|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 15, 2022 11:34:12 GMT
Perhaps this graph will clarify... As I said before, Lord E, we're talking at cross-purposes: you're discussing one set of statistics whilst I'm discussing another. Are you suggesting that there is a cohort of people who cross the channel who don't apply for asylum? And that cohort takes the numbers in excess of 100,000 who applied for asylum in 2002? Is this in addition to.... In the first five months of 2021, 3112 migrants made the crossing. In the first five months of this year, 8393. Those numbers are dwarfed by the numbers applying for asylum earlier this century I really see no issue with these numbers |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jun 15, 2022 11:44:34 GMT
Are you suggesting that there is a cohort of people who cross the channel who don't apply for asylum? No. What I'm saying is that the number of people entering Britain illegally to claim asylum is more significant than the total number of asylum claims. People physically arriving here – rather than claiming for asylum whilst residing elsewhere – present two problems. The first is that we have to house and feed them whilst their claims are processed, which can be a labyrinthine procedure. The second, and more significant, is that if their claims are rejected, they are very difficult to remove, and will frequent abscond from their accommodation and try to blend into the general population. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2022 11:53:58 GMT
Hang your head in shame sir. It's a Head Hanging Free Zone here And will remain so If actively protesting against the war makes my hands bloody in your view, I can live with that Yes, you would know. Tell me, did you vote for Labour at the next election? |
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jun 15, 2022 11:59:34 GMT
It's a Head Hanging Free Zone here did you vote for Labour at the next election? Sounds like a question for Mystic Meg... |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 15, 2022 12:00:33 GMT
It's a Head Hanging Free Zone here And will remain so If actively protesting against the war makes my hands bloody in your view, I can live with that Yes, you would know. Tell me, did you vote for Labour at the next election? Guessing you are asking "will" I vote for Labour at the next election Probably not Where I live is now a safe Labour seat. The sitting MP had a 30,000 majority at the last election so it doesn't matter. With that in mind I may go with my heart and vote Green - although some of their policies are not to my liking. No party ticks all my boxes We need some form of PR to make smaller parties viable and reinvigorate our democracy |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 15, 2022 12:19:15 GMT
Are you suggesting that there is a cohort of people who cross the channel who don't apply for asylum? No. What I'm saying is that the number of people entering Britain illegally to claim asylum is more significant than the total number of asylum claims. People physically arriving here – rather than claiming for asylum whilst residing elsewhere – present two problems. The first is that we have to house and feed them whilst their claims are processed, which can be a labyrinthine procedure. The second, and more significant, is that if their claims are rejected, they are very difficult to remove, and will frequent abscond from their accommodation and try to blend into the general population. I'm confused "the number of people entering Britain illegally to claim asylum is more significant than the total number of asylum claims" What does more significant mean? The number is higher? How does that work? Surely by claiming asylum their claim is logged and included in the numbers? Either way your figures are still way down on the peak years in the early 2000s |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jun 15, 2022 12:28:30 GMT
I'm confused "the number of people entering Britain illegally to claim asylum is more significant than the total number of asylum claims" What does more significant mean? The number is higher? How does that work? Surely by claiming asylum their claim is logged and included in the numbers? Either way your figures are still way down on the peak years in the early 2000s Yes, I think there is a certain degree of confusion here. The number of people entering Britain illegally to claim asylum (which is rising) is a more important metric than the total number of asylum claims (which, according to your statistics, is falling) as it is very hard to remove people who are physically present if their claims fail. In addition, we have to feed, clothe, house and police those people whilst they are in Britain. That's the rationale behind offshoring the accommodation whilst claims are processed. I'm not sure how to explain this to you more clearly, and I'm getting a bit baffled as to why you still haven't grasped this point. |
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jun 15, 2022 12:42:47 GMT
the rationale behind offshoring the accommodation It's one banana republic attempting to dump vulnerable people in another in order to please the bigots, actually  |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 15, 2022 13:07:41 GMT
Still struggling pol Are you saying that not everyone who enters Britain to claim asylum actually goes ahead with the claim? And instead just disappears into the population? Is this why there might be a disparity between asylum claims and the numbers entering Britain to claim asylum? If yes, how do we even know those people are here?
And, with all that in mind, how were the numbers you quoted earlier so seemingly precise? These ones.... In the first five months of 2021, 3112 migrants made the crossing. In the first five months of this year, 8393. Finally, what are your sources for your numbers, and your other information? |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jun 15, 2022 13:25:15 GMT
Still struggling pol Are you saying that not everyone who enters Britain to claim asylum actually goes ahead with the claim? And instead just disappears into the population?
