This hapless cretin has only political dogma. No action. She needs to realise that the main reason for so many economic migrants coming here is precisely because we currently have no clear system for processing migrants. Pathetic.
The first thing we need to do is stop treating the Court system as a supposed "money-making" system. Sometimes it is necessary to spend money to avoid far bigger losses elsewhere. We wouldn't have so many people in centres if we actually got on with processing them.
Here is a simple system to show a possible way forward. It would not be my preferred way forward-I am mixing my wishes with something that would be palatable to the unelected Right that is failing to run our country. How about:-
1. Are they fleeing genuine persecution, as opposed to being an economic migrant? If yes, have we not yet met an agreed quarterly figure for genuine asylum seekers? 2. Do they have genuine ties to this country, for example close family members who can support them financially? 3. Are they trained in a job that would be on a list of jobs that we cannot currently fill?
Applicants would need to meet at least 2 of those 3 criteria. If it is 2/3 and not 1, only to be given temporary leave to remain.
Rejected applicants who satisfy 1 above to be repatriated at our cost.
All other rejected applicants to be given a choice. Pay the cost of repatriation themselves, or be repatriated to Rwanda or some such.
Not so difficult, is it? And the Majority of economic migrants stop coming here. Because they can easily see that they have no chance here.
The most important steps we could take would be to agree with France that all those making the channel crossings would be immediately returned. I wouldnt see that this as being a problem, as they were all in France in the first place, so the French would be no worse off. This would almost immediately stop the people traffickers, and end the crossings. Who would pay them thousands of Euros in the knowledge that they would immediately be returned?
We should at the same time open an office in Calais to deal with asylum seeker applications. The applications should include photographs, fingerprints etc. This would stop multiple applications from people using false identities, and enable criminal checks to be carried out. Once a failed application had been made, there should be a reasonable time limit before a second application could be made. We should then allow our fair share to enter the UK. The numbers left in France would be reduced by the number of successful applications. Obviously benefitting the French. It would also open up a genuine route for genuine asylum seekers. Priority could be given to those fulfilling your points 2 and 3.
Whilst I feel empathy for genuine asylum seekers, I dont think that £7million per day in hotel bills is an appropriate use of taxpayers money. This figure is likely to increase substantially because they are now having to book much more expensive hotels. This figure is in addition to the benefit payments they receive, and all the other costs involved.
There is no doubt that the government is exacerbating the situation. Last year they only processed 4 or 5% of claims. The average claim takes over a year to resolve. Processing in Manston is meant to last 24 hours, yet many people are forced to stay there for over a month.
I appreciate that enforcing the above may involve some changes to current legislation. We should do this without delay.
What is hard to understand about the fact that as we havent a genuine legal route, that determined people will resort to illegal routes. Its hardly rocket science.
The whole thing is an absolute shambles.
Agree with most of that.
The 1 bit that is problematic is the 1st paragraph. Why would France agree to that?
I agree. Although when you consider the facts, they would clearly benefit. They clearly have thousands of people lurking about, and living in camps. The one thing they have in common is that they all wish to reach the UK, by any means possible. The boat crossings have increased, as we have become more efficient at detecting those travelling on lorries etc. The 68,000 that have crossed in the last 2 years will have spent time living and causing disruption in France. These people dont submit asylum applications in France, although it is considered a safe country. Therefore if we eliminated the crossings by sending them all back to France, couldnt we logically assume that they might apply for asylum in France or one of the safe countries they have passed through prior to reaching France. If we removed their purpose for being there, living rough in poor conditions, why would they bother? The French could then deal with their own failed asylum seekers. The only people likely to be staying in France would be those with a legitimate claim. A much lower number.
The EU has long had a rule that the first safe country where asylum seekers go to processes their claim. But their are 2 massive problems with that:-
They will probably have to change their own rules. Currently the asylum seekeers are supposed to apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach. This is clearly not happening. If it was they would have to be absorbed by a very small number of countries. This would obviously be unfair to them.
1. We are not in the EU any more-surprised you didn't mention it
We can still reach an agreement with France that would benefit both countries.
3. In circumstances such as this, the UK would pay the cost of the French processing. Politically, that is just as difficult for the UK as for France just to accept these people back
We are already paying the French millions for ineffective policing, which hasnt stemmed the tide. Plenty of the current costs could be saved.
It is unacceptable that we try and use the "first safe nation" rule to our advantage. As an island on the edge of Europe, of course UK asylum seekers are likely to go somewhere else first. But it is still our problem-unless we want France deciding who comes to the UK!
True. We obviously didnt foresee the likely outcome.
