This hapless cretin has only political dogma. No action. She needs to realise that the main reason for so many economic migrants coming here is precisely because we currently have no clear system for processing migrants. Pathetic.
The first thing we need to do is stop treating the Court system as a supposed "money-making" system. Sometimes it is necessary to spend money to avoid far bigger losses elsewhere. We wouldn't have so many people in centres if we actually got on with processing them.
Here is a simple system to show a possible way forward. It would not be my preferred way forward-I am mixing my wishes with something that would be palatable to the unelected Right that is failing to run our country. How about:-
1. Are they fleeing genuine persecution, as opposed to being an economic migrant? If yes, have we not yet met an agreed quarterly figure for genuine asylum seekers? 2. Do they have genuine ties to this country, for example close family members who can support them financially? 3. Are they trained in a job that would be on a list of jobs that we cannot currently fill?
Applicants would need to meet at least 2 of those 3 criteria. If it is 2/3 and not 1, only to be given temporary leave to remain.
Rejected applicants who satisfy 1 above to be repatriated at our cost.
All other rejected applicants to be given a choice. Pay the cost of repatriation themselves, or be repatriated to Rwanda or some such.
Not so difficult, is it? And the Majority of economic migrants stop coming here. Because they can easily see that they have no chance here.
The most important steps we could take would be to agree with France that all those making the channel crossings would be immediately returned. I wouldnt see that this as being a problem, as they were all in France in the first place, so the French would be no worse off. This would almost immediately stop the people traffickers, and end the crossings. Who would pay them thousands of Euros in the knowledge that they would immediately be returned?
We should at the same time open an office in Calais to deal with asylum seeker applications. The applications should include photographs, fingerprints etc. This would stop multiple applications from people using false identities, and enable criminal checks to be carried out. Once a failed application had been made, there should be a reasonable time limit before a second application could be made. We should then allow our fair share to enter the UK. The numbers left in France would be reduced by the number of successful applications. Obviously benefitting the French. It would also open up a genuine route for genuine asylum seekers. Priority could be given to those fulfilling your points 2 and 3.
Whilst I feel empathy for genuine asylum seekers, I dont think that £7million per day in hotel bills is an appropriate use of taxpayers money. This figure is likely to increase substantially because they are now having to book much more expensive hotels. This figure is in addition to the benefit payments they receive, and all the other costs involved.
There is no doubt that the government is exacerbating the situation. Last year they only processed 4 or 5% of claims. The average claim takes over a year to resolve. Processing in Manston is meant to last 24 hours, yet many people are forced to stay there for over a month.
I appreciate that enforcing the above may involve some changes to current legislation. We should do this without delay.
What is hard to understand about the fact that as we havent a genuine legal route, that determined people will resort to illegal routes. Its hardly rocket science.
The whole thing is an absolute shambles.
Agree with most of that.
The 1 bit that is problematic is the 1st paragraph. Why would France agree to that?
The EU has long had a rule that the first safe country where asylum seekers go to processes their claim. But their are 2 massive problems with that:-
1. We are not in the EU any more-surprised you didn't mention it 2. In circumstances such as this, the UK would pay the cost of the French processing. Politically, that is just as difficult for the UK as for France just to accept these people back
It is unacceptable that we try and use the "first safe nation" rule to our advantage. As an island on the edge of Europe, of course UK asylum seekers are likely to go somewhere else first. But it is still our problem-unless we want France deciding who comes to the UK!
I have seen those figures you quoted. But the numbers do not add up. If we only process 5% of claims a year, it would logically take 20 years to process them. We are wasting time trying to traffic these people to Rwanda rather than dealing with the applications.
The reason for the increased bills is not the fault of the asylum seekers. It is our failure to deal with the problem. As you rightly say, the starting point is having a legal route-which would be massively cheaper, in cost to the Taxpayer, the Asylum-Seekers and indeed their lives. Only ones that would be out of pocket would be the people traffickers.
France have never been our buddies they are happy for every migrant to swim across if need be, they are off their hands no longer their problem ..... in fact actively help.?
There are number of ways France would gain. Some of which I have set out above. There is no double that some people will travel through safe countries to get to France. Many of them with the sole purpose of travelling to the UK. Stop the boat crossings, and undoubtedly less of them will be attracted to France, and many will apply for asylum in one of the safe countries, and not continue on to France.