And, with all that in mind, how were the numbers you quoted earlier so seemingly precise? These ones.... In the first five months of 2021, 3112 migrants made the crossing. In the first five months of this year, 8393. Finally, what are your sources for your numbers, and your other information? No, what I'm saying is that if their claims are denied, they then tend to abscond rather than face removal from the country. As for the figures of people arriving by boat being precise, it's very simple: they get counted as they turn up on the beach and are apprehended by Border Force officers. The figures I quoted were taken from the Sky News site, which was the first hit that came up on Google. If you'd like a different source, the BBC quotes an even higher figure: more than 10,000 in the year-to-date: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-61719943 |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jun 15, 2022 13:55:16 GMT
The numbers of economic migrants illegally attempting to enter Britain via the Channel keeps ramping up. We have to take firm action as we cannot possibly house them all, and this government – whatever its other shortcomings – is stepping up to the plate. Well, they aren't "stepping up to the plate" as it's economically unviable and doesn't work as a deterrent to people smugglers who will just replace men with women and children. It is being done as a purely political move to detract from the utter shower of shit this Government is. Personally I think it's ridiculous that people want to risk their lives coming from the safe country France to the safe country UK, but we need to understand and address why it happens.Is it being done because English is most nation's second language? Is it being done because there are more relationship ties in the UK? What is sure is that people shouldn't be risking their live's to come from one perfectly safe country to another. Until an agreement is made that all countries take a certain percentage of confirmed asylum seekers to share out the cost and obligation then nothing will get better. Middle Eastern countries need to also stop ignoring the plight of asylum seekers, this is a world problem and with climate change is going to get far worse. At present we are taking far less than our fair share, we should be upping our game, not appealing to the worst xenophobic attitudes of people in power who only care about their own electability. |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jun 15, 2022 13:59:27 GMT
They're coming because they perceive Britain as a soft touch, with a generous benefits system. That doesn't mean they left their homes for that reason – many of them may have been genuine refugees. But the international refugee system specifies that refugees need to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach: they do not get to choose where they settle. By attempting to cross from France to the UK they forfeit their automatic right to asylum and become economic migrants whom we can accept or reject as we please. The government is absolutely right to take firm action to prevent this abuse of the system. "By attempting to cross from France to the UK they forfeit their automatic right to asylum" Errr, no they don't. They may do in your mind but we are signataries to international charters that specify asylum seekers DO NOT have to seek asylum in the first "safe" country they come through. This is to stop one or two countries having to share a huge burdon whilst others have a very light one. I really wish people would stop pushing this lie that asylum seekers can't claim here after going through France, I hope you are just wrongly informed rather than deliberately trying to push a false narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jun 15, 2022 14:08:17 GMT
Personally I think it's ridiculous that people want to risk their lives coming from the safe country France to the safe country UK, but we need to understand and address why it happens.Is it being done because English is most nation's second language? Is it being done because there are more relationship ties in the UK? What is sure is that people shouldn't be risking their live's to come from one perfectly safe country to another. Agreed entirely. I suspect the English language and relationship ties have something to do with it. However, I always suspect it's because we're much more generous with housing and benefits, and much less racist than, the French. |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jun 15, 2022 14:11:03 GMT
But what makes each individual voter responsible? Once you’ve voted that’s it. You vote for an individual MP not an entire party. No voter can then exert any control on what then happens, be it good or bad. Sadly. I fully understand the concept of holding your nose and voting for the "least bad" option. If you want anything to change then the Tories have to be removed and there is sadly only one party that can do it. I hope they will only achieve it in coalition with the Lib Dems and SNP and Greens so that more voices from the left will force a say in what will otherwise be a Tory lite Starmer government. I think we'd all prefer to vote for a proper old fashioned left wing party, but better some change than feeling ideologically "sound" whilst causing no change. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2022 14:11:21 GMT
Yes, you would know. Tell me, did you vote for Labour at the next election? Guessing you are asking "will" I vote for Labour at the next election Probably not Where I live is now a safe Labour seat. The sitting MP had a 30,000 majority at the last election so it doesn't matter. With that in mind I may go with my heart and vote Green - although some of their policies are not to my liking. No party ticks all my boxes We need some form of PR to make smaller parties viable and reinvigorate our democracy No, did you vote for Blair in 2005 after he invaded Iraq? Be honest. |
|
