Safe and Legal Routes
Discussion
Firstly may I apologies for yet another immigration thread. Was watching Question Time today and once more the subject came up yet I have tried to find an answer but failed
So how would a safe and legal route work for them if they have to travel to a point, I guess in a capital city, apply, wait for a decision, then if a application gets granted go to a point of travel, if they are in such a dangerous situation?
Most people who come over via boats or truck don't have documents, reports are that they are told to dump them, I have read on here that they are in such a rush to leave their country because of safety fears they have no time to collect any ID - although often it is in electronic form, but they do have time to collect the money to pay their way into Europe?
So how would a safe and legal route work for them if they have to travel to a point, I guess in a capital city, apply, wait for a decision, then if a application gets granted go to a point of travel, if they are in such a dangerous situation?
Most people who come over via boats or truck don't have documents, reports are that they are told to dump them, I have read on here that they are in such a rush to leave their country because of safety fears they have no time to collect any ID - although often it is in electronic form, but they do have time to collect the money to pay their way into Europe?
Oliver Hardy said:
Firstly may I apologies for yet another immigration thread. Was watching Question Time today and once more the subject came up yet I have tried to find an answer but failed
So how would a safe and legal route work for them if they have to travel to a point, I guess in a capital city, apply, wait for a decision, then if a application gets granted go to a point of travel, if they are in such a dangerous situation?
Most people who come over via boats or truck don't have documents, reports are that they are told to dump them, I have read on here that they are in such a rush to leave their country because of safety fears they have no time to collect any ID - although often it is in electronic form, but they do have time to collect the money to pay their way into Europe?
How to say you don't believe in asylum without saying you don't believe in asylum So how would a safe and legal route work for them if they have to travel to a point, I guess in a capital city, apply, wait for a decision, then if a application gets granted go to a point of travel, if they are in such a dangerous situation?
Most people who come over via boats or truck don't have documents, reports are that they are told to dump them, I have read on here that they are in such a rush to leave their country because of safety fears they have no time to collect any ID - although often it is in electronic form, but they do have time to collect the money to pay their way into Europe?
Doesn't matter, so don't waste your time searching. Nobody expressing an opinion on the topic has any use or relevance unless they start by answering these two questions:
1. Will you accept everyone who wants to come to the UK, regardless of circumstances?
Yes: ok, honest answer, thank you.
No: q2
2. Then by definition you must have a filtering process, where some people will be accepted and some rejected. If the rejected applicants then enter the UK illegally, what will you do with them ?
That's it. If you can't answer the two questions then you don't have anything worthwhile to say on the topic.
1. Will you accept everyone who wants to come to the UK, regardless of circumstances?
Yes: ok, honest answer, thank you.
No: q2
2. Then by definition you must have a filtering process, where some people will be accepted and some rejected. If the rejected applicants then enter the UK illegally, what will you do with them ?
That's it. If you can't answer the two questions then you don't have anything worthwhile to say on the topic.
skwdenyer said:
Oliver Hardy said:
Firstly may I apologies for yet another immigration thread. Was watching Question Time today and once more the subject came up yet I have tried to find an answer but failed
So how would a safe and legal route work for them if they have to travel to a point, I guess in a capital city, apply, wait for a decision, then if a application gets granted go to a point of travel, if they are in such a dangerous situation?
Most people who come over via boats or truck don't have documents, reports are that they are told to dump them, I have read on here that they are in such a rush to leave their country because of safety fears they have no time to collect any ID - although often it is in electronic form, but they do have time to collect the money to pay their way into Europe?
How to say you don't believe in asylum without saying you don't believe in asylum So how would a safe and legal route work for them if they have to travel to a point, I guess in a capital city, apply, wait for a decision, then if a application gets granted go to a point of travel, if they are in such a dangerous situation?
Most people who come over via boats or truck don't have documents, reports are that they are told to dump them, I have read on here that they are in such a rush to leave their country because of safety fears they have no time to collect any ID - although often it is in electronic form, but they do have time to collect the money to pay their way into Europe?
Newc said:
Doesn't matter, so don't waste your time searching. Nobody expressing an opinion on the topic has any use or relevance unless they start by answering these two questions:
1. Will you accept everyone who wants to come to the UK, regardless of circumstances?
Yes: ok, honest answer, thank you.
