The Reform Thread

[hypochondriac]

I don't see why it is controversial to say that we should be as tough as possible towards anyone entering this country illegally, whether they are fleeing war or not. Personally I'd deport all of them without question and then possibly look at a more compassionate legal migration policy. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that we could take a decent amount of legal migrants who want to contribute to society and respect our existing culture whilst having no truck whatsoever with anyone who breaks the law and comes illegally. If you come here illegally and you're discovered then you're removed end of story. 

[Sir Ralph]

3 hours ago, aintforever said:

I get the problems with taking in too many, I'm not disputing that or advocating open boarders. My point is that just because someone travelled travelled through a safe country doesn't automatically make them an economic migrant.  

Someone fleeing a warzone is in a very vulnerable position, there are many reasons why they might go to a specific country where they feel safe. If you have lost your house, job and most of your possessions overnight, you are going to need help. You will naturally want to go where you have contacts, family or speak the same language.    

But the issue in applying this thought process if you have open borders and associated porblems. How would you control illegal immigrants who aren’t actually at risk?

[aintforever]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Right. You can't blame the individual for wanting to try to cheat the system and get to the country they prefer but that doesn't mean they should be treated differently or not labelled as an economic migrant if they've chosen to reject a number of safe countries prior to arriving at the one they prefer. They have a choice in that scenario and have chosen to break the law and go to the country they fancy. 

I’m not commenting on how they should be treated, just saying that travelling through a safe country doesn’t necessarily make someone an economic migrant. If you are fleeing a war zone you are a refugee, regardless of where you go and how you get there, or wether it’s legal or not.

[Lord Duckhunter]

56 minutes ago, aintforever said:

 you are a refugee, regardless of where you go and how you get there, or whether it’s legal or not.

Are you really that dopey? 
 

There’s no such thing as an illegal refuge. If they’re entering the country illegally, they’re an economic migrant by definition…..

 

”whether it’s legal or not” 😂😂😂😂

 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

I’m not commenting on how they should be treated, just saying that travelling through a safe country doesn’t necessarily make someone an economic migrant. If you are fleeing a war zone you are a refugee, regardless of where you go and how you get there, or wether it’s legal or not.

You are a refugee up to the point that you reach the first safe country. Once you're in the safe country and you subsequently make a choice to illegally cross into another country because you prefer the conditions in the country you're no longer a refugee fleeing war are you. 

[badgerx16]

10 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

You are a refugee up to the point that you reach the first safe country. Once you're in the safe country and you subsequently make a choice to illegally cross into another country because you prefer the conditions in the country you're no longer a refugee fleeing war are you. 

That may be what you want the reality to be, but it is a fallacy.

According to the Refugee Convention a refugee is....

 " a person who: owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to return to it."

 And there is nothging that specifies or relatres to the "first safe country". Whatever causes you to believe you are a refugee when you leave your point of origin is still in effect when you reach your destination.

[hypochondriac]

57 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

That may be what you want the reality to be, but it is a fallacy.

According to the Refugee Convention a refugee is....

 " a person who: owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to return to it."

 And there is nothging that specifies or relatres to the "first safe country". Whatever causes you to believe you are a refugee when you leave your point of origin is still in effect when you reach your destination.

So if you are unlucky enough to be a refugee you can just break into any country you choose at any time in perpetuity? No chance. 

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

You are a refugee up to the point that you reach the first safe country. Once you're in the safe country and you subsequently make a choice to illegally cross into another country because you prefer the conditions in the country you're no longer a refugee fleeing war are you. 

You are according to the Refugee Convention.

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

So if you are unlucky enough to be a refugee you can just break into any country you choose at any time in perpetuity? No chance. 

What I posted is the current situation defined by international treaties..

[sadoldgit]

11 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

So if you are unlucky enough to be a refugee you can just break into any country you choose at any time in perpetuity? No chance. 

You spend too far much time listening to the likes of Farage and Katie Hopkins. By your logic the Kindertransport children would have been turned back at Dover. By your logic we would not be liable to take any asylum seekers at all. 

Edited yesterday at 08:36 by sadoldgit

[hypochondriac]

30 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

You spend too far much time listening to the likes of Farage and Katie Hopkins. By your logic the Kindertransport children would have been turned back at Dover. By your logic we would not be liable to take any asylum seekers at all. 

What part of "I think there's a case for a more liberal legal immigration policy" don't you understand? And I've never listened to Katie Hopkins in my life, that's your lookout. 

Ukrainian refugees fleeing war have been allowed to come here and I fully support that. Kindertransport children did not come here illegally did they dummy. 

