As a landlord you've taken in several refugees doubtless. How many to date old bean?
So there's hardly any illegal immigration? Using this definition of course?All of this talk about illegal crossing of the channel. Could it be remembered that to come across the channel in a dangerous way is not illegal, if it is to claim asylum. This use of 'illegal' is wrong, If the asylum application is turned down then they can then be deported. The problem really seems to be that this government has not tried to sort out the application for asylum. The problem is that the government does not try to sort out a safe method to claim asylum. Most asylum seekers are granted asylum. Illegal immigration is when asylum is not asked for.
Do the opposition parties have an alternative?Rwanda (and Rwandan politicians in particular, no doubt) want to be part of it because they are paid for it.
StJayJay makes valid and important points, but I will say again: anyone who believes this policy is a serous attempt to clamp down on people-trafficking gangs, and not a dog-whistle signal to the Mail, Express, and their readers that the government is 'protecting out borders' particularly from poor BAME people, is being a little naive.
You have the moral high ground having taken in refugees to your spare roomsPrice of cheese? If we deport tories they can stay in the east wing of Lord Cuntswiches country pad, he won't be needing it anymore.
I'll try again.So there's hardly any illegal immigration? Using this definition of course?
All of this talk about illegal crossing of the channel. Could it be remembered that to come across the channel in a dangerous way is not illegal, if it is to claim asylum.
They need to sort this out but this would only benefit those people whose primary driver for for reaching the UK is to seek asylum. Most people seeking to reach the UK are doing so for economic reasons. They want to work, send money back home to their families, not to claim benefits, free housing or any of those other anti immigrant BS tropes. For this group of people, claiming asylum is problematic, even if they may have legitimate reasons for doing so alongside the economic reasons, asylum is sought if they are intercepted on arrival or if caught later on. It’s hard to say how many that actually is. There are 30-odd thousand asylum applications a year but the nature of illegal or irregular immigration means that there are no stats, I’ve read estimates from 50-100,000 per year through all routes, including new arrivals and those who arrived legitimately but have overstayed visas. Andrew Jolly, a social work professor who campaigns to support people get better access to services suggested 87000 a year.The problem is that the government does not try to sort out a safe method to claim asylum.
That's true. What is illegal is perjury before an Immigration court. No one objects to genuine asylum claimants. Unfortunately there are also documented cases of crib sheets being handed out by people traffickers to their customers to strengthen their some time bogus claims. It is very difficult to get to the truth when the facts of the case concern events that happened thousands of miles away with no witnesses to come to court and have their evidence tested. Few claims get rejectedI'll try again.
There may be illegal immigration but it is not illegal to cross the channel (by any means) and then claim asylum.
Absolutely, it’s a blatant appeal to that sentiment, and the timing of it is totally cynical too. I’m still reserving judgement on in it though, I don’t want to dismiss any ideas just because I disagree with the motivation or politics of those peddling it.anyone who believes this policy is a serous attempt to clamp down on people-trafficking gangs, and not a dog-whistle signal to the Mail, Express, and their readers that the government is 'protecting out borders' particularly from poor BAME people, is being a little naive.
So what are you on about then? These people are not "illegal" until they break the law. And then 28% (is the latest figure that) get refused and will then be deported. And while you may think 28% is a low number remember the tragedies around the world, Syria, Afghanistan and others that can be honestly seen as a reason for asylum. I couldn't find any documented cases of crib sheets, if you could help?That's true. What is illegal is perjury before an Immigration court. No one objects to genuine asylum claimants. Unfortunately there are also documented cases of crib sheets being handed out by people traffickers to their customers to strengthen their some time bogus claims. It is very difficult to get to the truth when the facts of the case concern events that happened thousands of miles away with no witnesses to come to court and have their evidence tested. Few claims get rejected
Not sure why you put that to me as I never claimed people are illegal? People aren't illegal but their actions and false testimony can amount to criminality. So 28% might get refused but that of course means 72% succeed and of those who don't how many of them appeal and are eventually granted leave to remain and of those who exhaust all avenues of appeal how many just disappear? There are specialist immigration law firms who boast a 98% success rate. It's big business, of course there are abuses. Look at the case of Zulfiqar Ali struck off for misconduct last year. There was an ITV documentary about bogus marriages which happen daily in many parts of the UK especially London. That will give you food for thought if you've yet to see it I recommend.So what are you on about then? These people are not "illegal" until they break the law. And then 28% (is the latest figure that) get refused and will then be deported. And while you may think 28% is a low number remember the tragedies around the world, Syria, Afghanistan and others that can be honestly seen as a reason for asylum. I couldn't find any documented cases of crib sheets, if you could help?
It's not the only thing he can't do. He can't run a country either.
Enter your email address to join: