Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 31st October 2022, 6:47 PMBut no solution. Just moral spouting.
A solution has been suggested.
Comments please, as you seem to be repeatedly saying none is being proffered, when it has.
I read the news today oh boy! Page 2,505
Quote: Teddy Paddalack @ 31st October 2022, 8:11 PMAs for Keir Starmer could you back up you assertions with facts? It seems to be the de rigueur on here at the moment.
You go first...
Quote: Lazzard @ 31st October 2022, 9:57 PMA solution has been suggested.
Comments please, as you seem to be repeatedly saying none is being proffered, when it has.
I was replying to Paddy, wait your turn.
I gave one as well but you never got back to me. I've posted it below so you can see it and get back to me.
Quote: Teddy Paddalack @ 31st October 2022, 7:26 PMThe solution as I see it is to process people faster and smarter and to seek out agreements with countries of origin about returning nationals with no documentation who fail to meet the criteria.
I fully understand that many crossing are economic migrants while others just want to be with their family who are already here.
At the despatch box today where she was standing (Not when she was sat down let's get that distinction out the way'
The Home Secretary said that it is costing the tax payer over five million pounds a day to house asylum seekers in hotels.
Now while my math is not the greatest by her own account the government is spending 1825 million quid a year on hotels.
The Britania group in particular makes a fortune from it despite being owned by a Non Dom, who no doubts go mates with half the tory party?
For what we spend we don't need camps guarded by minimum wage workers in hi viz jackets many of who will be immigrants themselves working for agencies on zero hour contracts
Now while these camps have some civil servants in them for processing purposes, it would be fair to say that they are badly run overcrowded and not fit for kidsWhy not build a state of the art turnaround centre , thats safe secure and fit for purpose. lets be honest this problem is not going away and its clearly going to increase as humanity goes back onto the roads to flee injustice war and famine not to mention extreme weather events.
Do it right don't do it nasty, have a process that works not one where a family are sat in a hotel room for 400 days no school for their kids or washing and ironing faciltes. They should be be told they can stay or they must leave with 7 working days.
But as that requires both competence and compassion I fear no tory will ever grasp it.
Quote: Teddy Paddalack @ 31st October 2022, 5:10 PMBill I don't want to argue with you at all. I just take the stance that if you take action in ministerial position then you have to be accountable for your actions.
Steps were taken to suspend hotel accommodation to create a 'Hostile Environment'
. The woman herself stood at a dias and said that she 'Dreams of planes full of migrants being flown to Rwanda at Christmas' Thats not policy that's hate and piss poor hate at that.
So what is your own suggestion of a method of discouraging the "small boat illegal immigrants" ? The rules say that they should have applied for immigration at the FIRST safe nation that they crossed.
Government figures collated by the BBC show 39,430 people have crossed on small boats so far this year, compared with 28,461 who arrived in [all of] 2021. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-63446010
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-63446010
The government currently operates seven immigration detention centres along with some short-term holding centres in various parts of the UK. Officials say they can accommodate 3,000 people at any one time. If the two new centres go ahead, they will represent a significant increase in the number of people the Home Office can lock up.
So the UK has the capability of holding only about 10% of the migrants (arriving this year) at a cost of at least £399million. Which implies that it would take around £5,000Million to provide humane shelter for the rest of the 39,000 migrants that arrived just this year alone. Where do you think such money would come from?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
PS I am not arguing, just debating! Feel free to respond with suggestions and facts, not supposition and hate.
Suppose that she had instigated another bigger immigrant-holding centre at a high cost (or booked 20,000 hotel spaces) and the rate of boat crossings had dropped. I bet that you would now be complaining about wasting public money at a time when the low-paid need it for cost of living. Can YOU predict what the number of illegal immigrants will be over the next 6 months? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-59861376
Slow processing is the issue.
The clue's in the name - "short-term holding centres" - they're meant to be in and out facilities, not hold an entire years worth of immigrants.
So your maths doesn't really stack up, because their capacity is based on throughput, not a cumulative total.
They should be out of there and in housing, hostels while awaiting outcome (over 75% will be found to be genuine)
Again - processing & resourcing is the problem here
We're running out of hotels rooms etc because instead of taking 6 months max to process, it's taking years.
And the business of seeking asylum in first safe country is a myth - the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, sates that you can seek asylum in any signatory country. And if you think about it for a second it would mean that all the refugees in Europe would have to claim asylum in either Sicily and Greece - which is barmy.
The trouble is, as part of the "Hostile Environment" policy, the UK has fixed it so that you can only claim asylum in the UK from within the UK!
Hence illegal crossings.
Processing centres in Calais would be the solution - but we have repeatedly refused the offer.
The crisis is, at best, due to very poor administration, or, at worst, a deliberate act.
Asylum from what though?
No war in Albania - and heck of a lot of none warring countries to get through to the UK.
The French are not going to open an immigration station, they're quietly glad they come through and go.
