NOT MANY FAMILIES FLEEING PERSECUTION AND WAR ARE THERE. It would seem single males in their 20's make up the vast majority.
Are you saying that only families can suffer from persecution, wars, and famine?
No I am saying that the media sells us the impression that it's mostly desperate families trying to get here when film and pictures prove otherwise. The media sells it and we play the role though don't we.
They clearly dont.
You have failed to explain where you think these poor impoverished asylum seekers obtain the thousands of pounds to pay the smugglers.
Why would I? I am not the one making any claims at all.
What I am saying is that 78% of their applications are accepted. Therefore, either the overwhelming majority are genuine asylum seekers, or the Home Office is completely unable to tell the difference.
Ah but you did. You said that they pay thousands to the smugglers. So I ask again, where does all that money come from.
I did. That is because it is common knowledge. I cant recall you previously asking me where the money comes from. The truthful answer is that I dont know. Why would you see this as making a difference? Can you only be an asylum seeker if you are potless? You just seem to be digging an ever deeper hole.
The Home Office go to the trouble of application forms, and interviews, inorder to establish their qualification. Yet you are able to do this, sat in front of your telly.
Also you are using stats to cloud the issue. That's 78% of those who claim asylum. What about the hundreds, maybe thousands that make landfall and simply disappear. Or does that not happen either.
A much cleverer question. Why on earth would any of the 78% that qualify for asylum disappear do you think? Right I have got the right to live and work here, but I think I will run off to get abused, and taken advantage of by a criminal gang instead.
I dont know, but I think you will find that the majority of the disappearances will come from the 22%, for obvious reasons.
Stats dont usually cloud an issue, they normally back up the facts.
'Tories are left in blunderland as migrants vanish'
When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean,” said Humpty Dumpty scornfully in Alice in Wonderland. And that’s precisely where we are with the Home Office and The Case of the Missing Migrants. More than half the 5,700 asylum seekers identified for deportation to Rwanda are now missing, having failed to turn up for regular meetings with officials.
But in Whitehall-speak, they haven’t absconded. They simply “cannot be located” which is what I say when I lose my stick. A drive to detain illegal migrants is now under way, with more than 800 immigration enforcement officers tasked with tracking them down. Some of the easiest to catch were detained this week.
The Home Office won’t say how many, claiming that could undermine Operation Vector, as the exercise is named. Disclosure of how few they pulled in might also make them look feeble. And not all of the detainees will be on the first flight to Kigali – whenever that is. They could be released back into the community if a judge decides they have a strong case for fighting removal. One unidentified African migrant has already flown voluntarily to Rwanda with £3,000 taxpayers’ money in his pocket. Let’s hope he doesn’t spend it on a smuggler’s return ticket.
Labour – struggling to answer Rishi Sunak’s taunt “Well, what would you do?” – reportedly plans to permit 90,000 migrants already here to claim asylum, in concert with seeking return deals with other countries. The move would create a 1,000-strong unit to speed up decisions on boat people, hundreds of whom cross the Channel every week. The plan sounds a bit vague and optimistic, but anything would be better than the Alice in Wonderland we have today.
They choose to live in the UK because we are a soft touch NO OTHER reason. Money, housing, medical care, welfare system. A legal system that does little to punish the criminal element amongst them and a total lack of ability to properly monitor them.
The numbers arriving by small boats might be "a very small percentage of net migration". However they are all "ILLEGAL" migrants, so one could assume they are a very large percentage of that particular demographic.
So whilst I feel that Rawanda is not an effective solution. These people do now have a choice. Stay in France and make a life there or come to the UK and maybe get shipped off to Rawanda. That's THEIR choice, nobody forces them to come over.
Although it would appear that Ireland now has an allure that the UK lacks.
Christianity?
Fair point.
Ok, I'm not sure if this means that you can't equate my beliefs with my stance on Illegal immigration or whether you believe that the illegal immigrants prefer Ireland because of it's deep rooted Catholicism.
Neither. I was just agreeing with Phil, in that you misquoted.
Firstly, as I have often stated, I am NOT against refugees fleeing war, famine, persecution etc. Neither am I against people emigrating to another country to seek a better life. God's people did that for Centuries.
No, you just accuse them of being something that the majority are not.
WHEN I SEE SMALL BOATS PACKED WITH YOUN SINGLE MALES IT DOES NOT EQUATE INTO DESPERATE FAMILIES SEEKING SAFETY. THEY ARE ALREADY IN A COUNTRY OF SAFETY SO ASK THE QUESTION WHY DO THEY WANT TO SPEND THOUSANDS OF POUNDS TO LEAVE.
However, I am also a firm believer in removing the log from my own eye before trying to remove the speck of dust from another's. We have homelessness, poverty, neglect, persecution and despair and I truly believe that we should fix ourselves first and foremost.
You only have to examine the numbers of asylum seekers over the period of this Tory Government to realise that irrespective of the numbers, there has been no improvement in the stuff you care about.
YEP THAT'S TRUE BUT THAT DOESN'T EXCUSE THE FACT THAT WE SPEND MORE ON THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT PROBLEM THAN WE DO ADRESSING OUR OWN ISSUES.
Let's get one thing absolutely clear, NOBODY arriving by small boat is fleeing conflict. There is no war in France, Spain, Italy, The Netherlands, Germany, Turkey, Poland, Belgium etc. There is no risk of torture, or real persecution. Yes they may experience some racism and xenophobia, but that's a risk anywhere where people are from different cultures.
I posted the origins of where they come from yesterday. You obviously havent read that. Some of these countries still execute people for being gay. Go and tell them that it is just bad luck. We make the rules on who qualifies. 67% of initial applications are successful. About one third of the 33% that initially fail, are later succesful. That takes the overall success rate up to 78%. You must therefore have your wires crossed. We also have a Foreign Aid budget, the clue is in the name. This also doesnt get spent on the stuff that concerns you. It is spent on helping others, elsewhere.
THEY COME HERE FOR THE FREE MONEY, HOUSING, HEALTH CARE, LAX LAW AND ORDER AND EVERY OTHER BENEFIT FROM LIVING IN THE UK.
FRANCE DOESN'T EXECUTE FOR BEING GAY OR TORTURE OR PERSECUTE OR ETHNIC CLEANSE.
ASYLUM RULES/LAWS STATE THAT AN APPLICATION FOR ASYLUM SHOULD BE MADE UPON ENTERING THE FIRST SAFE COUNTRY.
WHY SHOULD OUR TINY ISLAND EVEN HAVE THIS PROBLEM, IT'S NOT LIKE THEIR ISN'T A WHOLE CONTINENT TO CROSS THROUGH FIRST.
Also the list of Nations that the boat crossers come from, so perfectly illustrated by @HAYSIE shows that there are several countries between the point of origin and the UK. This would prove that the desire is specifically to reach the UK not to obtain safe haven.
