Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Observer II

Why do Governments struggle ?

Recommended Posts

The Home Office is currently preparing a new white paper on post-Brexit immigration controls, and buisiness is concerned low skilled labour will be reduced, due to a £30k income requirement on entrants.  But the issue surely, isn't entry, but exit.  The million or so illegal entrants that have disappeared into the crowd or are languishing on benefits until their asylum cases can be reviewed. just require a fast track system of deportation, while the rest require fixed term work visas, after they expire, they leave.  So in the case of seasonal farm work, a seasonal work permit, and once the fruit picking is done, they go home.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number seeking asylum each year is only of the order of 25k main applicants when you add dependent children that yielded only 15k people granted asylum in the year to September 2018. Hardly a problem on the scale you imply. Furthermore the estimate of those here illegally are not even collected officially because nobody knows how to do it. The figure you quote is mentioned often and debunked regularly. Please consider it to be just a guess made up for scaremongering by those who want to whip up discord. I do not believe the number. Asylum rates currently seem low compared to our historical acceptance of asylum seekers literally over the centuries and taking population growth into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a problem because it takes years, and in some cases decades to decide on asylum cases, remember the HO backlog ?  Meanwhile, such applicants are not allowed to work but receive an allowance, courtesy of the tax-payer.  We hear of illegals being found in HGVs on our M/ways or washed up on the shores of Kent, but we never hear of them being sent back.   Any Local Authority will actually know where asylum applicants are living as they have to house them, they also know where others are living illegally in garages or in multi-occupation because they inspect them;  so we need a fast track mechanism for deportations. HO will know of all over-stayers on visas, so will know how many have "disappeared" even though they know not where.  Now sending illegals home, may compromise the hand car wash industry, but I think we can survive it. However, I think HMG may share your apparent complacency, hence the reason they struggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why you are bothered. Of course we don't hear of them being sent back as that would not be something that is newsworthy, i.e. critical of the government. It is just the way things work in the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it easier for HMG not to mention illegal immigrants given the immigration/ border force don't seem to have a great record in finding or holding on to them.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just so that we all know what we are talking about, a few facts.  I am sure some are fully aware of this but reading all the conflation and bigoted rhetoric I thought a reminder may be helpful.

 

Asylum seekers are looking for a place of safety

  • There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker.Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.
  • There is nothing in international law to say that refugees must claim asylum in the first country they reach. A European regulation allows a country such as the UK to return an adult asylum seeker to the first European country they reached. This means that countries on the edge of Europe have responsibility for a lot more asylum seekers than others. Some of the countries through which people travel to get to Europe are not safe places and many have not signed the Refugee Convention, meaning that people who remain there will not get international protection and be able to rebuild their lives.  
  • It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum. (United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees)
  • The top ten refugee producing countries in 2015 all have poor human rights records or on-going conflict. Asylum seekers are fleeing from these conflicts and abuses, looking for safety. 
    (UNHCR, 2014 Global Trends: World at War)
  • In 2014, worldwide, 34,000 children applied for asylum having arrived in the country of refuge alone, with no parent or guardian. 1,945 of these applications were made in the UK. Many of them come from Eritrea, which was recently condemned by the UN for gross human rights violations. (Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea, 2015)
  • Many refugees and asylum seekers hope to return home at some point in the future, if the situation in their country has improved.
  • The 1951 Refugee Convention guarantees everybody the right to apply for asylum. It has saved millions of lives. No country has ever withdrawn from it.

 

 

p.s many asylum seekers are banned from taking a job and are given £5 a day to live on.  Hardly fleecing the system.

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2018 at 4:37 PM, Confused52 said:

The number seeking asylum each year is only of the order of 25k main applicants when you add dependent children that yielded only 15k people granted asylum in the year to September 2018. Hardly a problem on the scale you imply. Furthermore the estimate of those here illegally are not even collected officially because nobody knows how to do it. The figure you quote is mentioned often and debunked regularly. Please consider it to be just a guess made up for scaremongering by those who want to whip up discord. I do not believe the number. Asylum rates currently seem low compared to our historical acceptance of asylum seekers literally over the centuries and taking population growth into account.

So were do the 250,000 or whatever figure it is come from? OK I know half is people coming legally from the EU, but how do we end up with the rest. Sorry for my ignores? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2018 at 5:53 PM, P J said:

just so that we all know what we are talking about, a few facts.  I am sure some are fully aware of this but reading all the conflation and bigoted rhetoric I thought a reminder may be helpful.

 

Asylum seekers are looking for a place of safety

  • There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker.Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.

 

 

 

Yes there is. A person who claims to be persecuted and isn't is a bogus asylum seeker.