Kicked out so migrants can be let in: Lifeboat crew on training course are thrown out of hotel to make way for asylum seekers... as 'thousands of migrants are put up in five-star hotels, with one-in-four resorts block-booked for months'
A lifeboat crew on a training course was kicked out of a hotel midway through their stay to make way for asylum seekers, as thousands of homeless migrants are put up in five-star hotels. Four members of the RNLI were turfed out of the three-star hotel in Hoylake, Merseyside, without notice on Tuesday. They came back to find their bags packed and left in the foyer after taking part in a hovercraft training session on nearby mudflats. It has also been revealed that four- and five-star hotels are being booked out for months at a time to house thousands of migrants, including Great Hallingbury Manor, a four-star hotel in Essex. Another hotel used to house migrants is The Dolphin Inn, a four-star stay in St Ives.
We had one rough sleeper in bus shelter in the town centre appeared 2019, now have three more in shop door way's staff move them in the mornings before opening. Council house them few days then their back. Like the Traveler problem wont go away.!
We had one rough sleeper in bus shelter in the town centre appeared 2019, now have three more in shop door way's staff move them in the mornings before opening. Council house them few days then their back. Like the Traveler problem wont go away.!
We had one rough sleeper in bus shelter in the town centre appeared 2019, now have three more in shop door way's staff move them in the mornings before opening. Council house them few days then their back. Like the Traveler problem wont go away.!
We were discussing channel crossings. Nothing to do with what you suggest. Twenty eight thousand made the crossing last year. Over forty thousand this year, so far. We are now putting them up in five star hotels, and paying them benefits. The government doesnt seem to have a clue of how to deal with the problem. They cant process them in a reasonable time. Nobody has actually arrived in Rwanda. In order to apply for asylum they have to arrive in the UK. How stupid is that?
Now this is an alternative. Not one I personally want to see but if it's really reaching the stage where economic migrancy is causing unacceptable strain then it is an option.
NO migrants accepted at all and the navy, coastguard to either turn around or sink every illegal craft. The use of mines in the lesser travelled seaways and helicopter gunships responding to reports of craft acting suspiciously.
Now as I stated that is not a policy I or any sane person would wish to see but hey, it worked for Australia with their Vietnamese Boat People problem.
I would suggest that the world-renowned British sense of fair play and compassion means that these people are pretty sure that they will not receive a particularly horrendous reception and that we are often a soft touch. Maybe world attention grabbing headlines to the contrary would be in order.
This is the problem, we either get very hardcase on this issue and risk being seen as a pariah dog or we stay compassionate and in the main caring and get walked all over.
Now this is an alternative. Not one I personally want to see but if it's really reaching the stage where economic migrancy is causing unacceptable strain then it is an option.
NO migrants accepted at all and the navy, coastguard to either turn around or sink every illegal craft. The use of mines in the lesser travelled seaways and helicopter gunships responding to reports of craft acting suspiciously.
Now as I stated that is not a policy I or any sane person would wish to see but hey, it worked for Australia with their Vietnamese Boat People problem.
I would suggest that the world-renowned British sense of fair play and compassion means that these people are pretty sure that they will not receive a particularly horrendous reception and that we are often a soft touch. Maybe world attention grabbing headlines to the contrary would be in order.
This is the problem, we either get very hardcase on this issue and risk being seen as a pariah dog or we stay compassionate and in the main caring and get walked all over.
I think that just sending them all back would be a much better and safer alternative. If legitimate claims were processed in Calais, we could do the right thing, and save money.
Now this is an alternative. Not one I personally want to see but if it's really reaching the stage where economic migrancy is causing unacceptable strain then it is an option.
NO migrants accepted at all and the navy, coastguard to either turn around or sink every illegal craft. The use of mines in the lesser travelled seaways and helicopter gunships responding to reports of craft acting suspiciously.
Now as I stated that is not a policy I or any sane person would wish to see but hey, it worked for Australia with their Vietnamese Boat People problem.
I would suggest that the world-renowned British sense of fair play and compassion means that these people are pretty sure that they will not receive a particularly horrendous reception and that we are often a soft touch. Maybe world attention grabbing headlines to the contrary would be in order.
This is the problem, we either get very hardcase on this issue and risk being seen as a pariah dog or we stay compassionate and in the main caring and get walked all over.
I have no doubt that if we sent them all back, that the crossings would completely stop, before very long.
Never thought I'd say this .....but I totally agree with Tony @HAYSIE
If we flew them all back to whichever country they'd come from, it would be far cheaper than putting them up in 4 and 5-Star hotels and paying them benefits. I certainly wouldn't have thought they would risk coming again, and paying the traffickers.
I know it's harsh, when some of them are genuine Asylum seekers....... but they should get in touch with the British authorities BEFORE they set off, to see if they are able to settle here.
