paid for with money sent from their son who entered Britain illegally
Could you point out the ‘legal’ route for people to settle in Britain please.
I'm no legal expert but I'd thought hiding in the back of a lorry to gain entry to a country doesn't constitute a legitimate reason for asylum.
I am, or more accurately was, a legal expert.
We currently have a system where, for about 90% of the World's refugees, the current rules for asylum to this country are:-
1. You can only make an asylum application when physically present in the UK 2. There is no legal method for 90% of Refugees to enter this country
These people have various motivations. For some, it is to earn money. For others it is to flee oppression.
But all of them are so desperate to come here that they pay Organised Crime thousands of pounds to come here. Which means they are either incredibly stupid. Or incredibly desperate.
Their asylum applications should have nothing to do with how they come here-simply because they have no legal route (unless you are a multi-millionaire, or come from 1 of about 3 countries). Like any application, it should be decided on its merits. Whether they deserve to be allowed to Remain, either temporarily or permanently. According to their risk, and what they can bring to this country in terms of skill.
Instead of deriding every person who wants to come here, we should be looking to take in some, and rejecting most. Rather than doing nothing and watching the problems build up.
paid for with money sent from their son who entered Britain illegally
Could you point out the ‘legal’ route for people to settle in Britain please.
I'm no legal expert but I'd thought hiding in the back of a lorry to gain entry to a country doesn't constitute a legitimate reason for asylum.
We probably need @Essexphil, but my understanding is as follows. We have introduced legal routes in response to circumstances in other countries. I think that at least some of these are temporary, and apply only when these circumstances prevail. Recent examples have been Hong Kong, Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.
There is no legal route that applies to just anybody, at any time. Those seeking asylum have to have arrived in the UK, in order to make an application. This highlights the stupidity of our current system.
We are trying to discourage people from taking to boats, when they have to get here to apply. Added to this we accept a huge percentage. We take ages to process applications, and seem unable to keep track of them, and many disappear.
I believe EU rules are that they should apply for asylum in the first safe country that they arrive in. This is clearly not the case for all those that arrive in the UK.
Hotel bills to accommodate them have risen to nearly £7 million per day. A bit hard to swallow in the current economic climate. But its our fault.
I have made an argument on another thread for what I believe we should do. This was basically to send all that arrive from France, back to France. Open an office in Calais to accept applications from asylum seekers. We should then accept our fair share. Sending them all back would put an immediate end to the people traffickers, and we would be back in control.
There are various options as to how to move forward. That is one, and there are others. All of which are better than doing nothing, as at present. The only people benefitting are organised crime at the minute.
The EU rule you mentioned is not relevant. That only applies to people who want to move on to another EU country. It's a rule to help members of a club that we are no longer in. When we "took back control of our borders" that is one of the things that means. Doing our own immigration control.
I sometimes think that a lot of the fervent Brexiteers genuinely believe that there is a one-sided coin out there.
To put this in perspective, over the last 2 years 68,000 people have arrived from France. They paid thousands to undertake a dangerous journey, and complete an application. They gather in France with the single purpose of travelling to the UK. We then put them up in hotels, and take over a year on average to process an application. Last year we processed 4% on the applications we received.
There are various options as to how to move forward. That is one, and there are others. All of which are better than doing nothing, as at present. The only people benefitting are organised crime at the minute.
The EU rule you mentioned is not relevant. That only applies to people who want to move on to another EU country. It's a rule to help members of a club that we are no longer in. When we "took back control of our borders" that is one of the things that means. Doing our own immigration control.
I sometimes think that a lot of the fervent Brexiteers genuinely believe that there is a one-sided coin out there.
I only quoted the EU rule because they have all travelled through a number of safe countries prior to reaching France.
Kind of seen this first hand and it creates problems.
The Holiday Park where my caravan was sited has just allocated their entire hire fleet of 96 caravans for use by Ukranian families. Win for the families, win for Wynn, Sam, Paris and Rio who own the site as they are being paid £500 per family per week YEAR ROUND.
However, the Ukranian families do not patronise either the bars or the cafes as they send the bulk of any money they have back home. Result is 6 full time staff now out of work because the people who used to rent the caravans used the facilities and now its like a ghost town.
We left the site on Nov 4th as the owners are looking to move older vans out in order to bring more hire fleet onto the site meaning it will only get worse.
The house is in Ukraine.
Thank you. I am able to understand that from reading the original article.
My point is that people who earn money in one country and send it to another may be helping those back home but they are not supporting the economy of the communities in which they live and work, in fact quite the reverse, they are helping to destroy it.
Kind of seen this first hand and it creates problems.
