Southport

[V8Granite]

Is there a poll asking why people voted reform ?

I wonder what the split is for why, no trust in Conservatives or Labour, Immigration concerns, budget concerns etc

It would be interesting to see what people were worried about the most overall.

Dave!

[Jobbo]

But isn’t the whole point that the country they were in prior to the UK was already safe and thus the asylum claim should be processed in France?

No, refugees and asylum seekers do not have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. If they did that first country would have a lot of asylum seekers and nowhere else would have any. And how would they have reached France if that was the case? I’m not sure there are many asylum seekers crossing the North Sea from Scandinavia, crossing the Med but missing Italy, Spain or Greece, or fleeing their EU neighbours.

[DeskJockey]

@Beany thanks for the clarifications to my point.

I didn't, but should, have made the distinction between those coming in, and those staying without claiming asylum/refuge and/or not leaving when required to do so.

[Gavster]

I was under the impression that (and I'm sure this applies to most countries) if you rock up on a boat without a passport or visa, you don't pass through border control and you don't seek asylum after arriving, then you are illegally residing in that country.

Same, it’s the first bullet point on the ‘Illegal Migraction Act’
https://www.gov.uk/government/collecti ... ation-bill

Interesting point on this specific line, which I guess is the one you mean:

put a stop to illegal migration into the UK by removing the incentive to make dangerous small boat crossings

Oh, that's the one that effectively tars all people entering the UK via irregular routes as not able to claim asylum, in direct contravention of the 1951 UN Refugee convention, which we helped write, and which we've been a signatory on for 70 years?

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases ... ffice-warn

Most people fleeing war and persecution either do not have or are unable to access formal documents such as passports and visas. Safe and “legal” routes are rarely available to them. The 1951 Refugee Convention, for its part, explicitly recognises that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly.

Signatories literally cannot do that - blanket refuse all asylum claims via the one feasible route that you've left available to people, because you closed off almost all others - without being in breach of the convention, which isn't generally good for international relations with the countries who we've specified must sign up to it for us to trade with them and vice versa.

Yeah, don't assume that anything the Tories put into power means anything - a lot of it is getting stripped back for being bonkers, unworkable, or bonkers unworkable.

I realise this is nitpicking now, however the problem with UN declarations and conventions is that they're impossible to enforce unless conferred into the national legislature. And even then you're on shaky ground without resources to take action, for example, India passed an act on the right to food, which is in essence based on the UN UDHR (which we're a signatory of too) however that doesn't mean the Indian government have therefore ensured everyone in India has food. I'm not familiar with the details of the refugee convention. However, I'm assuming if the UK gov breached it, then it would be up to the migrant/s in question to then take action against the government, which is a complete non-starter. I guess my point is that UN declarations are nice 'thought experiment' agreements which are as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike for anyone who suffers under non-compliance of them.

[dinny_g]

But isn’t the whole point that the country they were in prior to the UK was already safe and thus the asylum claim should be processed in France?

As Jobbo said, they don't' have to claim asylum in the first country they arrive in.

However, when they travel to the UK from France, they are no longer "fleeing persecution", or "escaping war torn countries" - that bit's done. So our moral obligation to help is on a different basis to what a lot of the left wing media like to portray.

I'm not for closing the borders, I believe people from other countries enrich society (unsurprisingly), I believe significant parts of UK life struggle without foreign support etc. But there needs to be more honesty about what the issue actually is of we're going to move past the current factions of opinion to a "solution", whatever that looks like.

[ZedLeg]

This is exactly the kind of hostility and division conservative asylum policy was intended to cause.

They deliberately (imo) constrained the agencies that should have been doing the work to the point that nothing is working, while pointing at people coming here with literally nothing and saying it’s their fault.

It’s a damning indictment on our society that we can’t make sure that people here are safe and healthy.

[Jobbo]

As Jobbo said, they don't' have to claim asylum in the first country they arrive in.

Dinny, your quoting has gone wrong - it was Mito that said the line attributed to me.

[dinny_g]

Sorted - sorry about that - not sure how that happened.

We haven't had a #BecauseDinny in a while...

[Jobbo]

Cheers

[Beany]

However, when they travel to the UK from France, they are no longer "fleeing persecution", or "escaping war torn countries" - that bit's done. So our moral obligation to help is on a different basis to what a lot of the left wing media like to portray.

That's not how it works though, as that puts an unfair obligation on 'the first safe country' they get to. This isn't a jab at you, but it gets to the core of what I've been posting on this thread recently, which is basically this:

SimpleButWrongComplexButRight.png (124.93 KiB) Viewed 1550 times

One of the reasons the refugee charter exists is to prevent surrounding countries, as an example, from being completely overwhelmed with refugees when conflict breaks out - see what happened after Ukraine kicked off - by allowing refugees the right to seek asylum where they feel safe.

By that logic of 'first safe country only', Moldova, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and Belarus are the only countries that 'should' have taken Ukraniain refugees as they would be considered 'safe' places.

Moldova has a population of about three million. The current count of Ukrainian refugees is about six million.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/131 ... y-country/

By that train of thought, every country around Moldova that doesn't also border with Ukraine could refuse to take onward moving refugees as Moldova is 'safe', leaving Moldova massively stretched in terms of resources, if they took even a sixth of the refugees - that would be a 33% increase in their total population, which would undoubtedly cause massive internal strain, and may even lead to conflict within Moldova itself.

Then, as another less simplistic, more realistic example, what happens if you're a Ukrainian who can't speak Hungarian/Polish/etc, or don't have someone in the country who can support you?

