pick fruit or subsidise the university education of British students by the enormously high fees they pay to study here. Our university sector is still considered the best in the world, I really do not understand.

👏👏👏

The reason immigrants head for the UK, is the heritage of empire. Most speak English as a second language and we have a reputation for justice and fairness and a lack of racial violence and prejudice compared with other countries in Europe and elsewhere. There is still a belief that the streets of London are paved with gold.

When you consider the privations and dangers most of these people have undergone on their journey here, ending with those dangerous boat crossings, the idea, that they risk, rape, murder, starvation, slavery, and long journeys on foot through deserts and mointains for the miserable treatment, housing and minimal income they will be given when they reach the UK is quite ludicrous.

Anyway, as I keep saying, the number of immigrants coming here 'illegally', however you define that is mere froth on the coffee, compared with the 100s of thousands coming here quite legally to fill vacancies in the NHS and other industries, study here - and then return home, which the majority do.

So why people like Katie59 get so uptight over the small number of those coming here illegally, while happily benefitting from all those immigrant doctors, nurses etc that look after her health, care for people, pick fruit or subsidise the university education of British students by the enormously high fees they pay to study here. Our university sector is still considered the best in the world, I really do not understand.

I know several people who now regret voting to leave the EU. However, I also know several for whom Brexit is still a topic they are not willing to discuss. I guess it makes them feel uncomfortable.

What the Brexit diehards can’t accept is that Brexit has failed to deliver on any of its promises, has increased immigration , is destroying businesses , including the car industry. Why not admit it and stop pretending it’s all good??? It seems most of the Brexit fans have disappeared from this site? I wonder why?

vegansrock

Soft touch? More like slow touch - the Home Office is so slow that migrants know that it will take years to make a decision , and then they can appeal and drag it out. By then they may have British born children etc.Those who say they can’t be asylum seekers as they’re coming from France - they would have come through several countries before coming to France - so which country should accept them?

'Soft touch' - I believe the weekly allowance in France is higher than in the UK!

Soft touch? More like slow touch - the Home Office is so slow that migrants know that it will take years to make a decision , and then they can appeal and drag it out. By then they may have British born children etc.Those who say they can’t be asylum seekers as they’re coming from France - they would have come through several countries before coming to France - so which country should accept them?

In the 90s recession (ERM crisis) both myself and OH were looking for a higher income, our wages were stagnating. His company gave him a stark choice - either work for one of their outlets in the USA for 9 months (without me), or take redundancy. My own company had to make a choice to lay off 2 members of staff. Although my boss assured me I wouldn't be one of them, I didn't trust him or the company not to renege.

My OH who's Scandinavian knew there were opportunities in Norway because he'd worked there previously. So he engineered to get us both a job. Which he did - for both of us to work in the same company, for a much higher wage than we had in the UK.

Everyone thought it was the right thing to do - praised us in fact for 'bettering' ourselves.

We were, in fact, economic migrants - but no-one criticised us.

Soft touch Britain? Norway offers immigrants and asylum seekers a much better package of help. I am sure that there are other places of which people have knowledge, also.

It’s small numbers to start with - despite Sunak/Braverman’s rhetoric - so 18% is not a large number, imo.

It’s also important, of course, not to assume that the 18% whose claims are unsuccessful are economic migrants. Some are genuine asylum seekers who are unable to prove it to the satisfaction of the home office; some, heaven help us, are unaccompanied children…

Thanks for the figures, Siope.

I suppose that one 'could' argue that 18% is still a 'large number', but it's better to to know that it is is a small percentage of claimants.

Claim: a large number of those claiming asylum are economic migrants

Fact: “the refusal rate [for initial asylum claims] was 24% in 2022, its lowest point since 1990.

Between 2004 to 2021, around three-quarters of applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and almost one third of those appeals were allowed.”

Source: House of Commons Library

Assuming the appeal success rate is the same for 2022 (highly likely) then 82% of asylum seekers are judged to be refugees.

I think that there are a number of factors at play regarding immigration.

The first is immigration as a result of people coming to work at jobs like highly skilled jobs, or farm workers etc. This will be far and away the biggest numbers.

I suspect that there is no opposition to this except of course the real headbangers of which Braverman can count herself as one.

Then there are those who seek a better living for themselves and their families, and according to government statistics the smallest category of all.

I think that these are the ones who will be returned to their own country once the HO gets off its a…s and begins to show efficiency and intelligence.

These I suspect are the immigrants which the majority of people in the U.K. support either enthusiastically or reluctantly being returned to their own country.

Then there are those seeking help and asylum from war, violence etc. A larger category than economic migrants, but still quite small.