Well spotted. How on earth could anyone possibly think otherwise. They get to France, then pay a people smuggler thousands of pounds, then risk their lives crossing the channel, when really they didnt mind staying in France. Really? Some come over because they have family here, others because they can speak English. Sky interviewed one young girl that arrived on a small boat this week, it was her 30th attempt to cross the channel, they are obviously not half hearted.
WHERE DO THEY GET THE THOUSANDS OF POUNDS THEY PAY SMUGGLERS. SERIOUSLY THEY JUST WALK OUT OF THEIR OWN COUNTRIES WITH BRICKS OF CURRENCY DO THEY. I SUGGEST IT'S RAISED THROUGH ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. ALSO 30TH ATTEMPT EVEN AT £3,000 A POP IS £90,000 WHERE THE FK DOES A YOUNG GIRL GET THAT KIND OF MONEY. IN FACT IF AS AN ILLEGAL I CAN MAKE THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY ON THE BLACK I'LL MOVE TO FRANCE TOMMORROW.
ONCE MORE THE NARRATIVE DOES NOT BEAR EXAMINATION
That brings me to the second point, which is, what is the allure of Ireland ?. Well it could be that the arriving illegals believe that the aforementioned deep rooted Catholicism means that they will receive a sympathetic and loving welcome. The attitude of the Irish however would seem to counter that belief.
The arrivals in Ireland did not start until the Rwanda legislation went through, as you know. They can only get there because we cant control our borders.
SO THEY BECOME SOMEONE ELSES PROBLEM AMD THAT IS WRONG. YET IT'S OK WHEN THEY BECAME THE UK'S PROBLEM. STOP WITH THE DOUBLE STANDARDS
WE CAN'T CONTROL OUR BORDERS BECAUSE THE LIBERAL WOKES WON'T LET US. IMAGINE THE FURRORE IF WE STOPPED, SENT BACK OR SANK EVERY BOAT ACTING ILLEGALLY IN OUR WATERS. YES THAT WOULD BE A BARBARIC ACT THAT I WOULD NEVER SUPPORT. HOWEVER, PROBLEM WOULD BE SOLVED I FEEL.
Or could it be that the Ireland is a place rich in opportunity, a place where one can settle and look forward to a better life. Ireland have FoM.
WELL THAT'S THEIR FAULT IF IT ALLOWS UNDESIRABLES IN. ACCORDING TO ITS SUPPORTERS FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT IS ONE OF THE GREAT BENEFITS OF EU MEMBERSHIP. AGAIN UNTIL IT ISN'T. MIND YOU IF THEY DON'T LIKE IRELAND THEY ARE FREE TO TRAVEL TO ANY OTHER EU COUNTRY THEY CHOOSE.
It's an interesting debate. However I can't help but feel that the fact that Ireland has no Rawanda style plan might just have something to do with it.
Or perhaps you are happy to move our problem elsewhere, and do not care about the people involved?
TO SAY I DON'T CARE WHEN I AM INVOLVED WITH ASYLUM SUPPORT GROUPS IS A LITTLE INSULTING. HOWEVER I CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A DESPERATE FAMILY ESCAPING FROM BRUTAL TYRANNY AND DOZENS OF YOUNG MEN WANTING THE EASY LIFE THAT THE UK AFFORDS THEM. IT'S THE NAIVETY OF JOE WOKE THAT GALLS ME.
AS FOR MOVING THE PROBLEM ON, IT'S THE WAY OF THE WORLD TONY. EVERYDAY WE MOVE TRAVELLERS ON TO BECOME SOMEONE ELSES PROBLEM, SAME WITH BEGGARS, THE HOMELESS AND GROUPS OF ALCOHOLICS. THE NIMBY HYPOCRISY THAT PERMEATES SOCIETY MEANS THAT PEOPLE ONLY SUPPORT HELPING THESE GROUPS UNTIL THEY LAND ON THEIR OWN DOORSTEP.
Sorry about the capitals I don't know how else to highlight my responses to your responses. It's not me shouting.
I cant see why on earth you would if they are not really asylum seekers?
......maybe read the rest of the paragraph
And?
You have gone very quiet. The obvious point I was clearly making was, Why would you bother to involve yourself with asylum support, when you are adamant that these people arent really asylum seekers.
If you had carried on and read the rest of the paragraph (which I'm sure you did) you might understand that what Mark is saying, is that he can tell the difference between the two sets of people seeking Asylum.
Following on from the Rwanda Option...... maybe if we had a policy whereby all the fit and capable young men that came to this country seeking Asylum, would have to do National Service for 2 or 3 years whilst having their Asylum application granted, and be trained up to join the ARMY ...... ( or NAVY as they like Boats) then maybe they might think that the UK isn't such a good option.
After all, everyone is saying we do need a lot more people in the Armed Forces ..... and it's a pretty good career.
..... though if they know the System in the UK, they would all be then applying for Sickness Benefits
They choose to live in the UK because we are a soft touch NO OTHER reason. Money, housing, medical care, welfare system. A legal system that does little to punish the criminal element amongst them and a total lack of ability to properly monitor them.
The numbers arriving by small boats might be "a very small percentage of net migration". However they are all "ILLEGAL" migrants, so one could assume they are a very large percentage of that particular demographic.
So whilst I feel that Rawanda is not an effective solution. These people do now have a choice. Stay in France and make a life there or come to the UK and maybe get shipped off to Rawanda. That's THEIR choice, nobody forces them to come over.
Although it would appear that Ireland now has an allure that the UK lacks.
Christianity?
Fair point.
Ok, I'm not sure if this means that you can't equate my beliefs with my stance on Illegal immigration or whether you believe that the illegal immigrants prefer Ireland because of it's deep rooted Catholicism.
Neither. I was just agreeing with Phil, in that you misquoted.
Firstly, as I have often stated, I am NOT against refugees fleeing war, famine, persecution etc. Neither am I against people emigrating to another country to seek a better life. God's people did that for Centuries.
No, you just accuse them of being something that the majority are not.
WHEN I SEE SMALL BOATS PACKED WITH YOUN SINGLE MALES IT DOES NOT EQUATE INTO DESPERATE FAMILIES SEEKING SAFETY. THEY ARE ALREADY IN A COUNTRY OF SAFETY SO ASK THE QUESTION WHY DO THEY WANT TO SPEND THOUSANDS OF POUNDS TO LEAVE.
However, I am also a firm believer in removing the log from my own eye before trying to remove the speck of dust from another's. We have homelessness, poverty, neglect, persecution and despair and I truly believe that we should fix ourselves first and foremost.
You only have to examine the numbers of asylum seekers over the period of this Tory Government to realise that irrespective of the numbers, there has been no improvement in the stuff you care about.
YEP THAT'S TRUE BUT THAT DOESN'T EXCUSE THE FACT THAT WE SPEND MORE ON THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT PROBLEM THAN WE DO ADRESSING OUR OWN ISSUES.
Let's get one thing absolutely clear, NOBODY arriving by small boat is fleeing conflict. There is no war in France, Spain, Italy, The Netherlands, Germany, Turkey, Poland, Belgium etc. There is no risk of torture, or real persecution. Yes they may experience some racism and xenophobia, but that's a risk anywhere where people are from different cultures.
I posted the origins of where they come from yesterday. You obviously havent read that. Some of these countries still execute people for being gay. Go and tell them that it is just bad luck. We make the rules on who qualifies. 67% of initial applications are successful. About one third of the 33% that initially fail, are later succesful. That takes the overall success rate up to 78%. You must therefore have your wires crossed. We also have a Foreign Aid budget, the clue is in the name. This also doesnt get spent on the stuff that concerns you. It is spent on helping others, elsewhere.
THEY COME HERE FOR THE FREE MONEY, HOUSING, HEALTH CARE, LAX LAW AND ORDER AND EVERY OTHER BENEFIT FROM LIVING IN THE UK.
FRANCE DOESN'T EXECUTE FOR BEING GAY OR TORTURE OR PERSECUTE OR ETHNIC CLEANSE.
ASYLUM RULES/LAWS STATE THAT AN APPLICATION FOR ASYLUM SHOULD BE MADE UPON ENTERING THE FIRST SAFE COUNTRY.
WHY SHOULD OUR TINY ISLAND EVEN HAVE THIS PROBLEM, IT'S NOT LIKE THEIR ISN'T A WHOLE CONTINENT TO CROSS THROUGH FIRST.
Also the list of Nations that the boat crossers come from, so perfectly illustrated by @HAYSIE shows that there are several countries between the point of origin and the UK. This would prove that the desire is specifically to reach the UK not to obtain safe haven.
Well spotted. How on earth could anyone possibly think otherwise. They get to France, then pay a people smuggler thousands of pounds, then risk their lives crossing the channel, when really they didnt mind staying in France. Really? Some come over because they have family here, others because they can speak English. Sky interviewed one young girl that arrived on a small boat this week, it was her 30th attempt to cross the channel, they are obviously not half hearted.
WHERE DO THEY GET THE THOUSANDS OF POUNDS THEY PAY SMUGGLERS. SERIOUSLY THEY JUST WALK OUT OF THEIR OWN COUNTRIES WITH BRICKS OF CURRENCY DO THEY. I SUGGEST IT'S RAISED THROUGH ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. ALSO 30TH ATTEMPT EVEN AT £3,000 A POP IS £90,000 WHERE THE FK DOES A YOUNG GIRL GET THAT KIND OF MONEY. IN FACT IF AS AN ILLEGAL I CAN MAKE THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY ON THE BLACK I'LL MOVE TO FRANCE TOMMORROW.
ONCE MORE THE NARRATIVE DOES NOT BEAR EXAMINATION
That brings me to the second point, which is, what is the allure of Ireland ?. Well it could be that the arriving illegals believe that the aforementioned deep rooted Catholicism means that they will receive a sympathetic and loving welcome. The attitude of the Irish however would seem to counter that belief.
The arrivals in Ireland did not start until the Rwanda legislation went through, as you know. They can only get there because we cant control our borders.
SO THEY BECOME SOMEONE ELSES PROBLEM AMD THAT IS WRONG. YET IT'S OK WHEN THEY BECAME THE UK'S PROBLEM. STOP WITH THE DOUBLE STANDARDS
WE CAN'T CONTROL OUR BORDERS BECAUSE THE LIBERAL WOKES WON'T LET US. IMAGINE THE FURRORE IF WE STOPPED, SENT BACK OR SANK EVERY BOAT ACTING ILLEGALLY IN OUR WATERS. YES THAT WOULD BE A BARBARIC ACT THAT I WOULD NEVER SUPPORT. HOWEVER, PROBLEM WOULD BE SOLVED I FEEL.
Or could it be that the Ireland is a place rich in opportunity, a place where one can settle and look forward to a better life. Ireland have FoM.
WELL THAT'S THEIR FAULT IF IT ALLOWS UNDESIRABLES IN. ACCORDING TO ITS SUPPORTERS FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT IS ONE OF THE GREAT BENEFITS OF EU MEMBERSHIP. AGAIN UNTIL IT ISN'T. MIND YOU IF THEY DON'T LIKE IRELAND THEY ARE FREE TO TRAVEL TO ANY OTHER EU COUNTRY THEY CHOOSE.
It's an interesting debate. However I can't help but feel that the fact that Ireland has no Rawanda style plan might just have something to do with it.
Or perhaps you are happy to move our problem elsewhere, and do not care about the people involved?
TO SAY I DON'T CARE WHEN I AM INVOLVED WITH ASYLUM SUPPORT GROUPS IS A LITTLE INSULTING. HOWEVER I CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A DESPERATE FAMILY ESCAPING FROM BRUTAL TYRANNY AND DOZENS OF YOUNG MEN WANTING THE EASY LIFE THAT THE UK AFFORDS THEM. IT'S THE NAIVETY OF JOE WOKE THAT GALLS ME.
AS FOR MOVING THE PROBLEM ON, IT'S THE WAY OF THE WORLD TONY. EVERYDAY WE MOVE TRAVELLERS ON TO BECOME SOMEONE ELSES PROBLEM, SAME WITH BEGGARS, THE HOMELESS AND GROUPS OF ALCOHOLICS. THE NIMBY HYPOCRISY THAT PERMEATES SOCIETY MEANS THAT PEOPLE ONLY SUPPORT HELPING THESE GROUPS UNTIL THEY LAND ON THEIR OWN DOORSTEP.
Sorry about the capitals I don't know how else to highlight my responses to your responses. It's not me shouting.
I cant see why on earth you would if they are not really asylum seekers?
......maybe read the rest of the paragraph
And?
You have gone very quiet. The obvious point I was clearly making was, Why would you bother to involve yourself with asylum support, when you are adamant that these people arent really asylum seekers.
If you had carried on and read the rest of the paragraph (which I'm sure you did) you might understand that what Mark is saying, is that he can tell the difference between the two sets of people seeking Asylum.
How the f...k do you think he can do that?
Following on from the Rwanda Option...... maybe if we had a policy whereby all the fit and capable young men that came to this country seeking Asylum, would have to do National Service for 2 or 3 years whilst having their Asylum application granted, and be trained up to join the ARMY ...... ( or NAVY as they like Boats) then maybe they might think that the UK isn't such a good option.
We have rules in place that cover asylum application, which dictate whether or not their application is successful. That is not far off the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard.
After all, everyone is saying we do need a lot more people in the Armed Forces ..... and it's a pretty good career.
Have a go then.