No: q2
2. Then by definition you must have a filtering process, where some people will be accepted and some rejected. If the rejected applicants then enter the UK illegally, what will you do with them ?
That's it. If you can't answer the two questions then you don't have anything worthwhile to say on the topic.
Question for you, how do the displaced people from wartorn Sudan get a fair crack at an asylum application to the UK, similar to Ukraine?1. Will you accept everyone who wants to come to the UK, regardless of circumstances?
Yes: ok, honest answer, thank you.
No: q2
2. Then by definition you must have a filtering process, where some people will be accepted and some rejected. If the rejected applicants then enter the UK illegally, what will you do with them ?
That's it. If you can't answer the two questions then you don't have anything worthwhile to say on the topic.
Oliver Hardy said:
So how would a safe and legal route work for them if they have to travel to a point, I guess in a capital city, apply, wait for a decision, then if a application gets granted go to a point of travel, if they are in such a dangerous situation?
There are no safe and legal routes, which is why people have to get to this Island before they can apply for asylum.A consulate of sorts in France etc might work you turn up and apply. Your details taken and reviewed. If sucessful welcome to the UK if not sorry try another country. If you land in the UK illegally (we now have your detials face, finger prints, iris, DNA, info about your home etc) we can deport you to the country the consulate was in.
s1962a said:
Newc said:
Doesn't matter, so don't waste your time searching. Nobody expressing an opinion on the topic has any use or relevance unless they start by answering these two questions:
1. Will you accept everyone who wants to come to the UK, regardless of circumstances?
Yes: ok, honest answer, thank you.
No: q2
2. Then by definition you must have a filtering process, where some people will be accepted and some rejected. If the rejected applicants then enter the UK illegally, what will you do with them ?
That's it. If you can't answer the two questions then you don't have anything worthwhile to say on the topic.
Question for you, how do the displaced people from wartorn Sudan get a fair crack at an asylum application to the UK, similar to Ukraine?1. Will you accept everyone who wants to come to the UK, regardless of circumstances?
Yes: ok, honest answer, thank you.
No: q2
2. Then by definition you must have a filtering process, where some people will be accepted and some rejected. If the rejected applicants then enter the UK illegally, what will you do with them ?
That's it. If you can't answer the two questions then you don't have anything worthwhile to say on the topic.
The actual application process is irrelevant at this point. If there is any kind of filter, there are two outcomes from it. What is your policy for those who are rejected ?
Gecko1978 said:
A consulate of sorts in France etc might work you turn up and apply. Your details taken and reviewed. If sucessful welcome to the UK if not sorry try another country. If you land in the UK illegally (we now have your detials face, finger prints, iris, DNA, info about your home etc) we can deport you to the country the consulate was in.
Why would France do that for us? It would act as a magnet for all people wanting asylum in the UK. When those applications fail, France ends up with the problem.Furthermore, why would France accept those people back if the UK later wants to deport them? It has nothing to do with them.
I am not sure you have thought that one through.
Newc said:
Thank you; perfect example of my point. Are you going to accept all applicants from Sudan, Ukraine, Wherever ? Or are you going to assess the merits of their application ?
I would like my government to be honest about why they would allow, for example, over 100k migrants from Ukraine, and zero from anywhere else. Who decides which countries have these safe and legal routes?Right now the only route any migrant has is to get on a boat, or get to our shores somehow.
Prolex-UK said:
If we have places where they can make the application for asylum before they get to the UK then I have no problem with sending them the Rwanda.
If they are genuinely fleeing for there lives and get to, say France, then why can they not apply there?
You would be happy that a genuine asylum seeker is sent to Rwanda because of how they got here? Are you sure?If they are genuinely fleeing for there lives and get to, say France, then why can they not apply there?
Why would France want to take everybody for us?
pghstochaj said:
Prolex-UK said:
If we have places where they can make the application for asylum before they get to the UK then I have no problem with sending them the Rwanda.
If they are genuinely fleeing for there lives and get to, say France, then why can they not apply there?
You would be happy that a genuine asylum seeker is sent to Rwanda because of how they got here? Are you sure?If they are genuinely fleeing for there lives and get to, say France, then why can they not apply there?
Why would France want to take everybody for us?
s1962a said:
Newc said:
Thank you; perfect example of my point. Are you going to accept all applicants from Sudan, Ukraine, Wherever ? Or are you going to assess the merits of their application ?