These are the ones who will be supported by the majority but there will be a substantial number lead by the nose by the likes of Braverman who do not support giving these people any help at all, and apparently quite happy to break human rights and international law. Let’s hope they never have to appeal to the ECHR or international law.

Katie59

The majority of UK voters support tight controls on migrants and I am one of those, a large number of those claiming asylum are economic migrants.

Nothing that is posted on Gransnet is going to change my mind however insulting it gets because yours is a minority view .
So let’s get back to the original topic on this thread or move on elsewhere

Facts are not insults.

The 'tight controls' you want are not difficult to institute. But they do require a properly funded and efficient government agency - as opposed to the one we have where there is high staff turnover because of low morale, so 'newbies' end up processing the claims and the backlog builds.

The answer lies with the government who appear to want to do just about everything on-the-cheap.

We don't want to change your mind Katie59.

We would like you to face the facts, though...

It's not a question of insulting anyone, Katie59. It is just deeply worrying that people are ignoring facts.

How do you know that 'the majority of UK voters support tight controls on migration'? Polling results?

And saying that 'a large number of them are economic migrants' is questionable in view of the fact that at least two thirds of asylum applications are granted?

We don't want to change your mind Katie59.

But you seem to think that the opposite view to yours, and the apparent majority of UK voters is open borders for all who want to come.

Which it isn't of course.

Tight controls doesn't have to mean putting everyone in prison, drowning them in the Channel or shipping them to Rwanda.

Do you see the difference?

The majority of UK voters support tight controls on migrants and I am one of those, a large number of those claiming asylum are economic migrants.

Nothing that is posted on Gransnet is going to change my mind however insulting it gets because yours is a minority view .
So let’s get back to the original topic on this thread or move on elsewhere

To quote verbatim what has been said on another thread about ill people, If I were to say what I thought I would be banned.

Katie59

It all depends on the interpretation of “Asylum” it is “a place of safety”
Everyone who takes to a boat in France has already travelled through many safe countries, but the choose UK because they think we are a soft touch.
Which of course we are.

I am astonished that you are coming up with this 'place of safety' nonsense, Katie59.

We have had innumerable threads on immigrants, asylum seekers etc and at least one person always declares that they are supposed to stay in the 'first place of safety'. This misconception is always corrected with the facts about asylum seekers and 'places of safety', often by several posters, yet the assertion is made time and time again, often by posters who have been corrected on previous threads.

Why?

Is it because people would rather continue to work themselves into a state of indignation bolstered by untruths than just accept that they are wrong?

Or have we really reached the stage where people don't believe in the truth any more?

Katie59

It all depends on the interpretation of “Asylum” it is “a place of safety”
Everyone who takes to a boat in France has already travelled through many safe countries, but the choose UK because they think we are a soft touch.
Which of course we are.

Asylum seekers are not obliged to stay in the first safe country - that is a fact.

You don't know the reason why any particular individual chooses to come to the UK. As has been pointed out many times, English is a universal language, therefore it is the one quite likely to be chosen by those who want to learn another. Also, as has also been pointed out, some AS's have relatives living here.

As for the "soft touch" - all other European nations provide some kind of benefit... most are more or less equivalent to the benefits they are paid in the UK - and some are more generous than ours. If you care to research it, you can see what each nation provides.

And finally, the MAJORITY of those who leave their country to seek asylum, choose a country which is closest to their own - because they hope to be able to return at some point in the future. TURKEY hosts the largest number of refugees of any country, followed by JORDAN and LEBANON.

And here's a breakdown of countries and the numbers of asylum seekers - from FULL FACT... "honesty in public debate matters"...
fullfact.org/immigration/asylum-seekers-uk-and-europe/

Katie59

It all depends on the interpretation of “Asylum” it is “a place of safety”
Everyone who takes to a boat in France has already travelled through many safe countries, but the choose UK because they think we are a soft touch.
Which of course we are.

No, they don't think the UK is a soft touch. There are a number of reasons researchers have found for asylum seekers coming to the UK, but "being a soft touch" isn't one of them. In any case, more asylum seekers prefer other countries.

There is an accepted definition of "asylum seeker" which does not depend on anybody's interpretation.

The Tory public attitude to immigration is calculated to gain votes from over-anxious voters and racists. The reality is that most immigrants are here with visas as students (paying heavily to learn) and workers (like doctors and nurses) we need. The UK is an ageing society which desperately needs immigrants to do the jobs we can't fill and pay taxes to help support our pensioners.

If you come to any country and seek asylum, you are an asylum seeker.

It's really not hard 🙄