..... though if they know the System in the UK, they would all be then applying for Sickness Benefits
Do you really think that they come here to go on the sick?
They choose to live in the UK because we are a soft touch NO OTHER reason. Money, housing, medical care, welfare system. A legal system that does little to punish the criminal element amongst them and a total lack of ability to properly monitor them.
The numbers arriving by small boats might be "a very small percentage of net migration". However they are all "ILLEGAL" migrants, so one could assume they are a very large percentage of that particular demographic.
So whilst I feel that Rawanda is not an effective solution. These people do now have a choice. Stay in France and make a life there or come to the UK and maybe get shipped off to Rawanda. That's THEIR choice, nobody forces them to come over.
Although it would appear that Ireland now has an allure that the UK lacks.
Christianity?
Fair point.
Ok, I'm not sure if this means that you can't equate my beliefs with my stance on Illegal immigration or whether you believe that the illegal immigrants prefer Ireland because of it's deep rooted Catholicism.
Neither. I was just agreeing with Phil, in that you misquoted.
Firstly, as I have often stated, I am NOT against refugees fleeing war, famine, persecution etc. Neither am I against people emigrating to another country to seek a better life. God's people did that for Centuries.
No, you just accuse them of being something that the majority are not.
WHEN I SEE SMALL BOATS PACKED WITH YOUN SINGLE MALES IT DOES NOT EQUATE INTO DESPERATE FAMILIES SEEKING SAFETY. THEY ARE ALREADY IN A COUNTRY OF SAFETY SO ASK THE QUESTION WHY DO THEY WANT TO SPEND THOUSANDS OF POUNDS TO LEAVE.
However, I am also a firm believer in removing the log from my own eye before trying to remove the speck of dust from another's. We have homelessness, poverty, neglect, persecution and despair and I truly believe that we should fix ourselves first and foremost.
You only have to examine the numbers of asylum seekers over the period of this Tory Government to realise that irrespective of the numbers, there has been no improvement in the stuff you care about.
YEP THAT'S TRUE BUT THAT DOESN'T EXCUSE THE FACT THAT WE SPEND MORE ON THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT PROBLEM THAN WE DO ADRESSING OUR OWN ISSUES.
Let's get one thing absolutely clear, NOBODY arriving by small boat is fleeing conflict. There is no war in France, Spain, Italy, The Netherlands, Germany, Turkey, Poland, Belgium etc. There is no risk of torture, or real persecution. Yes they may experience some racism and xenophobia, but that's a risk anywhere where people are from different cultures.
I posted the origins of where they come from yesterday. You obviously havent read that. Some of these countries still execute people for being gay. Go and tell them that it is just bad luck. We make the rules on who qualifies. 67% of initial applications are successful. About one third of the 33% that initially fail, are later succesful. That takes the overall success rate up to 78%. You must therefore have your wires crossed. We also have a Foreign Aid budget, the clue is in the name. This also doesnt get spent on the stuff that concerns you. It is spent on helping others, elsewhere.
THEY COME HERE FOR THE FREE MONEY, HOUSING, HEALTH CARE, LAX LAW AND ORDER AND EVERY OTHER BENEFIT FROM LIVING IN THE UK.
FRANCE DOESN'T EXECUTE FOR BEING GAY OR TORTURE OR PERSECUTE OR ETHNIC CLEANSE.
ASYLUM RULES/LAWS STATE THAT AN APPLICATION FOR ASYLUM SHOULD BE MADE UPON ENTERING THE FIRST SAFE COUNTRY.
WHY SHOULD OUR TINY ISLAND EVEN HAVE THIS PROBLEM, IT'S NOT LIKE THEIR ISN'T A WHOLE CONTINENT TO CROSS THROUGH FIRST.
Also the list of Nations that the boat crossers come from, so perfectly illustrated by @HAYSIE shows that there are several countries between the point of origin and the UK. This would prove that the desire is specifically to reach the UK not to obtain safe haven.
Well spotted. How on earth could anyone possibly think otherwise. They get to France, then pay a people smuggler thousands of pounds, then risk their lives crossing the channel, when really they didnt mind staying in France. Really? Some come over because they have family here, others because they can speak English. Sky interviewed one young girl that arrived on a small boat this week, it was her 30th attempt to cross the channel, they are obviously not half hearted.
WHERE DO THEY GET THE THOUSANDS OF POUNDS THEY PAY SMUGGLERS. SERIOUSLY THEY JUST WALK OUT OF THEIR OWN COUNTRIES WITH BRICKS OF CURRENCY DO THEY. I SUGGEST IT'S RAISED THROUGH ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. ALSO 30TH ATTEMPT EVEN AT £3,000 A POP IS £90,000 WHERE THE FK DOES A YOUNG GIRL GET THAT KIND OF MONEY. IN FACT IF AS AN ILLEGAL I CAN MAKE THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY ON THE BLACK I'LL MOVE TO FRANCE TOMMORROW.
ONCE MORE THE NARRATIVE DOES NOT BEAR EXAMINATION
That brings me to the second point, which is, what is the allure of Ireland ?. Well it could be that the arriving illegals believe that the aforementioned deep rooted Catholicism means that they will receive a sympathetic and loving welcome. The attitude of the Irish however would seem to counter that belief.
The arrivals in Ireland did not start until the Rwanda legislation went through, as you know. They can only get there because we cant control our borders.
SO THEY BECOME SOMEONE ELSES PROBLEM AMD THAT IS WRONG. YET IT'S OK WHEN THEY BECAME THE UK'S PROBLEM. STOP WITH THE DOUBLE STANDARDS
WE CAN'T CONTROL OUR BORDERS BECAUSE THE LIBERAL WOKES WON'T LET US. IMAGINE THE FURRORE IF WE STOPPED, SENT BACK OR SANK EVERY BOAT ACTING ILLEGALLY IN OUR WATERS. YES THAT WOULD BE A BARBARIC ACT THAT I WOULD NEVER SUPPORT. HOWEVER, PROBLEM WOULD BE SOLVED I FEEL.
Or could it be that the Ireland is a place rich in opportunity, a place where one can settle and look forward to a better life. Ireland have FoM.
WELL THAT'S THEIR FAULT IF IT ALLOWS UNDESIRABLES IN. ACCORDING TO ITS SUPPORTERS FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT IS ONE OF THE GREAT BENEFITS OF EU MEMBERSHIP. AGAIN UNTIL IT ISN'T. MIND YOU IF THEY DON'T LIKE IRELAND THEY ARE FREE TO TRAVEL TO ANY OTHER EU COUNTRY THEY CHOOSE.
It's an interesting debate. However I can't help but feel that the fact that Ireland has no Rawanda style plan might just have something to do with it.
Or perhaps you are happy to move our problem elsewhere, and do not care about the people involved?
