You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Options
Threat To Quit Rights Treaty If Rwanda Blocked Again.
Asylum-seeker backlog passes 150,000 mark as upkeep bill hits £2.1bn a year
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/asylum-seeker-backlog-passes-150-000-mark-as-upkeep-bill-hits-2-1bn-a-year/ar-AA17LSjn?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d852b29862f74d8f8f6757d9e2bcd60f
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/asylum-seeker-backlog-passes-150-000-mark-as-upkeep-bill-hits-2-1bn-a-year/ar-AA17LSjn?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d852b29862f74d8f8f6757d9e2bcd60f
Comments
Stop spending money posturing about small boats. Stop trying to change the law meaning that migrants have no legal way of claiming asylum. Stop the expensive nonsense that is the Rwanda solution.
Instead, there are 2 simple ways forward:-
1. Spend money processing the 150,000 refugees already here. For a whole host of reasons-so that genuine cases can rebuild their lives and contribute to our economy; other cases be sent back rather than costing us money to house them for no good purpose.
2. Spend money processing applicants elsewhere-probably France. Would be a lot cheaper than dealing with refugees in this country, and would genuinely stop the people traffickers
The Tories just dont seem clever enough to put it in place.
Unfortunately, I fear the real reason is that some Tories think that problems in relation to immigration wins them votes.
stop watching them on the tel lie vision .
your right though , they defo have a part to play in our country , just like they did sweden and what they will be doing in ireland, when our soldiers get sent to the slaughter house of war they will be unleashed on our woman and children , it will be carnage , enjoy the next wave
Rishi Sunak (top) faces renewed pressure on immigration after a new fast-track scheme for 12,000 asylum seekers - including Channel migrants (bottom left) - was dubbed an 'amnesty in all but name'. In a bid to begin clearing the massive asylum backlog, the Home Office will launch a streamlined system which will see migrants granted refugee status on the basis of a 10-page questionnaire. The plan was immediately attacked by critics as the Prime Minister faced demands from his own backbenches to urgently tackle the Channel crisis (bottom right: protesters targeting asylum-seekers in a Merseyside hotel). More than 95 per cent of the 12,000 claims are expected to be granted, based on current rates, allowing them to settle permanently in Britain and sponsor relatives to join them here.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11781825/An-amnesty-Fury-new-plans-fast-track-12-000-immigration-applications.html
If this hapless Government want to be able to bar these people for life, there needs to be a way of allowing these people to legally apply to live here. Whether that is here or abroad. Unless we want to become an international pariah.
Let's turn this round for a second. And put ourselves in the other shoes. Suppose Australia said that they were willing to accept applications from Japanese and Chinese immigrants, but anyone seeking to come from White countries, say the UK, Croatia & Greece were not allowed to enter Australia.
The people from predominantly White countries were not allowed to apply from abroad, only when physically in Australia. But they were not allowed to enter Australia and, if they did, deported to Mongolia.
Does anyone think that would be fair? Because that is what is happening here.
The have to return all illegals to where they came from.
This has to be done in conjunction with the introduction of adequate legal routes.
We have to accept our fair share.
Although I wouldnt have a clue on putting a figure on this.
If you did this you would immediately put a stop to the small boats, save a couple of billion a year in hotel costs, and allow genuine asylum seekers in.
The thing is, it is the only sensible answer whether you believe we should let in 100% or 0% of these people (whereas, of course, the answer is neither). Rather than leaving these people in UK hotels at massive expense, for ages (and the longer they are here, the likelier it is that they will be allowed to stay), just process them swiftly, and spend money on doing that effectively, rather than gazillions on special flights or dealing with legal challenges.
I couldn't put a figure on it. But I know it is not 0, which appears to be this Government's number. And we should be letting the people in on 2 main criteria:-
1. The risk to the applicant in their home country; and
2. How much benefit the UK can get from the skills these people have
Whereas, at the moment, it seems to be purely motivated by political considerations. So, for example, wars that the UK have had a part in rather than war generally (Afghanistan, Syria etc), or places where we once had an Empire where we regard the people fondly (like Hong Kong).
The key drivers should be need of the individual and benefit to the UK. Not to the Conservative Party.
Tories; absolute scumbags.
We could be working with the EU.
They fund some camps in Turkey.
If for instance, we said we only accept applications from the Turkish camps.
Then those that wished to get to the UK could go straight to Turkey.
This would immediately stop the small boats, and put us back in control.
Any that arrived illegally could be banned from applying for ever.
This may discourage those that arrive by other means, like on the back of a lorry.
You could also deport those illegals that are already here to Turkey.
You have to impose a punishment for arriving here illegally.
You have to immediately remove those that arrive, with no ifs, buts, or any legal recourse.
Then you have to offer a fair and legal means to get here.
Which applications are then accepted just becomes an admin exercise.
I am in favour of controlled immigration.
Who can support uncontrolled immigration?
It doesnt seem like Brexit had anything to do with taking back control.
To give just 2 examples, we welcomed the parents of Suella Braverman in the 1960s from Mauritius/Kenya in the 1960s. And the parents of Rishi Sunak from Kenya/Tanzania in the 1960s.
Quite why these people feel entitled to tell me why I should not be tolerant in relation to immigration beggars belief.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64871193
The UK used to be known as 1 of the prime movers in the creation of the Human Rights legislation worldwide. A country to look up to. Not 1 that seems to be proud to be the 1 that "pushes limits of international law". 1 that set the standards. Not the 1 that tries to subvert them.
This Government appears to have few ideas on how to govern. So its main focus appears to be trying to bully the poor and the desperate. Because people don't pay gangmasters thousands of pounds to risk their lives who are not desperate.
Frankly, it disgusts me.