Edited yesterday at 08:59 by hypochondriac

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

What part of "I think there's a case for a more liberal legal immigration policy" don't you understand? And I've never listened to Katie Hopkins in my life, that's your lookout. 

Ukrainian refugees fleeing war have been allowed to come here and I fully support that. Kindertransport children did not come here illegally did they dummy. 

It is not illegal to seek asylum here, dummy. They were foreigners escaping persecution. Why didn’t they go the first safe country? You are ok with Ukrainians coming here but not Muslim’s fleeing war torn countries. By the way, you might not listen to Katie Hopkins but you sound just like her in your posts.

So…let’s pretend that Putin invades the UK and you decide to take yourself and your family to safety. You can speak Italian and have a support network in Italy. You get in a small boat and escape to France, the first safe country. You cannot speak French and have no support network there. Does it makes sense for you and your family to stay there are to try and get to Italy where it will be easier for you to relocate?

Edited yesterday at 12:11 by sadoldgit

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It is not illegal to seek asylum here, dummy. They were foreigners escaping persecution. Why didn’t they go the first safe country? You are ok with Ukrainians coming here but not Muslim’s fleeing war torn countries. By the way, you might not listen to Katie Hopkins but you sound just like her in your posts.

So…let’s pretend that Putin invades the UK and you decide to take yourself and your family to safety. You can speak Italian and have a support network in Italy. You get in a small boat and escape to France, the first safe country. You cannot speak French and have no support network there. Does it makes sense for you and your family to stay there are to try and get to Italy where it will be easier for you to relocate?

There was a specific scheme set up to allow them to come here legally. They didn't just arrive in a safe country and then cross over to the UK in a dinghy because they preferred being in a different safe country. 

In your scenario, I would be in an emergency situation in France and there should be an option to apply to go to Italy through legal means. What I wouldn't be doing is trying to smuggle myself into Italy because I fancied living with some Italians I know. 

[whelk]

27 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It is not illegal to seek asylum here, dummy. They were foreigners escaping persecution. Why didn’t they go the first safe country? You are ok with Ukrainians coming here but not Muslim’s fleeing war torn countries. By the way, you might not listen to Katie Hopkins but you sound just like her in your posts.

So…let’s pretend that Putin invades the UK and you decide to take yourself and your family to safety. You can speak Italian and have a support network in Italy. You get in a small boat and escape to France, the first safe country. You cannot speak French and have no support network there. Does it makes sense for you and your family to stay there are to try and get to Italy where it will be easier for you to relocate?

Muslims ✅
Hopkins✅

[tdmickey3]

Now the old leather faced tinpot party company leader has chipped in about Ukraine, who actually thinks his opinion matters?

Edited yesterday at 15:40 by tdmickey3

[AlexLaw76]

3 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

It is not illegal to seek asylum here, dummy. They were foreigners escaping persecution. Why didn’t they go the first safe country? You are ok with Ukrainians coming here but not Muslim’s fleeing war torn countries. By the way, you might not listen to Katie Hopkins but you sound just like her in your posts.

So…let’s pretend that Putin invades the UK and you decide to take yourself and your family to safety. You can speak Italian and have a support network in Italy. You get in a small boat and escape to France, the first safe country. You cannot speak French and have no support network there. Does it makes sense for you and your family to stay there are to try and get to Italy where it will be easier for you to relocate?

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

What I wouldn't be doing is trying to smuggle myself into Italy because I fancied living with some Italians I know. 

According to soft arsed lefties on here , you could go round visiting various countries before deciding which you wanted to claim asylum in. 

[badgerx16]

16 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

According to soft arsed lefties on here , you could go round visiting various countries before deciding which you wanted to claim asylum in. 

Pretty much what non-doms do when trying to find the best tax haven in which to stash their cash and buy their villa .

Edited yesterday at 15:55 by badgerx16

[Farmer Saint]

22 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

According to soft arsed lefties on here , you could go round visiting various countries before deciding which you wanted to claim asylum in. 

TBF, it'd be a bit harsh if the nearest safe country had to take them all wouldn't it?

[badgerx16]

52 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

TBF, it'd be a bit harsh if the nearest safe country had to take them all wouldn't it?

Cyprus and Malta ? They would sink.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

TBF, it'd be a bit harsh if the nearest safe country had to take them all wouldn't it?

Right which is why we have legal schemes to apply through and why there is a reasonable argument for allowing sensible amounts in via that route. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Pretty much what non-doms do when trying to find the best tax haven in which to stash their cash and buy their villa .