TO SAY I DON'T CARE WHEN I AM INVOLVED WITH ASYLUM SUPPORT GROUPS IS A LITTLE INSULTING. HOWEVER I CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A DESPERATE FAMILY ESCAPING FROM BRUTAL TYRANNY AND DOZENS OF YOUNG MEN WANTING THE EASY LIFE THAT THE UK AFFORDS THEM. IT'S THE NAIVETY OF JOE WOKE THAT GALLS ME.
AS FOR MOVING THE PROBLEM ON, IT'S THE WAY OF THE WORLD TONY. EVERYDAY WE MOVE TRAVELLERS ON TO BECOME SOMEONE ELSES PROBLEM, SAME WITH BEGGARS, THE HOMELESS AND GROUPS OF ALCOHOLICS. THE NIMBY HYPOCRISY THAT PERMEATES SOCIETY MEANS THAT PEOPLE ONLY SUPPORT HELPING THESE GROUPS UNTIL THEY LAND ON THEIR OWN DOORSTEP.
Sorry about the capitals I don't know how else to highlight my responses to your responses. It's not me shouting.
I cant see why on earth you would if they are not really asylum seekers?
......maybe read the rest of the paragraph
And?
You have gone very quiet. The obvious point I was clearly making was, Why would you bother to involve yourself with asylum support, when you are adamant that these people arent really asylum seekers.
If you had carried on and read the rest of the paragraph (which I'm sure you did) you might understand that what Mark is saying, is that he can tell the difference between the two sets of people seeking Asylum.
Following on from the Rwanda Option...... maybe if we had a policy whereby all the fit and capable young men that came to this country seeking Asylum, would have to do National Service for 2 or 3 years whilst having their Asylum application granted, and be trained up to join the ARMY ...... ( or NAVY as they like Boats) then maybe they might think that the UK isn't such a good option.
After all, everyone is saying we do need a lot more people in the Armed Forces ..... and it's a pretty good career.
..... though if they know the System in the UK, they would all be then applying for Sickness Benefits
I can tell from their hats that two of these are not really asylum seekers.
Highest number of migrants this year cross Channel in single day
NOT MANY FAMILIES FLEEING PERSECUTION AND WAR ARE THERE. It would seem single males in their 20's make up the vast majority.
Are you saying that only families can suffer from persecution, wars, and famine?
No I am saying that the media sells us the impression that it's mostly desperate families trying to get here when film and pictures prove otherwise. The media sells it and we play the role though don't we.
They clearly dont.
You have failed to explain where you think these poor impoverished asylum seekers obtain the thousands of pounds to pay the smugglers.
Why would I? I am not the one making any claims at all.
What I am saying is that 78% of their applications are accepted. Therefore, either the overwhelming majority are genuine asylum seekers, or the Home Office is completely unable to tell the difference.
Ah but you did. You said that they pay thousands to the smugglers. So I ask again, where does all that money come from.
I did. That is because it is common knowledge. I cant recall you previously asking me where the money comes from. The truthful answer is that I dont know. Why would you see this as making a difference? Can you only be an asylum seeker if you are potless? You just seem to be digging an ever deeper hole.
The Home Office go to the trouble of application forms, and interviews, inorder to establish their qualification. Yet you are able to do this, sat in front of your telly.
Also you are using stats to cloud the issue. That's 78% of those who claim asylum. What about the hundreds, maybe thousands that make landfall and simply disappear. Or does that not happen either.
A much cleverer question. Why on earth would any of the 78% that qualify for asylum disappear do you think? Right I have got the right to live and work here, but I think I will run off to get abused, and taken advantage of by a criminal gang instead.
I dont know, but I think you will find that the majority of the disappearances will come from the 22%, for obvious reasons.
Stats dont usually cloud an issue, they normally back up the facts.
Once again you dodge my point. I'm referring to the thousands who aren't included on your 78%. Many of those who come over on small boats have no intention of claiming asylum because they know they don't or won't qualify.
They simply want to come over here and then disappear into the network of organised illegality which is flourishing in the UK. There are communities of Somalis, Eritreans, Ethiopians, Sudanese, Iraqis, Afghanis etc. all over the UK. Closed worlds impenetrable to the outsider and therefore impossible to police or monitor.
Your 78% is a figure for genuine refugees. You know ?. The people I try to help in some small way.
I don't accept the far rights pathetic claims that for every 1 legally accepted immigrant there are 3 undocumented landing here however I would believe a figure of 1 to 1.
Ok, I've tried to explain my thinking. Now please answer my question.
NOW WHERE DO THE THOUSANDS OF POUNDS PER PERSON TO PAY THE SMUGGLERS COME FROM ?
NOT MANY FAMILIES FLEEING PERSECUTION AND WAR ARE THERE. It would seem single males in their 20's make up the vast majority.
Are you saying that only families can suffer from persecution, wars, and famine?
No I am saying that the media sells us the impression that it's mostly desperate families trying to get here when film and pictures prove otherwise. The media sells it and we play the role though don't we.
They clearly dont.
You have failed to explain where you think these poor impoverished asylum seekers obtain the thousands of pounds to pay the smugglers.
Why would I? I am not the one making any claims at all.
What I am saying is that 78% of their applications are accepted. Therefore, either the overwhelming majority are genuine asylum seekers, or the Home Office is completely unable to tell the difference.
Ah but you did. You said that they pay thousands to the smugglers. So I ask again, where does all that money come from.
I did. That is because it is common knowledge. I cant recall you previously asking me where the money comes from. The truthful answer is that I dont know. Why would you see this as making a difference? Can you only be an asylum seeker if you are potless? You just seem to be digging an ever deeper hole.
The Home Office go to the trouble of application forms, and interviews, inorder to establish their qualification. Yet you are able to do this, sat in front of your telly.
Also you are using stats to cloud the issue. That's 78% of those who claim asylum. What about the hundreds, maybe thousands that make landfall and simply disappear. Or does that not happen either.
A much cleverer question. Why on earth would any of the 78% that qualify for asylum disappear do you think? Right I have got the right to live and work here, but I think I will run off to get abused, and taken advantage of by a criminal gang instead.
I dont know, but I think you will find that the majority of the disappearances will come from the 22%, for obvious reasons.
Stats dont usually cloud an issue, they normally back up the facts.
Once again you dodge my point. I'm referring to the thousands who aren't included on your 78%. Many of those who come over on small boats have no intention of claiming asylum because they know they don't or won't qualify.
They simply want to come over here and then disappear into the network of organised illegality which is flourishing in the UK. There are communities of Somalis, Eritreans, Ethiopians, Sudanese, Iraqis, Afghanis etc. all over the UK. Closed worlds impenetrable to the outsider and therefore impossible to police or monitor.
Your 78% is a figure for genuine refugees. You know ?. The people I try to help in some small way.
I don't accept the far rights pathetic claims that for every 1 legally accepted immigrant there are 3 undocumented landing here however I would believe a figure of 1 to 1.