I watched an AMAZING programme last night, that I'd recorded a few weeks ago, about the 'Escape from Kabul Airport', when the Allied forces pulled out of Afghanistan. It really was incredible to see just how horrendous the situation was at the airport, that the U.S.Marines had to cope with August 2021.
Never thought I'd say this .....but I totally agree with Tony @HAYSIE
If we flew them all back to whichever country they'd come from, it would be far cheaper than putting them up in 4 and 5-Star hotels and paying them benefits. I certainly wouldn't have thought they would risk coming again, and paying the traffickers.
I know it's harsh, when some of them are genuine Asylum seekers....... but they should get in touch with the British authorities BEFORE they set off, to see if they are able to settle here.
I watched an AMAZING programme last night, that I'd recorded a few weeks ago, about the 'Escape from Kabul Airport', when the Allied forces pulled out of Afghanistan. It really was incredible to see just how horrendous the situation was at the airport, that the U.S.Marines had to cope with August 2021.
The bit in bold has a certain logic to it. Unfortunately, that is a logic completely missing in the current system.
It is not currently possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK. With certain limited exceptions (for example Ukraine). So if people want to apply to live here, the only way most of them can do it (unless you are a Russian oligarch) is to risk life and limb and pay a people trafficker.
The N.H.S. need these people. The care homes need these people. The Hotels need these people France doesn't ....
The government plan seems to be as follows, Keep them in Manston for a month or so in shocking conditions, transfer them to a five star hotel for a bit, while paying them benefits, take over a year to process their claim, then ship them off to Rwanda. They therefore do not fill any vacancies.
Never thought I'd say this .....but I totally agree with Tony @HAYSIE
If we flew them all back to whichever country they'd come from, it would be far cheaper than putting them up in 4 and 5-Star hotels and paying them benefits. I certainly wouldn't have thought they would risk coming again, and paying the traffickers.
My argument was to send them all back to France immediately. This would put an end to the crossings, and the trafficking. The difficulty in sending them back to where they came from is that many illegals refuse to dislose where they came from, as a means of delaying deportation.
I know it's harsh, when some of them are genuine Asylum seekers....... but they should get in touch with the British authorities BEFORE they set off, to see if they are able to settle here.
We should accept our fair share of genuine asylum seekers. Their applications should be processed in France. So only those with accepted applications would arrive in the UK.
I watched an AMAZING programme last night, that I'd recorded a few weeks ago, about the 'Escape from Kabul Airport', when the Allied forces pulled out of Afghanistan. It really was incredible toSo only those with accepted applications would arrive in the UK. see just how horrendous the situation was at the airport, that the U.S.Marines had to cope with August 2021.
There are many questions marks over the people that helped our forces in Afghanistan, that were left behind to the mercy of the Taliban. We have had some specific legal routes, like Afghanistan, Hong Kong, Syria, and Ukraine. Those in France dont currently have a legal route. They therefore have to arrive in the UK to make an application. Then the government wonders why so many boats. Nearly 70,000 people have arrived in the last 2 years. Around 5% of claims were processed last year. The government seem unable to find a solution. So the boats keep coming.
This hapless cretin has only political dogma. No action. She needs to realise that the main reason for so many economic migrants coming here is precisely because we currently have no clear system for processing migrants. Pathetic.
The first thing we need to do is stop treating the Court system as a supposed "money-making" system. Sometimes it is necessary to spend money to avoid far bigger losses elsewhere. We wouldn't have so many people in centres if we actually got on with processing them.
Here is a simple system to show a possible way forward. It would not be my preferred way forward-I am mixing my wishes with something that would be palatable to the unelected Right that is failing to run our country. How about:-
1. Are they fleeing genuine persecution, as opposed to being an economic migrant? If yes, have we not yet met an agreed quarterly figure for genuine asylum seekers? 2. Do they have genuine ties to this country, for example close family members who can support them financially? 3. Are they trained in a job that would be on a list of jobs that we cannot currently fill?
Applicants would need to meet at least 2 of those 3 criteria. If it is 2/3 and not 1, only to be given temporary leave to remain.
Rejected applicants who satisfy 1 above to be repatriated at our cost.
All other rejected applicants to be given a choice. Pay the cost of repatriation themselves, or be repatriated to Rwanda or some such.
Not so difficult, is it? And the Majority of economic migrants stop coming here. Because they can easily see that they have no chance here.
The most important steps we could take would be to agree with France that all those making the channel crossings would be immediately returned. I wouldnt see that this as being a problem, as they were all in France in the first place, so the French would be no worse off. This would almost immediately stop the people traffickers, and end the crossings. Who would pay them thousands of Euros in the knowledge that they would immediately be returned?