It is a bit inaccurate that asylum seekers only get £5 a day to live on as they get bills paid for as well such as  heating and power, do they not also get a TV and free license too?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An average net influx of 250,00 per year for at least the past 12 years = 3 million (that's being conservative). Yes, some will come and work in the public services that they are over-loading, but their wives and kids will require health and education so a net overloading. Some will be on menial wages so won't be paying taxes and some will be on benefits so paying no tax at all. The asylum seekers will spend years having their claims assessed, with legal aid funded by the tax payer, being fed and sheltered by the State in the meantime. Then you've got the "illegals";  ether illegal entrants or those that have illegally over-stayed their visa and disappeared off the Gov radar.  So basically a total mess.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CH4 did a piece on the cross-channel migrants, visiting their tents and rough sleeping areas under bridges in France.  Most appear to be Iraqi-Kurds or Iranians, speak little or no English, but seem to have sufficient funds to pay traffickers for a trip over the Channel.   The French Police regularly disrupt their camping areas and move them on, but strangely, don't arrest them and begin a deportation process.  I've never seen the TV progs follow one case of illegal migrants who manage to get to the UK, what happens to them, what excuses they use for asylum etc; and how long they stay here and, most importantly, whether they are deported.  Perhaps there is FOI information on the total number of illegal entrants and the corresponding number of deportations ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2018 at 5:56 PM, Milky said:

Yes there is. A person who claims to be persecuted and isn't is a bogus asylum seeker.

It is a bit inaccurate that asylum seekers only get £5 a day to live on as they get bills paid for as well such as  heating and power, do they not also get a TV and free license too?

There is no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker, anyone can claim asylum anywhere, even you.  This may not suit your point of view but it is fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So actual facts and figures once again destroy the bigoted argument against immigrants.  Not only are they vital to our industry, public services and service sectors, they are paying in , on average, a damned site more than our indigenous population.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, P J said:

There is no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker, anyone can claim asylum anywhere, even you.  This may not suit your point of view but it is fact.

Pure sophistry. Bogus (source OED) "Not genuine or true (used in a disapproving manner when deception has been attempted)". Anyone can apply but not everyone will be able to prove they are not safe in the country of which they are a citizen. That is the test for asylum and not simply that they would rather be here, the test is in a UN Treaty. If they do not meet the test in normal English then they are bogus asylum seekers. The number granted asylum in the UK is only a fraction of those who apply and there are therefore bogus asylum seekers entering the UK (Source ONS).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2018 at 2:00 PM, Confused52 said:

Pure sophistry. Bogus (source OED) "Not genuine or true (used in a disapproving manner when deception has been attempted)". Anyone can apply but not everyone will be able to prove they are not safe in the country of which they are a citizen. That is the test for asylum and not simply that they would rather be here, the test is in a UN Treaty. If they do not meet the test in normal English then they are bogus asylum seekers. The number granted asylum in the UK is only a fraction of those who apply and there are therefore bogus asylum seekers entering the UK (Source ONS).

Come now surely you can be genuine and fail a test ?  Failed and bogus are worlds apart.  Surely a man of so many words can understand this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, P J said:

Come now surely you can be genuine and fail a test ?  Failed and bogus are worlds apart.  Surely a man of so many words can understand this?

 

No, asylum seekers must provide evidence of the risk they face. Those that apply without evidence must know they will fail and that is why they are bogus. When I use enough text to prevent deliberate misunderstanding you complain about too many words!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2018 at 2:00 PM, Confused52 said:

Pure sophistry. Bogus (source OED) "Not genuine or true (used in a disapproving manner when deception has been attempted)". Anyone can apply but not everyone will be able to prove they are not safe in the country of which they are a citizen. That is the test for asylum and not simply that they would rather be here, the test is in a UN Treaty. If they do not meet the test in normal English then they are bogus asylum seekers. The number granted asylum in the UK is only a fraction of those who apply and there are therefore bogus asylum seekers entering the UK (Source ONS).

I hope your last sentence is correct Con, and that those that fail are being deported immediately.   The latest from Sky News - four Nigerian males. who stowed away on a cargo vessel, have now threatened the crew and told them to get the ship closer in to shore in the Thames estury, so they can swim ashore.  No doubt the HR lawyers will be circling to meet them and pursue an asylum claim on legal aid, while they are fed and sheltered at the tax payers expense.  I was going to say, they should be taken immediately to an Airport and deported - but the Airport might be Gatwick !   😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the increasing migrant invasion from across the channel, has been declared a "major incident" by the Home Secretary (currently on holiday in S/Africa ! )  Does that mean more boats, including the RN, to turn them back to France or taxi them into the UK ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe he cut short his holiday to come home and deal with the "crisis". I can't see submarines being much use though Obs. 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Observer II said:

Who mentioned Subs ?   MTBs, and plenty of them, but I doubt we have plenty !  

The only Boats the RN have are submarines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Evil Sid said:

I believe the gov have been investing in ferries. (don't think it is related though).🤫

I believe  HMG have invested in ferries to cope with the " nightmare of a no deal catastrophe " .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the UKBF do have suitable craft, whether enough is open to question - but the biggest question is how to use them.   Carry on using them as taxis (as in the Med), to complete the migrant trip into the UK or use then to take the migrants back to a French beach ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Home Secretary comes out with a statement of fact;  and gets called out by the liberal bleeding hearts, supported by the TV news.    IE:  That the current illegal migration across the channel are NOT genuine asylum seekers. If they were "seeking asylum" they would do so in the first EU country in which they landed, as per the Dublin Convention.  Instead, they've travelled through the EU, spent weeks or months in France, intent on entering the UK illegally. So why aren't they being immediatley deported ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×