Ok, I've tried to explain my thinking. Now please answer my question.
NOW WHERE DO THE THOUSANDS OF POUNDS PER PERSON TO PAY THE SMUGGLERS COME FROM ?
I havent a clue. Neither do you. Nor do I think it is relevant. If I was guessing, I would say that on some occasions the money is paid by their family, on others they will have worked along the way and accumulated the cash, maybe some have savings, perhaps others sell their bodies.
I dont know what you are making such a big fuss about, or going so mad with your CAPITALS.
To put this in perspective, people smugglers charge as little as 3,000 euros, and discounts are apparently available. If you had a job, and lived in a camp it wouldnt take too long to accumulate that sort of money. How do they feed themselves?
You might not like it, but some of them will have had good jobs in the countries they originate from. You seem to have your own definition of what an asylum seeker is, in order for them to qualify in your own mind. You couldnt for instance be a young doctor from Syria, whose family had been wiped out. Or a young gay solicitor fleeing the regime in Iran or Iraq. Or an interpreter from Afghanistan that we had already promised asylum.
I dont expect their financial status features in the Home Office qualification process.
Perhaps they should run a police investigation into how they were able to fund their Channel crossing?
NOT MANY FAMILIES FLEEING PERSECUTION AND WAR ARE THERE. It would seem single males in their 20's make up the vast majority.
Are you saying that only families can suffer from persecution, wars, and famine?
No I am saying that the media sells us the impression that it's mostly desperate families trying to get here when film and pictures prove otherwise. The media sells it and we play the role though don't we.
They clearly dont.
You have failed to explain where you think these poor impoverished asylum seekers obtain the thousands of pounds to pay the smugglers.
Why would I? I am not the one making any claims at all.
What I am saying is that 78% of their applications are accepted. Therefore, either the overwhelming majority are genuine asylum seekers, or the Home Office is completely unable to tell the difference.
Ah but you did. You said that they pay thousands to the smugglers. So I ask again, where does all that money come from.
I did. That is because it is common knowledge. I cant recall you previously asking me where the money comes from. The truthful answer is that I dont know. Why would you see this as making a difference? Can you only be an asylum seeker if you are potless? You just seem to be digging an ever deeper hole.
The Home Office go to the trouble of application forms, and interviews, inorder to establish their qualification. Yet you are able to do this, sat in front of your telly.
Also you are using stats to cloud the issue. That's 78% of those who claim asylum. What about the hundreds, maybe thousands that make landfall and simply disappear. Or does that not happen either.
A much cleverer question. Why on earth would any of the 78% that qualify for asylum disappear do you think? Right I have got the right to live and work here, but I think I will run off to get abused, and taken advantage of by a criminal gang instead.
I dont know, but I think you will find that the majority of the disappearances will come from the 22%, for obvious reasons.
Stats dont usually cloud an issue, they normally back up the facts.
Once again you dodge my point. I'm referring to the thousands who aren't included on your 78%. Many of those who come over on small boats have no intention of claiming asylum because they know they don't or won't qualify.
They simply want to come over here and then disappear into the network of organised illegality which is flourishing in the UK. There are communities of Somalis, Eritreans, Ethiopians, Sudanese, Iraqis, Afghanis etc. all over the UK. Closed worlds impenetrable to the outsider and therefore impossible to police or monitor.
Your 78% is a figure for genuine refugees. You know ?. The people I try to help in some small way.
I don't accept the far rights pathetic claims that for every 1 legally accepted immigrant there are 3 undocumented landing here however I would believe a figure of 1 to 1.
Ok, I've tried to explain my thinking. Now please answer my question.
NOW WHERE DO THE THOUSANDS OF POUNDS PER PERSON TO PAY THE SMUGGLERS COME FROM ?
I havent a clue. Neither do you. Nor do I think it is relevant. If I was guessing, I would say that on some occasions the money is paid by their family, on others they will have worked along the way and accumulated the cash, maybe some have savings, perhaps others sell their bodies.
I dont know what you are making such a big fuss about, or going so mad with your CAPITALS.
To put this in perspective, people smugglers charge as little as 3,000 euros, and discounts are apparently available. If you had a job, and lived in a camp it wouldnt take too long to accumulate that sort of money. How do they feed themselves?
You might not like it, but some of them will have had good jobs in the countries they originate from. You seem to have your own definition of what an asylum seeker is, in order for them to qualify in your own mind. You couldnt for instance be a young doctor from Syria, whose family had been wiped out. Or a young gay solicitor fleeing the regime in Iran or Iraq. Or an interpreter from Afghanistan that we had already promised asylum.
I dont expect their financial status features in the Home Office qualification process.
Perhaps they should run a police investigation into how they were able to fund their Channel crossing?
If you really want to know, in my own mind, an asylum seeker is someone who claims sanctuary in the first safe Country they enter. However as they now appear to have the option to pick and choose to my mind that is NOT a true asylum seeker. That is an economic migrant which is something entirely different but something the press and the public seem to be unable to differentiate.
NOT MANY FAMILIES FLEEING PERSECUTION AND WAR ARE THERE. It would seem single males in their 20's make up the vast majority.
Are you saying that only families can suffer from persecution, wars, and famine?
No I am saying that the media sells us the impression that it's mostly desperate families trying to get here when film and pictures prove otherwise. The media sells it and we play the role though don't we.
They clearly dont.
You have failed to explain where you think these poor impoverished asylum seekers obtain the thousands of pounds to pay the smugglers.
Why would I? I am not the one making any claims at all.
What I am saying is that 78% of their applications are accepted. Therefore, either the overwhelming majority are genuine asylum seekers, or the Home Office is completely unable to tell the difference.
Ah but you did. You said that they pay thousands to the smugglers. So I ask again, where does all that money come from.
I did. That is because it is common knowledge. I cant recall you previously asking me where the money comes from. The truthful answer is that I dont know. Why would you see this as making a difference? Can you only be an asylum seeker if you are potless? You just seem to be digging an ever deeper hole.
The Home Office go to the trouble of application forms, and interviews, inorder to establish their qualification. Yet you are able to do this, sat in front of your telly.
Also you are using stats to cloud the issue. That's 78% of those who claim asylum. What about the hundreds, maybe thousands that make landfall and simply disappear. Or does that not happen either.
A much cleverer question. Why on earth would any of the 78% that qualify for asylum disappear do you think? Right I have got the right to live and work here, but I think I will run off to get abused, and taken advantage of by a criminal gang instead.
I dont know, but I think you will find that the majority of the disappearances will come from the 22%, for obvious reasons.
Stats dont usually cloud an issue, they normally back up the facts.
Once again you dodge my point. I'm referring to the thousands who aren't included on your 78%. Many of those who come over on small boats have no intention of claiming asylum because they know they don't or won't qualify.
