What happens if we refuse asylum seekers?

[HertsBiker]

Do we get put on the naughty step? what would it mean for the UK? esp considering the number of UK people that might want to leave the UK.
Please discuss in a safe non racist way.. Thank you.

[gruffalo]

Well, as all the ones crossing the channel to get here are breaking the rules by waiting to get here before asking for asylum
I am not sure
.

[Ridgemont]

HertsBiker said:

Do we get put on the naughty step? what would it mean for the UK? esp considering the number of UK people that might want to leave the UK.
Please discuss in a safe non racist way.. Thank you.

You can see with a case in Italy right now involving the Italian Deputy PM. Matteo Salvini, then minister of the interior, refused to allow disembarkment of rescued ‘migrants’ rescued by a Spanish charity boat.

Prosecutors are attempting to get him sent down for 6 years for amongst other things failing to carry out duties of office.

https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://w...

Italian law is somewhat different to UK law, but it would almost certainly be the case that various animated entities (yes, the Good Law project or various charities) would be in like a shot lodging attempts to get the courts to mark the government position as illegal under obligations relating to International Law.

And would almost certainly succeed.

Sooner or later the ECHR will be changed not least because of the collision with the reality of German border controls and the rise of AFD but it’s going to take a while and in the meantime governments will find themselves constrained by its articles.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

All these treaties are ultimately voluntary. We could pull out at any time. It's a matter of lacking the political will to do it.

[Skeptisk]

There are hundreds of millions, if not more, who want to or would migrate to Europe if they could. There are hundreds of millions across Europe who don’t want more migrants. I can foresee a general tightening or refusal of asylum and taking of refugees in the future.

[Mrr T]

gruffalo said:

Well, as all the ones crossing the channel to get here are breaking the rules by waiting to get here before asking for asylum
I am not sure
.

Do you mean the ones who can only claim asylum when they are actually in the UK?

[Sheets Tabuer]

Fewer hand car washes.

[Mrr T]

Sheets Tabuer said:

Fewer hand car washes.

Since asylum allows those who qualify the right to work. I would suggest removing the ability to claim asylum might mean more hand car washes.

[Earthdweller]

Watch Germany this week, as of today they've reintroduced border controls and will stop all undocumented travellers at the border

Austria says they won't accept any refused access to Germany back into Austria

Be interesting to see how it works out

[vikingaero]

I think the narrative used is wrong. Many of these asylum seekers are not asylum seekers, but economic migrants taking advantage of the system.

[Tommo87]

Mrr T said:

gruffalo said:

Well, as all the ones crossing the channel to get here are breaking the rules by waiting to get here before asking for asylum
I am not sure
.

Do you mean the ones who can only claim asylum when they are actually in the UK?

Possibly the ones who went through the official process already, but were denied asylum, because it turned out that they weren’t actually being persecuted in their home state.

[valiant]

vikingaero said:

I think the narrative used is wrong. Many of these asylum seekers are not asylum seekers, but economic migrants taking advantage of the system.

Got stats to back that up?

Majority of claims are granted so...

[Southerner]

How though does a country “refuse” asylum seekers? You can’t just turn them around and hope they walk back in the opposite direction, and in the case of the UK you can’t just put people back out to sea, that would be murderous. There was an interesting docu a while ago about, I think, the Greek coastguard. They were accused of doing exactly this; putting migrants back out to sea in the dead of night. It was pretty shocking viewing and not something you’d expect any vaguely civilised nation to actually contemplate doing.

As for refusing by other means, the whole of Europe is struggling with a migrant crisis and it’s well accepted that many of them are ultimately aiming for the UK, so asking the French/Italians/etc if they wouldn’t mind having them all back is unlikely to go well for us. There really isn’t a straightforward answer. The idea of discouraging migrants from setting out in the first place - which presumably was where the Rwanda nonsense was aiming - does have some merit as a base concept, but it needs to be done properly and not be some laughable ‘back of a fag packet’ idea.

Edited by Southerner on Monday 16th September 09:03

[Mrr T]

Tommo87 said:

Mrr T said:

gruffalo said:

Well, as all the ones crossing the channel to get here are breaking the rules by waiting to get here before asking for asylum
I am not sure
.

Do you mean the ones who can only claim asylum when they are actually in the UK?

Possibly the ones who went through the official process already, but were denied asylum, because it turned out that they weren’t actually being persecuted in their home state.

What official process? Official processes exist only for Ukraine, certain HK passport holders and those who assisted the UK in Afghanistan. Some may fit into the later category but that process appears broken. Other than that you can only apply in the UK.

[Rough101]

Were we to refuse and deport within the existing framework, it would be less appealing, but it’s not funded properly.

[vaud]

Southerner said:

HThere really isn’t a straightforward answer. The idea of discouraging migrants from setting out in the first place - which presumably was where the Rwanda nonsense was aiming - does have some merit as a base concept, but it needs to be done properly and not be some laughable ‘back of a fag packet’ idea.

The concept of processing the applications in a safe place that can also derisk them "disappearing" into society has merit but the political environment isn't ideal to make it a constructive dialogue.

[Southerner]

vaud said:

Southerner said:

HThere really isn’t a straightforward answer. The idea of discouraging migrants from setting out in the first place - which presumably was where the Rwanda nonsense was aiming - does have some merit as a base concept, but it needs to be done properly and not be some laughable ‘back of a fag packet’ idea.

The concept of processing the applications in a safe place that can also derisk them "disappearing" into society has merit but the political environment isn't ideal to make it a constructive dialogue.

The problem is that requires a well staffed and properly funded system, involving appropriate secure holding facilities and an ability to process applications with some degree of haste. And then of course the costs of actually returning unsuccessful applicants. It’s cheaper and easier to just let them disappear on the quiet.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Southerner said:

The problem is that requires a well staffed and properly funded system, involving appropriate secure holding facilities and an ability to process applications with some degree of haste. And then of course the costs of actually returning unsuccessful applicants. It’s cheaper and easier to just let them disappear on the quiet.

It will always be underfunded as there is essentially unlimited demand. You have to limit the demand by removing the incentives to make the journey. As I see it that means legitimate routes to apply from abroad and also an absolute, crystal clear rule that jumping the border will never lead to legal settlement.

[paulw123]

valiant said:

vikingaero said:

I think the narrative used is wrong. Many of these asylum seekers are not asylum seekers, but economic migrants taking advantage of the system.

Got stats to back that up?

Majority of claims are granted so...

Easier to grant the claims than go through the long drawn out and difficult process of rejecting and trying to return?

[Mrr T]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Southerner said:

The problem is that requires a well staffed and properly funded system, involving appropriate secure holding facilities and an ability to process applications with some degree of haste. And then of course the costs of actually returning unsuccessful applicants. It’s cheaper and easier to just let them disappear on the quiet.

It will always be underfunded as there is essentially unlimited demand. You have to limit the demand by removing the incentives to make the journey. As I see it that means legitimate routes to apply from abroad and also an absolute, crystal clear rule that jumping the border will never lead to legal settlement.

Except there is not unlimited demand. Demand for Ukraine has almost stopped, HK and those who assisted in Afghanistan are limited. Other than that they need to get to the UK. So they need to cross many countries and a lot of water. Those claims are about 30k per year. Oddly enough funding has gone up but thats to fund accommodation because the Tories stopped processing and almost stop deporting.