Yes, exactly the same, we’re in agreement . Both are picking the best economic climate for themselves. Both are economic immigrants , not asylum seekers. 

Edited yesterday at 17:41 by Lord Duckhunter

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

TBF, it'd be a bit harsh if the nearest safe country had to take them all wouldn't it?

If it was an EU country, once granted asylum they’d have the choice of another 26. 

[badgerx16]

27 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Yes, exactly the same, we’re in agreement . Both are picking the best economic climate for themselves. Both are economic immigrants , not asylum seekers. 

And none of them are breaking any laws, national or international.

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Right which is why we have legal schemes to apply through and why there is a reasonable argument for allowing sensible amounts in via that route. 

But don't they have to be in the UK to use those application channels?

[sadoldgit]

43 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But don't they have to be in the UK to use those application channels?

Which is the big issue here. Safe and legal routes are very limited which is why people are risking their lives crossing the channel. They need to be here to apply for asylum.

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, sadoldgit said:

Which is the big issue here. Safe and legal routes are very limited which is why people are risking their lives crossing the channel. They need to be here to apply for asylum.

Safe and legal routes are open to genuine refugees.

[badgerx16]

18 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Safe and legal routes are open to genuine refugees.

But only from a small selection of countries:

https://freemovement.org.uk/what-safe-and-legal-routes-are-available-for-refugees-to-come-to-the-united-kingdom/

"...Notable recent examples of where safe routes are needed but have not been provided include Uganda (in respect of LGBTQI+ people), Sudan and Gaza.

For these people, there are no “safe and legal” routes for them to come to the UK."

[Lord Duckhunter]

12 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Safe and legal routes are open to genuine refugees.

Exactly…

 

And where are all their chicks and older folk? Of the people “fleeing war” most seem to be young men of fighting age. Migration watch claim it’s 85% male. 
 

Id also like to know more about the war in Vietnam. I thought it ended 50 years ago, but Vietnamese are the 4th highest nationality crossing the channel. Turkey, Kuwait & Albania are also in the top 10, which is a bit worrying as I’m off to Albania later in the year, hope the war is over by then….

[Farmer Saint]

38 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Exactly…

 

And where are all their chicks and older folk? Of the people “fleeing war” most seem to be young men of fighting age. Migration watch claim it’s 85% male. 

Yeah, if I were doing that journey I wouldn't want my wife and kids doing it as well. Once over, if my application is accepted then they can come over by a legal route. Does that not make sense? Get them to relative safety, then make the rest of the journey on your own, it's cheaper, quicker and safer.

[Farmer Saint]

[Gloucester Saint]

47 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Yeah, if I were doing that journey I wouldn't want my wife and kids doing it as well. Once over, if my application is accepted then they can come over by a legal route. Does that not make sense? Get them to relative safety, then make the rest of the journey on your own, it's cheaper, quicker and safer.

On the graph you posted, Albania is an interesting outlier - mostly female seeking asylum and over 50% acceptance rates in 2022 because of being suspected victims of the people trafficking trade https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/albanian-asylum-seekers-in-the-uk-and-eu-a-look-at-recent-data/ 

Deemed a safe country overall though, and a candidate nation to join the EU, so I can see that being a low hanging political branch to cut boat numbers by sending them straight back on the plane as a deterrent. The UK has a return agreement negotiated IIRC by the last government. Albanians can legally apply for visas to visit, live and work here so it shouldn’t be somewhere asylum seekers are coming from illegally. That said, the visa scheme should be better used and communicated for legal routes https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/83/home-affairs-committee/news/195596/no-case-for-routinely-offering-asylum-to-claimants-from-safe-albania-home-affairs-committee/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-63473022

Edited 20 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

But don't they have to be in the UK to use those application channels?

I'd allow people to apply from abroad as many already can. Bottom line is if you come in illegally you need to be booted out. 

Edited 20 hours ago by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

But only from a small selection of countries:

https://freemovement.org.uk/what-safe-and-legal-routes-are-available-for-refugees-to-come-to-the-united-kingdom/

"...Notable recent examples of where safe routes are needed but have not been provided include Uganda (in respect of LGBTQI+ people), Sudan and Gaza.

For these people, there are no “safe and legal” routes for them to come to the UK."

We don't have capacity to take in the entire world. We should absolutely be selective about who we allow to come here. 

[egg]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'd allow people to apply from abroad as many already can. Bottom line is if you come in illegally you need to be booted out. 

Assuming there's a bona fide case for asylum, where do you say they should be booted out to? The place where they were originally fleeing from? 