We should at the same time open an office in Calais to deal with asylum seeker applications. The applications should include photographs, fingerprints etc. This would stop multiple applications from people using false identities, and enable criminal checks to be carried out. Once a failed application had been made, there should be a reasonable time limit before a second application could be made. We should then allow our fair share to enter the UK. The numbers left in France would be reduced by the number of successful applications. Obviously benefitting the French. It would also open up a genuine route for genuine asylum seekers. Priority could be given to those fulfilling your points 2 and 3.
Whilst I feel empathy for genuine asylum seekers, I dont think that £7million per day in hotel bills is an appropriate use of taxpayers money. This figure is likely to increase substantially because they are now having to book much more expensive hotels. This figure is in addition to the benefit payments they receive, and all the other costs involved.
There is no doubt that the government is exacerbating the situation. Last year they only processed 4 or 5% of claims. The average claim takes over a year to resolve. Processing in Manston is meant to last 24 hours, yet many people are forced to stay there for over a month.
I appreciate that enforcing the above may involve some changes to current legislation. We should do this without delay.
What is hard to understand about the fact that as we havent a genuine legal route, that determined people will resort to illegal routes. Its hardly rocket science.
The whole thing is an absolute shambles.
Agree with most of that.
The 1 bit that is problematic is the 1st paragraph. Why would France agree to that?
The EU has long had a rule that the first safe country where asylum seekers go to processes their claim. But their are 2 massive problems with that:-
1. We are not in the EU any more-surprised you didn't mention it 2. In circumstances such as this, the UK would pay the cost of the French processing. Politically, that is just as difficult for the UK as for France just to accept these people back
It is unacceptable that we try and use the "first safe nation" rule to our advantage. As an island on the edge of Europe, of course UK asylum seekers are likely to go somewhere else first. But it is still our problem-unless we want France deciding who comes to the UK!
I have seen those figures you quoted. But the numbers do not add up. If we only process 5% of claims a year, it would logically take 20 years to process them. We are wasting time trying to traffic these people to Rwanda rather than dealing with the applications.
The reason for the increased bills is not the fault of the asylum seekers. It is our failure to deal with the problem. As you rightly say, the starting point is having a legal route-which would be massively cheaper, in cost to the Taxpayer, the Asylum-Seekers and indeed their lives. Only ones that would be out of pocket would be the people traffickers.
Got to go now, but will be back later. I got the figure from Keir Starmer in PMQs. On the video below at around 7 mins. He said 4%, someone else said 5% later on.
I have lurked a few times but felt compelled to post on this topic.
Tempted to post more and maybe I will soon. The subject of refugees and asylum seekers is dear to my heart. My son lost his life while a humanitarian worker.
In his memory my wife and I are volunteering with a local refugee charity and with our other son we are registering a charity in Sam's name and we have big plans for that next year.
I guess I am in a position where I know more than the average person about the asylum process. The current rhetoric from the right leaning sections of the MSM and some sections of the Government continue to spout hatred and present one sided views of the scale of the "migrant crisis" or "invasion" The use of inflammatory language to demonise anyone taking the dangerous and desperate act of crossing the channel in a dinghy appalls me.
Genuine and successful asylum seekers are still in the majority of those arriving by small boat by the Govts own figures.
Haven't got the time at the moment to try and put all my views down here and the counter arguments to the rhetoric but I will try another time.
Comments
The 1 bit that is problematic is the 1st paragraph. Why would France agree to that?
The EU has long had a rule that the first safe country where asylum seekers go to processes their claim. But their are 2 massive problems with that:-
1. We are not in the EU any more-surprised you didn't mention it
2. In circumstances such as this, the UK would pay the cost of the French processing. Politically, that is just as difficult for the UK as for France just to accept these people back
It is unacceptable that we try and use the "first safe nation" rule to our advantage. As an island on the edge of Europe, of course UK asylum seekers are likely to go somewhere else first. But it is still our problem-unless we want France deciding who comes to the UK!
I have seen those figures you quoted. But the numbers do not add up. If we only process 5% of claims a year, it would logically take 20 years to process them. We are wasting time trying to traffic these people to Rwanda rather than dealing with the applications.
The reason for the increased bills is not the fault of the asylum seekers. It is our failure to deal with the problem. As you rightly say, the starting point is having a legal route-which would be massively cheaper, in cost to the Taxpayer, the Asylum-Seekers and indeed their lives. Only ones that would be out of pocket would be the people traffickers.