The Holiday Park where my caravan was sited has just allocated their entire hire fleet of 96 caravans for use by Ukranian families. Win for the families, win for Wynn, Sam, Paris and Rio who own the site as they are being paid £500 per family per week YEAR ROUND.
However, the Ukranian families do not patronise either the bars or the cafes as they send the bulk of any money they have back home. Result is 6 full time staff now out of work because the people who used to rent the caravans used the facilities and now its like a ghost town. This would be true wherever We left the site on Nov 4th as the owners are looking to move older vans out in order to bring more hire fleet onto the site meaning it will only get worse.
The house is in Ukraine.
Thank you. I am able to understand that from reading the original article.
My point is that people who earn money in one country and send it to another may be helping those back home but they are not supporting the economy of the communities in which they live and work, in fact quite the reverse, they are helping to destroy it.
I only posted the article as I saw a bit of humour in the fact that the house was not quite finished as the builder had followed the guy over here.
I am not sure your point stands up. I am certain that not all those that send money home, dont ever go out for a drink, or a coffee. Although I do think that people using your site as a main residence, albeit a temporary one, would be doing so much less than holiday makers. In general people do support the communities in which they live and work, buy buying food, paying council tax etc. Not everyone drinks.
@hhyftrftdr Do you believe that people should be allowed to enter the country illegally?
That doesn't make sense, because if the rules 'allowed' them then it wouldn't be illegal.
As has been pointed out to you by others, they have to be present in the UK to claim asylum. Which is a completely flawed system. And is why we are seeing thousands cross a dangerous stretch of water to get here (whereas previously it mostly used to be in the back of a lorry)
@hhyftrftdr Do you believe that people should be allowed to enter the country illegally?
That doesn't make sense, because if the rules 'allowed' them then it wouldn't be illegal.
As has been pointed out to you by others, they have to be present in the UK to claim asylum. Which is a completely flawed system. And is why we are seeing thousands cross a dangerous stretch of water to get here (whereas previously it mostly used to be in the back of a lorry)
I agree that the current system is flawed, I also agree with both Essex Phil & Haysie on their solutions. But whether you agree or not, this particular person entered the country illegally, many people and their family have stated they came to the U.K. for economical and not political or persecution reasons. Where does it end ?
@hhyftrftdr Do you believe that people should be allowed to enter the country illegally?
That doesn't make sense, because if the rules 'allowed' them then it wouldn't be illegal.
As has been pointed out to you by others, they have to be present in the UK to claim asylum. Which is a completely flawed system. And is why we are seeing thousands cross a dangerous stretch of water to get here (whereas previously it mostly used to be in the back of a lorry)
I agree that the current system is flawed, I also agree with both Essex Phil & Haysie on their solutions. But whether you agree or not, this particular person entered the country illegally, many people and their family have stated they came to the U.K. for economical and not political or persecution reasons. Where does it end ?
We are just not very good at this. Some of the stats quoted over the weekend are as follows, Ten thousand asylum applications have been waiting for approval for more than three years. Over forty thousand having been waiting for between one and three years. We accept 72% of them. On appeal we accept a further 50%. So if all of those whose applications are rejected, appeal, the acceptance rate will go up to 86%. Although I am not sure how many appeal. So we accept way more than other comparable countries. They are now putting them up in £200 per night hotels, after running out of cheaper ones. So it seems that we are prepared to pay £1400 per week to accommodate them, and in many cases for more than 3 years.
We should take our fair share of genuine asylum seekers, but we should also be able to control our borders.
Was it not the British Embassy abroad classed as UK where you logged application for Asylum... then when approved traveled legally onward journey Britain.
Was it not the British Embassy abroad classed as UK where you logged application for Asylum... then when approved traveled legally onward journey Britain.
First steps in blaming France again. Tory Headline grabbing shysters.
Exactly that.
Certain sections of society love to blame France. But imagine the roles were reversed, and we had a load of ''undesirable'' people leaving our shores to head to France. I'm pretty sure the general UK public would be quite happy for us to let them go, and would be up in arms if we tried to stop them.
The ITV documentary later this evening should make interesting, albeit extremely sad, viewing.
Loophole A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. Loophole
First steps in blaming France again. Tory Headline grabbing shysters.
Exactly that.
Certain sections of society love to blame France. But imagine the roles were reversed, and we had a load of ''undesirable'' people leaving our shores to head to France. I'm pretty sure the general UK public would be quite happy for us to let them go, and would be up in arms if we tried to stop them.
The ITV documentary later this evening should make interesting, albeit extremely sad, viewing.
Having just read the synopsis of that documentary, I don't think I can bear to watch it. Such a tragic state of affairs.