I have seen those figures you quoted. But the numbers do not add up. If we only process 5% of claims a year, it would logically take 20 years to process them. We are wasting time trying to traffic these people to Rwanda rather than dealing with the applications.
Keir Starmer as per the video above.
The reason for the increased bills is not the fault of the asylum seekers. It is our failure to deal with the problem. As you rightly say, the starting point is having a legal route-which would be massively cheaper, in cost to the Taxpayer, the Asylum-Seekers and indeed their lives. Only ones that would be out of pocket would be the people traffickers.
This hapless cretin has only political dogma. No action. She needs to realise that the main reason for so many economic migrants coming here is precisely because we currently have no clear system for processing migrants. Pathetic.
The first thing we need to do is stop treating the Court system as a supposed "money-making" system. Sometimes it is necessary to spend money to avoid far bigger losses elsewhere. We wouldn't have so many people in centres if we actually got on with processing them.
Here is a simple system to show a possible way forward. It would not be my preferred way forward-I am mixing my wishes with something that would be palatable to the unelected Right that is failing to run our country. How about:-
1. Are they fleeing genuine persecution, as opposed to being an economic migrant? If yes, have we not yet met an agreed quarterly figure for genuine asylum seekers? 2. Do they have genuine ties to this country, for example close family members who can support them financially? 3. Are they trained in a job that would be on a list of jobs that we cannot currently fill?
Applicants would need to meet at least 2 of those 3 criteria. If it is 2/3 and not 1, only to be given temporary leave to remain.
Rejected applicants who satisfy 1 above to be repatriated at our cost.
All other rejected applicants to be given a choice. Pay the cost of repatriation themselves, or be repatriated to Rwanda or some such.
Not so difficult, is it? And the Majority of economic migrants stop coming here. Because they can easily see that they have no chance here.
The most important steps we could take would be to agree with France that all those making the channel crossings would be immediately returned. I wouldnt see that this as being a problem, as they were all in France in the first place, so the French would be no worse off. This would almost immediately stop the people traffickers, and end the crossings. Who would pay them thousands of Euros in the knowledge that they would immediately be returned?
We should at the same time open an office in Calais to deal with asylum seeker applications. The applications should include photographs, fingerprints etc. This would stop multiple applications from people using false identities, and enable criminal checks to be carried out. Once a failed application had been made, there should be a reasonable time limit before a second application could be made. We should then allow our fair share to enter the UK. The numbers left in France would be reduced by the number of successful applications. Obviously benefitting the French. It would also open up a genuine route for genuine asylum seekers. Priority could be given to those fulfilling your points 2 and 3.
Whilst I feel empathy for genuine asylum seekers, I dont think that £7million per day in hotel bills is an appropriate use of taxpayers money. This figure is likely to increase substantially because they are now having to book much more expensive hotels. This figure is in addition to the benefit payments they receive, and all the other costs involved.
There is no doubt that the government is exacerbating the situation. Last year they only processed 4 or 5% of claims. The average claim takes over a year to resolve. Processing in Manston is meant to last 24 hours, yet many people are forced to stay there for over a month.
I appreciate that enforcing the above may involve some changes to current legislation. We should do this without delay.
What is hard to understand about the fact that as we havent a genuine legal route, that determined people will resort to illegal routes. Its hardly rocket science.
The whole thing is an absolute shambles.
Agree with most of that.
The 1 bit that is problematic is the 1st paragraph. Why would France agree to that?
The EU has long had a rule that the first safe country where asylum seekers go to processes their claim. But their are 2 massive problems with that:-
1. We are not in the EU any more-surprised you didn't mention it 2. In circumstances such as this, the UK would pay the cost of the French processing. Politically, that is just as difficult for the UK as for France just to accept these people back
It is unacceptable that we try and use the "first safe nation" rule to our advantage. As an island on the edge of Europe, of course UK asylum seekers are likely to go somewhere else first. But it is still our problem-unless we want France deciding who comes to the UK!
I have seen those figures you quoted. But the numbers do not add up. If we only process 5% of claims a year, it would logically take 20 years to process them. We are wasting time trying to traffic these people to Rwanda rather than dealing with the applications.
The reason for the increased bills is not the fault of the asylum seekers. It is our failure to deal with the problem. As you rightly say, the starting point is having a legal route-which would be massively cheaper, in cost to the Taxpayer, the Asylum-Seekers and indeed their lives. Only ones that would be out of pocket would be the people traffickers.
A couple of things came out this morning. It was mistakenly thought that those that were dropped off in London had addresses to go to. Do we really do that? We just drop people off, prior to their asylum application has been approved, at an address of their choice, without checking who lives there, and expect them to be still there, when we go looking for them in a years time. There are an estimated 1.5 million illegals already here. Doing this will surely add to this number. Unbelievable.