One of the points of the Refugee act isn't just to get away from death squads or internal political conflict "and you're done", it's so you can escape to a country that you feel you can safely live in with at least a bit of dignity - ie roof over your head, and some food, and a legal framework that supports the supply of those resources - even if it's just a refugee camp.

The idea is that if the problem isn't resolved in the short term, you can possibly move on with your life in the destination country if you get granted leave to remain as a refugee - you can get a job and start rebuilding; otherwise you'd be living in a tent at the side of the road in a country you don't speak the language of, but you should be grateful you're there because you aren't being shot at or bombed or have the secret police following you around, until that conflict is over or until that regime changes.

Those are basic examples - there's more detail on the whole 'they should stay in the first safe country they get to' here.

https://freemovement.org.uk/are-refugee ... hey-reach/

Ignoring the hard fact that most do stay in the first country they get to, and we see a smaller proportion of the refugee load than most of Europe do - because refugees already know we're hostile nation - but if your second language is English and you have a second cousin who lives in Dorset, why wouldn't you believe it's a safer bet than a refugee camp in Germany? It's not the refugees fault that some dictator twat decided their minority group was subhuman on a rainy Tuesday morning and that wiping them out was a good idea, or that their country was a target for some clowns national expansionism plans, or that the entire economy collapsed after a natural disaster, etc.

There doesn't necessarily need to more honesty about the issue - people are being plenty 'honest' about it, and being entirely wrong, all the time.

There needs to be more education on the subject.

[Gavster]

FWIW as someone who has actually worked with refugees in the real world, it's important to understand that once a refugee flees their home nation, especially once they're in Europe, they can basically choose any country they would like, and suddenly that becomes a choice based upon personal gain, not just seeking safety.

Ukrainian refugees escaping into Poland were mainly concerned with which European country paid the most €€€ in benefits, whilst not being too far from home, which is why a lot of them went to Germany. They were not concerned about assimilation, work or language barriers, despite us trying our hardest to help them consider those factors. However their decision can also be explained by the fact they saw their escape from Ukraine as a temporary situation, they believed they'd be going back to Ukraine quite soon. Not many came to the UK because it was a pain to get a visa and it was a long way to travel too.

I guess my point is that often these discussions often seem to bring an implicit assumption about the noble intent of refugees to solely seek safety, which is being a little naive about the human condition.

[ZedLeg]

I think that anyone who’s had to flee their home with whatever they can carry should be allowed some grace in looking for the best place to live afterwards tbh.

[Beany]

It's better to be a little naive than to be entirely mercenary about such things, generally.

(edit: which, as ever, isn't aimed at Gav or anyone here, just as a general rule)

[dinny_g]

I agree that turning people away on the basis that "France's safe enough, you don't have to come here" isn't right or fair.

As a relatively large land mass with a relatively large population, we should do our fair share to help alleviate the problems that refugee migration has caused throughout Europe.

But fair share is an interesting concept because it implies there is a share which is unfair. In this case, Fair Share is a number. This would lead to the topic of quotas which, despite being policy in many of the worlds most modern and moderate countries, seems to be a dirty word here. But even with quotas, it begs the question, what to do with the first person over the quota, what about the first ten, the first hundred, the first thousand etc.

The issue from my perspective is manifesting itself in two ways. There are 3 hotels in my town, two of which have been used for housing. And all over Milton Keynes, tent villages are popping up as there isn't enough Hotel Accommodation, let alone housing to solve the problem.

So let me ask Beany, Zed - how much is too much ? Do you have a number in mind over which we realistically have to say no - a million, 5 million ?? What do you think our fair share is or is it open ended in your mind ?

[ZedLeg]

It’s impossible to say without knowing the financial information tbh.

Every opinion about immigration is based on vibes and anecdotes.

I just want people in hardship to have a fair shake at the stick. Whether they come from Syria or down the road is irrelevant.

[Gavster]

I honestly think that some of you need to work in/with the charity sector for a few years it inserted a healthy dose of pragmatism into theoretical ideals.

[dinny_g]

It’s impossible to say without knowing the financial information tbh.

Every opinion about immigration is based on vibes and anecdotes.

I just want people in hardship to have a fair shake at the stick. Whether they come from Syria or down the road is irrelevant.

But you accept there is a maximum number, based in Financial Information ? If the government published the numbers which defined the total number we can accommodate, you'd accept that ?

Sorry, not trying to come across confrontational - just interested to know more about other opinions

[ZedLeg]

I mean, government budgets are finite.

I’d happily scrap trident to improve services for poor people though.

[Beany]

If the immigration system hadn't been kerbstomped for the last fifteen years, you wouldn't have tent encampments and refugees in hotels to the same extent (likely it'd still be necessary for acute issues, but it wouldn't be The Norm, for months a time)

How much is too much is an answer that depends entirely on the global situation conflict/disaster wise, the government of the day, their policies, finances and the functionality of the immigration system as a whole as a result.

We can't claim to be a forward looking, modern looking, world leading country by just slapping a number on immigration numbers it to please people who don't understand how or why the system works the way it does - that helps nobody because it's like sticking a big bright plaster on someone who's fallen off a cliff. Looks helpful, does little of actual practical use.

Please don't make the tap the "simple but wrong, complex but right" poster again..

[ZedLeg]

I honestly think that some of you need to work in/with the charity sector for a few years it inserted a healthy dose of pragmatism into theoretical ideals.

How so?

I volunteered with a refugee charity while I was unemployed and have had experience with other areas of social care charities due to my partner’s health conditions.