They simply want to come over here and then disappear into the network of organised illegality which is flourishing in the UK. There are communities of Somalis, Eritreans, Ethiopians, Sudanese, Iraqis, Afghanis etc. all over the UK. Closed worlds impenetrable to the outsider and therefore impossible to police or monitor.
Your 78% is a figure for genuine refugees. You know ?. The people I try to help in some small way.
I don't accept the far rights pathetic claims that for every 1 legally accepted immigrant there are 3 undocumented landing here however I would believe a figure of 1 to 1.
Ok, I've tried to explain my thinking. Now please answer my question.
NOW WHERE DO THE THOUSANDS OF POUNDS PER PERSON TO PAY THE SMUGGLERS COME FROM ?
I havent a clue. Neither do you. Nor do I think it is relevant. If I was guessing, I would say that on some occasions the money is paid by their family, on others they will have worked along the way and accumulated the cash, maybe some have savings, perhaps others sell their bodies.
I dont know what you are making such a big fuss about, or going so mad with your CAPITALS.
To put this in perspective, people smugglers charge as little as 3,000 euros, and discounts are apparently available. If you had a job, and lived in a camp it wouldnt take too long to accumulate that sort of money. How do they feed themselves?
You might not like it, but some of them will have had good jobs in the countries they originate from. You seem to have your own definition of what an asylum seeker is, in order for them to qualify in your own mind. You couldnt for instance be a young doctor from Syria, whose family had been wiped out. Or a young gay solicitor fleeing the regime in Iran or Iraq. Or an interpreter from Afghanistan that we had already promised asylum.
I dont expect their financial status features in the Home Office qualification process.
Perhaps they should run a police investigation into how they were able to fund their Channel crossing?
If you really want to know, in my own mind, an asylum seeker is someone who claims sanctuary in the first safe Country they enter. However as they now appear to have the option to pick and choose to my mind that is NOT a true asylum seeker. That is an economic migrant which is something entirely different but something the press and the public seem to be unable to differentiate.
Well the Home Office clearly have a different definition. This is why such an overwhelmingly high percentage are accepted, and also why you are going bonkers with your CAPITALS.
The other thing about your definition is that it would probably be unfair to countries like Italy and Greece. As it seems that the bulk of asylum seekers land on their shores.
Got to say that I believe the correct position is somewhere roughly halfway between the 2 of you.
Any sensible definition of "economic migrant", as opposed to refugee, is going to depend on far more factors than just economics. Among them being family ties, familial economic support, and language skills.
Getting out of 1 country may or may not be the first necessary step. But it should not necessarily be the only step.
On the other hand, compare and contrast mean and women adult asylum seekers in the 15:29 post. Where there are more than 3 adult males for every adult female. Which does rather suggest that some of these people are likely to be economic migrants.
Got to say that I believe the correct position is somewhere roughly halfway between the 2 of you.
Any sensible definition of "economic migrant", as opposed to refugee, is going to depend on far more factors than just economics. Among them being family ties, familial economic support, and language skills.
Getting out of 1 country may or may not be the first necessary step. But it should not necessarily be the only step.
On the other hand, compare and contrast mean and women adult asylum seekers in the 15:29 post. Where there are more than 3 adult males for every adult female. Which does rather suggest that some of these people are likely to be economic migrants.
You are mistaking me for someone with a position.
My opinion is that we should set a limit for the number of asylum seekers we are prepared to accept. This figure should somehow reflect our fair share. We should put safe routes in place to accommodate them. To have no limit is stupid.
I am not keen on the Rwanda scheme. The cost to date is exorbitant, as are the ongoing costs. Paying Rwanda £171,000 per head seems excessive.
I have just been arguing the following. It is impossible to assess whether or not the arrivals are genuine asylum seekers, while sat in front of the telly. As we accept the overwhelming majority, this is either proof that the majority are genuine asylum seekers, or our approval process needs amending. I cant see that the source of their payments to people smugglers is at all relevant. The stats show that they are not coming from France. Those that disappear are unlikely to be those with successful applications. Forcing them into the Army is a ridiculous idea. I feel very calm, hence no CAPITALS.
I also think that the Home Office are incompetent in managing the process, and dont have a workable system in place. The money wasted on hotel bills, legal aid, etc,etc, would be much better spent elsewhere. This is exacerbated by the ridiculous amount of time taken to process the applications.
For someone who doesn't have a position, you post quite a lot on this subject
FWIW, my views are quite similar to yours. In short:-
1. We should have a limit agreed on asylum seekers 2. We should have a safe route for them 3. We should also have an agreed limit for study visas, together with much stricter monitoring 4. We do not need a limit on other economic migrants-we either need their skills, or we don't 5. We need to do far more to prosecute the people smugglers-rather than just talking about them 6. The Army idea? No. Think the people who would hate this the most would be the Army 7. The Home Office? It needs to have a coherent strategy, rather than being used as a political plaything 8. Rwanda scheme? Daft. And really bad value for money. Why does the UK believe it gets to decide whether another country is safe or not? 9. Time to process applications is probably more important than everything else
For someone who doesn't have a position, you post quite a lot on this subject
FWIW, my views are quite similar to yours. In short:-
1. We should have a limit agreed on asylum seekers 2. We should have a safe route for them 3. We should also have an agreed limit for study visas, together with much stricter monitoring 4. We do not need a limit on other economic migrants-we either need their skills, or we don't 5. We need to do far more to prosecute the people smugglers-rather than just talking about them 6. The Army idea? No. Think the people who would hate this the most would be the Army 7. The Home Office? It needs to have a coherent strategy, rather than being used as a political plaything 8. Rwanda scheme? Daft. And really bad value for money. Why does the UK believe it gets to decide whether another country is safe or not? 9. Time to process applications is probably more important than everything else
They are taking years to process applications, have a massive backlog, and dont have a workable system in place. Other than that, I pretty much agree with everything else.
For someone who doesn't have a position, you post quite a lot on this subject
FWIW, my views are quite similar to yours. In short:-
1. We should have a limit agreed on asylum seekers 2. We should have a safe route for them 3. We should also have an agreed limit for study visas, together with much stricter monitoring 4. We do not need a limit on other economic migrants-we either need their skills, or we don't 5. We need to do far more to prosecute the people smugglers-rather than just talking about them 6. The Army idea? No. Think the people who would hate this the most would be the Army 7. The Home Office? It needs to have a coherent strategy, rather than being used as a political plaything 8. Rwanda scheme? Daft. And really bad value for money. Why does the UK believe it gets to decide whether another country is safe or not? 9. Time to process applications is probably more important than everything else
They are taking years to process applications, have a massive backlog, and dont have a workable system in place. Other than that, I pretty much agree with everything else.
ps. If I had a position on it we would be on page 58 by now.
Comments
Why on earth would any of the 78% that qualify for asylum disappear do you think?