They might if the UK flew all the illegal immigrants back to France though.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 1st November 2022, 10:53 AMAsylum from what though?
No war in Albania - and heck of a lot of none warring countries to get through to the UK.The French are not going to open an immigration station, they're quietly glad they come through and go.
They might if the UK flew all the illegal immigrants back to France though.
And that's why the processing needs speeding up.
Those with a right to asylum will get it quicker - those who don't (eg Albanian crooks) will be deported quicker.
And, contrary to your claim, the French in fact have been urging the UK to set-up a processing facility in Northern France for a couple of years, now.
We have refused.
And, by the way plenty stay in France - certainly more than come here.
In other news, I see that Matt Hancock has finally found his level and is appearing on I'm a Celebrity...
You'd have thought he'd have had enough of hidden cameras.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 1st November 2022, 10:53 AMAsylum from what though?
No war in Albania - and heck of a lot of none warring countries to get through to the UK.The French are not going to open an immigration station, they're quietly glad they come through and go.
They might if the UK flew all the illegal immigrants back to France though.
It must be hell in France that so many people want to risk their lives leaving there.
Matt Hancock...
*sigh*
Now he's gonna be eating bollocks instead of talking bollocks
Hope he came to you to perfect it.
Quote: Lazzard @ 1st November 2022, 9:29 AMSlow processing is the issue.
The clue's in the name - "short-term holding centres" - they're meant to be in and out facilities, not hold an entire years worth of immigrants.
So your maths doesn't really stack up, because their capacity is based on throughput, not a cumulative total.
They should be out of there and in housing, hostels while awaiting outcome (over 75% will be found to be genuine)
Again - processing & resourcing is the problem here
We're running out of hotels rooms etc because instead of taking 6 months max to process, it's taking years.
And the business of seeking asylum in first safe country is a myth - the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, sates that you can seek asylum in any signatory country. And if you think about it for a second it would mean that all the refugees in Europe would have to claim asylum in either Sicily and Greece - which is barmy.
The trouble is, as part of the "Hostile Environment" policy, the UK has fixed it so that you can only claim asylum in the UK from within the UK!
Hence illegal crossings.
Processing centres in Calais would be the solution - but we have repeatedly refused the offer.
The crisis is, at best, due to very poor administration, or, at worst, a deliberate act.
Actually it may well be a myth but so is yours, the 1951 CONVENTION and the subsequent 1967 PROTOCOL, say nothing at all about which country may be used to claim asylum. Read the ORIGINAL and REAL documents, not a biased re-vamp of what the revamping-author thought it said. https://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
The text of the CONVENTION was very difficult to find. If that kind of access to documents is typical no wonder it takes a long time to process asylum requests.
Actually IMO one of the main problems is that that 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol, were agreed in a time before terrorism was so prevalent. Nowadays every asylum request has also to be treated initially as an attempt to sneak one or more terrorists into a country. This is in addition to working out whether the asylum-seeker is genuinely at risk or is merely an economic-migrant. The latter are restricted by the new immigration laws of the UK; the former are to be treated as per the promises made in 1951/1967.
Quote: billwill @ 2nd November 2022, 3:03 PMActually it may well be a myth but so is yours, the 1951 CONVENTION and the subsequent 1967 PROTOCOL, say nothing at all about which country may be used to claim asylum. Read the ORIGINAL and REAL documents, not a biased re-vamp of what the revamping-author thought it said. https://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
The text of the CONVENTION was very difficult to find. If that kind of access to documents is typical no wonder it takes a long time to process asylum requests.
Actually IMO one of the main problems is that that 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol, were agreed in a time before terrorism was so prevalent. Nowadays every asylum request has also to be treated initially as an attempt to sneak one or more terrorists into a country. This is in addition to working out whether the asylum-seeker is genuinely at risk or is merely an economic-migrant. The latter are restricted by the new immigration laws of the UK; the former are to be treated as per the promises made in 1951/1967.
You're right, the Convention does not explicitly state 'country choice' as a right.
Equally, and more importantly, it does not state that you a have to claim asylum in first safe country.
Neither does the Geneva Convention (another popular lie in certain quarters)
This is the malicious myth that is regularly circulated.
Nothing to do with biased, or re-vamped anything - there is no obligation.
It's not written anywhere. It's not a law.
Under the Dublin Agreement it was possible to send asylum claimants back to the first EU country they had their papers stamped.
But not anymore. Brexit saw to that.
Don't blame me - I didn't vote for it.
It is arcane & complicated, but there are plenty of lawyers who know their stuff .
It's just we're not employing enough of them, or the ancillary staff, to get the job done.
This graph illustrates the problem perfectly.
PS Sorry, image upload chopped of indices - the figures refer to thousands.
Many innocent refugees suffer from critical trauma , there's a lot of evidence to show that the longer they are kept away from an empathetic solution, the worse it is for society as a whole. Let me know if you guys solve this pass the parcel problem, but the EU clearly think we should have waited until the music stopped before leaving the circle (i.e. planned it better).