So why dont they apply for asylum on arrival in the first safe countrty? Others are Ferrari driving burglars that have been already deported twice.
Some of them do. But there is nothing in international law to say that they must claim aslyum in the first country they reach. Why should France get all the asylum seekers just because they're closer? And if you can speak English but not French then moving to the UK is going to make more sense. Do you think these people want to risk their lives though crossing the channel if they had a choice?
So why dont they apply for asylum on arrival in the first safe countrty? Others are Ferrari driving burglars that have been already deported twice.
Some of them do. But there is nothing in international law to say that they must claim aslyum in the first country they reach. Why should France get all the asylum seekers just because they're closer? And if you can speak English but not French then moving to the UK is going to make more sense. Do you think these people want to risk their lives though crossing the channel if they had a choice?
They obviously dont. The point is that all of those that have crossed The Channel from France have travelled through several safe countries without applying for asylum, including France. So they do have a choice. They can apply for asylum in the first safe country, or they can choose to travel elsewhere.
So why dont they apply for asylum on arrival in the first safe countrty? Others are Ferrari driving burglars that have been already deported twice.
Some of them do. But there is nothing in international law to say that they must claim aslyum in the first country they reach. Why should France get all the asylum seekers just because they're closer? And if you can speak English but not French then moving to the UK is going to make more sense. Do you think these people want to risk their lives though crossing the channel if they had a choice?
That said, there is some UK domestic law which allows the government to refuse to consider an asylum application if it is judged that the person could have claimed asylum elsewhere. Refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, also be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.
So why dont they apply for asylum on arrival in the first safe countrty? Others are Ferrari driving burglars that have been already deported twice.
Some of them do. But there is nothing in international law to say that they must claim aslyum in the first country they reach. Why should France get all the asylum seekers just because they're closer? And if you can speak English but not French then moving to the UK is going to make more sense. Do you think these people want to risk their lives though crossing the channel if they had a choice?
I cant believe that you would be of the opinion that we should take all of them, however many that is. Or that we should have absolutely no control of our borders. If the people traffickers really got their act together, how many could they send? Could we run out of hotels to put them in? I am not xenophobic, and voted Remain in the EU referendum. I have always said that we should take our share. It is absolutely stupid that we implement a rule that in order to apply for asylum you have to arrive here, and then moan about the numbers that arrive. I dont think that it is a coincidence that there has been an increase in the popularity of far right parties in Europe, including the UK, and the wide publicity given to the asylum problem. I would prefer to see Reform disappearing, no riots, and nobody turning up for Tommy Robinson protests. I also think it is difficult to ignore that we have the highest rate of tax for 70 years, crumbling public services, and £8billion per year being spent on hotels for asylum seekers. The hotels bills probably represent a drop in the ocean compared to the overall costs. I read an article the other day about a school where the teachers speak 64 languages between them, to accomodate everyone. I am all for helping people but in reasonable numbers.
So why dont they apply for asylum on arrival in the first safe countrty? Others are Ferrari driving burglars that have been already deported twice.
Some of them do. But there is nothing in international law to say that they must claim aslyum in the first country they reach. Why should France get all the asylum seekers just because they're closer? And if you can speak English but not French then moving to the UK is going to make more sense. Do you think these people want to risk their lives though crossing the channel if they had a choice?
I cant believe that you would be of the opinion that we should take all of them, however many that is. Or that we should have absolutely no control of our borders. If the people traffickers really got their act together, how many could they send? Could we run out of hotels to put them in? I am not xenophobic, and voted Remain in the EU referendum. I have always said that we should take our share. It is absolutely stupid that we implement a rule that in order to apply for asylum you have to arrive here, and then moan about the numbers that arrive. I dont think that it is a coincidence that there has been an increase in the popularity of far right parties in Europe, including the UK, and the wide publicity given to the asylum problem. I would prefer to see Reform disappearing, no riots, and nobody turning up for Tommy Robinson protests. I also think it is difficult to ignore that we have the highest rate of tax for 70 years, crumbling public services, and £8billion per year being spent on hotels for asylum seekers. The hotels bills probably represent a drop in the ocean compared to the overall costs. I read an article the other day about a school where the teachers speak 64 languages between them, to accomodate everyone. I am all for helping people but in reasonable numbers.