I would like my government to be honest about why they would allow, for example, over 100k migrants from Ukraine, and zero from anywhere else. Who decides which countries have these safe and legal routes?Right now the only route any migrant has is to get on a boat, or get to our shores somehow.
"If you have any kind of filter, what do you do with people who fail to pass the filter and enter illegally ?"
is answered.
Mr Whippy said:
pghstochaj said:
Prolex-UK said:
If we have places where they can make the application for asylum before they get to the UK then I have no problem with sending them the Rwanda.
If they are genuinely fleeing for there lives and get to, say France, then why can they not apply there?
You would be happy that a genuine asylum seeker is sent to Rwanda because of how they got here? Are you sure?If they are genuinely fleeing for there lives and get to, say France, then why can they not apply there?
Why would France want to take everybody for us?
The good folks of Ukraine will almost certainly return when the war is safely over. Boat people will not.
BTW I'm probably naive to the point of stupidity, but can't immigrants travel as foot passengers on ferries if they hold a passport - a whole pile cheaper than paying some hood £4000 to possibly die in a rubber dinghy.
BTW I'm probably naive to the point of stupidity, but can't immigrants travel as foot passengers on ferries if they hold a passport - a whole pile cheaper than paying some hood £4000 to possibly die in a rubber dinghy.
pghstochaj said:
Gecko1978 said:
A consulate of sorts in France etc might work you turn up and apply. Your details taken and reviewed. If sucessful welcome to the UK if not sorry try another country. If you land in the UK illegally (we now have your detials face, finger prints, iris, DNA, info about your home etc) we can deport you to the country the consulate was in.
Why would France do that for us? It would act as a magnet for all people wanting asylum in the UK. When those applications fail, France ends up with the problem.Furthermore, why would France accept those people back if the UK later wants to deport them? It has nothing to do with them.
I am not sure you have thought that one through.
https://www.ft.com/content/9732dbb7-29b7-4460-9a33...
Mrr T said:
pghstochaj said:
Gecko1978 said:
A consulate of sorts in France etc might work you turn up and apply. Your details taken and reviewed. If sucessful welcome to the UK if not sorry try another country. If you land in the UK illegally (we now have your detials face, finger prints, iris, DNA, info about your home etc) we can deport you to the country the consulate was in.
Why would France do that for us? It would act as a magnet for all people wanting asylum in the UK. When those applications fail, France ends up with the problem.Furthermore, why would France accept those people back if the UK later wants to deport them? It has nothing to do with them.
I am not sure you have thought that one through.
https://www.ft.com/content/9732dbb7-29b7-4460-9a33...
“We would absolutely agree to take back some of the migrants heading for Britain, as long as it was not just France doing so.”
Really means?
It would be entirely against France's interests to place a location in France for people to apply for asylum in the UK. That is because it would be a magnet to asylum seekers and those that fail would be then France's problem. This is why we have the problem we have.
Newc said:
Right, but again, it's a complete red herring. All discussion of 'safe and legal routes or methods' is utterly irrelevant, until the question
"If you have any kind of filter, what do you do with people who fail to pass the filter and enter illegally ?"
is answered.
It's not irrelevant though is it? The two are related. If you have safe and legal routes, then people who apply for, and ar refused asylum, can be considered illegal and deported back to where they came from."If you have any kind of filter, what do you do with people who fail to pass the filter and enter illegally ?"
is answered.
Question is, what about people who are fleeing war zones or oppressive regimes and cannot get paperwork. People who put their lives in danger to get here. Should we make fearing for your life a crime?
nicanary said:
The good folks of Ukraine will almost certainly return when the war is safely over. Boat people will not.
BTW I'm probably naive to the point of stupidity, but can't immigrants travel as foot passengers on ferries if they hold a passport - a whole pile cheaper than paying some hood £4000 to possibly die in a rubber dinghy.
No, they can't . Just as with air and Eurostar travel, passports and entry eligibility are checked before boarding. So if they're coming from a country which requires visas to enter the UK, they won't be allowed on board without one.BTW I'm probably naive to the point of stupidity, but can't immigrants travel as foot passengers on ferries if they hold a passport - a whole pile cheaper than paying some hood £4000 to possibly die in a rubber dinghy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff