Really we need an entirely new model. Ideally we should **only** be directly taking vetted refugees from UN refugee camps near or in active war zones. This means the UK could ensure we are taking in legitimate refugees and that we can prioritise taking in the most vulnerable (in practise this would mean taking in mostly young women and children). This would also mean we could take asylum seekers from all over the world, including countries where it is currently impossible for them to make it here such as Haiti or Papua New Guinea (there is tribal violence in the mountains there, for example)
The status quo means you have to get here first to then file an asylum claim and we have to take their word for it, but that filters for relatively wealthy economic migrants who can afford to make the journey, and it means we rarely house the most vulnerable refugees – because they are stuck in camps thousands of miles from Calais without any money. So the current system is actually grossly unfair on the refugees who he probably deserve the most help.
[deleted] on
[removed]
WankYourHairyCrotch on
Labour was so against Rwanda but now are doing pretty much the same. 🤔
Astriania on
Isn’t this what Italy tried, and their courts decided it was illegal? Indeed, according to the article we’re hoping to negotiate the use of the exact facilities the Italians built in Albania! It’s also basically the Rwanda scheme that Labour spend a lot of time and effort sabotaging.
Really though, we are going to need to change the rules to make it a lot easier to reject and deport people. The asylum convention was not intended for a world where travel is cheap and easy, and people can choose to move wherever they want and make a claim in a country they like. It needs a complete update for the modern age (for example, perhaps UN funded ‘safe harbour’ refugee towns in the regions affected by refugee-generating events), or countries most affected by ‘asylum shopping’ will simply stop respecting it.
honkballs on
They can just hop on a few trains and be back in Calais in a few days.
Until the UK gets serious about adding a deterrent for illegal migrants, they will continue coming.
No right to remain ever for anyone who arrives illegally, no benefits ever (including hotel stays), no freedom to roam around the country (like they have now which is actually crazy). Every single person entering the country without the correct documentation should be detained in a detention center until deported again.
Aggressive_Plates on
so 0.001% of the people who arrive here illegally get deported?
6 Comments
Really we need an entirely new model. Ideally we should **only** be directly taking vetted refugees from UN refugee camps near or in active war zones. This means the UK could ensure we are taking in legitimate refugees and that we can prioritise taking in the most vulnerable (in practise this would mean taking in mostly young women and children). This would also mean we could take asylum seekers from all over the world, including countries where it is currently impossible for them to make it here such as Haiti or Papua New Guinea (there is tribal violence in the mountains there, for example)
The status quo means you have to get here first to then file an asylum claim and we have to take their word for it, but that filters for relatively wealthy economic migrants who can afford to make the journey, and it means we rarely house the most vulnerable refugees – because they are stuck in camps thousands of miles from Calais without any money. So the current system is actually grossly unfair on the refugees who he probably deserve the most help.
[removed]
Labour was so against Rwanda but now are doing pretty much the same. 🤔
Isn’t this what Italy tried, and their courts decided it was illegal? Indeed, according to the article we’re hoping to negotiate the use of the exact facilities the Italians built in Albania! It’s also basically the Rwanda scheme that Labour spend a lot of time and effort sabotaging.
Really though, we are going to need to change the rules to make it a lot easier to reject and deport people. The asylum convention was not intended for a world where travel is cheap and easy, and people can choose to move wherever they want and make a claim in a country they like. It needs a complete update for the modern age (for example, perhaps UN funded ‘safe harbour’ refugee towns in the regions affected by refugee-generating events), or countries most affected by ‘asylum shopping’ will simply stop respecting it.
They can just hop on a few trains and be back in Calais in a few days.
Until the UK gets serious about adding a deterrent for illegal migrants, they will continue coming.
No right to remain ever for anyone who arrives illegally, no benefits ever (including hotel stays), no freedom to roam around the country (like they have now which is actually crazy). Every single person entering the country without the correct documentation should be detained in a detention center until deported again.
so 0.001% of the people who arrive here illegally get deported?