Well @Essexphil is better versed than I at the numbers, but I think the total amount of asylum seekers to the UK represents around 7% of the total number of annual immigrants, (that's 1 in every 14) with the rest being mainly composed of Students etc. In total, the number of folks who have come here seeking asylum is around 0.6 of our population.
When I referred to "balance" I hear endless noise about "boat people", & almost nothing about Students & the like who come here, & who represent 93% (NINETY THREE PER CENT) of Immigration. If there's a problem, perhaps we should first look there.
It would also help enormously if the Civil Service/Government speeded up the vetting process. Little wonder there's a problem housing them when the Government (in effect) takes several years to process them. Process them quicker & more efficiently, & most of the problem goes away.
And yes, I get that there needs to be a limit. I also get that some of the asylum seekers are wrong 'uns. Most importantly, I get that many of them are genuine asylum seekers, & personally, I feel they deserve our understanding, empathy & help. They are real people, just like you & me, except less fortunate in the lottery of where they were born. Can most of us even begin to imagine what it must be like living in some of the world's Refugee Camps or war "hot spots" in the Middle East? If helping these folks by taking a bit of a hit to our living standards, well so be it, that's the price of helping those less fortunate.
Would you like to guess what this 'photo represents?
PS @ HAYSIE - I'm certainly not suggesting you are anti-immigrant, anti-asylum seeker, anti Asian or Anti Muslim. One or two on here are, but not you. I'm just trying to give a bit of balance.
Meanwhile, in the UK, most of us have a colour TV, a fridge & a freezer, & two cars on the drive. And in recent weeks a story about a female contestant on Strictly Come Dancing who claims SHE WAS SHOUTED AT by her partner has made the Headlines at least a dozen times. Toasty life, or what?
Is life in the UK really that bad? I don't think so.
For a bit of perspective, as we in the UK worry about the so-called "cost of living crisis", and some woman on Strictly WHO WAS SHOUTED AT, over 43,000 people have been killed by bombing in Gaza on the last 12 months, the vast majority (99%+) civilians, of whom roughly two thirds were women & children.
For context, the "world's greatest news story" of our time was 9/11, in which ~3,000 people died.
PS @ HAYSIE - I'm certainly not suggesting you are anti-immigrant, anti-asylum seeker, anti Asian or Anti Muslim. One or two on here are, but not you. I'm just trying to give a bit of balance.
PS @ HAYSIE - I'm certainly not suggesting you are anti-immigrant, anti-asylum seeker, anti Asian or Anti Muslim. One or two on here are, but not you. I'm just trying to give a bit of balance.
PS @ HAYSIE - I'm certainly not suggesting you are anti-immigrant, anti-asylum seeker, anti Asian or Anti Muslim. One or two on here are, but not you. I'm just trying to give a bit of balance.
Over 4 million people voted for Reform, only 9.7 million voted for Labour. I think the boats are a big thing because they get so much press coverage. Every day you get the 900 arrived today, and 600 artrived yesterday. As well as the tragedies when there is a death en route. We just seem incompetent in dealing with anyone that has arrived illegally. We grant student, and work visas, but dont know who has returned home at the end. We lose track of the boat people, and dont know where they are. We dont deport anyone without a passport. You dont need to get on a boat, you could probably fly in on holiday, and then just get lost. The problem is that many of them end up in modern day slavery, as they dont have many options. That is not helping them much.
So why dont they apply for asylum on arrival in the first safe countrty? Others are Ferrari driving burglars that have been already deported twice.
Some of them do. But there is nothing in international law to say that they must claim aslyum in the first country they reach. Why should France get all the asylum seekers just because they're closer? And if you can speak English but not French then moving to the UK is going to make more sense. Do you think these people want to risk their lives though crossing the channel if they had a choice?