Comments
We currently have a system where, for about 90% of the World's refugees, the current rules for asylum to this country are:-
1. You can only make an asylum application when physically present in the UK
2. There is no legal method for 90% of Refugees to enter this country
These people have various motivations. For some, it is to earn money. For others it is to flee oppression.
But all of them are so desperate to come here that they pay Organised Crime thousands of pounds to come here. Which means they are either incredibly stupid. Or incredibly desperate.
Their asylum applications should have nothing to do with how they come here-simply because they have no legal route (unless you are a multi-millionaire, or come from 1 of about 3 countries). Like any application, it should be decided on its merits. Whether they deserve to be allowed to Remain, either temporarily or permanently. According to their risk, and what they can bring to this country in terms of skill.
Instead of deriding every person who wants to come here, we should be looking to take in some, and rejecting most. Rather than doing nothing and watching the problems build up.
We have introduced legal routes in response to circumstances in other countries.
I think that at least some of these are temporary, and apply only when these circumstances prevail.
Recent examples have been Hong Kong, Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.
There is no legal route that applies to just anybody, at any time.
Those seeking asylum have to have arrived in the UK, in order to make an application.
This highlights the stupidity of our current system.
We are trying to discourage people from taking to boats, when they have to get here to apply.
Added to this we accept a huge percentage.
We take ages to process applications, and seem unable to keep track of them, and many disappear.
I believe EU rules are that they should apply for asylum in the first safe country that they arrive in.
This is clearly not the case for all those that arrive in the UK.
Hotel bills to accommodate them have risen to nearly £7 million per day.
A bit hard to swallow in the current economic climate.
But its our fault.
I have made an argument on another thread for what I believe we should do.
This was basically to send all that arrive from France, back to France.
Open an office in Calais to accept applications from asylum seekers.
We should then accept our fair share.
Sending them all back would put an immediate end to the people traffickers, and we would be back in control.
There are various options as to how to move forward. That is one, and there are others. All of which are better than doing nothing, as at present. The only people benefitting are organised crime at the minute.
The EU rule you mentioned is not relevant. That only applies to people who want to move on to another EU country. It's a rule to help members of a club that we are no longer in. When we "took back control of our borders" that is one of the things that means. Doing our own immigration control.
I sometimes think that a lot of the fervent Brexiteers genuinely believe that there is a one-sided coin out there.
They paid thousands to undertake a dangerous journey, and complete an application.
They gather in France with the single purpose of travelling to the UK.
We then put them up in hotels, and take over a year on average to process an application.
Last year we processed 4% on the applications we received.
My point is that people who earn money in one country and send it to another may be helping those back home but they are not supporting the economy of the communities in which they live and work, in fact quite the reverse, they are helping to destroy it.
I am not sure your point stands up.
I am certain that not all those that send money home, dont ever go out for a drink, or a coffee.
Although I do think that people using your site as a main residence, albeit a temporary one, would be doing so much less than holiday makers.
In general people do support the communities in which they live and work, buy buying food, paying council tax etc.
Not everyone drinks.
As has been pointed out to you by others, they have to be present in the UK to claim asylum.
Which is a completely flawed system.
And is why we are seeing thousands cross a dangerous stretch of water to get here (whereas previously it mostly used to be in the back of a lorry)
Some of the stats quoted over the weekend are as follows,
Ten thousand asylum applications have been waiting for approval for more than three years.
Over forty thousand having been waiting for between one and three years.
We accept 72% of them.
On appeal we accept a further 50%.
So if all of those whose applications are rejected, appeal, the acceptance rate will go up to 86%.
Although I am not sure how many appeal.
So we accept way more than other comparable countries.
They are now putting them up in £200 per night hotels, after running out of cheaper ones.
So it seems that we are prepared to pay £1400 per week to accommodate them, and in many cases for more than 3 years.
We should take our fair share of genuine asylum seekers, but we should also be able to control our borders.
Tory Headline grabbing shysters.
Was it not the British Embassy abroad classed as UK where you logged application for Asylum... then when approved traveled legally onward journey Britain.
https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2022-11-14/hospital-vulnerable-after-hotels-block-booked-for-asylum-seekers
I'm unsure which loopholes you are referring too.
Certain sections of society love to blame France.
But imagine the roles were reversed, and we had a load of ''undesirable'' people leaving our shores to head to France.
I'm pretty sure the general UK public would be quite happy for us to let them go, and would be up in arms if we tried to stop them.
The ITV documentary later this evening should make interesting, albeit extremely sad, viewing.
A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. Loophole
Having just read the synopsis of that documentary, I don't think I can bear to watch it. Such a tragic state of affairs.