Some of which I have set out above.
There is no double that some people will travel through safe countries to get to France.
Many of them with the sole purpose of travelling to the UK.
Stop the boat crossings, and undoubtedly less of them will be attracted to France, and many will apply for asylum in one of the safe countries, and not continue on to France.
A lifeboat crew on a training course was kicked out of a hotel midway through their stay to make way for asylum seekers, as thousands of homeless migrants are put up in five-star hotels. Four members of the RNLI were turfed out of the three-star hotel in Hoylake, Merseyside, without notice on Tuesday. They came back to find their bags packed and left in the foyer after taking part in a hovercraft training session on nearby mudflats. It has also been revealed that four- and five-star hotels are being booked out for months at a time to house thousands of migrants, including Great Hallingbury Manor, a four-star hotel in Essex. Another hotel used to house migrants is The Dolphin Inn, a four-star stay in St Ives.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11383645/Lifeboat-crew-training-course-gets-shown-door-bosses-make-way-asylum-seekers.html
Nothing to do with what you suggest.
Twenty eight thousand made the crossing last year.
Over forty thousand this year, so far.
We are now putting them up in five star hotels, and paying them benefits.
The government doesnt seem to have a clue of how to deal with the problem.
They cant process them in a reasonable time.
Nobody has actually arrived in Rwanda.
In order to apply for asylum they have to arrive in the UK.
How stupid is that?
NO migrants accepted at all and the navy, coastguard to either turn around or sink every illegal craft. The use of mines in the lesser travelled seaways and helicopter gunships responding to reports of craft acting suspiciously.
Now as I stated that is not a policy I or any sane person would wish to see but hey, it worked for Australia with their Vietnamese Boat People problem.
I would suggest that the world-renowned British sense of fair play and compassion means that these people are pretty sure that they will not receive a particularly horrendous reception and that we are often a soft touch. Maybe world attention grabbing headlines to the contrary would be in order.
This is the problem, we either get very hardcase on this issue and risk being seen as a pariah dog or we stay compassionate and in the main caring and get walked all over.
If legitimate claims were processed in Calais, we could do the right thing, and save money.
If we flew them all back to whichever country they'd come from, it would be far cheaper than putting them up in 4 and 5-Star hotels and paying them benefits. I certainly wouldn't have thought they would risk coming again, and paying the traffickers.
I know it's harsh, when some of them are genuine Asylum seekers....... but they should get in touch with the British authorities BEFORE they set off, to see if they are able to settle here.
I watched an AMAZING programme last night, that I'd recorded a few weeks ago, about the 'Escape from Kabul Airport', when the Allied forces pulled out of Afghanistan.
It really was incredible to see just how horrendous the situation was at the airport, that the U.S.Marines had to cope with August 2021.
It is not currently possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK. With certain limited exceptions (for example Ukraine). So if people want to apply to live here, the only way most of them can do it (unless you are a Russian oligarch) is to risk life and limb and pay a people trafficker.
Which is bonkers.
Keep them in Manston for a month or so in shocking conditions, transfer them to a five star hotel for a bit, while paying them benefits, take over a year to process their claim, then ship them off to Rwanda.
They therefore do not fill any vacancies.
We have had some specific legal routes, like Afghanistan, Hong Kong, Syria, and Ukraine.
Those in France dont currently have a legal route.
They therefore have to arrive in the UK to make an application.
Then the government wonders why so many boats.
Nearly 70,000 people have arrived in the last 2 years.
Around 5% of claims were processed last year.
The government seem unable to find a solution.
So the boats keep coming.
I got the figure from Keir Starmer in PMQs.
On the video below at around 7 mins.
He said 4%, someone else said 5% later on.
I have lurked a few times but felt compelled to post on this topic.
Tempted to post more and maybe I will soon. The subject of refugees and asylum seekers is dear to my heart. My son lost his life while a humanitarian worker.
In his memory my wife and I are volunteering with a local refugee charity and with our other son we are registering a charity in Sam's name and we have big plans for that next year.
I guess I am in a position where I know more than the average person about the asylum process. The current rhetoric from the right leaning sections of the MSM and some sections of the Government continue to spout hatred and present one sided views of the scale of the "migrant crisis" or "invasion" The use of inflammatory language to demonise anyone taking the dangerous and desperate act of crossing the channel in a dinghy appalls me.
Genuine and successful asylum seekers are still in the majority of those arriving by small boat by the Govts own figures.
Haven't got the time at the moment to try and put all my views down here and the counter arguments to the rhetoric but I will try another time.