I cant believe that you would be of the opinion that we should take all of them, however many that is. Or that we should have absolutely no control of our borders. If the people traffickers really got their act together, how many could they send? Could we run out of hotels to put them in? I am not xenophobic, and voted Remain in the EU referendum. I have always said that we should take our share. It is absolutely stupid that we implement a rule that in order to apply for asylum you have to arrive here, and then moan about the numbers that arrive. I dont think that it is a coincidence that there has been an increase in the popularity of far right parties in Europe, including the UK, and the wide publicity given to the asylum problem. I would prefer to see Reform disappearing, no riots, and nobody turning up for Tommy Robinson protests. I also think it is difficult to ignore that we have the highest rate of tax for 70 years, crumbling public services, and £8billion per year being spent on hotels for asylum seekers. The hotels bills probably represent a drop in the ocean compared to the overall costs. I read an article the other day about a school where the teachers speak 64 languages between them, to accomodate everyone. I am all for helping people but in reasonable numbers.
Well @Essexphil is better versed than I at the numbers, but I think the total amount of asylum seekers to the UK represents around 7% of the total number of annual immigrants, (that's 1 in every 14) with the rest being mainly composed of Students etc. In total, the number of folks who have come here seeking asylum is around 0.6 of our population.
When I referred to "balance" I hear endless noise about "boat people", & almost nothing about Students & the like who come here, & who represent 93% (NINETY THREE PER CENT) of Immigration. If there's a problem, perhaps we should first look there.
It would also help enormously if the Civil Service/Government speeded up the vetting process. Little wonder there's a problem housing them when the Government (in effect) takes several years to process them. Process them quicker & more efficiently, & most of the problem goes away.
And yes, I get that there needs to be a limit. I also get that some of the asylum seekers are wrong 'uns. Most importantly, I get that many of them are genuine asylum seekers, & personally, I feel they deserve our understanding, empathy & help. They are real people, just like you & me, except less fortunate in the lottery of where they were born. Can most of us even begin to imagine what it must be like living in some of the world's Refugee Camps or war "hot spots" in the Middle East? If helping these folks by taking a bit of a hit to our living standards, well so be it, that's the price of helping those less fortunate.
Would you like to guess what this 'photo represents?
What are the UK’s latest migrations statistics? The latest estimates on migration from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) suggest that in 2023:
1.2 million people migrated into the UK and 532,000 people emigrated from it, leaving a net migration figure of 685,000. This represents the balance of long-term migrants moving in and out of the country. The latest ONS population estimates for the whole of the UK suggest that, in the year ending June 2021, there were:
6.0 million people were living in the UK who had the nationality of a different country (9% of the total population). This does not include dual nationals where one nationality is British. 3.4 million EU nationals (excluding UK) were living in the UK As of 2019, there were around 994,000 UK nationals living in EU countries, excluding Ireland.
"It would also help enormously if the Civil Service/Government speeded up the vetting process. Little wonder there's a problem housing them when the Government (in effect) takes several years to process them. Process them quicker & more efficiently, & most of the problem goes away".
If the vetting process was more efficient, we still have the problem of where do we send the failed ones back to?
"It would also help enormously if the Civil Service/Government speeded up the vetting process. Little wonder there's a problem housing them when the Government (in effect) takes several years to process them. Process them quicker & more efficiently, & most of the problem goes away".
If the vetting process was more efficient, we still have the problem of where do we send the failed ones back to?
I'm told Rwanda's nice this time of year? ( joke! )🤪
It does not seem to make much mention in all those Graphs of Students who come here...which is a FAR larger number.
This is true. The do pay our Unis a fortune in fees, and spend money. However, we dont seem to know how many of them actually go home at the end of their studies.
Comments
@F_Ivanovic
At last, some balance.
Excellent Post.
The point is that all of those that have crossed The Channel from France have travelled through several safe countries without applying for asylum, including France.
So they do have a choice.
They can apply for asylum in the first safe country, or they can choose to travel elsewhere.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68779387
https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/
Or that we should have absolutely no control of our borders.
If the people traffickers really got their act together, how many could they send?
Could we run out of hotels to put them in?
I am not xenophobic, and voted Remain in the EU referendum.
I have always said that we should take our share.
It is absolutely stupid that we implement a rule that in order to apply for asylum you have to arrive here, and then moan about the numbers that arrive.
I dont think that it is a coincidence that there has been an increase in the popularity of far right parties in Europe, including the UK, and the wide publicity given to the asylum problem.
I would prefer to see Reform disappearing, no riots, and nobody turning up for Tommy Robinson protests.
I also think it is difficult to ignore that we have the highest rate of tax for 70 years, crumbling public services, and £8billion per year being spent on hotels for asylum seekers.
The hotels bills probably represent a drop in the ocean compared to the overall costs.
I read an article the other day about a school where the teachers speak 64 languages between them, to accomodate everyone.
I am all for helping people but in reasonable numbers.
@HAYSIE
Well @Essexphil is better versed than I at the numbers, but I think the total amount of asylum seekers to the UK represents around 7% of the total number of annual immigrants, (that's 1 in every 14) with the rest being mainly composed of Students etc. In total, the number of folks who have come here seeking asylum is around 0.6 of our population.
When I referred to "balance" I hear endless noise about "boat people", & almost nothing about Students & the like who come here, & who represent 93% (NINETY THREE PER CENT) of Immigration. If there's a problem, perhaps we should first look there.
It would also help enormously if the Civil Service/Government speeded up the vetting process. Little wonder there's a problem housing them when the Government (in effect) takes several years to process them. Process them quicker & more efficiently, & most of the problem goes away.
And yes, I get that there needs to be a limit. I also get that some of the asylum seekers are wrong 'uns. Most importantly, I get that many of them are genuine asylum seekers, & personally, I feel they deserve our understanding, empathy & help. They are real people, just like you & me, except less fortunate in the lottery of where they were born. Can most of us even begin to imagine what it must be like living in some of the world's Refugee Camps or war "hot spots" in the Middle East? If helping these folks by taking a bit of a hit to our living standards, well so be it, that's the price of helping those less fortunate.
Would you like to guess what this 'photo represents?
PS @ HAYSIE - I'm certainly not suggesting you are anti-immigrant, anti-asylum seeker, anti Asian or Anti Muslim. One or two on here are, but not you. I'm just trying to give a bit of balance.
Anyone fancy life in Beirut, or Gaza?
Is life in the UK really that bad? I don't think so.
Funny old world, 'innit?
For a bit of perspective, as we in the UK worry about the so-called "cost of living crisis", and some woman on Strictly WHO WAS SHOUTED AT, over 43,000 people have been killed by bombing in Gaza on the last 12 months, the vast majority (99%+) civilians, of whom roughly two thirds were women & children.
For context, the "world's greatest news story" of our time was 9/11, in which ~3,000 people died.
And the world is just standing by & watching.
Indeed, & it's natural that we all view it in different ways.
Sigh, there's always one....
I think the boats are a big thing because they get so much press coverage.
Every day you get the 900 arrived today, and 600 artrived yesterday.
As well as the tragedies when there is a death en route.
We just seem incompetent in dealing with anyone that has arrived illegally.
We grant student, and work visas, but dont know who has returned home at the end.
We lose track of the boat people, and dont know where they are.
We dont deport anyone without a passport.
You dont need to get on a boat, you could probably fly in on holiday, and then just get lost.
The problem is that many of them end up in modern day slavery, as they dont have many options.
That is not helping them much.
The latest estimates on migration from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) suggest that in 2023:
1.2 million people migrated into the UK and 532,000 people emigrated from it, leaving a net migration figure of 685,000. This represents the balance of long-term migrants moving in and out of the country.
The latest ONS population estimates for the whole of the UK suggest that, in the year ending June 2021, there were:
6.0 million people were living in the UK who had the nationality of a different country (9% of the total population). This does not include dual nationals where one nationality is British.
3.4 million EU nationals (excluding UK) were living in the UK
As of 2019, there were around 994,000 UK nationals living in EU countries, excluding Ireland.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06077/#:~:text=1.2 million people migrated into the UK and,migrants moving in and out of the country.
How many people cross the Channel in small boats and how many claim asylum?
More than 50 people have died trying to cross the English Channel in 2024.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511
Yup, all noted.
It does not seem to make much mention in all those Graphs of Students who come here...which is a FAR larger number.
If the vetting process was more efficient, we still have the problem of where do we send the failed ones back to?
The do pay our Unis a fortune in fees, and spend money.
However, we dont seem to know how many of them actually go home at the end of their studies.