Right I have got the right to live and work here, but I think I will run off to get abused, and taken advantage of by a criminal gang instead.
I dont know, but I think you will find that the majority of the disappearances will come from the 22%, for obvious reasons.
Stats dont usually cloud an issue, they normally back up the facts.
When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean,” said Humpty Dumpty scornfully in Alice in Wonderland. And that’s precisely where we are with the Home Office and The Case of the Missing Migrants. More than half the 5,700 asylum seekers identified for deportation to Rwanda are now missing, having failed to turn up for regular meetings with officials.
But in Whitehall-speak, they haven’t absconded. They simply “cannot be located” which is what I say when I lose my stick. A drive to detain illegal migrants is now under way, with more than 800 immigration enforcement officers tasked with tracking them down. Some of the easiest to catch were detained this week.
The Home Office won’t say how many, claiming that could undermine Operation Vector, as the exercise is named. Disclosure of how few they pulled in might also make them look feeble. And not all of the detainees will be on the first flight to Kigali – whenever that is.
They could be released back into the community if a judge decides they have a strong case for fighting removal. One unidentified African migrant has already flown voluntarily to Rwanda with £3,000 taxpayers’ money in his pocket. Let’s hope he doesn’t spend it on a smuggler’s return ticket.
Labour – struggling to answer Rishi Sunak’s taunt “Well, what would you do?” – reportedly plans to permit 90,000 migrants already here to claim asylum, in concert with seeking return deals with other countries. The move would create a 1,000-strong unit to speed up decisions on boat people, hundreds of whom cross the Channel every week. The plan sounds a bit vague and optimistic, but anything would be better than the Alice in Wonderland we have today.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/tories-are-left-in-blunderland-as-migrants-vanish/ar-AA1o3aoI?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=78311e935c77476df3cf08ffe54cc804&ei=45
Following on from the Rwanda Option...... maybe if we had a policy whereby all the fit and capable young men that came to this country seeking Asylum, would have to do National Service for 2 or 3 years whilst having their Asylum application granted, and be trained up to join the ARMY ...... ( or NAVY as they like Boats) then maybe they might think that the UK isn't such a good option.
After all, everyone is saying we do need a lot more people in the Armed Forces ..... and it's a pretty good career.
..... though if they know the System in the UK, they would all be then applying for Sickness Benefits
Highest number of migrants this year cross Channel in single day
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/highest-number-of-migrants-this-year-cross-channel-in-single-day/ar-AA1o1ZVG?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=7c3fbb7459694416a2ff4bf935a1e5ce&ei=70
They simply want to come over here and then disappear into the network of organised illegality which is flourishing in the UK. There are communities of Somalis, Eritreans, Ethiopians, Sudanese, Iraqis, Afghanis etc. all over the UK. Closed worlds impenetrable to the outsider and therefore impossible to police or monitor.
Your 78% is a figure for genuine refugees. You know ?. The people I try to help in some small way.
I don't accept the far rights pathetic claims that for every 1 legally accepted immigrant there are 3 undocumented landing here however I would believe a figure of 1 to 1.
Ok, I've tried to explain my thinking. Now please answer my question.
NOW WHERE DO THE THOUSANDS OF POUNDS PER PERSON TO PAY THE SMUGGLERS COME FROM ?
Neither do you.
Nor do I think it is relevant.
If I was guessing, I would say that on some occasions the money is paid by their family, on others they will have worked along the way and accumulated the cash, maybe some have savings, perhaps others sell their bodies.
I dont know what you are making such a big fuss about, or going so mad with your CAPITALS.
To put this in perspective, people smugglers charge as little as 3,000 euros, and discounts are apparently available.
If you had a job, and lived in a camp it wouldnt take too long to accumulate that sort of money.
How do they feed themselves?
You might not like it, but some of them will have had good jobs in the countries they originate from.
You seem to have your own definition of what an asylum seeker is, in order for them to qualify in your own mind.
You couldnt for instance be a young doctor from Syria, whose family had been wiped out.
Or a young gay solicitor fleeing the regime in Iran or Iraq.
Or an interpreter from Afghanistan that we had already promised asylum.
I dont expect their financial status features in the Home Office qualification process.
Perhaps they should run a police investigation into how they were able to fund their Channel crossing?
This is why such an overwhelmingly high percentage are accepted, and also why you are going bonkers with your CAPITALS.
The other thing about your definition is that it would probably be unfair to countries like Italy and Greece.
As it seems that the bulk of asylum seekers land on their shores.
Any sensible definition of "economic migrant", as opposed to refugee, is going to depend on far more factors than just economics. Among them being family ties, familial economic support, and language skills.
Getting out of 1 country may or may not be the first necessary step. But it should not necessarily be the only step.
On the other hand, compare and contrast mean and women adult asylum seekers in the 15:29 post. Where there are more than 3 adult males for every adult female. Which does rather suggest that some of these people are likely to be economic migrants.
My opinion is that we should set a limit for the number of asylum seekers we are prepared to accept.
This figure should somehow reflect our fair share.
We should put safe routes in place to accommodate them.
To have no limit is stupid.
I am not keen on the Rwanda scheme.
The cost to date is exorbitant, as are the ongoing costs.
Paying Rwanda £171,000 per head seems excessive.
I have just been arguing the following.
It is impossible to assess whether or not the arrivals are genuine asylum seekers, while sat in front of the telly.
As we accept the overwhelming majority, this is either proof that the majority are genuine asylum seekers, or our approval process needs amending.
I cant see that the source of their payments to people smugglers is at all relevant.
The stats show that they are not coming from France.
Those that disappear are unlikely to be those with successful applications.
Forcing them into the Army is a ridiculous idea.
I feel very calm, hence no CAPITALS.
I also think that the Home Office are incompetent in managing the process, and dont have a workable system in place.
The money wasted on hotel bills, legal aid, etc,etc, would be much better spent elsewhere.
This is exacerbated by the ridiculous amount of time taken to process the applications.
FWIW, my views are quite similar to yours. In short:-
1. We should have a limit agreed on asylum seekers
2. We should have a safe route for them
3. We should also have an agreed limit for study visas, together with much stricter monitoring
4. We do not need a limit on other economic migrants-we either need their skills, or we don't
5. We need to do far more to prosecute the people smugglers-rather than just talking about them
6. The Army idea? No. Think the people who would hate this the most would be the Army
7. The Home Office? It needs to have a coherent strategy, rather than being used as a political plaything
8. Rwanda scheme? Daft. And really bad value for money. Why does the UK believe it gets to decide whether another country is safe or not?
9. Time to process applications is probably more important than everything else
Other than that, I pretty much agree with everything else.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/idea-ireland-could-join-rwanda-scheme-more-satire-than-news-says-taoiseach/ar-AA1o5l0X?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=781a189ea54f42afb5fb79945f0ce83d&ei=53