The English Channel

Soldato
Joined
30 Nov 2005
Posts
13,915
Either way sooner or later we will get a party in power that will deal with it.

You might not like what else comes with it though.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2012
Posts
18,556
Dublin treaty says they should seek refuge in 1st safe country not cherry pick.

Nope

Do people have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach?

No. Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention, nor EU law requires a person to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. People trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

The Dublin Regulations is a system which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for a person who has claimed asylum when specific conditions apply, including that the person is shown to have previously made a claim of asylum in another EU country. The intention is that asylum claims are then shared more evenly between EU countries.

The Dublin system only operates within the EU and it will almost certainly cease to apply to the UK following Brexit.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
23 Aug 2020
Posts
163
Hasn't that been superceded by Dublin 3?
"The Dublin Regulation (also known as Dublin III) is EU law setting out which country is responsible for looking at an individual’s asylum application. This is usually the country where the asylum seeker first arrives in the EU. The Dublin Regulation applies to EU Member States and Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. The UK was bound by the Dublin Regulation until 31 December 2020."
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Dec 2002
Posts
20,077
Location
North Yorkshire
They’re here for a nice big fat chunk of British taxpayers money. Why live in a country where you have to work to get things in life when you can rock up to the UK and have a good chance of getting the lot handed to you on a plate.

I’m too long in the tooth to get involved in this debate(?), I’ll just say this Rob if asylum seekers were only after a chunk of money they would stop well before the UK. The UK really don’t offer the “fattest chunk of money” to use your words.

People in general should have more empathy for other human beings. :(
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jul 2013
Posts
28,822
I wondered how long it would be before the racism accusations started getting rolled out

I'm pretty sure the point being made is that ridiculous wastes of taxpayers cash in to useless PPE contracts and track and trace is what you should be concerned about, as opposed to 26,000 people a year getting £37 a week until their asylum claims are dealt with.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2012
Posts
18,556
Hasn't that been superceded by Dublin 3?
"The Dublin Regulation (also known as Dublin III) is EU law setting out which country is responsible for looking at an individual’s asylum application. This is usually the country where the asylum seeker first arrives in the EU. The Dublin Regulation applies to EU Member States and Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. The UK was bound by the Dublin Regulation until 31 December 2020."


The UK was bound by the Dublin Regulation until 31 December 2020.

?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Nov 2008
Posts
12,789
Location
London
I wondered how long it would be before the racism accusations started getting rolled out

It's more the fact that it provides a convenient distraction, a dog whistle if you will, successive governments promise to do something about it (very little gets done) and promise to deliver investment in the things people like yourself are worried about like schools, hospitals, houses etc. (they never get built) to get votes. Meanwhile the party and friends of the party ride the gravy train and convince relatively poor people that other relatively poor people are the problem, hoodwinked.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
37,804
Location
block 16, cell 12
I'm pretty sure the point being made is that ridiculous wastes of taxpayers cash in to useless PPE contracts and track and trace is what you should be concerned about, as opposed to 26,000 people a year getting £37 a week until their asylum claims are dealt with.

We are concerned by what they do during and after their failed asylum claims.

And why the UK asylum acceptance rate is 3x higher than France.

Only 1,547 people applied for asylum in Denmark in 2020, a 57 per cent drop on the previous year and the lowest number since the 1990s, but Frederiksen says she wants to reduce the number of asylum applications to zero.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/06/denmarks-immigrants-forced-out-government-policies

Seems like Denmark have managed to find a way to stem the flow.

Ask yourself why would they do this if asylum seekers were amazing for them?
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2012
Posts
10,072
Location
West Sussex, England
I’m too long in the tooth to get involved in this debate(?), I’ll just say this Rob if asylum seekers were only after a chunk of money they would stop well before the UK. The UK really don’t offer the “fattest chunk of money” to use your words.

People in general should have more empathy for other human beings. :(

Isn't wanting them to claim asylum in the EU showing more empathy than encouraging them to drag their families across the entire EU to arrive in squalid conditions in Calais, depriving their offspring of education and a warm home, then subjecting themselves and offspring to a perilous journey in an unfit sea vessel not empathy enough for you? All of which could be avoided if they claimed asylum in one of their first safe havens encountered which is what they would do if they were genuinely fleeing conflict.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2012
Posts
10,072
Location
West Sussex, England
I'm pretty sure the point being made is that ridiculous wastes of taxpayers cash in to useless PPE contracts and track and trace is what you should be concerned about, as opposed to 26,000 people a year getting £37 a week until their asylum claims are dealt with.

That may be the case for their personal income but they've still got to be housed somewhere, regardless of whether that is an asylum processing centre, old army barracks or a hotel, all of which are a significant cost to operate. Those being put up in hotels and receiving takeaways is far better than we treat our own homeless for instance some of which can be ex military suffering from PTSD etc.

As mentioned earlier, there are other costs other than the specific monetary benefits handout these people recieve, such as:

Jobs, housing, healthcare, other tax funded services, school places.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,741
The royal navy should simply push them back.

I think it's very likely that the smugglers only put enough fuel in for one trip, probably not even that, so the navy would be risking turning into any pushback into a rescue operation or a drowning that they're obliged as sailors to help.

There's also the possibility that smugglers ensure the boats aren't sea worthy (small hole in the inflatable) along with the threat to kill them if they turn back, ergo they have no option other than to make the attempt.
 
Back
Top Bottom