The numbers that we have accepted are as follows, Afghanistan 23,000. Syria 20,000. Hong Kong 100,000. Ukraine 150,000.
Convicted Albanian murderer who was held at Manston processing centre for three weeks before being jailed for entering UK illegally is STILL allowed to continue his asylum application
Mariglen Shoshari, 31, arrived in Kent in October after the small boat he was crossing in was intercepted by the authorities and taken to Manston (pictured).
Albanian migrants living in the UK accuse MPs of making them 'scapegoats' for 'broken' immigration policy and insist they DON'T claim benefits and 'aren't gangsters or thieves'
EXCLUSIVE: Ervis Abdullaj, 39, (left) owner of the 01 Café Bar and one of an estimated 150,000 Albanians living in the UK, protested: 'Albanians are coming here for a better life. What's wrong with that? Lots of people have come from other countries but nobody is complaining about them. Albania is a beautiful country but there is a lot of corruption and violence there. Many Albanians are fleeing terrible conditions and their lives are in danger. There might not be a war going on there but it's not a safe country.' Mr Abdullaj, who came to Britain in 2014 through official channels said: 'I didn't cross illegally in a boat and have made a good life for myself in Britain. But if people are desperate to come here like this, then there must be a good reason. I work almost 18 hours a day and like many Albanians in the UK want to have a good life for myself. The British Government is just trying to blame us for its problems. It's not our fault that it can't get its act together and do something about the migrant crisis. So it's easier to pin it all on the Albanians.'
'Are we starting a war with Manston?' Suella Braverman is ridiculed by Asda chief on Question Time for going to crisis-hit Kent immigration centre in a Chinook
The Home Secretary came under fire last night by Asda Chairman Stuart Rose (right) who criticised her decision to travel on a RAF Chinook helicopter to the overcrowded immigration centre in Manston, Kent (left). The military aircraft costs £3,500 per hour to fly, according to the UK Defence Journal. Downing Street defended the use of the aircraft, stating that the Home Secretary needed it for 'operations at sea'.
Comments
Agreed.
It was mistakenly thought that those that were dropped off in London had addresses to go to.
Do we really do that?
We just drop people off, prior to their asylum application has been approved, at an address of their choice, without checking who lives there, and expect them to be still there, when we go looking for them in a years time.
There are an estimated 1.5 million illegals already here.
Doing this will surely add to this number.
Unbelievable.
The numbers that we have accepted are as follows,
Afghanistan 23,000.
Syria 20,000.
Hong Kong 100,000.
Ukraine 150,000.
Mariglen Shoshari, 31, arrived in Kent in October after the small boat he was crossing in was intercepted by the authorities and taken to Manston (pictured).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11387023/Convicted-Albanian-murderer-allowed-continue-asylum-application.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/illegal-migrants-cheek-complain-conditions-080017011.html
EXCLUSIVE: Ervis Abdullaj, 39, (left) owner of the 01 Café Bar and one of an estimated 150,000 Albanians living in the UK, protested: 'Albanians are coming here for a better life. What's wrong with that? Lots of people have come from other countries but nobody is complaining about them. Albania is a beautiful country but there is a lot of corruption and violence there. Many Albanians are fleeing terrible conditions and their lives are in danger. There might not be a war going on there but it's not a safe country.' Mr Abdullaj, who came to Britain in 2014 through official channels said: 'I didn't cross illegally in a boat and have made a good life for myself in Britain. But if people are desperate to come here like this, then there must be a good reason. I work almost 18 hours a day and like many Albanians in the UK want to have a good life for myself. The British Government is just trying to blame us for its problems. It's not our fault that it can't get its act together and do something about the migrant crisis. So it's easier to pin it all on the Albanians.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11389369/Albanian-migrants-UK-accuse-MPs-making-scapegoats-broken-immigration-policy.html
https://video.dailymail.co.uk/preview/mol/2022/11/04/6900480214562355574/636x382_MP4_6900480214562355574.mp4
The Home Secretary came under fire last night by Asda Chairman Stuart Rose (right) who criticised her decision to travel on a RAF Chinook helicopter to the overcrowded immigration centre in Manston, Kent (left). The military aircraft costs £3,500 per hour to fly, according to the UK Defence Journal. Downing Street defended the use of the aircraft, stating that the Home Secretary needed it for 'operations at sea'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11389545/Suella-Braverman-ridiculed-Asda-chief-going-crisis-hit-Kent-immigrant-centre-Chinook.html