[badgerx16]

49 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

We don't have capacity to take in the entire world. We should absolutely be selective about who we allow to come here. 

I agree, but people talking about "safe and legal routes" should understand they are not available in the majority of cases, and when it comes to being selective are we solely going to be so on the basis of a handful of points of origin, or by looking at our needs and the capabilities and skills of those seeking admission across the range of potential applicants.

[hypochondriac]

31 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I agree, but people talking about "safe and legal routes" should understand they are not available in the majority of cases, and when it comes to being selective are we solely going to be so on the basis of a handful of points of origin, or by looking at our needs and the capabilities and skills of those seeking admission across the range of potential applicants.

Like I said, I think there's a case to create more safe and legal routes. Priority should be ensuring that anyone coming in is respectful of our existing culture and has necessary skills that we actually need and will end up being a net benefit to our country. 

Edited 19 hours ago by hypochondriac

[The Kraken]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Priority should be ensuring that anyone coming in is respectful of our existing culture and has necessary skills that we actually need and will end up being a net benefit to our country. 

Out of interest, how are you going to police point one? What does that look like in practise?

[hypochondriac]

23 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Out of interest, how are you going to police point one? What does that look like in practise?

I think they should speak a passable level of English for a start. Any hate preachers who aren't British citizens should potentially face investigation with a view to deportation. Anyone who receives a custodial sentence should lose their right to stay here. Anyone who is unable to support themselves financially should not be able to stay and no one who isn't a British citizen should be able to claim anything but the most basic of benefits. 

Having said that, individuals who respect the laws and culture and are a net benefit to our society should be very welcome regardless of their colour or nationality. No policy is perfect by any means and that won't stop some abuse of the system but it will be much improved from what it is now. 

[Farmer Saint]

9 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I'd allow people to apply from abroad as many already can. Bottom line is if you come in illegally you need to be booted out. 

I don't disagree, but then they need to allow applications from anywhere, and not just a select few very select schemes. Apart from these you cannot claim asylum unless you are in the UK, and they removed the ability to apply for an Asylum Visa (which many countries have), meaning the only way to get here is on dinghy's.

[Farmer Saint]

7 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Like I said, I think there's a case to create more safe and legal routes. Priority should be ensuring that anyone coming in is respectful of our existing culture and has necessary skills that we actually need and will end up being a net benefit to our country. 

But that's just standard immigration - you shouldn't apply the second part to refugees.

Not sure how you can prove the first part.

[sadoldgit]

Perhaps we should ship out all of the indigenous population who don’t respect our culture and pull their weight economically and replace them with immigrants who will do? It seems odd that we (well, some of us) apply certain standards to some but not to others depending on where they come from

Edited 5 hours ago by sadoldgit

[Turkish]

we should probably ship out all those that constantly moan, hate the country they live in, blame everyone else for their failings in life. We should ship out victims too they need to move somewhere else and toughen up a bit.

These lazy, negative, moaning, complaining losers in life should replace them with doers, people who get up and get shit done, dont wallow in self pity and their own misery, who actually want to make a positive impact rather than complaining about why everything isn't going exactly how they think it should. 

It doesn't really matter where they come from they'll upgrade the country immediately by trying to inflict their misery on everyone else. 

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

we should probably ship out all those that constantly moan, hate the country they live in, blame everyone else for their failings in life. We should ship out victims too they need to move somewhere else and toughen up a bit.

These lazy, negative, moaning, complaining losers in life should replace them with doers, people who get up and get shit done, dont wallow in self pity and their own misery, who actually want to make a positive impact rather than complaining about why everything isn't going exactly how they think it should. 

It doesn't really matter where they come from they'll upgrade the country immediately by trying to inflict their misery on everyone else. 

 

It's a plan. But not one without difficult choices to be made.

Such as would SOG prefer Cheese and Pickle or Ham on his sandwiches being packed for his journey on the ship?

[Gloucester Saint]

9 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

It's a plan. But not one without difficult choices to be made.

Such as would SOG prefer Cheese and Pickle or Ham on his sandwiches being packed for his journey on the ship?

That’s rather cruel H&W - surely a man can be permitted some of his own, fine, home made chutney, fresh from the cooking pots of Romney Marsh?

[sadoldgit]

3 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

That’s rather cruel H&W - surely a man can be permitted some of his own, fine, home made chutney, fresh from the cooking pots of Romney Marsh?

Indeed. Looking forward to the courgette, peppers, apple and ginger batch although I will have to wait 6 weeks before it is ready.